POTUS 2024 - Harris vs Trump - General Election Discussion

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I can tell you, at least from my daughter stand point, she hasn't had a child because of money and nothing to do with her career. She is in the same boat with lots of her peers. Works hard, makes decent money, but is still not enough to afford to buy a home. $25k in down payment assistance would be huge to them.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Tell her not to fear, Freedom cities are on the way!

[JPhillips]

IN Sen. Braun comes out against Loving v. Virginia (legalizing interracial marriage)

A reporter then asked Braun if he applied the same reasoning to decisions like Loving v. Virginia, which struck down state laws that made interracial marriages illegal.

Braun responded: “When it comes to issues, you can’t have it both ways. When you want that diversity to shine within our federal system, there are going to be rules and proceedings, they’re going to be out of sync with maybe what other states would do. It’s the beauty of the system, and that’s where the differences among points of view in our 50 states ought to express themselves.”

The reporter asked again, reiterating the question and asking if Braun would be okay with Supreme Court leaving interracial marriage to the states.

Braun doubled down, saying “Yes, I think that is something that if you’re not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you’re not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too, it’s hypocritical.”

“We’re better off having states manifest their points of view, rather than homogenizing it across the country as Roe v. Wade did,” he added.

[Lathum]

Ah yes, the beauty of the system should be open racism.

[Lathum]

Trump just going full on Nazi at this point

reuters.com

[Ksyrup]

If some of this stuff actually happens, it definitely feels like we're heading towards a "united states" where red and blue states have pacts between themselves (red-red and blue-blue) on a bunch of issues, but otherwise, we each live under a bunch of separate and incongruous laws, each penalizing/criminalizing activities that are otherwise legal under the laws of the other, and we'll be left with a fragmented system in which we have to show our driver's license to travel from through red and blue states depending on where you're from, and if you want to visit Disney World or go to a sporting event in certain states, they're be an extra tax layered on for non-red or non-blue state residents as a privilege of "traitors" using their amenities. I haven't spent much time since law school reading up on the jurisprudence around the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but I'm sure there's a way to strip it down to the point of meaninglessness.

It's like we're moving toward a (mostly) non-violent civil war in which we're essentially divided into 2 countries because the US is too big to actually take apart and the majority of people are too lazy to do anything about it (me included). The "problem" of blue cities in red states is taken care of by just making it suck so bad to live there with laws targeting and adversely impacting those people that they drive most of them out to live/settle in "their own" states.

Now, money rules all, right, so if Florida outlaws interracial marriage down the line after the SC overrules Loving, are they going to bar those people from living in and spending money in their state? Doubtful. But what other reason would their be to go through with this, if it's just a charade? Abortion seems like it's just the tip of the iceberg.

[bhlloy]

I think that’s probably the sunny and optimistic version of what happens, yes. Probably more likely with a Trump win than a Harris win, at least the non-violent piece.

[JPhillips]

Bob Woodward is reporting that Trump has spoken with Putin on the phone up to seven times since Trump left office.

[larrymcg421]

We are not divided by blue states and red states. We are divided by urban and rural areas.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Bob Woodward is reporting that Trump has spoken with Putin on the phone up to seven times since Trump left office.

How is this not a violation of the Logan act?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Lathum

How is this not a violation of the Logan act?

Trump has shown that most politicians are supposed to just be on the honor system. The laws we've had in place were there to politely ask them not to do these things. There are no actual consequences.

[JPhillips]

We simply don't enforce those kinds of laws.

Elon's PAC legally can't coordinate with Trump, but they both brag about working together.

[cuervo72]

SCOTUS would just rule that all this is really fine anyway.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I believe 1 and 2 are true but specifically for increasing birth rates, I don't believe reducing costs will solve the problem.

Kamala proposed (1) increasing housing supply to reduce house prices (2) help with a $25k down for first time home buyers (3) tax cuts of $6k for first year of child's life.

What I posit is none of the 3 will increase birth rates to offset the decline. The reason for not having children is not "primarily" due to financial constraints, there are other factors at play.

I suspect #1 and #2 are the key reasons. Affordability is #4.

