This election is no longer about choice.
Choice has left the building.
A choice is whether you feel like eating Chinese food or Italian, whether to watch a comedy on Netflix or a documentary on Prime.
Those are choices.
When the choice for President of the United States is between
Smart or idiocy,
Compassion vs selfishness,
Competency vs ineptitude,
Fascism or democracy,
Dictator over the constitution.
You can no longer call it a choice.
It is a moral obligation.
Choice is not on the ballot.
The Washington Post has refused to make a choice and endorse a candidate. For this storied newspaper to refuse to endorse a candidate because it fears retribution from Trump is an enormous flashing red light that the country is on the brink of fascism. They refuse to choose when the choice is so obvious.
The only choice you have is the choice to vote.
Kamala Harris is the only choice when the choice is good vs evil.
Envisioning The American Dream 
Post subscribers should vote with cancellation notices. This is high cowardice. Then, vote Harris/Walz so that we can get our lives back.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many, many have cancelled their subscriptions in protest in very short order.Editor at large Robert Kagan also resigned in response to the decision.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks. That there is still such a neck and neck race is simply mind boggling.
LikeLike
Kamala Harris has articulated some policy proposals for her economic approach, though many details remain vague. Her campaign emphasizes expanding tax credits, including the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and extending Affordable Care Act premium subsidies to assist low- and middle-income households. She also supports down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers and increasing the corporate tax rate to 28%. However, analysts project that these measures will increase deficits over time, potentially affecting long-term economic growth by reducing investment and labor participation.
Trump’s economic policies before COVID focused on tax cuts, deregulation, and tariffs, which contributed to historically low unemployment rates, particularly for African-American and Hispanic communities. His opposition to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) stemmed from a preference for market-based health solutions, arguing that federal healthcare mandates interfere with personal choice and inflate costs. Instead of universal healthcare, Trump promoted alternatives such as association health plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). These initiatives aimed to reduce government involvement while encouraging competition among private insurers.
Harris’s economic approach focuses on targeted relief for low- and middle-income households through expanded tax credits, healthcare subsidies, and first-time homebuyer assistance. By raising corporate taxes, her plan aims to partially offset increased social spending. This strategy seeks to promote long-term stability through consumer demand and equitable growth, despite higher public debt risks.
In contrast, Trump’s plan centers on tax cuts and deregulation, which drove pre-COVID employment but relied heavily on deficit expansion and tariffs. His opposition to universal healthcare may limit access for lower-income families, reducing economic resilience during downturns.
Harris’s economic policy aligns with Federal Reserve practices by supporting fiat currency, even as BRICS challenges the U.S. dollar’s global dominance. Her strategy would likely involve stabilizing markets through expanded social programs, tax reform, and continued reliance on federal monetary tools.
Trump, by contrast, has criticized the Federal Reserve in the past, suggesting that he might favor radical changes, such as curtailing or even dismantling it. Reviving a 19th-century free-banking model, as seen under President Andrew Jackson, could align with Trump’s anti-centralization ethos. However, such a shift would carry risks, including financial instability.
A return to free-banking—without a central authority like the Federal Reserve—carries several risks beyond boom-bust cycles. These include:
Bank Failures and Runs: Without a lender of last resort, banks would struggle to survive liquidity crises, potentially triggering widespread panics.
Currency Fragmentation: Banks might issue their own notes, causing inconsistencies in value and trust, disrupting commerce.
Unstable Credit Supply: Fluctuations in bank lending could create extreme volatility, complicating long-term investments and economic planning.
Limited Response to Crises: In the absence of central monetary tools, the government would struggle to manage inflation, recessions, or currency attacks.
This model sacrifices predictability and oversight in favor of decentralized freedom.
The Federal Reserve’s reduction of the money supply mirrors the post-Civil War era, when Congress cut greenbacks by 25%, concentrating wealth in the hands of industrial monopolists. Similarly, after the 1929 Wall Street crash, the Fed reduced currency circulation, deepening the Great Depression. During the New Deal, FDR’s agricultural policies resembled Stalin’s collectivization, consolidating small farms into government-supported agricultural monopolies that still dominate today. This history highlights how monetary contraction and centralized farming policies have repeatedly favored elite interests at the expense of smaller producers and broader economic stability.
