Inflation Scaremongering

ml1 said:

if it's not being reported by the media, how will people know what the Democrats are saying?

The President can command network air time. That leads to print stories and cable coverage of the address. That leads to…

jimmurphy said:

The President can command network air time. That leads to print stories and cable coverage of the address. That leads to…

for one news cycle. Then what?

The biggest problem the Democrats have is that there's an entire right wing ecosystem devoted to lying about their policies. From talk radio through social media, websites, Fox News, OANN, etc. There is no analog on the Democratic side. 

ml1 said:

jimmurphy said:

The President can command network air time. That leads to print stories and cable coverage of the address. That leads to…

for one news cycle. Then what?

The biggest problem the Democrats have is that there's an entire right wing ecosystem devoted to lying about their policies. From talk radio through social media, websites, Fox News, OANN, etc. There is no analog on the Democratic side. 

and then it gets both-sided through the "legitimate" media.

Then there's this. 

Beltway media's moronic coverage of Build Back Better is cheating the nation

Right around the time Harris had the launch codes, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi presided over passage in the House of Biden's $1.8 trillion Build Back Better agenda, easily the most significant domestic legislation since the New Deal. 

In hopes of getting the word out, she quickly convened a press conference and was understandably disappointed at how shallow, even moronic, some of the questions were from reporters. At least one of the handful of reporters asking questions appeared more interested in making his colleagues laugh than informing the American people, who have been through an insurrection and a pandemic.

drummerboy said:

and, btw, the article never mentions that this family is getting at least $300 a month (depending on number of children) in additional child tax credits, which would more than make up for the rise in inflation.

They never seem to mention that.

Not “$300 a month in additional child tax credits.” The $300 a month, from July to December, is early payment of half the total child tax credit, which increased $1,000 or $1,600 (depending on the child’s age). If you spread out the increase over 12 months, it’s an additional $83 or $133 per child per month in tax credits.

Now, maybe to spare a post or two: “Except, that $300 is still $300 the family wouldn’t have had to spend otherwise, so it’s fair to describe it as an additional $300 to erase the effects of inflation, even if it’s more than the increase in the child tax credit.” Sure — if, after criticizing a family’s bulk purchase of soda, you’re willing to give them a pass for not budgeting for the fact that their child tax credit payout after they file for taxes next year will be less than usual because of these early payments.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

and, btw, the article never mentions that this family is getting at least $300 a month (depending on number of children) in additional child tax credits, which would more than make up for the rise in inflation.

They never seem to mention that.

Not “$300 a month in additional child tax credits.” The $300 a month, from July to December, is early payment of half the total child tax credit, which increased $1,000 or $1,600 (depending on the child’s age). If you spread out the increase over 12 months, it’s an additional $83 or $133 per child per month in tax credits.

First of all, they are, in fact, getting $300/month right now, are they not? If you want to quibble about what additional means, go ahead. I simply meant that they are getting $300 a month in income/month, which is in addition to their regular income. Before July, they were not getting those monthly payments. Also, the payments were not monthly before, so they are getting immediate help now.

drummerboy said:

First of all, they are, in fact, getting $300/month right now, are they not?

See above.

Also, your description does not jibe with what uncle Brandon says.

Yes, it does.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

First of all, they are, in fact, getting $300/month right now, are they not?

See above.

Also, your description does not jibe with what uncle Brandon says.

Yes, it does.

I've edited my post for clarity and removed the Brandon reference. (before I saw your post)

Your objections, of course, are completely beside what my point is, which is that Biden has provided them with assistance to help them with inflation and it's being ignored, both by the Times and by voters.

But quibble if you must.

drummerboy said:

and then it gets both-sided through the "legitimate" media.

OK. White flag. 

Clearly there is no way for the Democrats to communicate their message or build support for their policies.

drummerboy said:

Your objections, of course, are completely beside what my point is, which is that Biden has provided them with assistance to help them with inflation and it's being ignored, both by the Times and by voters.

But quibble if you must.

I clarified the actual monthly increase in the tax credit and anticipated your reply with a “Sure.” I wouldn’t call it a “must,” but I did hope it would be informative.

jimmurphy said:

drummerboy said:

and then it gets both-sided through the "legitimate" media.

OK. White flag. 

Clearly there is no way for the Democrats to communicate their message or build support for their policies.

