The Inflation Thread

[SuperMatt]

About 3,500. I average around 15-16 mpg. I can get 18 highway, but once I get into town it drops and then adding a big trailer, it craters to under 10.

Now you live in a city, where people probably don't drive more than 30 miles per day. But out here in rural America, the interstate in the morning is filled with people driving 30 miles one way to work. And this area is home to families where one person drives to Charleston and the other to Huntington to work. So that is 30 miles each in opposite directions.

We are talking about a national issue. So it is most reasonable to look the national averages… people burning about 1-2 gallons of gas a day… not 10. Because if you want to look at extremes, I could say gas prices don’t matter at all because my car plugs in.

And BTW, I spent more than half my life living in rural areas, so I don’t need somebody to mansplain ”here in rural America” to me.

 

[SuperMatt]

Because historically the party in power typically loses the house and/senate during their first midterms unless things are off the charts great, which is rare, how long did Trump hold on to it? Did you ask these same questions of him? I'm guessing not but would be happy to read through any posts you can cite going back to 2018 stating it.

It has nothing to do with one's skin color or any of that, feels like this should be political science 101 but those who politicize everything have blinders on when it comes to history older than two weeks ago.

He is posing questions that have been asked and answered many times over.

One may as well ask why Trump didn’t finish his wall in 4 years or bring back all the manufacturing jobs or fix the ”Crisis at the Border” (trademark Fox News) or many of the other things he was supposed to accomplish.

Presidential candidates usually have ambitious agendas, and getting any of the items done is hard because everybody in Congress has their own agenda too.

Passing the ACA was basically a modern-day political miracle, but it burned up a LOT of Obama’s political capital.

Anytime you want to pass something like that, it’s real easy for the opposition party. They can sit back, refuse to participate, and then take pot shots at any little thing that goes wrong, all the while planning lawsuits to try and neuter the bill.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Speaking of under Obama, he had a large majority in the House and a veto-proof majority in the Senate.

Why didn't he fix those things? @Chew Toy McCoy Any ideas?

I’m of the opinion that Obama was keenly aware that he was the first black president and therefore didn’t want to do anything to upset the white establishment. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a black person who feels their life materially improved because of Obama. I know some people try to shoehorn in the ACA because it happened to help minorities (based on poverty levels) but A). That assumes it beat out an alternative “this is available to everybody except black people” bill and B). I’m not aware of any racist claiming the ACA was some kind of scheme to give black people an advantage. There might have been but that predates when every moron was given equal airtime and then encouraged to run for office based on being a moron.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Because historically the party in power typically loses the house and/senate during their first midterms unless things are off the charts great, which is rare, how long did Trump hold on to it? Did you ask these same questions of him? I'm guessing not but would be happy to read through any posts you can cite going back to 2018 stating it.

It has nothing to do with one's skin color or any of that, feels like this should be political science 101 but those who politicize everything have blinders on when it comes to history older than two weeks ago.

I think we give way too much intellectual credit to swing voters. In a lot of cases it just comes down to little more than “Is my life better now? No. Vote for the other team.”

 

[Herdfan]

I’m of the opinion that Obama was keenly aware that he was the first black president and therefore didn’t want to do anything to upset the white establishment. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a black person who feels their life materially improved because of Obama. I know some people try to shoehorn in the ACA because it happened to help minorities (based on poverty levels) but A). That assumes it beat out an alternative “this is available to everybody except black people” bill and B). I’m not aware of any racist claiming the ACA was some kind of scheme to give black people an advantage. There might have been but that predates when every moron was given equal airtime and then encouraged to run for office based on being a moron.

Actually not where I expected you to go.

My original point was why Obama didn't fix things such as @GermanSuplex noted:

I could do that under Obama, but apparently he was the worst president ever too and it was only after Trump came in that anyone had any extra money I guess. The economy - by design - is going to go up and down. If we started locking up white collar criminals and making tax cheats pay what they owe, cut loopholes and increased corporate taxes and capital gains taxes, a lot of these issues would probably clear up pretty quickly, but in a world where ever-increasing profits are the goal, and a company that “just” does well instead of increasing its insane profits quarter over quarter, year after year is the only goal - well, I don’t see much changing.

One party wants to fix those things, the other doesn’t.

I really expected you to come back with "because both parties are corporate shills and have no interest in upsetting their apple cart."

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Actually not where I expected you to go.

My original point was why Obama didn't fix things such as @GermanSuplex noted:



I really expected you to come back with "because both parties are corporate shills and have no interest in upsetting their apple cart."

Still true, but I also believe on Obama's part as a black man I don't think he wanted to be the one to seriously go after white (ha!) collar crime after it had been given a pass for decades. He thought he could just sprinkle everything with hope dust and it would all work out.

So on one end his lack of action pissed off a lot of lower class people which at least partially lead to the rise of Trump but on the other end I think he successfully squashed the fear of a black president for everybody except the most extreme racist. He's proven that a black man can be just as corrupt, ineffectual, and warmongering as his white peers. So there's a relief. I guess.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Actually not where I expected you to go.