Trusting the Federal Reserve under Kamala Harris raises legitimate concerns given parallels to FDR’s centralized economic interventions. Both administrations lean toward government-led redistribution and state control, potentially expanding federal influence over the economy. The Fed’s past actions—constricting currency during crises—show how it can exacerbate inequality, favoring large financial institutions. If Harris follows a similar path, the risk exists that wealth concentration and corporate monopolies could increase, all under the guise of stabilizing the economy and combating inflation, mirroring patterns seen under FDR’s New Deal policies.
Voting for Harris might appeal to those who prioritize social equity, expanded healthcare access, and environmental sustainability over a return to gold-backed currency or a Congress-controlled monetary policy. Supporters may view her as a candidate focused on addressing income inequality and promoting a stable economy through targeted relief programs. They could argue that her approach fosters resilience in the face of global currency shifts, while Trump’s potential return to a gold standard could lead to economic uncertainty and reduced flexibility in monetary policy.
Voting for Trump in the 2024 election could appeal to those who appreciate his record of economic growth prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, including low unemployment rates and stock market gains. Supporters may view his tax cuts and deregulation efforts as beneficial for businesses and individuals alike. They might also prefer his more nationalistic approach to trade and immigration, believing it strengthens American interests. Additionally, his potential shift toward a gold-based currency could resonate with those favoring fiscal conservatism and limiting federal influence over monetary policy.
The choice between Harris’s and Trump’s economic policies involves weighing immediate relief and long-term stability against growth and deregulation. Each candidate’s approach carries unique risks and benefits, shaping the future economic landscape in distinct ways.
Both Harris and Trump present distinct economic visions for the 2024 election. Harris focuses on targeted relief and social investment, aiming for equitable growth and increased consumer demand, despite potential short-term deficits. Her approach aligns with Keynesian principles advocating for government intervention. In contrast, Trump’s policies emphasize tax cuts and deregulation, fostering pre-COVID employment growth but risking financial instability and wealth gaps. Voters will need to evaluate their priorities—whether they lean toward social equity and access (Harris) or business-friendly policies and fiscal conservatism (Trump).
To compare the economic policies of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, several key factors emerge:
Equity and Inclusion: Harris aims to reduce income inequality through targeted investments in marginalized communities, while Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation tend to favor wealthier individuals and corporations.
Sustainability: Harris promotes green technology and renewable energy investments, whereas Trump’s focus on fossil fuels may lead to short-term gains but potentially harm long-term sustainability.
Healthcare Access: Harris supports expanding healthcare access, enhancing public health, while Trump’s market-driven approach may limit coverage for lower-income families.
Infrastructure Investment: Harris proposes significant infrastructure investments for job creation, while Trump’s past plans lacked clarity and funding.
Trade Relations: Harris likely favors multilateral agreements, contrasting with Trump’s unilateral tariffs that could disrupt supply chains.
If Trump prioritized a shift to the gold standard, Israel might consider it, especially if it aligns with their economic interests and enhances their strategic autonomy. Historically, Israel has maintained a pragmatic approach to economic policy, often adapting to external pressures. However, such a significant monetary policy change would depend on various factors, including domestic economic stability, international relations, and the potential implications for trade and investment. The alignment with Trump’s vision could influence Israel’s decision, but it would require careful consideration of its broader economic implications.
This analysis highlights key differences in foreign policy between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, reflecting their broader political philosophies. Harris’s commitment to NATO and global alliances emphasizes multilateralism and collective security, appealing to voters prioritizing international cooperation. In contrast, Trump’s “America First” stance advocates for unilateralism and a strong U.S.-Israel relationship, resonating with those who value national sovereignty over global commitments. These differences illustrate the ideological and racial divides in American politics, influencing voter preferences and perceptions of national identity.
The choice between Harris and Trump represents a fundamental difference in economic philosophy. Harris advocates for a more interventionist approach aimed at reducing inequality and promoting social welfare, while Trump favors a more laissez-faire approach focused on stimulating business growth. Both approaches carry inherent risks and benefits that voters must weigh based on their priorities. The potential consequences of Trump’s proposed changes to the monetary system are particularly significant and warrant careful consideration.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello from the UK.
I am not a US citizen and cannot vote in the presidential election. I would have some sympathy for voters who thought both candidates were bad.
However to portray Trump as the Devil is ridiculous, especially as Kamala Devi Harris, her full name has the word ‘Devil’ as an anagram! Trump may be many things but he doesn’t have that in his full name.
