Kamala Harris to propose ban on ‘price gouging’ for food, groceries
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday will unveil a proposed ban on “ price gouging” in the grocery and food industries, embracing a strikingly populist proposal in her most significant economic policy announcement since becoming the Democratic Party’s nominee.
In a statement released late Wednesday night, the Harris campaign said that if elected, she would push for the “first-ever federal ban” on food price hikes, with sweeping new powers for federal authorities. Harris on Friday will also announce plans to lower prescription drug and housing costs, the campaign said.
Harris’s plans amount to a sharp escalation in the economic populism of even President Joe Biden , who had already pulled the party to the left on economic policy compared with his Democratic predecessors. While offering some overtures to the business elite, Harris is attempting to respond to intense voter frustration over rising prices — particularly grocery prices — with a far-reaching proposal.
Harris’s plan will include “the first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries — setting clear rules of the road to make clear that big corporations can’t unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive corporate profits on food and groceries,” the campaign said in a statement.
The exact details of the campaign’s plan were not immediately clear, but Harris said she would aim to enact the ban within her first 100 days, in part by directing the Federal Trade Commission to impose “harsh penalties” on firms that break new limits on price gouging. The statement did not define price gouging or “excessive” profits.
Republican and many Democratic economists see mandatory price controls as a counterproductive form of government intervention that discourages firms from producing enough supply to meet demand.
Harris is also releasing a plan calling for 3 million new construction units, according to a person familiar with the matter, confirming a report in the Wall Street Journal. Harris’s plan will outline a series of tax incentives and other measures to encourage building homes for first-time buyers, the person said. Biden previously called for building 2 million new homes. Harris’s proposals are expected to be larger versions of housing plans already introduced by Biden.
“This represents a return to the lazy, failed economic policies of the 1970s, when price controls proved to be a disaster for the economy,” said Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank. “It shows Harris is pandering for easy answers on the economy, even more aggressively than Biden had. Biden had talked about price gouging but was not this aggressive, seeking reforms to actually ban it.”
Tags
Who is online
303 visitors
This is not helpful. It reeks of capitalism bashing, and only reinforces the democrats are socialists mantra. The market should be able to correct itself, with ambitious manufacturers swooping in to undercut the wave of price gougers to capture market share. Unless you’re going to get into the details, all you’re going to be seen as doing is flat out pandering.
I’d still vote for Biden in a casket as opposed to Trump, but it’s a good thing for Kamala that she’s running against a monumental imbecile.
This is their messiah.
Yea, I can see Trump, Fuck and Pussy fitting right in with groceries.
You do understand that his tariff's are a big reason we have high inflation, right?
Just looked it up. trump placed about 80B in tariffs on 380 B in goods in 2019 , Biden has kept most of those tariffs in place, he COULD have removed them and as of may 2024 , hiked those tariffs on an additional 18 B in chinese goods .
I will agree , they were put in place by the trump admin , but bidens admin decided to keep and increase them , making them , part of Bidens policy plan , not trumps .
it actually pays to watch who is doing what , at least it pays if you play the market, which i dont anymore .
So it really doesn't matter WHICH PotUS, Republican or Democratic, has been and continues to make survival less affordable for Americans, especially those who can't afford to donate to political parties. Nice system you've got there.
LOL , just made me think of this , doesnt matter which wing of politics it is , they are still attached to the same governmental dirty bird .
i also think everyone thinks there should be equal outcome , when its only equal opportunity , the outcome is dictated by any number of choices one makes , that will always affect the outcome .
that and the $8.4 trillion hole he put into the US deficit, in a single term, with his tax cuts for the rich and incompetent handling of the pandemic from day 1...
Biden / Harris will surpass that amount.
Too bad the GOP nominated a scoundrel instead of a responsible fiscal conservative.
the GOP lost the "conservative" high ground during the raygun administration...
Lol, that comment is fucked up on so many levels.
Amazing
I am pretty sure he is referring to fiscal conservatism. The irresponsible level of national debt started its increase with Reagan.
The context is rather important here. Doubt many here know or can appreciate some of the larger reasons for that increase and what it helped to accomplish.
If you were to actually follow the discussion you would see that the complaint was against Harris. So if one party's nominee (Harris) is expected to be fiscally irresponsible then the only alternative is the other party. And, now here is my point, if the other party's nominee (Trump) is also seen to be fiscally irresponsible then we have no option.
If a GOP member complains that Harris is likely to be fiscally irresponsible I say it is then a shame that the GOP did not nominate someone (not Trump) who would be seen as fiscally responsible. After all, the GOP was supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility.
A fine example of a fiscally responsible GOP nominee was Romney. It is possible.
Whining that Trump is mentioned in an election year when he is the GOP nominee is pointless. He is in the news every day. Get a grip.
Pretty sure I have been pointing out that the National debt failures have been ongoing since Reagan. Pay attention.
