Kamala Harris for President

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a $10 bottle of salad dressing that was $5 less than a year ago.

Now what? What will a Harris administration do to fix that?

What will Trump do? She's going after price gouging. Can't do anything about the past -- which, as you know, affected every other country as well and with a worse recovery than the U.S.

"She's going after..."

What does that even mean?

Supporting the House and Senate to pass anti-price-gouging bills.

The Dems offered one up post COVID and the GOP voted it down.

So, try again but this time, hopefully with a majority in both the House and Senate.

Uh, it's a product or service. Purchase it or don't.

There's no such thing as price gouging. No one is forcing you to buy anything.

This is really f'n basic stuff.

So when COVID happens and the same milk or egg price triples, there is nothing that should be done about it?

Y'all been complaining about "inflation" for 3 years. The inflation passed, this is price gouging the consumer.

Nope. Nothing can be done.

If you tell me I have to sell X for $Y, I'll walk away and sell somewhere else. You'll create black markets and shortages.

Uh no. That's only if there are supply constraints. If you're a monopoly, then you can dictate the price and create excess profits. Those monopolies can be broken up or regulated. You can also tax excess profits. That won't create shortages and will be hard to create black markets.

Uh no. I've have the subject matter expertise to produce and distribute the product. I'll just put it on a boat and move it overseas OR offshore altogether. Half of the companies you are talking about are not monopolies and the other half aren't even in the U.S.

Don't know why you suddenly went to "monopolies". Was that easy thinking for you?

You are going to offshore milking cows or chicken-laying-eggs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People saying stuff like there is no such thing as price gouging refuse to believe that anyone could use their property rights and an urgent need to leverage profits well in excess of anything resembling reasonable compensation for the labor, cost, innovation, and risk the owner undertook to create the product.

They'll say government has no business regulating the transactions while completely ignoring government's role in creating the property right in the first place - never mind the extensive government infrastructure in place to protect and enforce property rights.

There is no "reasonable". There's supply and demand. If I don't sell enough, I lower the price. If too many people want the product, I raise it.

Again, the prices are already subsidized by the government. if the producers are going to use those subsidies to further rip-off the American consumer and then have republicans turn around and call it "inflation" should make us all totally rethink the relationship between the federal government and the farmers and food producers in this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Empty words. "Targeting price gouging".

Solicits an emotional response.

She won't do anything. The bottle of salad dressing will remain $10 until sales go down. She can't do anything.

Yes, she can, in concert with the House and Senate. Remember Schoolhouse Rock and "I'm just a bill?"

The House and the Senate are not going to pass such ridiculous legislation.

Why not? If companies are ripping off consumers to excess profit and the GOP calls that "inflation" then why shouldn't there be more regulation around it to help protect American consumers?

If you don't want to be regulated, then don't take the subsidies. If you take subsidies, then expect to be regulated. Agri-business can decide which they want, but they shouldn't get both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Empty words. "Targeting price gouging".

Solicits an emotional response.

She won't do anything. The bottle of salad dressing will remain $10 until sales go down. She can't do anything.

Yes, she can, in concert with the House and Senate. Remember Schoolhouse Rock and "I'm just a bill?"

The House and the Senate are not going to pass such ridiculous legislation.

Why not? If companies are ripping off consumers to excess profit and the GOP calls that "inflation" then why shouldn't there be more regulation around it to help protect American consumers?

If you don't want to be regulated, then don't take the subsidies. If you take subsidies, then expect to be regulated. Agri-business can decide which they want, but they shouldn't get both.

Precisely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a $10 bottle of salad dressing that was $5 less than a year ago.

Now what? What will a Harris administration do to fix that?

What will Trump do? She's going after price gouging. Can't do anything about the past -- which, as you know, affected every other country as well and with a worse recovery than the U.S.

"She's going after..."

What does that even mean?

Supporting the House and Senate to pass anti-price-gouging bills.

The Dems offered one up post COVID and the GOP voted it down.

So, try again but this time, hopefully with a majority in both the House and Senate.

Uh, it's a product or service. Purchase it or don't.

There's no such thing as price gouging. No one is forcing you to buy anything.

This is really f'n basic stuff.

So when COVID happens and the same milk or egg price triples, there is nothing that should be done about it?

Y'all been complaining about "inflation" for 3 years. The inflation passed, this is price gouging the consumer.

Nope. Nothing can be done.

If you tell me I have to sell X for $Y, I'll walk away and sell somewhere else. You'll create black markets and shortages.

Eggs and milk receive government subsidies. To turn around and triple prices "because you can" is a total rip-off to the American consumer. Same with the subsidies agribusiness and oil receive. Maybe we should just remove all the subsidies then?

By all means, remove all the subsidies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a $10 bottle of salad dressing that was $5 less than a year ago.

Now what? What will a Harris administration do to fix that?

What will Trump do? She's going after price gouging. Can't do anything about the past -- which, as you know, affected every other country as well and with a worse recovery than the U.S.

"She's going after..."

What does that even mean?

Supporting the House and Senate to pass anti-price-gouging bills.

The Dems offered one up post COVID and the GOP voted it down.

So, try again but this time, hopefully with a majority in both the House and Senate.

Uh, it's a product or service. