Yeah the guy who was going to pass permanent corporate tax cuts and temporary individual tax cuts, funded by chaining individual tax brackets so taxes go up for individuals after 10 years, won. That’s great for corporate profits. And great for the 10% who own 90% of stocks.
It’s horrible tax policy and detrimental to the majority of Americans but it absolutely should make stocks increase.
With hindsight 2008 Obama/McCain and 1992 Clinton/HW were the only two presidential campaigns in living memory with decent candidates on both sides.
(Depending on your opinions of Dukakis and whether or not 1988 was in your living memory I suppose)
I don’t think anyone would notice on the cloverloop.
Non-politicized decisions are wacky, the Sackler decision had Gorsuch and Jackson in the majority and Kavanaugh and Sotomayor in the minority.
“Coincidentally,” the abortion and gun rulings are all exactly the same 6-3 teams based on who appointed them.
It’s pretty much settled fact that this Supreme Court puts ideology over impartiality.
It’s a very progressive district, that’s how she got elected in the first place. This is not a surprise.
I bet my politics fit closer to the other guy, but I’d still vote for AOC between the two because she has a national influence and disproportionate power in the Caucus. If you’re actually voting to influence Congress towards helping your district in particular, AOC might get that done even if it’s secondary to her national political project. Some moderate guy in a safe D seat would absolutely never get anything for your district.
Dumb framing. They aren’t panicking, they’re framing the results so they can fit them to their narrative no matter what happens. Biden wins = he was on drugs, no way senile and incapable Biden could win otherwise. Biden loses = full proof he’s senile and incapable.
There’s no economic reason the nominal GDP of any country or the world in general has to continuously increase. The important metric is per capita production. As long as people get continuously more productive through innovation, standards of living will continue to increase.
At the national level, vying for long term economic power in the world, a higher and younger population is going to be a huge advantage very soon and countries should be trying to get as many immigrants in their borders as they can. But instead they are…going a different direction.
The actual reason why is that everyone was expecting Hillary to win and she had vowed to “end private prisons.”
So everyone was calculating in a 90% or whatever chance Hillary wins, with some percentage chance she actually fulfilled her promise. Instead they got a 100% chance they would stay around for 4 years and probably get a tax cut. Pretty big adjustment is appropriate.
(Also old 2016 articles about Hillary are so quaint. They even mention Obama closing Guantanamo lmao)