If these were permanent positions as opposed what I think are thoughts given in a moment in time I might be inclined to agree with you. If women were rushing out to have their uterus removed and guys were rushing out to be sterilized because they just don't want to have children, I might agree with you. Since neither of those things are happening, I am going to assume that the double digits percentage points difference between the two groups imply that people can and do change their minds between those ages on this topic. I will concede that I have to take to heart the 13%/15% who said that infertility and other medical reasons was their reason. That seems pretty permanent. Finally having spoken to enough 18-25 year olds, "Just don't want to" sounds like a catch all for everything from all of the above, some of the above and I don't have to explain myself to you.

That being said, if the things above remove the affordability barrier and allows that 36% to have the children they evidently want to have, isn't that a good thing for birth rates? If these are permanent positions, we are not convincing people who just don't want to and/or want to focus on other interests. It might be beneficial for us to remove the affordability barrier for those that actually want to have children.

One thing I can say for sure, young people who were raised in homes with a solid financial footing throughout their childhood aren't really here for the broke parent beginnings many of us had with our kids. For them, If it means having those broke parent beginnings more permanently because they don't see themselves reaching that sort of financial footing, then yes, they don't want to have children. However that desire is wrapped up in whether they are or are not able to provide at the same rate for their children as what their parents could for them or what they thought their parents should have be able to provide for them. My oldest son and his girlfriend are going through the adoption process right now in Switzerland. She is the reason for my "remove their uterus" comment as she made that decision a few years ago for family medical history reasons. They both refuse to even consider becoming parents until such time as they were on pretty secure financial footing. My oldest likes to politely jab my wife and I that he will not be serving his children fried bologna sandwiches like I did and as he says my wife allowed me to do. Needless to say, I have been forbidden from making fried bologna sandwiches for my youngest.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

We are not divided by blue states and red states. We are divided by urban and rural areas.

Yes, but in terms of governance, the party in power makes a state red or blue. And the ability to enact/enforce laws is what is most important.

[albionmoonlight]

Yeah, but there are more Trump voters in California than in Texas.

There are more Biden voters in Texas than in Illinois.

The country is bright blue dots surrounded by ruby red land, and a state goes red or blue based on what shade of purple the suburbs feel like being that year.

Not sure how you divide that in half.

[Ksyrup]

He who wins the state, decides the rules. In my post above, I didn't suggest dividing the states. I believe the solution would be to make it difficult for "the other side" to want to continue living in your state. You create a truly red or blue state by making it unlivable for the others. Then they move to a red or blue state where they are with people more like themselves.

[albionmoonlight]

Whether it's Biden sending COVID tests to American families or Trump sending COVID tests to Vladimir Putin, both presidents tried to help the people they care about the most.

— New York Times Pitchbot (@DougJBalloon) October 8, 2024

[Thomkal]

So it looks like Eric Trump is now a "Special Deputy Sheriff" in Florida since he's out of his day job with Trump Org.


x.com

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

If these were permanent positions as opposed what I think are thoughts given in a moment in time I might be inclined to agree with you. If women were rushing out to have their uterus removed and guys were rushing out to be sterilized because they just don't want to have children, I might agree with you. Since neither of those things are happening, I am going to assume that the double digits percentage points difference between the two groups imply that people can and do change their minds between those ages on this topic. I will concede that I have to take to heart the 13%/15% who said that infertility and other medical reasons was their reason. That seems pretty permanent. Finally having spoken to enough 18-25 year olds, "Just don't want to" sounds like a catch all for everything from all of the above, some of the above and I don't have to explain myself to you.

That being said, if the things above remove the affordability barrier and allows that 36% to have the children they evidently want to have, isn't that a good thing for birth rates? If these are permanent positions, we are not convincing people who just don't want to and/or want to focus on other interests. It might be beneficial for us to remove the affordability barrier for those that actually want to have children.

I'm not saying it won't help some. What I am saying is I do not believe financial constraints are the root cause (as a whole) of women not wanting more babies and our < 1.6 replacement rate. There are many western (and like) countries that have tried more X, Y, Z and it hasn't work (that I know of).

Below summarizes it well from my POV.

