Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

[Winterborn]

Don't forget being able to cook and clean.

That was Rosie in The Jetsons. Except nobody would ever think of having sex with Rosie.

Maybe the frat boys in the Ivy's were more discerning, but there were some at NDSU, that according to rumors were not.

[Ibanez]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/01/white-h ... msnbc.html

Jen Psaki is leaving the White House for MSNBC.

[Pwns]

I'm going to barf if I have to watch one more blue checkmark dipshit suck Psaki's labia. She's not bad at her job but come on she's really unexceptional.

[BDKJMU]

Remember last year how the military was going to root out ‘extremism’? After all that work, out of 1.4 million active duty, they found less than 100 ‘extremists’ or about 1 in 15,000..
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/the-pe ... problem-is

[kalm]

I'm going to barf if I have to watch one more blue checkmark dipshit suck Psaki's labia. She's not bad at her job but come on she's really unexceptional.

Pro tip: avoid searching ginger porn.

[Ivytalk]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/01/white-h ... msnbc.html

Jen Psaki is leaving the White House for MSNBC.

“The stringent ethical and legal requirements of the Biden administration”

[cx500d]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/01/white-h ... msnbc.html

Jen Psaki is leaving the White House for MSNBC.

Getting a presidential administration job is the equivalent of NCAA basketball one and done... Do your one year of time and cash-out.

[Col Hogan]

[houndawg]

I'm going to barf if I have to watch one more blue checkmark dipshit suck Psaki's labia. She's not bad at her job but come on she's really unexceptional.

Unexceptional is still an order-of-magnitude improvement

[houndawg]

Remember last year how the military was going to root out ‘extremism’? After all that work, out of 1.4 million active duty, they found less than 100 ‘extremists’ or about 1 in 15,000..
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/the-pe ... problem-is

A lot of them were just talk - as predicted they snapped to rather than lose their three hots and a cot

[kalm]

All of this…

The March jobs report came out this morning and, once again, it was terrific. The economy added 431,000 jobs in March, and the figures for January and February were revised upward by 95,000. The U.S has added 1.7 million jobs between January and March, and unemployment is near an all-time low of 3.6%. As employment has risen, employers have had to raise wages to get workers. So, wages are up 5.6% for the year that ended in February.

Inflation in the U.S. is the highest it’s been in 40 years at 7.9%, but those high numbers echo other developed countries. In the 19 countries that use the euro, inflation rose by an annual rate of 7.5% in March, the highest level since officials began keeping records for the euro in 1997. Russia’s war on Ukraine, which is driving already high gasoline prices upward, and continuing supply chain problems are keeping inflation numbers high………………..

When this system pulled the country out of the Depression and funded the successful military mobilization of World War II, members of both parties embraced it. Once in office, Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower called for universal health insurance and backed the massive $26 billion Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 to build an initial 41,000 miles of roads across the United States, an act that provided jobs and infrastructure. To pay for these programs, he supported the high taxes of the war years, with the top marginal income bracket pegged at 91%.

“Our underlying philosophy,” said a Republican under Eisenhower, “is this: if a job has to be done to meet the needs of people, and no one else can do it, then it is a proper function of the federal government.” Americans had, “for the first time in our history, discovered and established the Authentic American Center in politics. This is not a Center in the European sense of an uneasy and precarious mid-point between large and powerful left-wing and right-wing elements of varying degrees of radicalism. It is a Center in the American sense of a common meeting-ground of the great majority of our people on our own issues, against a backdrop of our own history, our own current setting and our own responsibilities for the future.”

But Republicans since the 1980s have rejected that “Authentic American Center” and argued instead that the way to build the economy is by putting the weight of the government on the “supply side.” That is, the government should free up the capital of the wealthy by cutting taxes. Flush with cash, those at the top of society would invest in new industries that would, in turn, hire workers, and all Americans would rise together. Shortly after he took office, President Ronald Reagan launched government support for “supply side economics” with the first of many Republican tax cuts.

But rather than improving the living standards of all Americans, supply side economics never delivered the economic growth it promised. It turned out that tax cuts did not generally get reinvested into factories and innovation, but instead got turned into financial investments that concentrated wealth at the top of the economic ladder. Still, forty years later, Republicans have only hardened in their support for tax cuts. They insist that any government regulation of business, provision of a social safety net, or promotion of infrastructure is “socialism” because it infringes on the “freedom” of Americans to do whatever they wish without government interference.