My original point was why Obama didn't fix things such as @GermanSuplex noted:



I really expected you to come back with "because both parties are corporate shills and have no interest in upsetting their apple cart."

If one two people are both corporate shills, but one IS willing to upset the apple cart, I'm going with the person who will vote to upset the apple cart.

I see that from the dems. I see no tax overhaul plans from republicans. In fact, Rick Scott's joke of a proposal would raise taxes on working class voters. There's even billionaires floating the idea that their voting power should be tied to income. I don't see many billionaire democrats bankrolling democratic members of congress for sweetheart tax deals. I'm sure it happens at individual levels, but on the whole, the republican party is far more in favor of sweetheart deals to the wealthy and big corporations.

 

[Herdfan]

He's proven that a black man can be just as corrupt, ineffectual, and warmongering as his white peers. So there's a relief. I guess.

Interesting. I have never thought of him as corrupt.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Interesting. I have never thought of him as corrupt.

About 2 seconds after he left office he was getting paid 6 figures to speak at Wall St. engagements. It's as if during his presidency he went “Hey, hey, hey!! Put that sack of money back. I’ll hit you up when I’m out of office.”

Due to being in the game a lot longer the Republicans have really diversified their corruption portfolio. With Democrats it's largely Wall St and tech while making big gains into healthcare and the military.

 

[SuperMatt]

About 2 seconds after he left office he was getting paid 6 figures to speak at Wall St. engagements. It's as if during his presidency he went “Hey, hey, hey!! Put that sack of money back. I’ll hit you up when I’m out of office.”

Due to being in the game a lot longer the Republicans have really diversified their corruption portfolio. With Democrats it's largely Wall St and tech while making big gains into healthcare and the military.

And here is why so many people think Trump’s corruption is not worth worrying about. People call everything corruption, and accuse every politician of it without specific evidence. Such rhetoric is harmful. If you have specific accusations of corruption concerning Obama, please list them. Otherwise, I recommend you rescind the statement.

 

[Herdfan]

About 2 seconds after he left office he was getting paid 6 figures to speak at Wall St. engagements. It's as if during his presidency he went “Hey, hey, hey!! Put that sack of money back. I’ll hit you up when I’m out of office.”

I don't really see that as corruption. Unless there was an agreement to do X and we will pay you Y when you get out of office. Which we will never know.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

I don't really see that as corruption. Unless there was an agreement to do X and we will pay you Y when you get out of office. Which we will never know.

There's no evidence tying Hitler to the holocaust so I guess we can consider him unaware and uninvolved. Maybe my bar for corruption is a little higher than most whereas for other people it falls under business as usual. I'll also toss in massive donations to the Democrat party that conveniently got listed on the legislative ledger as "bipartisan concession to Republicans". Yeah, I'm sure those donations had nothing to do with it.

On the topic of corruption brinkmanship, I heard a recent conversation between a never Trumper and Trump supporter, possibly as low-key and respectful as you can get. At one point the Trump supporter said Biden is corrupt to which the never Trumper responded "And Trump?!?" to which the Trump supporter responded with a really uncomfortable chuckle. There were a lot of other things the Trump supporter had no response to other than to fall back on I'm-just-asking-questionsology when cornered. And this Trump supporter would probably be considered on the more intelligent side of the spectrum.

I realize my allegations of corruption against Obama may be outlandish by comparison, but my point is he has proven he's just as capable of looking the other way when big money is involved. He was hardly the SJW some were expecting (or fearing).

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

And here is why so many people think Trump’s corruption is not worth worrying about. People call everything corruption, and accuse every politician of it without specific evidence. Such rhetoric is harmful. If you have specific accusations of corruption concerning Obama, please list them. Otherwise, I recommend you rescind the statement.

I’m connecting the dots but wrote fanfiction of what happens behind the scenes. I said “it was as if”. I’m not saying that’s exactly what happened. You can connect similar dots to massive donations and suddenly related legislation seems less important. Did an industry lobbyist hand over a briefcase of money to Obama and say “Kill that bill/leave my industry alone”? Probably not. More likely the money went to the party and then there was a lot of “hard discussions” within the party that somehow resulted in the outcome the industry wanted.

 

[SuperMatt]

There's no evidence tying Hitler to the holocaust so I guess we can consider him unaware and uninvolved. Maybe my bar for corruption is a little higher than most whereas for other people it falls under business as usual. I'll also toss in massive donations to the Democrat party that conveniently got listed on the legislative ledger as "bipartisan concession to Republicans". Yeah, I'm sure those donations had nothing to do with it.

On the topic of corruption brinkmanship, I heard a recent conversation between a never Trumper and Trump supporter, possibly as low-key and respectful as you can get. At one point the Trump supporter said Biden is corrupt to which the never Trumper responded "And Trump?!?" to which the Trump supporter responded with a really uncomfortable chuckle. There were a lot of other things the Trump supporter had no response to other than to fall back on I'm-just-asking-questionsology when cornered. And this Trump supporter would probably be considered on the more intelligent side of the spectrum.