Your belief that nobody in the GOP who could be a presidential candidate could govern in a fiscally responsible manner is both defeatist and ridiculous.
There are only two people who might be PotUS. They are the D nominee and the R nominee.
You can refuse to ‘buy that’ but denying cold hard fact is not a smart way to operate.
If someone invests wisely, it is possible to do well in the market while reducing risk.
Although there's a well known saying "On the Street"):
If it sounds "too good to be true"-- it usually is!
Yes.....we followed the democratic process.
Your very unlikely concern for the D electorate is meaningless. The DNC (and the voters) are behind Harris-Walz. If they had a problem with the fact that Biden's abrupt withdrawal made a secondary primary impractical then they would not be supporting them.
The only people who seem to have a problem with this are those who see that Harris has turned the tables on Trump.
Don't worry, the voters will engage in full-scale democracy on Nov 5th.
Even Congressman Dean Philips (the guy who got the 2nd most votes in Dem primaries) is backing Harris and was embraced at the Convention with hugs and high fives. He and Biden exchanged a hug, a handshake and smiling conversation.
Please show me the votes for Harris.
What are you talking about now?
Surely you are aware that the DNC has chosen Harris-Walz as their team and that was done with delegate votes.
The voters are behind this based on the polling data.
The voters actual votes come in November.
All of this is obvious. So what point are you trying to make?
If you are simply circling around to your starting point that the Ds did not conduct a second primary, that is a fact that we all already know. Merely repeating your point is not an argument.
That's not how democracy works, you know that. There were 14,000,000 who never voted for Harris.
The only thing obvious was the Democrats thought Biden was going to lose, so they staged a coup and removed him. You can keep making up excuses but, that's what happened.
Yeah and many independents did not get to vote for her either. Again, the only people complaining are Trump supporters.
The votes occur in November. That is the official election.
Yes, the Ds knew that Biden was going to lose so they applied pressure to get him to step aside. Happily, he finally agreed to do so.
Again with the blind presumption. Where am I making excuses? Get a grip.
As if 1st Runner Up did not become Miss America, "If for any reason the crowned winner could not complete her term". Huh?
Not many things are funny about the serious situation facing our nation with Trump within striking distance of the presidency.
However, I do find it amusing that Trump supporters are so concerned about the Ds not having a second primary.
It is obvious that Trump supporters went from a very likely win for Trump to a very likely defeat and the result is a series of pathetically weak 'arguments' in protest.
The right wing propaganda phrase of the week. It replaces "Blueanon", which was last week's. The week before it was, of course, "lawfare", which, in turn, had replaced "gay agenda", and before that, "wokeism". They are certainly very creative.
Isn't that interesting? I've noticed that and was going to comment on it. Meanwhile, the Democrats are perfectly happy, if not extremely pleased about it.
I know some independents that are rather pleased with this too.
We went from having to vote for Biden as the best way to vote against Trump to having a youthful, energetic, presidential, responsible, positive team of Harris-Walz to vote for.
I know at least one who is.
Most of the people whose politics I know about are committed, not independent.
Isn't that great?!
Its interesting that people who dont want to call Jan 6th a coup want to call this a coup
Jan 6th and Trumps plans therein was a plan to overthrow the government (by subverting a free and fair election) , the change from Biden to Harris as the nominee has nothing to do with the government. It is a political matter.
I enjoy the kooky rationalizations and justifications I see here each day. Some them are quite funny.
oh ow, I'm a victim of the semantics patrol ...
That was, indeed, their intention. Storming the Capitol, calling for the hanging of the Vice-President, attempting to locate and incapacitate the Speaker of the House, seeking to violently alter the results of a fair and free election, all for the purpose of installing the loser of the election. Anyone who fails to understand that is either a total ignoramus or a total fool, or both.
That's as plainly stated and accurate as possible.
I agree, using the government to set price controls will IMO backfire on her if attempted. With that said, it's rather difficult for an ambitious manufacture to swoop in as there are ten companies that control the food industry and they have the supply chain locked down. Hard for someone new to break into that arena.
10 Companies Control the Food Industry - Business Insider
Yep, Snuffy, Welcome to America where greed is good, as the Wolf of Wallstreet would say. The grocery conglomerates will do whatever it takes to fuck the public, especially in ways the public will not pick up on. Examples, when they increased the diameter of the inner cardboard tube of toilet paper and paper towels maintaining the visual size of the packaging, and shrinkflation, slightly reducing the size of boxed or bottled products so slightly it is not noticeable, and not changing the price, but due to the volume of sales it makes a big difference in the profits.
True.
The market should be able to correct itself, with ambitious manufacturers swooping in to undercut the wave of price gougers to capture market share. Unless you’re going to get into the details, all you’re going to be seen as doing is flat out pandering.
Current prices are high due to inflation.
This was the first new policy that Kamala Harris unveiled. There wasn't much room to the left of Biden, but that is where she went.
