Joe Biden 2020 campaign megathread v3 (pg 45 - mass-dropout aftermath)

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Joe Biden thinking that the Republicans don’t deserve to be taught a lesson for their embrace of a proto-fascist because he thinks politics has to be nice and fair is downright embarrassing. This is the same guy who gave a eulogy for Strom Thurmond and proudly proclaimed that Delaware was a slave state. He’s a joke of a candidate if he truly believes what he said.

In all fairness....he was saying the same thing about the GOP during Watergate back in 1973:

https://mobile.twitter.com/studentactivism/status/1203704068339834880

https://mobile.twitter.com/studentactivism/status/1203705111488483328

https://mobile.twitter.com/studentactivism/status/1203706710331969541

Also....let's not forget....Watergate was actually #BothSides fault:

https://mobile.twitter.com/studentactivism/status/1203705673734918144

But dont worry....this time it'll be different! Uncle Joe is just pretending to be for bipartisanship.

HOW DARE HE!!!!!

Saying a 1 party state is bad? WTF IS THIS MAN SMOKING

The only TRUE debate remaining is whether the "normal" Trumplicans (he-he I'm so funny) should be simply re-educated or arrested. For the rest, NO MERCY!!! TRAITOR MOSCOW MITCH TO THE GUILLOTINE!!!

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Deeply moving clip. Really.

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1206378407866454016

Biden needs to keep this up. Adding more humanity and sympathy to his campaign is a great way for him to contrast himself with Trump whose campaign will almost certainly be all about himself when it isn't about the concepts and people he hates.

 Biden also really ought to include his own experiences with health care, like what dealing with Beau and his death at the hands of cancer was like.

This is gonna sound really weird, but Biden is the only candidate I can see improving his favorables in a general. I just think he has more potential to win back reluctant Democrats and hold those outside of the party who like him than someone like Bernie or Buttigieg.

That would be nice, but I can't be quite so hopeful about that because there is no doubt that Trump and the GOP are going to go scorched-earth with another character assassination campaign.

Fair point, of course. The question for me is "Is Ukraine the next email server for Dems", and I am tempted to say no considering even if you think Biden has done everything accused of, that still does not exonerate Trump's role in the scandal.

I worry that it could be, but Biden seems more impervious to criticism than Clinton was. he shares many of the same faults, yet isn't receiving nearly equivalent skepticism over them. The Republicans also didn't spend two entire decades making him the object of their hatred like they did with Clinton. So he might have that going for him.

(Also, if we are gonna be real, the dude has a dick). That and also the fact (and this is why him being so old is not as concerning to me) that he gives off a loving grandpa vibe, and not someone who people feel as comfortable attacking as a "shrill woman" like Hillary.

This is definitely the elephant in the room. If Biden gets nominated and wins the general election against Trump, I have no doubt that this, no matter how subtextual in peoples' minds it is, will be a contributing factor to his victory.

When a Democrat only win 55% and 51% of the smaller 18-29 and 30-44 year-old demographic, and lose by a reasonable 8% in the largest demographic (45-64), your candidate being a female is not your downfall.  5% of females voted for someone else rather than Hillary Clinton, 9% of 18-29 voters did the same.  If Clinton would have won half of these female third-party voters, she would have won the election with better female numbers than Obama.   Polls as far back as December 2015 illustrated Clinton's issues with young voters, and the focus of her campaign targeted older voters just like Kerry in 2004.  2004 was the last time we saw Republicans compete in WI and PA, and pointed to a demographic change that favored them in the future.  Biden's numbers with young voters are worse than Clinton and Kerry.

This is the Huffington Post reiterating the concern over Biden, which was the same concern people had for Hillary and Kerry. 
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-youth-problem-2020-presidential-campaign_n_5dfab81de4b006dceaa81ab4   

Romney competed for PA in 2012

[Libertas Vel Mors]

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1208086957118480385

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1208183323660636161

Klein is absolutely right. Even Biden wants to raise taxes by $10,300 per person.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1208086957118480385

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1208183323660636161

Klein is absolutely right. Even Biden wants to raise taxes by $10,300 per person.

That's not how taxes work lol.

Its how economics works. Taxing corporations/muh evil rich people kills investment by taking capital away that would otherwise be invested and used to create jobs, and that effect is compounded by taking money out of the economy to pay for bigger gimme programs. Robbing the rich hurts poor people too.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1208086957118480385

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1208183323660636161

Klein is absolutely right. Even Biden wants to raise taxes by $10,300 per person.

That's not how taxes work lol.

Its how economics work. Taxing corporations/muh evil rich people kills investment, and that effect is compounded by taking money out of the economy to pay for bigger gimme programs. Robbing the rich hurts poor people too.

First of all, your random "$10,300 per person" claim is still nonsense, and secondly the economy did great in the 50s and 60s when taxes were much higher on the rich, in fact the economy overall has done worse since Republicans started cutting taxes for the rich in the 1980s.

1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-bidens-modest-tax-proposal-11576715051

3.4 Trillion divided by 330 million is 10,303

2. Yeah, it'd be pretty shocking if we were doing worse in the 50s after all our international competitors had just blown themselves up in the bloodiest war in human history. Of course we did well then. Your second point is BS, our economy has been strongest under late Reagan, Clinton (who mainly applied free market economics even if he wasn't perfect) and now, under Trump. And of course, it's been weakest after liberal keynesian policies, like the Bush/Obama bailouts or the tax hikes (and yes, I blame Bush too for being an idiot and selling out his principles).

