OT: UM To Withdraw From Hosting Presidential Debate
For a host of reasons probably a smart idea.
It would be cool to host in normal times but smart to cancel now. Bringing the shit show to Ann Arbor doesn’t have much benefit and bring a hosts of covid risk.
....and it really fucks up traffic for us townies!
The local dump would probably be a more appropriate venue for these two.
Please be more specific ....Columbus. OH or East Lansing, MI ?
Excuse me, that's FLAVORTOWN, OH, thank you very much!
Probably get flipped to Ohio St. That’s how this goes right? Come on UM. Leaders and Best should mean something. Find a way.
....you mean Flavor Town! And we could have Guy Fieri moderate, DAMN, I would watch.
It's like you're looking to bend over to them.
Or Hofstra or Washington University of St. Louis.
They're fine schools, but I generally never hear much about them outside of every 4 years (they seemingly host a debate every cycle, though neither was slated for 2020).
They should hold the debates via Zoom.
Trump: No one knows more about Zoom than me (while he forgets to put his video on)
Biden: “I’m running for the United States Senate and it’s great to be on this children’s PBS show”
"...and my favorite day of the week is....HAM!...no....Blue!"
Come on man!
come on is right. if we can't laugh at these two we have completely lost our humor.
They both use a tremendous number of words to not say anything.....for different reasons.
The one says a lot and most times I can't bear to listen. The other has the rep of being a decent guy, but I really do think there are clear indications of a progressing neuro-cognitive deficit of some type.
Not good.
whichever way makes it easiest for me to not watch.
Not a big loss. The debate will be a battle over who can remember anything.
Since one candidate, his team, and supporters wasn’t going to wear masks, it’s better not to host it.
Never mind the obvious contradictions on other side who instantly stopped pushing their restrictions the second they realized it would help their campaigns.
Going from basically no more than 10-25 people allowed to oh it's okay for millions night after night now for multiple weeks to congregate.
Whole thing been a joke how political it's turned. The credibility of politics is at an all time low with the propaganda by both sides.
Can we just have the election today? Everyone's made up their mind anyway. Save the next 134 days.
Agreed. One good thing about the pandemic has been the lack of constant campaigning.
It seems like it's always an election year now. I fucking hate it.
A thousand times yes. And that's despite the fact I live in California and probably won't see/hear a single broadcast political ad for the POTUS campaigns. I feel so sorry for you poor bastards in MI and the neighbors in WI and PA. The ads. The door knocking. The general madness in the population.
No we can not have the election today. We can have it after these protests die down and people forget about covid. By then the economy will be roaring back and the question will be do you like having an amazing economy? If yes vote incumbent. We can have it then thank you.
Are you referring to the economy that prior to the pandemic had been fueled by some of the largest non-recession deficits we’ve ever had?
The unemployment rate was at record lows for all demographics. I don't begrudge people getting jobs who had been unemployed.
In large part due to the 76 straight months of job growth before he even took office.
Low bar after the 2008 housing collapse and high unemployment.
Deregulation and tax cuts spurred the creation of jobs.
Deregulation and tax cuts spurred the creation of jobs.
Gonna need you to show your work.
Here's mine:
Per BLS, the Dec '09 total nonfarm employment number was 129,788,000. That number in Dec '16 was 145,442,000. Total growth over seven years of 15,654,000 jobs, averaging 186,357 per month for 84 consecutive months.
In the 38 months prior to the pandemic hitting (so, from that 12/2016 number through 02/2020), the number jumped to 152,463,000, growth of 7,021,000 jobs, averaging 184,763 jobs per month for 38 consecutive months. If we only look at 2018 alone (so, the first year after the cuts were passed), job growth was 2,314,000, or 192,833 jobs per month. 2019? 2,133,000, or 177,750 jobs per month.
Summary - there has been no "spur" in creation of jobs at any point during Trump's term that is any different from the trajectory the economy was on when Trump took office.