He's my take: She hasn't actually "unveiled" any policy here-- she's just made a very generalized statement. Until she's stated the actual details of her economic policy I'm not going to make any assumptions as to what she actually going to do.
And FWIW-- I personally am going to withold judgement as to whether she's an actual Communist until I hear specifics!
that sounds great in theory, but with near monopolies in lots of consumer goods, it's important to remember that many large multinational corporations know they basically have a free hand to price fix as well as manipulate the market.
Agreed and operations like Harvard, Columbia and Northwestern have that price fixing shit down to a fine art.
Where’s the outrage?
That it does. Makes one think of the words "central planning" doesn't it?
Their unofficial Politburo already exists….. Obama, Pelosi, Rice, Soros ….
Putin, Xi, Hassan Nasrallah.
Oh-- the horror!
(We certainly wouldn't want to support any governemnt-- be it state or federal-- that does any central planning, now would we?)
What a buffoon.
It proves she doesn't have a clue how the economy works, supply chains, taxes, regulations, supply and demand, or free enterprise.
We already know some will vote for this completely unqualified nut job no matter what just because she has the almighty D behind her name.
No accountability for the last four years; and the next four will be far worse if she is elected.
So you are in favor of higher prices.. Good to know.
She will be LOL
The fact that you dragged “supply chain” into your comment tells me you aren’t that reliable of a voice to listen to. Supply chain is now just a bullshit excuse to price gouge. Stop saying those words if you want to be taken seriously. If there is a supply chain issue, it is by design and she should talk about that instead of just promising retributions that she can’t deliver on.
Exactly, only a fool believes in remaining supply chain issues:
Your reply sorta does imply you feel that the inflated price gouging of consumers that has produced record profits for Corporations (N we all know they are people too) is mainly caused by your as listed factors. If this was your inference, then when say things like:
1) The Red Sea Terrorism is Calmed by whatever measure, and the Baltimore Harbor Pilot is again employed, thus causing...
2) Semiconductor supply shortage, is no longer semi sufficient...for after given a Viagra type injection, it causes Enterpriapism that stiffens up the market resulting in...
3) Global Unrest is given arrest,...leading to...
4) Inefficient inventory management, is now efficiently mismanaged, due to some oversight that monopolies when properly incentivized, have proven to have an increased monetary awarded incentive, and not a fined penalty discouraged one, might help both Capitalists' and the government of Capitalist, to better anticipate and predict economic trending's', leading to...
5) Inflation shifting turns automatically away from the goods Manuel, to the bad'Services' Mannuel and Manuellett provide resulting in...
corporations doing the right and fair thing, cause everyone knows, those
'people too' corporations always put "people too" above "people to/too Profits", and would never use excuses to justify the obscene, yet still seen, profits, these often monopolized corporations have been, on occasion it does seem, to be making off US...?
What the hell does this mean
Shipping costs due to . . . Baltimore harbor delays?????
That's a thing due to the Key Bridge collapse and the rerouting of all that traffic that shipped many goods, the costs of which must be monumental I imagine
Maybe Harris should promise to go after any company making an illegitimate claim of “supply chain issues” or any of terminology alluding to it. It’s not freedom of speech when it’s being used solely to inflate profits.
That is pretty much what she proposed today.
I didn’t hear enough explicit references to supply chain claims. That expression is used ubiquitously to waive off questions about price hikes.
All too true!
(That's face it, if she had any brains she would listen to experts in the economy -- for example, people such as you!
)
She could form a Central Committee of the People and set prices and incomes - taking from those with the ability to work and giving to those who'd rather avoid the hassle. Sounds like a winner.
Ok, what's YOUR idea?
Many people are saying that Harris is an actual Communist!
Your thoughts???
If part of the high cost of housing is a limited supply, rent and price controls should stimulatre multi-home construction.
Let history be our guide, those of us old enough remember the great success of controls in the 70s.
the great success of controls in the 70s
Compare those interest rates to the last decade. The seventies housing boom was fueled by unregulated cookie cutter construction in subdivisions that got approved with 1% of the scrutiny they receive today. You can’t even buy a lot to build on today for less than a lot in the seventies with a new home on it.
Compare those interest rates to the last decade. The seventies housing boom was fueled by unregulated cookie cutter construction in subdivisions that got approved with 1% of the scrutiny they receive today.
Do you mean the mini-boom 78-82 when boomers were entering the market?
How does this relate to price controls of the early 70's?
Factors that control home prices today didn’t even exist back then. Builders got rich because they didn’t have to deal with zoning laws, massive stormwater management regulations, mandatory construction requirements, construction enhancements due to climate change, out of control proffers required of developers, etc. They could build simple three bedroom two bath homes that average people could afford. Now days in many communities you can’t even build a single family residence without a fire suppression sprinkler system and stormwater microbioretention areas eating up your postage stamp sized lot, complete with an onerous HOA fee for an even more onerous HOA.