The conflict between these two visions came to the fore yesterday, when 193 Republicans voted against lowering the copays for insulin, the drug necessary to keep the 30 million Americans who live with diabetes alive. Twelve Republicans joined all the Democrats to pass the bill. The price of insulin has soared in the U.S. in the past 20 years while it has stayed the same in other developed countries. A vial of insulin that cost $21 in 1999 in the U.S. cost $332 in 2019. Currently, insulin costs ten times more in the United States than in any other developed country.

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.c ... 8BoyHBdM-I

[CAA Flagship]

Once again, kalm is using a fixed telescope to view the countryside.

[kalm]

Once again, kalm is using a fixed telescope to view the countryside.

We’re you able to read past the first paragraph?

[UNI88]

Once again, kalm is using a fixed telescope to view the countryside.

We’re you able to read past the first paragraph?

It's an opinion piece. Just because you agree with the author doesn't make the opinions facts.

[kalm]

We’re you able to read past the first paragraph?

It's an opinion piece. Just because you agree with the author doesn't make the opinions facts.

Of course it is. Opinions supported with facts.

[UNI88]

It's an opinion piece. Just because you agree with the author doesn't make the opinions facts.

Of course it is. Opinions supported with facts.

"But rather than improving the living standards of all Americans, supply side economics never delivered the economic growth it promised" is opinion supported by narrow and biased interpretation of facts.

[GannonFan]

Of course it is. Opinions supported with facts.

"But rather than improving the living standards of all Americans, supply side economics never delivered the economic growth it promised" is opinion supported by narrow and biased interpretation of facts.

That's the line that threw me for a loop too. Seems like for most Americans the past 40 years have been pretty decent.

[kalm]

Of course it is. Opinions supported with facts.

"But rather than improving the living standards of all Americans, supply side economics never delivered the economic growth it promised" is opinion supported by narrow and biased interpretation of facts.

That accusation can be made to both sides of the argument.

We should see if there’s a study on supply side promises vs outcomes for all Americans.

[kalm]

"But rather than improving the living standards of all Americans, supply side economics never delivered the economic growth it promised" is opinion supported by narrow and biased interpretation of facts.

That's the line that threw me for a loop too. Seems like for most Americans the past 40 years have been pretty decent.

They’ve been great for me personally.

[UNI88]

"But rather than improving the living standards of all Americans, supply side economics never delivered the economic growth it promised" is opinion supported by narrow and biased interpretation of facts.

That accusation can be made to both sides of the argument.

We should see if there’s a study on supply side promises vs outcomes for all Americans.

No doubt. I'm willing to provide my opinions and the reasoning behind them and admit they're opinions based on my interpretation of the facts. The author wants to pass off his opinions as fact and you were a willing buyer and salesman because the author's opinions fit your worldview.

Cato Institute has a short commentary on Laffer and supply side - The Supply‐​Side Revolution Was Good for Economics and the World

Economists’ main beef is the bastardisation of these ideas by the right. Self‐​declared supply‐​siders, and sadly Laffer himself, often exaggerate the growth impact of tax cuts, implying more often than justified that they “pay for themselves”. Top income tax rates in the Seventies were often on the Laffer curve’s downward slope.

Few reputable economists would say though that across‐​the‐​board income tax rates today would be self‐​financing. Yet many Republican politicians made precisely that claim when justifying their 2017 tax reform.

This clear mis‐​selling, easily empirically falsified, has contributed to larger structural US deficits. That has emboldened commentators who say the Laffer curve is just a faulty “theory” — an intellectual veneer for pro‐​rich tax cuts. But left‐​wing critics go far too far in their denunciations.
...
This idea is not “trickle‐​down” — the belief that leaving the rich more money to spend will filter out to the economy. It’s the same supply‐​side argument that all economists recognise: tax rates affect incentives to work or produce, and so affect how much people work to earn income in the first place.

Anti-supply siders tend to act like raising taxes will increase government revenue without impacting incentive to work and the myriad of benefits of more people working, taking risks and innovating. I don't think the Information Revolution happens like it did without Reagan and his tax cuts.