It's not that there's no way - it's that it's a continuous uphill battle. The right's b.s. gets amplified through the media, the left's, b.s. or not, gets diminished.

DaveSchmidt said:

Now, maybe to spare a post or two: “Except, that $300 is still $300 the family wouldn’t have had to spend otherwise, so it’s fair to describe it as an additional $300 to erase the effects of inflation, even if it’s more than the increase in the child tax credit.” Sure — if, after criticizing a family’s bulk purchase of soda, you’re willing to give them a pass for not budgeting for the fact that their child tax credit payout after they file for taxes next year will be less than usual because of these early payments.

your last sentence makes no sense in terms of a family's behavior in the face of immediate rising costs.

ETA: on second thought, it doesn't make any sense at all.

Another take -- any political movement with a general orientation of changing the status quo is going be de facto starting at a disadvantage.

drummerboy said:

your last sentence makes no sense in terms of a family's behavior in the face of immediate rising costs.

The answer is in: Yes, you’re willing to give them a pass.

Putting some of that $300/month aside makes sense if you’re not convinced that inflation will recede before the spring, when, say, the $4,000 credit you used to count on from your tax return for your two teenagers nets you only $3,000 on this return because you’ve already received the rest.

drummerboy said:

It's not that there's no way - it's that it's a continuous uphill battle. The right's b.s. gets amplified through the media, the left's, b.s. or not, gets diminished.

Oh, there’s a way!? 

How?

jimmurphy said:

OK. White flag. 

Clearly there is no way for the Democrats to communicate their message or build support for their policies.

I never said that. I'm just pointing out it's not as easy as Biden commanding the networks to cover an Oval Office address.

PVW said:

Another take -- any political movement with a general orientation of changing the status quo is going be de facto starting at a disadvantage.

this is correct. Which leads to another bias among big corporate news organizations -- status quo bias. 

It would be just as easy to report how much is proposed in BBB at a cost that's a very low % of GDP and a low % of the federal budget. And yet the story has mainly been about the big topline cost over a decade. 

I agree with PVW’s point as well.

I guess what is frustrating me about this thread and the NYT thread is that it just comes across as a bunch of whining.

We have the media that we have, bias and all. The prevailing viewpoint here is that nothing can be done. Seems like    the solution is to engage with that media differently. No?

I’ve made suggestions which you’ve shot down. Absent other suggestions, what’s the point of the whining?

Is it cathartic somehow?

ml1 said:

PVW said:

Another take -- any political movement with a general orientation of changing the status quo is going be de facto starting at a disadvantage.

this is correct. Which leads to another bias among big corporate news organizations -- status quo bias. 

It would be just as easy to report how much is proposed in BBB at a cost that's a very low % of GDP and a low % of the federal budget. And yet the story has mainly been about the big topline cost over a decade. 

I am shopping for a new car currently.  Rather than tell my spouse what the MSRP is of the new car, I am going to explain to spouse  that the new car represents 14.58% of our 2021 projected gross salaries (similar idea as using a percentage of US GDP, or US annual budget, to price/quantify/evaluate BBB).  Will my spouse be impressed with my new way of communicating pricing?  I am  willing to wager a nickel against spouse being impressed.

PS  I am aware US GDP is on the magnitude of a million times greater than our combined, projected 2021 salaries.  However, obfuscating projected BBB budget numbers with various percentages just does not seem honest to me.

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

PVW said:

Another take -- any political movement with a general orientation of changing the status quo is going be de facto starting at a disadvantage.

this is correct. Which leads to another bias among big corporate news organizations -- status quo bias. 

It would be just as easy to report how much is proposed in BBB at a cost that's a very low % of GDP and a low % of the federal budget. And yet the story has mainly been about the big topline cost over a decade. 

I am shopping for a new car currently.  Rather than tell my spouse what the MSRP is of the new car, I am going to explain to spouse  that the new car represents 14.58% of our 2021 projected gross salaries (similar idea as using a percentage of US GDP, or US annual budget, to price/quantify/evaluate BBB).  Will my spouse be impressed with my new way of communicating pricing?  I am  willing to wager a nickel against spouse being impressed.

PS  I am aware US GDP is on the magnitude of a million times greater than our combined, projected 2021 salaries.  However, obfuscating projected BBB budget numbers with various percentages just does not seem honest to me.

It is exactly the honest way to talk about it, because it's the only way to figure out if you can afford it or not.

sheesh

NYT or The Onion?

jimmurphy said:

I agree with PVW’s point as well.