Many ”large” citified people have no idea. They rent or sublet their spot in the sardine can in the sky and they are good to go.
I don't see federal policy or legislation deraling with any of that.
I heard Harris today saying that her administration will cut through the bureaucracy that is slowing new home construction. She would have to piss off a ton of NIMBYs and eco environmental social alarmists to even make a dent. She could ease into it by neutering HOA authorities and capping their fees across the board. Nobody likes HOAs anyways.
And still a thousand times better than the alternative.
Only to a useful idiot.
Harris is making another move to undercut state's rights. This is not democracy in action. Democrats appear to have adopted a game plan to Federalize everything. And that requires doing away with the Constitution.
Prohibitions on price gouging, hoarding, and market manipulation have been the purview of state governments because the Constitution only allows Federal regulation of interstate commerce. Even Federal legislation may not survive a Constitutional challenge.
Bill Barr did establish a Federal task force and emergency measures during the pandemic. But there had been a national emergency declared. That national emergency has been lifted so Barr's justifications and authority has expired.
Kamala Harris may be making populist promises she simply cannot Constitutionally keep. And that should raise concerns about Harris actually protecting and defending the Constitution as President.
Or she’s just pandering, like every other candidate in the history of politics.
I took this announcement as simple political pandering. I can see something in the platform about trying to help offset housing, but price fixing is an unworkable solution, but these are the issues people want the candidates to address.
The political "worth" of what Harris will say will depend on how she says it. Price gouging is an eternal problem , especially in an era when corporate managers and CEO's believe their own financial success is totally tied to the profits for stockholders that their leadership can produce.
To those who say it is "anti-capitalist" to oppose price gouging, I would ask what is the alternative ? Shut up and take it?
A lot of people will say "just shop somehere else" but not only is that not always possible it is also not human nature.
When the economy is motivated solely by "profit" the results are not fair. "Life isnt fair" ? Ok, then people should stop complaining about laws against price gouging.
History is on her side with the great success of price controls in the 70’s.
Quite likely since Kamala Harris is known as a policy wonk. And Harris doesn't seem to surround herself with policy wonks either. But Harris' pandering is consistent with liberal prosecutorial attempts to Federalize everything.
The Constitution spelling out that state governments have jurisdiction in regulating commerce was one of the problems Obamacare had to overcome (and we see how that was accomplished). Limiting the Federal jurisdiction on commerce to interstate trade is a stumbling block for imposing nationalized medicine.
Democrats have been attempting to Federalize everything for a long time. In fact, the arguments to Federalize the country began to gain traction with Democrats protecting and defending the institution of chattel slavery; attempting to eliminate state's jurisdiction to abolish slavery. Democrats are employing the same sorts of arguments now for sale of guns, abortion, healthcare, communications, and energy. That may be one reason why Democrats extend Federal favoritism to multi-national corporations whose mere size requires them to engage in interstate commerce.
The problem isn’t the basic idea that something must be done, it’s when it terminates with a sound bite during campaign season, devoid of realistic details. Imagine commerce in this country under some new federally managed price control agenda, where companies are only allowed to adjust their prices if they meet some universal criteria. The very idea is unworkable, particularly for this federal government - but if she has thoughts that could shed light on it being workable then now is the time to dive into it. Otherwise it only creates images of government leaning into socialism, which is exactly what her opponents want voters to envision. Yes, inflation is a problem. It’s a tricky thing to address, particularly when it is so clear that gouging is happening. Government can’t change the greed that is inherent to its constituents. I wish I had the answer but I’m as devoid of thoughts on how to address it as she is demonstrating herself to be. She’s opening herself up to some severe criticisms.
I see no evidence that is what she is recommending.
Maybe so, but I think its high time a major political figure addressed price gouging. 99% of them are afraid to.
well, we know the GOP would not need a reason to seriously criticize her, they will irregardless, and this IS what the voters would like something done about, so imho, I don't think the 'severe criticism' will be applicable, unless she imposes some kind of draconian measures
Her statements are too vague to be seen as evidence of anything. That’s the problem. It is up to the individual voters to envision what she might be thinking.
that sounds like Trump speak m just less offensive cause how often do we require Trumps words deciphered by others, besides too ?
Often that is, as the answer to how often
True.
And its not only about the economy-- Harris/Walz also definitely wants to do that when it comes to states rights in limiting access to abortion!
Sounds like another new three letter agency. Maybe golf will let them use PGA. Price Gouging Adminstration. We need more government. The bigger the government the better. Think of all those great jobs she’d be creating. Outstanding Kammy, just outstanding
And as previously mentioned-- bigger state governments!
Your thoughts?
As previously noted, where did i say state or federal government need to be bigger?
Talk amongst yourselves ……
Ouija board seance perhaps?