[Libertas Vel Mors]

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1208086957118480385

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1208183323660636161

Klein is absolutely right. Even Biden wants to raise taxes by $10,300 per person.

That's not how taxes work lol.

Its how economics works. Taxing corporations/muh evil rich people kills investment by taking capital away that would otherwise be invested and used to create jobs, and that effect is compounded by taking money out of the economy to pay for bigger gimme programs. Robbing the rich hurts poor people too.

Money that's transferred to poor people (I assume that's what you mean by the condescending term "gimme programs") aren't taken out of the economy, it's spent and create an increased demand for goods and services and thereby jobs.

Rich people also don't use all their surplus capital to invest in job creation in the US, a lot of it is invested in real estate, land, art, antiques and other unproductive assets and another part is invested overseas.

1. It 100% is. It is taken away from it's owners and the people who have earned it, and instead wasted by government bureaucrats. Furthermore, economic growth comes from productivity and creation, not spending. This is economics 101 for non-Keynesians.

2. That's one of the dumbest takes on the left, full stop. The rich aren't just stuffing all their money under the bed or something: even if I decide not to invest it, spend a moment of my time thinking about it, or anything fiscally related, all that money is still in the bank, being loaned out to businesses, innovators, and consumers, helping the economy grow, keeping capital lines open, and helping Americans of all stripes. That's a far preferable alternative to having money handed out to those who haven't earned it or worked for it by government bureaucrats, especially with all the waste that comes with that process!

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The rich aren't just stuffing all their money under the bed or something: even if I decide not to invest it, spend a moment of my time thinking about it, or anything fiscally related, all that money is still in the bank, being loaned out to businesses, innovators, and consumers, helping the economy grow, keeping capital lines open, and helping Americans of all stripes.

Factually incorrect. Banks do not loan bank deposits, nor is their ability to make loans in any way constrained by the amount of deposits deposited with them. Saying so is strictly a categorical error roughly equivalent to saying that "cows are a type of building."

There is no particular connection with how many bank deposits rich people (or poor people) have and the ability/willingness of banks to make loans, or of the desire/creditworthiness of firms (or people) to take out loans.

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy

Banks do make loans on the basis of capital that is put into them. That's literally how banks work. Why else do you think banks would take deposits? They like paying you money in interest fees?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The rich aren't just stuffing all their money under the bed or something: even if I decide not to invest it, spend a moment of my time thinking about it, or anything fiscally related, all that money is still in the bank, being loaned out to businesses, innovators, and consumers, helping the economy grow, keeping capital lines open, and helping Americans of all stripes.

Factually incorrect. Banks do not loan bank deposits, nor is their ability to make loans in any way constrained by the amount of deposits deposited with them. Saying so is strictly a categorical error roughly equivalent to saying that "cows are a type of building."

There is no particular connection with how many bank deposits rich people (or poor people) have and the ability/willingness of banks to make loans, or of the desire/creditworthiness of firms (or people) to take out loans.

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy

Banks do make loans on the basis of capital that is put into them. That's literally how banks work. Why else do you think banks would take deposits? They like paying you money in interest fees?

This is asinine.
My university Economics professor would beat you over the head with a baseball bat if you were in my class (and that was 25 years ago). One thing he would literally repeat over and over and over again (and it's forever in my head) is that "banks to not lend-out their customer's deposits."
Pick-up some books related to the banking industry and the federal reserve.

You sit there typing things like "your second point is BS" and "that's one of the dumbest takes on the left," but yet you are the one spewing full-blown diarrhea in your supposed facts on how banking works.

I know what you're talking about. It's still stupid bs, so you can go off with it. Yes, a bank will not take the $5 you deposited and loan it out. However, what they do do is use it to increase their lending capacity to make increased loans, which serve LITERALLY THE SAME FUNCTION! The economic effect is the same.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

I know what you're talking about. It's still stupid bs, so you can go off with it. Yes, a bank will not take the $5 you deposited and loan it out. However, what they do do is use it to increase their lending capacity to make increased loans, which serve LITERALLY THE SAME FUNCTION! The economic effect is the same.

You clearly didn't bother to read the link and are still repeating falsehoods, so I'll post it again for you -

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy

But I guess that is the Republican thing these days, just repeating falsehoods without caring that they are false, cuz why not?

https://www.moneyunder30.com/how-banks-make-money


https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022416/why-banks-dont-need-your-money-make-loans.asp (this source talks about how each dollar deposited has a multiple effect, but the point is the same in that deposits allow them to make increased loans)

https://www.chimebank.com/2017/10/24/how-do-banks-make-money/

Everything you're saying makes 0 sense and is completely ridiculous. Stop posting Keynesian bullsh**t, especially when it's not even relevant. Your link is talking about Central Bank monetary policy and how interest rates are adjusted, but you are completely ignoring common sense and the topic at hand. Do you really mean to deny that money being deposited in a bank doesn't increase that banks ability to make loans? If so, why do you think banks take deposits? Charity?