I realize my allegations of corruption against Obama may be outlandish by comparison, but my point is he has proven he's just as capable of looking the other way when big money is involved. He was hardly the SJW some were expecting (or fearing).

I don’t see any specific allegations of corruption here. Without specifics, how are such statements any different than the “there was election fraud” accusations?

 

[Herdfan]

I realize my allegations of corruption against Obama may be outlandish by comparison, but my point is he has proven he's just as capable of looking the other way when big money is involved. He was hardly the SJW some were expecting (or fearing).

Those are two different expectations. You are correct in that he wasn't the SJW people were expecting. I was glad about that but I understand some felt betrayed.

But our current laws allow Presidents to make speeches for money after the leave office. He is doing nothing illegal or even improper. It is the current system we have. My solution to this is to pay them $10M a year both in and out of office for the rest of their lives, but they can't use their position as a former President to make money. So no speeches or books for money. They can make them and write them, but they can't receive any compensation. The VP gets half that. To you and me, that is huge money, but compared to our annual budget, it is couch change. We would never miss it.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

I don’t see any specific allegations of corruption here. Without specifics, how are such statements any different than the “there was election fraud” accusations?

You're defining corruption as purely "entity hands politician cash and then politician does this as a direct result" which may indeed be the exact definition, but I'm casting a much wider net in definition and action. Maybe there's a better or more accurate word for it. I don't know.

Look how many politicians, that there may be no evidence of money changing hands during their term, then go straight to being a lobbyist after their term is up for an industry that they always sided with while in office. Would you consider that corruption? If not, what would you consider it?

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Those are two different expectations. You are correct in that he wasn't the SJW people were expecting. I was glad about that but I understand some felt betrayed.

But our current laws allow Presidents to make speeches for money after the leave office. He is doing nothing illegal or even improper. It is the current system we have. My solution to this is to pay them $10M a year both in and out of office for the rest of their lives, but they can't use their position as a former President to make money. So no speeches or books for money. They can make them and write them, but they can't receive any compensation. The VP gets half that. To you and me, that is huge money, but compared to our annual budget, it is couch change. We would never miss it.

At $10M a year they'd almost be able to afford a house in California. Almost.

Between you and SuperMatt I feel like I'm talking to the Supreme Court on this issue, just straight tunnel vision on the law. But I get your points.

 

[SuperMatt]

You're defining corruption as purely "entity hands politician cash and then politician does this as a direct result" which may indeed be the exact definition, but I'm casting a much wider net in definition and action. Maybe there's a better or more accurate word for it. I don't know.

Look how many politicians, that there may be no evidence of money changing hands during their term, then go straight to being a lobbyist after their term is up for an industry that they always sided with while in office. Would you consider that corruption? If not, what would you consider it?

I’d be happy to discuss specific examples of such things.

A great source of such information is the site “Popular Information” which details donations to politicians and PACs.

The problem with not being specific is that Trump spending a hundred million bucks of government money at his own properties could look the same as a defense contractor giving Obama a stick of gum.

Popular Information | Judd Legum | Substack

Independent accountability journalism. Click to read Popular Information, a Substack publication with hundreds of thousands of subscribers.

popular.info

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

I’d be happy to discuss specific examples of such things.

A great source of such information is the site “Popular Information” which details donations to politicians and PACs.

The problem with not being specific is that Trump spending a hundred million bucks of government money at his own properties could look the same as a defense contractor giving Obama a stick of gum.

Popular Information | Judd Legum | Substack

Independent accountability journalism. Click to read Popular Information, a Substack publication with hundreds of thousands of subscribers.

popular.info

I acknowledge that you hand my ass to me on a regular basis on here and that corruption was possibly the incorrect word, or the extreme form of a more common practice.

Mainly in the total context of what I was saying is Obama wasn't free from doing the bidding of industries that often have negative impacts on black people or other minorities. There was no "but what about my people?".

I'm actually on the fence about this in general. I think there is sometimes a higher standard put on successful minorities as if with their success comes an obligation to represent their entire race. If successful white people do evil shit then it's just white people doing what they do. If successful minorities do evil shit it's often seen as in collaboration with white people, as if their evil can't just stand on its own merits completely removed from white people. None of what I just said is saying Obama is evil. Just sharing a mental rabbit hole I sometimes go down.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

Because historically the party in power typically loses the house and/senate during their first midterms unless things are off the charts great

Not only that, but the 2010 midterms were noted for something in particular: the rise of the Tea Party. That's when members of one party became more radicalized (and yes we can agree that their anger and sense of entitled outrage were at least in part due to Obama being Black) and coalesced locally and nationally against the passage of the ACA. It was a huge priority for the Democrats, and it passed, and it was signed into law. And a lot of people were angry (socialism! death panels!) and they took that anger and energy to the polls.