You said it in the conversations they have in their heads. I
So day one through one hundred, she plans on being a dictator............sure sounds like it with all the things she is proposing she is going to do...........and really can't. Pandering indeed and many will buy into the bullshit "promises".
This story only comments on gouging but listen to her. She is also touting "price controls". Hello 70's
Why do conservatives want people to pay higher prices ?
Who said anything about wanting to pay higher prices. She doesn't have a clue. If Trump wants to throw her off, all he will have to do is ask her what the average price of gasoline is. Or, how much does a pound of hamburger or, dozen eggs, or gallon of milk cost? I DOUBT she can answer any of those questions and will avoid them like the plague with something to the effect of "too much".
What kind of governments dictate prices? That's right.
Dude - why on earth would you think Donald Trump has a better handle on common consumer goods than Harris?! That is absurd. Do you think he has ever entered a grocery store to buy his own groceries, or fueled up a car that he was driving, or grilled some hamburgers for his family? You are so taken in with this cult.
Dude, you discount that he would have done research before asking the questions so he had the answers already. But, at that point, he isn't the one receiving the question. She is the proponent of price fixing and is trying to sell that bullshit to the citizenry while not even knowing shit about prices to begin with except for "too high".
[✘]
In light of how much evidence there is of Trump’s ignorance of basic issues, it is nothing short of cult brainwashing that Trump’s supporters can make these bizarre claims.
Even he isn't stupid enough to ask a question he didn't know the answer in advance to perpetrate a gotcha. SMH
Ok, but she is, because you say so. Got it.
Not knowing that the question is coming, how would she know to prepare? I'll say one thing for the Obamas, they would show up in a Target and other places occasionally.
'People can't buy bacon . . . you need an ID to buy groceries. . . prices have gone up 50, 60, 100%'
Removed for context - sandy
We believe in a free market economy with minimal bureaucratic interference.
Why do liberals want the government to control the means of production, the distribution of wealth, the setting of prices for goods, services and wages that workers receive?
Very weird for folks who live in a Capitalistic country ….
Almost seems like they want socialism but don't want to call it socialism. I have faith a new term of what it is will be forthcoming.
They already have it. It’s called Democratic Socialism. The “woke way” to say Socialist.
The very well established term is social democracy. Social democracy is a system that exists in many European nations. It is a system where a highly regulated capitalist economy is used to drive public (social) programs. The USA is already a light social democracy. The Ds would clearly seek to increase the level of social democracy in the USA.
That is entirely different from trying to transform our economic system from capitalism to socialism.
Democratic socialism is a form of socialism ... a system that is an alternative to capitalism. Even though it has short term goals that overlap with social democracy, Democratic socialism is fundamentally different from social democracy. The former is a form of socialism (a long term intent of making capitalism obsolete) whereas the latter is a form of capitalism.
Where the dems want to take us depends on which dems you talk to and how much they feel the government can squeeze out of taxpayers without taxpayers turning on them.
Yes, RdtC, each individual (whether D, R, or anything else) will have a different perspective on matters of life. And many people use terms that they do not understand. That is why it is so important to dig below the terms and gain an understanding of the subject matter.
True.
In fact, she's probably never even purchased any food!
They don't understand what it means. The easiest example of how socialism / communism works vs capitalism would be to just look at a the Korean Peninsula.
When you’re being called a communist, price controls is the perfect comeback.
I don't think that she suggested price controls. "Price controls" is an aberration of what she was talking about.
One of the key problems with an ignorant electorate is that it makes irrational / naive demands and politicians pander to said demands.
It is the historical role of the GOP to counter the more liberal tendencies of the D party. But the GOP has so fucked things up on its end with its irrational support of Trump that the nation will shift more towards social democracy. While that in itself is not necessarily bad (there are good moves such as national healthcare ... done right ...) the general trend of empowering government to have more control over the economy is NOT good.
This is part of the price the nation will pay due to the failure of the GOP to put forth a fit individual for PotUS.
Meanwhile the Democrat party has put forth a candidate who failed to make it to her own state in her first primary and received zero votes for President in this primary.
Representative Democracy ….. Democrat style.
How pathetic; you are comparing irrelevant technicalities (the D party is happy with its nominee) to a traitor, scoundrel, and irrational old man.
If this is representative of the best Trump supporters can do in comparison with their abysmal nominee then Harris will be the next PotUS.
Nah, my observations aren’t the pathetic thing here.
Ridiculous rationalizations like that are ….. truly pathetic.
I CONCUR
To be fair, I think a lot of this is campaign pandering in the hopes of "buying" votes. I don't know how much of her economic plan she could reasonably expect to put into action without action from Congress and unless the Democrats take the majority in both the House and Senate it's easy to see how Congressional support would be lacking. I expect to see another round of college debt forgiveness coming in October as a late surprise to buy even more votes.
IMO this is no different than the Trump promise to stop taxing tips or Social Security income. An empty campaign promise that the President's office alone cannot complete.