Further, the Congressional Research Service released a report in 2019 that "[showed] a relatively small (if any) first-year effect on the economy." From their summary (emphasis mine):
In 2018, gross domestic product (GDP) grew at 2.9%. On the whole, the growth effects tend to show a relatively small (if any) first-year effect on the economy. Although growth rates cannot indicate the tax cut's effects on GDP, they tend to rule out very large effects particularly in the short run. Although investment grew significantly, the growth patterns for different types of assets do not appear to be consistent with the direction and size of the supply-side incentive effects one would expect from the tax changes. This potential outcome may raise questions about how much longer-run growth will result from the tax revision.
...
Real wages grew more slowly than GDP: at 2.0% (adjusted by the GDP deflator) compared with 2.9% for overall real GDP. Such slower growth has occurred in the past. The real wage rate for production and nonsupervisory workers grew by 1.2%.
Although significant amounts of dividends were repatriated in 2018 compared with previous years, the data do not appear to show a significant increase in investment flows from abroad. While evidence does indicate significant repurchases of shares, either from tax cuts or repatriated revenues, relatively little was directed to paying worker bonuses, which had been announced by some firms.
GDP also only grew at 2.3% in 2019, which, following the logic of CRS's statement would indicate the tax cuts haven't really super-charged anything. But, what CRS is saying here is basically: tax cuts allowed companies to buy back shares of their own businesses, but none of that investment "trickled down" to workers. Just like always.
TL;DR - there aren't any data I've yet seen to indicate that tax cuts have done anything to affect the economic situation, other than to create massive federal deficits and enhance the portfolios of the CEO class. Again, just like always.
It's really simple. Tax cuts and deregulation spur economic growth via increased earnings. With economic growth comes lower unemployment as businesses expand.
"I want to be clear — one can write down models where taxes generate big effects," Gale told NPR. But models are not the real world, he added. "The empirical evidence is quite different from the modeling results, and the empirical evidence is much weaker."
It's not just Gale. According to a 2012 report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (referenced by the New York Times' David Leonhardt in a 2012 column), top marginal tax rates and economic growth have not appeared correlated over the past 60 years.
One other nuance — it depends on the type of tax cut. You can imagine how cutting taxes for lower earners might boost activity more than cutting the top marginal rate — lower-income Americans with an extra $100 are more likely to spend that money than a millionaire.
Likewise, the economic research firm Moody's found in 2008 that temporary tax cuts (like rebates) could boost GDP, but permanent ones had a much weaker effect. Meanwhile, boosting spending on programs like food stamps and unemployment had a stronger effect, they found.
In short, if your sole, ultimate goal is faster growth, tax cuts might not be the best policy.
Yes, lets pollute our air more and get global warming here more quickly , all for deregulating and help the short-term profit margins !
That's not actually what happens, and if you did anything other than regurgitate talking points from 40 years ago, maybe we'd have some progress.
I can post hundreds of studies on this. You speak in soundbites.
Why don't you go take two plants, hang one over the other, poke a hole in the bottom of the top one's planter, exclusively water the top one, and see how long it takes for the bottom one to die.
Plants don't run businesses, at least not successful businesses.
Businesses don't expand without access to capital. Reducing tax rates for them increases their earnings (monies) which in turn allows for expansion.
Reduce their earnings via increased taxation and you won't have expansion beyond what they can borrow. The interest on those loans reduces future earnings.
So...what's your solution for growing an economy? Take money out of it?
There is a balance. No regulation and you have rampant pollution. No taxes for infrastructure and no one wants to build a factory. It isn’t an all or nothing proposition. The challenge is finding the proper balance. For instance, the problem with the economy right now is not that companies don’t have access to the capital they need, so why would a solution focused on capital be the solution? The point is that study after study shows that the relation between more and less taxes is nowhere near as black and white as you’d like to make it.
Just as one should be suspicious of a one trick pony who thinks more government can fix everything, one should be equally suspicious of someone who thinks less government is the answer to every problem.
Highest level of subsidies to farmers in 14 years occurred in 2019. That doesn’t sound like tax cuts or deregulation.
The tax cuts neither increased the rate of GDP growth nor the rate of job growth, but they did substantially increase the deficit.
In that case I guess we need a 90% tax rate over anything earned beyond say $50k? That'll really grow the economy.
under-employment jobs requiring people to work multiple jobs at below-living wages
I doubt people will just forget about covid by the fall.