I guess what is frustrating me about this thread and the NYT thread is that it just comes across as a bunch of whining.

We have the media that we have, bias and all. The prevailing viewpoint here is that nothing can be done. Seems like    the solution is to engage with that media differently. No?

I’ve made suggestions which you’ve shot down. Absent other suggestions, what’s the point of the whining?

Is it cathartic somehow?

how is it whining to legitimately criticize the media and its bad effects on the electorate?

And what suggestions have you made apart from Biden giving some more speeches?

Here's a suggestion. The Dems should be buying tons of air time, explaining their accomplishments and the radical nature of the Republican party. I've been saying that for years.

They can't rely on the media as the primary means to get their message across.

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

PVW said:

Another take -- any political movement with a general orientation of changing the status quo is going be de facto starting at a disadvantage.

this is correct. Which leads to another bias among big corporate news organizations -- status quo bias. 

It would be just as easy to report how much is proposed in BBB at a cost that's a very low % of GDP and a low % of the federal budget. And yet the story has mainly been about the big topline cost over a decade. 

I am shopping for a new car currently.  Rather than tell my spouse what the MSRP is of the new car, I am going to explain to spouse  that the new car represents 14.58% of our 2021 projected gross salaries (similar idea as using a percentage of US GDP, or US annual budget, to price/quantify/evaluate BBB).  Will my spouse be impressed with my new way of communicating pricing?  I am  willing to wager a nickel against spouse being impressed.

PS  I am aware US GDP is on the magnitude of a million times greater than our combined, projected 2021 salaries.  However, obfuscating projected BBB budget numbers with various percentages just does not seem honest to me.

you are using a lot of words to tell your spouse you can afford it. So a good idea in concept. Maybe he/she would appreciate less pompous verbosity though. 

jimmurphy said:

I agree with PVW’s point as well.

I guess what is frustrating me about this thread and the NYT thread is that it just comes across as a bunch of whining.

We have the media that we have, bias and all. The prevailing viewpoint here is that nothing can be done. Seems like    the solution is to engage with that media differently. No?

I’ve made suggestions which you’ve shot down. Absent other suggestions, what’s the point of the whining?

Is it cathartic somehow?

sometimes ridiculing and criticizing media outlets in social media has an effect. 

drummerboy said:

how is it whining to legitimately criticize the media and its bad effects on the electorate?

And what suggestions have you made apart from Biden giving some more speeches?

Here's a suggestion. The Dems should be buying tons of air time, explaining their accomplishments and the radical nature of the Republican party. I've been saying that for years.

They can't rely on the media as the primary means to get their message across.

That... seems a lot like Smedly's earlier argument that Biden needs to be doing more selling of BBB, no?

PVW said:

That... seems a lot like Smedly's earlier argument that Biden needs to be doing more selling of BBB, no?

Exactly.

PVW said:

drummerboy said:

how is it whining to legitimately criticize the media and its bad effects on the electorate?

And what suggestions have you made apart from Biden giving some more speeches?

Here's a suggestion. The Dems should be buying tons of air time, explaining their accomplishments and the radical nature of the Republican party. I've been saying that for years.

They can't rely on the media as the primary means to get their message across.

That... seems a lot like Smedly's earlier argument that Biden needs to be doing more selling of BBB, no?

I don't think Smedley or jim were talking about ad buys, were they? They were talking about Biden selling it personally through speeches, which then has to be filtered through the media before the people hear about it.

And I can pretty much guarantee that the media would paint a concerted effort by Biden as an act of desperation to "save his failing agenda".

Anyway, it's a lot more than just about selling BBB.

So, no - it's not like Smedley's earlier argument.

meanwhile, here's Vox. Usually fairly reliable, but here they're comparing prices to the pandemic year, when travel demand was at unnaturally low levels. What would a chart that went back to 2019 look like?

drummerboy said:

meanwhile, here's Vox. Usually fairly reliable, but here they're comparing prices to the pandemic year, when travel demand was at unnaturally low levels. What would a chart that went back to 2019 look like?

Looks like Vox took a AAA news release from two weeks earlier and created the charts. So AAA did the comparing, and Vox repackaged it graphically for a holiday-week tweet. Your mileage from tweets may vary.

Gas prices are up 31% from Thanksgiving 2019 ($2.59).