This is what our national politics have devolved to, purchasing higher office with the promise of things and counting on the stupidity of the voting public. There's always been a hint of this but it's grown over time to what we have today. One of the reasons why we're $34 Trillion in debt.
The sad state of US politics is that the electorate has unrealistic expectations so politicians (all parties) seek to pander to those expectations with promises they cannot keep. As long as the electorate makes unrealistic demands and buys the bullshit from politicians, this will continue.
" electorate has unrealistic expectations"
Does that mean we need to tighten up qualifications to vote?
Why would you ask such a question?
What gives you even the slightest notion that I am implying anything like that?
Why not?
You said they had unreasonable expectations, we need smarter voters that won't buy politician's bullshit
Yes, having a smarter electorate would be great. But you are suggesting that we impose restrictions on who may vote. I made no mention of the government coming up with new criteria for voting. What do you (and apparently Sparty, Just Jim, and RdtC) have in mind? A test of some sort?
Rather than impose restrictions on who is allowed to vote, I would opt for a way to help the electorate be better informed. This would likely need to start in childhood by giving our kids a better education on how our system works so that they can better see the bullshit, think more critically, and be encouraged to try to get as close to truth as possible.
In short, I favor measures to encourage the electorate rather than impose a filter on who may vote.
With convict Trump the Republican Nominee for POTUS, the guy who would and still could be behind barrs in September, literally, and quite possibly would not be in the race if corrupted pizza hut Supreme partisan activist idiot injustices, along with delay diligently, The Loose Cannon, Trump would not be in consideration for ANY office.
His supporters are willing to overlook the MOUNTAINS of Evidence against himm where he has already ADMITTED to stealing the documents that he magically just by using his power of thought, thought about declassifying them all, and even if he could use his 'special Ed' powers, they STILL WEREN"T HIS TO STEAL in the first place.
Georgia case got screwed up by horny prosecutorial powers in heat, but doesn't necessarily mean, the charges will be beat.
The inciteful look at Capital Tours Gone slightly WILD, and off course, is of course quite likely to gain some convictions even with his activist judge induced bullshit immunity crap. The 'man', literally incited an insurrectionist fired up crowd of NOT ANTIFA like he attempted to claim, but a group of mad as heLL mutant mental without patience to wait and use patience B 4 storm in off to the Capital to STOP the peaceful transition of power that we've enjoyed since the birth of this nation! And ALL of that January 6th deal was born based on HIS LIES of a stolen election !!!!
WTF people , IF ANYBODY has shown they may need some stricter qualifications to qualify to vote, it has been the supporters of their GOP and it's Mr. Misery,
for our dumbed down nation has become a victim of ignorance ruling, over far too many ! and this really MUST change...
Agreed, as who could unbiasedly determine who would be eligible to vote per a test of some sort, as to what knowledge could one person say was right and which another could say was not right & was wrong, for just as at present, our currently deeply divided and then divided again, country with divided folks and crap cannot agree on much, especially with Alternate Fax and such, then throw inn some A I, and Democracy would have to die...
trump - pizza the hut from Spaceballs - lol
Oh, but that is so woke! You are indoctrinating our children and telling them that life is not one big, fuzzy bright ball.....
I was unaware that conservatives were in favor of having government impose restrictions on who may vote.
mmmm I forgot my sarcasm tag (just like you?)
C'mon now TiG, that is all they have been doing since brain surgeon Donny implanted that there is constant Democratic election cheating, of course, unless he or who he is backing wins the only cheated by Democrats Democratic election. That seems to be what many of the election stolen claimers, of course without any evidence accept Trumps' word, and they obediently do, claim. They have been busy changing laws requiring this that and the bother thing claiming they bare making elections' safer, while the last presidential election i believe was deemed the safest by Trumps election overseer while the AG Billy lower the Barr said Trumps claim election was stolen was BULLSHIT
We both know she has absolutely no intent to put any of it into action with or without congress. It's merely lip service to try to save herself from her record of failure. She's had 4 years that she could have done something and did nothing.
Exactly, pay no attention to the truth behind the curtain.
she was the tie breaking vote in the senate between those working to benefit all americans, and those pandering to a traitor, in major legislative accomplishments during the biden administration.
Now THAT is hilarious.
Butt, Look Who Is Laughing Now!
Yep, lets go after the grocery stores. Considering their margins are already so low they will be closing them down by the hundreds. Then who will Kamala blame that on?
Well, if they start with the farmers, the grocery stores will take care of themselves
Beginning in 1934 Fred Trump Sr. began using funds from the US government programs to build housing and apartment complexes all over Queens and The Bronx. Donald trump picked up where dad left off in 1976 by scoring a 40 year tax abatement on the Grand Hyatt Hotel . He has spent the last 40 years demanding government assistance and tax abatements on every project and suing agencies for years if they have the audacity to turn him down.
According to him you have a lot of fucking nerve to expect your government to help YOU with anything.