If you’re banking on every voter ignoring the last few months and having the memory of a goldfish, you sound worried.
Nothing to see here people, ignore everything except that the market is up today.
Yes, if you just ignore reality the economy is doing great!
I don’t really think everybody has made up their mind, that is the thing. Biden won the nomination on a “moderate” platform. The radical left elements that have emerged since then as a result of those sectors being froze out of the general have no more in common with Joe Biden than they do with Donald Trump. In fact, if you really look at ideology, alone, that demographic sees Biden as even more of a problem than Trump in terms of “status quo politics.”
And on the other side, If you take somebody like my father, who was 100% Biden and a lifetime democrat, but who has just a strong hatred and fear of socialist ideals as he does Donald Trump, if not stronger, he wants to hear from Biden and wants a strong rebuke of the “blow up the system” stuff that Biden is kind of tacitly embracing. He may just not vote.
I get the sense that people think a lot of the protest stuff gave people the idea that Trump “losing” public support equated with Biden gaining it and I don’t really think that is the case. That stuff was not an extension of the democratic process but a strong rebuff of it, an opt-out essentially and I don’t really think it will play out in a general the way people expect. And don’t give me polls, polls don’t work. They have become entirely political weapons and are not a true reflection of public sentiment.
We may not be thrilled with our options, but I for one want to see these debates. I think that canceling this debate is a weak move. Have it with 200 total people watching if you want with 15 feet of space in between them, but make these candidates really engage these issues, publicly, talking to human beings. If they can’t, we need to know that.
Trump just had a really public rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma and there wasn’t really any “clashes” or unrest. There can’t be a 3 hour live presidential debate in the middle of Polite Town Love Thy Neighbor, MI? Cuz danger?
And a leading “expert” just said that thousands upon thousands of people protesting and yelling, coughing and screaming in nearly all major cities had no impact on coronavirus spread so I doubt a presidential debate with limited seating is going to be a “super spreader” of any variety.
Somebody is going to host this debate, and Ann Arbor is going to wish it was them when it comes. This will be a historically significant election and a great American city and University like Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan could and should have rose to the occasion.
If you only have a couple hundred people in the room, what does it matter whether or not it’s in Ann Arbor?
?
That is seriously like the worst attempt at a point ever.
How about because Covid isn’t the plague, like basically all of the state of Michigan (the jobs that remain that is) is back at work now, the rest of human civilization is not going to be conducted via Zoom, and there is no logical reason aside from generic “fear” why they cannot have a live Presidential debate right now?
Step up to the podium, gentlemen.
You spent three quarters of the post that I responded to saying that you really wanted to see the debate - you can still see it on tv. You then said, have it with 200 people. I merely asked, what is the value of having it in Ann Arbor?
In the format it is likely to occur (small number of people, limited or no ability for additional in person educational opportunities), what is the value to Ann Arbor and U of M?
Will the students get a better educational experience? Will it raise the prestige of U of M or Ann Arbor? Will it be of financial benefit? Personally that seems like exactly the considerations the University should be making. And honestly, you telling me that I’ve made the worst attempt at a point ever is more of a compliment than an insult, so thank you.
I left the left just recently and felt same way as your dad. Biden is a puppet looks more obvious than ever and the radical left has went completely insane
I love how people assume a Joe Biden presidency will entail five-year plans and the collectivization of farms.
If you think Biden is even tacitly embracing major overhauls of democratic governing and economic systems I don't know what to tell you. Most Democrats were reluctant to get onboard with him and there were major fears among the Dem electorate that 1) they couldn't nominate a woman and 2) they couldn't nominate someone progressive. Biden was the "safe" choice. While he's up in the polls now we won't know if it's the right choice until after Election Day.
It's funny to see moderates/independents, jaded Republicans and what I call 'superior neutrals' try to contort themselves into thinking that Biden is a socialist or somehow just as bad as the current president. There's just no way.
Ok.... Now he just needs to say it. At a debate, preferably.
So true, and this election will likely be the largest instance of mail-in voting in the history of this country, all while the USPS is on the verge of bankruptcy. I'm reminded of the "recount" scenario back in 2000 and am just dreading pages of tweets claiming the election was "rigged" and dragging this nightmare out for weeks/months...