[AZGrizFan]

Of course it is. Opinions supported with facts.

"But rather than improving the living standards of all Americans, supply side economics never delivered the economic growth it promised" is opinion supported by narrow and biased interpretation of facts.

If he thinks supply side economics are the boogey man here, just wait until we’re about 5 years into AOC’s plan…

[BDKJMU]

Musk last month:

[BDKJMU]

Musk a week and a half ago:


And today Musk become Twitter’s largest shareholder..

[HI54UNI]

I was hospitalized after holding farts in for 2 years around my boyfriend

https://nypost.com/2022/04/04/i-was-hos ... boyfriend/

[kalm]

That accusation can be made to both sides of the argument.

We should see if there’s a study on supply side promises vs outcomes for all Americans.

No doubt. I'm willing to provide my opinions and the reasoning behind them and admit they're opinions based on my interpretation of the facts. The author wants to pass off his opinions as fact and you were a willing buyer and salesman because the author's opinions fit your worldview.

Cato Institute has a short commentary on Laffer and supply side - The Supply‐​Side Revolution Was Good for Economics and the World

Economists’ main beef is the bastardisation of these ideas by the right. Self‐​declared supply‐​siders, and sadly Laffer himself, often exaggerate the growth impact of tax cuts, implying more often than justified that they “pay for themselves”. Top income tax rates in the Seventies were often on the Laffer curve’s downward slope.

Few reputable economists would say though that across‐​the‐​board income tax rates today would be self‐​financing. Yet many Republican politicians made precisely that claim when justifying their 2017 tax reform.

This clear mis‐​selling, easily empirically falsified, has contributed to larger structural US deficits. That has emboldened commentators who say the Laffer curve is just a faulty “theory” — an intellectual veneer for pro‐​rich tax cuts. But left‐​wing critics go far too far in their denunciations.
...
This idea is not “trickle‐​down” — the belief that leaving the rich more money to spend will filter out to the economy. It’s the same supply‐​side argument that all economists recognise: tax rates affect incentives to work or produce, and so affect how much people work to earn income in the first place.

Anti-supply siders tend to act like raising taxes will increase government revenue without impacting incentive to work and the myriad of benefits of more people working, taking risks and innovating. I don't think the Information Revolution happens like it did without Reagan and his tax cuts.

Something tells me we’ve debated Art Laffer and his curve before. This has to be a troll post considering it’s a Cato piece that also provides little on facts but a whole lot on libertarian pixie dust theory. Exactly what you’re accusing me of.

Here’s a fascinating take down of Republican/libertarian economic performance from Reagan’s point man on the budget and one of the architects of Reaganomics. He’s a true blue libertarian but comes to a similar conclusion as many left leaning economists: give me a credit card (national debt) and I can make supply side work too.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ca/274554/

As for actual data beyond theory here’s an interesting take with some stats in the linked piece.

Chances are that you believe you are in the middle class—nearly everyone in the United States does. Doctors and lawyers believe they are middle-class; so, too, do welders and waiters. In a 2015 Pew survey, only 10 percent of Americans said they considered themselves lower-class and just 1 percent thought they were upper-class.

Earnings have been flat or stagnant for many middle-class workers in the United States while health care, education, and housing costs are rising. Surveys show that Americans accurately perceive these pressures too and share a broad belief that the middle class is struggling. Seven in ten respondents to a Northwestern Mutual survey said that the middle class was staying the same or shrinking. One-third said the middle class might disappear entirely.

https://www.rand.org/blog/2021/05/most- ... s-but.html

I think long-term sustainable economic strength is based on a vibrant middle class. Don’t worry, there is some data in here that supports the notion that supply side has worked. The two main problems with that are 1). Due to hyperinflation in key categories like education, housing, and healthcare it’s never been more expensive to be in the middle class 2). Supply side induced growth has never been achieved without the boom and bust cycle and/or creating significant national debt.

In fact we may be headed for a bust cycle shortly that will require either austerity (which affects the middle and lower classes the most and what Stockman was suggesting) or government stimulus.

Supply side is the juvenile running down the hill in the “Old Bull - Young Bull joke.