Trill Clinton IG:AStatesman
@aStatesman
·
1h
CNN immediately dissecting Kamala’s economics speech and claiming she needs more detail. The same CNN who airs Trump speeches where he’s not once provided a detail on a single policy issue.
This is why she doesn’t owe them any interviews.
It's nuts and the claim that the media is fair to Kamala and Democrats in general is such bullshit.
Plus, you are absolutely right, she owes none of them an interview. She will be held to standards and rules while the former 'president' is held to no standards whatsoever
Federal ban on price gouging on groceries. How? Thats the point of me posting this article. How do you fund a government program to babysit grocery store pricing?
I dont think she is proposing a "ban". She is saying that if you price gouge and we can prove it you will be fined or suffer some other form of punishment. States sometimes make price gouging "illegal" during a natural disaster. I think she is talking about something similar here.
I dont have any real problem with what she said. I thought it was a pretty good speech.
Define grocery price gouging? Who is guilty, the farmer, the flour producer, the bakery, the delivery man?
Gouging is raising prices bigly under cover of higher fuel and raw material prices and then not passing along the savings when fuel and raw material prices decrease. Wholesalers and middle men make untenable profits because they can. Wholesalers and middle men really do collude on price even though it is technically illegal!
Interestingly, you forgot all about wholesalers and middle men...
I’ve written government policy papers but never used the word bigly.
Who did I forget in my loaf of bread example?
researching what groups hold majority stakes in chicken and egg production, pig farming, beef production, and meat processing in the US is a real eye opener, and just barely scratches the surface.
So the fuck what? I dictated a million formal business letters and never used the word bigly in them either. You are not writing policy papers here. Is being vague and utterly insincere effective in military communications? It is not in business communications. No Drinker, we here are on American social media in twenty twenty four. It is none of your damn business to dictate my words to me![✘]
Ooo goodie. nothing like heading down a slippery slope to brighten one's day .. what could possibly go wrong?
Sooo I am curious, what is more of a threat to the stability of United States .. the loss of democracy or the collapse of capitalism? can one truly exist without the other and still provide the chance to obtain the American dream that so many seek?
I assume you are saying that capitalism is a necessity but democracy isnt.
Not at all .. I feel democracy and capitalism go hand in hand - it is after all about freedom, correct? When the government of a country [i.e. the US] starts controlling pricing and limiting how much profit a company is entitled to make, said country becomes something other than a democracy.
True, government should not be trying to control market dynamics. But it does have a role in keeping the guard rails in place. In particular, only government can ensure businesses do not engage in monopolistic / exploitative practices and/or sell products dangerous to the consumer. Like umpires in baseball, it is a proper role for government to help ensure we have a fair and free marketplace (being practical since that is an ideal).
If Harris focuses on exploitative practices —practices that violate the principles of our marketplace— then that fits the model IMO. However, if she tries to control the market (attempts to create a command economy) then that crosses the line.
In reality, I am not concerned about capitalism in the USA being harmed. Our companies are powerful and have quite a bit of control over our politicians; capitalism will be just fine.
Finally, this is not priority one for me. Not in 2024. Not when the alternative is Trump.
When corporations price gouge they are shitting on democracy.
Bullshit .. it is a twisted sense of democracy for one to think that the fortunes of others should be allocated to the masses .. one can boycott etc. but not dictate [unless Vice President Harris is planning on being a dictator on day one] what a company can or cannot do regarding pricing - only a monopoly [i.e. supply and pricing being controlled by one entity] can the federal government through the process of the law break up - not control.
When governments enact price controls, they are shitting on democracy.
Principles of our marketplace ... What does that even mean? Who defines what exploitative practices are?
I am not a Trump supporter, but I cannot vote blue no matter who nor red for that matter ... I thought I had not voted for president since 2008 after McCain chose Palin .. but I was wrong I did vote for former President Obama in 2012 over Romney. now I would give anything for Romney to be a choice to elect .. I wanted Biden to run SOOOO badly in 2016, but alas it was H's turn - if now President Biden was serious about saving 'democracy' he would have run in 2016
P.s.. finally, these things are my priority .. the future of this nation is important, America first is not racist. I get it, Trump is a puke .. but I find it difficult to think Harris is the best steward for the Constitutional Republic that is the United States of America .. neither is Trump, but I do not think he presents any more of a threat to democracy than Harris
Just my opinion TiG ..
Price controls shit on the free marketplace.
Further, there is a difference between enforcing fair practices and price control.
Understood.
My opinion is that Trump is unfit to hold office —any office— much less the presidency. Trump is not an option.
Based on that, I turn to the other viable candidate. Is Harris-Walz fit? I say yes! And even though they are more liberal than my liking, they are a responsible, positive, energetic, presidential team. They are a proper Democratic party team in terms of the historical norms in our nation. As fit for office as any other team that our history has considered fit.