How can countries deal with falling birth rates?

To try to increase birth rates, countries can make it easier for women to have children, by providing more generous childcare provision, such as tax breaks and extended, fully-paid maternity leave. In addition, companies could be compelled to offer new mums and dads more flexible working hours, and provide workplace creches.

However, while such policies might slow the decline, they rarely reverse it.

Put simply, the more women are educated, the more they work and save, the better their lives are.

Many women would instead prefer not to take the hit to their earnings and career prospects that becoming a mother often causes.

So they have fewer children, or none at all.

There are basically two main ways in which a country can deal with a falling birth rate – you can keep your population heathier and employed for longer, or you can have large-scale immigration.

Bottom line. I don't think there is a "fix" using financial incentives. It's a cultural (?) thing and the genie is out of the bottle. IMO the best way is to increase legal immigration, and ideally with specific skillsets to help the US maintain its competitive edge.

They both refuse to even consider becoming parents until such time as they were on pretty secure financial footing. My oldest likes to politely jab my wife and I that he will not be serving his children fried bologna sandwiches like I did and as he says my wife allowed me to do. Needless to say, I have been forbidden from making fried bologna sandwiches for my youngest.

Hah. My kids are out of the house now but when they show up whenever, I still cook them my "world famous" X and Y. And I can honestly say they still enjoy my dishes.

[Lathum]

Just listened to most of the Howard interview with Harris. It’s comical how those on the right are trying to paint her as a bumbling moron filled with word salad. Have to imagine a lot of his fans are Trump guys. Hopefully this goes a long way to changing the narrative.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm not saying it won't help some. What I am saying is I do not believe financial constraints are the root cause (as a whole) of women not wanting more babies and our < 1.6 replacement rate. There are many western (and like) countries that have tried more X, Y, Z and it hasn't work (that I know of).

You are never going to find a magic bullet. I don't think the problem is any one single thing, and in reality it probably won't be resolved. Outside of immigration, we are going to see declining populations.

Beyond that, the proposal that Harris has presented isn't just for the purpose of declining populations. There are many benefits beyond encouraging family growth for increased home ownership. For one, getting adult children out of the house.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

You are never going to find a magic bullet. I don't think the problem is any one single thing, and in reality it probably won't be resolved. Outside of immigration, we are going to see declining populations.

Beyond that, the proposal that Harris has presented isn't just for the purpose of declining populations. There are many benefits beyond encouraging family growth for increased home ownership. For one, getting adult children out of the house.

100%

Yes, in the year 2024 many women want to have careers but many of those would very likely like to have families as well. It's just not financially doable for most people in their 20s right now.

Housing costs are insane and are far out of the reach of younger couples. Cars, groceries, school, child care, and so on add to those financial problems. If that couple has college debt then families are entirely off the table plus you're then looking down the line at potentially paying for your child's education.

First time buyer incentives, student loan forgiveness, tax credits, paid maternity leave, and so on are all part of a systematic issue that makes having and raising a family nearly impossible for most. Vance is trying to get republicans on board the make babies train but his party is against nearly every single thing that would make life easier on families.

Here's some very simple numbers that shows how unrealistic having a family is int his country right now. The average cost of child care is about $1,000 per month. The average mortgage is about $2,500 per month. The average car payment for a used vehicle is about 525 per month. The median household income is about $80k per year or $6,600. You're already at $4k of that with just those 3 items. Add in groceries, bills, potential student loans, and you're not left with much wiggle room, if any at all.

How many people are going to sign up for that struggle in order to raise a child or multiple children for 18+ years? We've had too many older generations rigging the system to benefit themselves and now we're in a situation where we're blaming the younger generation for not taking advantage of a system that we broke.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Here's some very simple numbers that shows how unrealistic having a family is int his country right now. The average cost of child care is about $1,000 per month. The average mortgage is about $2,500 per month. The average car payment for a used vehicle is about 525 per month. The median household income is about $80k per year or $6,600. You're already at $4k of that with just those 3 items. Add in groceries, bills, potential student loans, and you're not left with much wiggle room, if any at all.

Why are you using average costs and median income? It's a little disingenuous IMO.