In any event Kamala Harris had 4 years as vice president to improve things which she failed to do. Even I can see that she is an airhead, a puppet no more competant than Joe Biden with his dementia which was evident in 2020.
Kind regards
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps if you were a citizens here, you would know the vice president is not in charge of policy. Biden has given us is a strongest economy in generations with the lowest unemployment rate. And the name Devi is a sanskrit word that means “goddess”
LikeLike
Joe Biden was never in charge of anything. It is the bankers who run the USA and the big corporations. We have a similar issue in the UK.
I know that Devi means “Goddess” as I did my research on Kamala, However, ‘godless’ would be more suitable for her, but I did say that ‘Devil’ is an anagram. So in fact is ‘airhead’.
Under Joe Biden there was a huge transfer of wealth to those already insanely wealthy. We had the same issue in the UK. This process has been ongoing for many years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you believe the bankers and corporations run the USA, which in many ways they always have, may I ask why you think things would be any different under Trump?
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is a fair question, Sally. I will have to set the scene to explain my position; there is a lot to unpack and it is not a simple answer. As regards bankers and corporations perhaps it will be more of the same under Trump.
However, in this internet age where people have incredible access to information, both good and bad, the wise are putting two and two together and realising how everything is being centralised, and not for the common good.
The power of the bankers and corporations exist much because we have allowed them to have it and buy their services and goods without discretion as to long term consequences. This needs to change and it is in our hands.
My main concern is with the Democratic Party which, despite being generally for gun control, is still pro-war. The Ukraine is a case in point where peace should have been possible years ago, yet that poor country and its people have been torn apart by the conflict. Trump has said he would resolve this and I believe he would.
All the Democrats under Biden have done is feed billions of dollars for the war industry which ultimately much of which will come back to feed the USA arms manufacturers. There are 5 of the top 10 arms manufacturers in the USA.
I believe the Democratic Party was originally anti-war but this is clearly now not the case
And whilst there is stupidity and corruption in the Republican Party too, it has manifested itself to excess in the Dems during COVID 19.
I was slow to get a full handle on what was going on but by June 2020 I had understood the basics. In essence in 2020 the ‘flu was rebranded as COVID 19 which is why the ‘flu almost disappeared to be replaced with COVID 19 in the statistics.
This is a standard practice in business to rebrand and big pharma is no different. This is a way to boost flagging sales and profit.
However, in 2020 it went far in excess of anything I have ever seen in my lifetime (I am now 64 years old) with the largely harmful lockdowns, pointless if not toxic testing, ridiculous and psychologically harmful mask wearing, etc.
All of these things the Democratic Party bought into with enthusiasm compared with mainly ambivalence from the Republicans. Once Joe Biden was installed as President in 2021 the Democrats ramped up the assault on common sense, against which many Republicans pushed back.
Then of course there is the barbed question of the vaccines. I used to think vaccines were of some use, just not for the ‘flu as people fell ill anyway so what was the point. Indeed my wife of 31 years now said she had a ‘flu vaccine in 1989 and was promptly very ill for 3 days.
However, in 2020 when I had the time to look at it properly I realised that I and a great many others had been fooled by the vaccine propaganda and that vaccines cannot work to provide a benefit to future health.
They do create an immune response, a euphemism for poisoning event, albeit hopefully mild. But that is all they can do, it is mere fairy tale thinking that they can ‘train’ the body to recognise a specific disease.
I was appalled to find that the USA has a huge vaccine schedule for children, far more than the UK and yet health outcomes in the USA are so poor. There are other issues, toxic food and water for example, but injecting toxic substances into the body bypasses the defensive skin barrier and is dangerous.
Anyway, the Democratic Party under Joe Biden and his team including Kamala Harris have been pushing the vaccines and mandates etc. They are in effect pushing for people to be poisoned.
What grieves me is that people have denigrated Robert F. Kennedy, once a Democrat, for his exposure the gross crime of vaccination. I am aware he has done good work over environmental concerns over many years, so to have attacked him is dreadful.
He seems committed to work with Donald Trump and I believe therefore that at least some of the gross evils committed against the US citizens can be dealt with.
If the minds and bodies of those in the USA can be freed from the poisonous tyranny of big pharma then I hope for unity of common sense and love of ones neighbour to increase once more.
LikeLike