Stated differently, Trump is entirely unfit and is not an option. Harris-Walz is fit. I can live with policy disagreements given the alternative is an unfit, vindictive, negative, narcissistic, impulsive, loose-cannon traitor who has no concept of truth.
Our marketplace is a variant of a free market; it is regulated to a degree by government. The principles are the abstract rules under which our marketplace has evolved in our nation. Principles include things such as government not trying to control supply or demand. Exceptions are made, but the principle is that the private sector is largely governed by competition and operates within the general guidelines of laws and regulations.
To get a very precise understanding of the principles, one would look at how our marketplace differs from a pure laissez-faire market and then how it differs from a command economy. The differences represent the manifestation of USA market principles. If done, I expect you would find principles such as:
... and of course ...
The government in its role as regulator.
Opinions do vary …..
You have nothing thoughtful to add ... just your tired platitude?
You know, I feel exactly the same way about your comments so I guess we are even.
I appreciate your bullet points, yet only one of them truly has to do with the federal government and that is regulations .... competitive free market is hit and miss based on which way the wind blowing on both sides of the aisle.. perhaps global supply chain is a function of federal government - yet I still think the government has no control over that. Shirley there must be more to the source you obtained the bullet points from?
The government's role as regulator is partisan based .. there is no objectivity involved.
My bullet points were offering examples of the principles underlying our marketplace. Why are you thinking they must be implemented by government?
Even so, all of these have something 'to do with the federal government':
Good grief, Colour, what do you expect? This is reality; reality is messy. Our nation is complex and our market is complex. All sorts of things affect it and of course politics will be a factor too. Your reply seems to imply that we do not really have a free market economy.
Yes, perhaps.
Consider trade agreements such as USMCA, AUKUS, ... Surely you recognize the substantial influence the federal government has on the global supply chain.
I listed a number of examples based primarily on memory. It was not meant to be an exhaustive list; it was meant to make clear what I meant by principles (since you asked).
I have not argued that government is purely objective.
I gave a very detailed, thoughtful answer to your question: "Principles of our marketplace ... What does that even mean? ".
Did you recognize a direct answer supplemented by examples?
considering the general aptitude of your opponents, that was probably a mistake...
Excessive profits lead to plutocracy , which is inherently anti-democracy.
I wonder if Kammy realizes we already have a federal consumer protection agency? Most states have one as well. Not to mention state and federal attorney general offices that can and do prosecute price gouging.
once again clueless Kammy proposes a solution to a problem that has already been solved.
?????
Questions?
I question the accuracy of what you said.
See 6.2.1 …..
The problem of price gouging at the grocery store has been solved? Ummm, nope.
Not what I said.
The mechanisms required to prosecute price gouging already exist. At multiple levels. No need to increase government since controls already exist at the Federal and state levels.
I know that makes progressive liberals very sad but there you go.
that is what you said.
price gouging has not already been solved. period.
The problem: how to handle price gouging. The solution: already exists at the Federal and State level as noted.
Hope that helps ….
nice of you to rephrase your inaccurate comment.
Not rephrased. Explained for my friends on the left.
So do you agree? Do you think more government is needed as Kammy is pushing?
Let’s see. Trump wants to eliminate the Dept. of Education, so what do you think he would do about existing federal controls that you claim have solved the problem of a need for price gouging oversight? Let me guess - he’ll just eliminate federal oversight and hand it over to the states to figure out alongside womens’ healthcare. A true leader delegates all their responsibilities to anyone but themselves.
Exactly, the US has caught and passed international education performance since we created the Cabinet office, it would be a shame to lose this competitive advantage.
I believe most of that drop is directly related to teacher unions. Of course the DoE is culpable of not doing anything about it.
Follow the money.
Yep, figured as much …..
What an insanely stupid thing to say.[✘]
... expert level.
I wonder if maga realizes that agency was gutted...
Wrong.............
Wrong again, as pointed out in 16.3.1
Plus you fail to recognize there is still state level consumers protection agencies, state and federal attorney generals. Already plenty of consumer protections for my MAEW friends on the the left.
Your comment is another fail …..
Meta cleaned up @7.1
oh pooh ...
“The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.” - Albert Einstein
N hear awl dis tyme eye thawt it was to control the feline population...
Watched or listened to a bunch of programs today.
I feel that Harris does not think that she has to delve too far into specifics when talking about the economy because Trump just floats "It'll be wonderful" message. Once again, I think that the press is complicit in a bifurcated standards system, demanding that Harris put out a detailed policy proposal while giving Trump a pass.
As far as the price gouging goes, that is pretty much fluff. The charges that she wants to fix the prices are hyperbolic and off the mark. If you watched her speech where she did economy-lite she did not say such a thing.
It appears Harris doesn't quite understand how this all works. One would think that if they are going to spout off with nonsense like " ban on ‘price gouging’ for food, groceries" they would understand what is involved with it all.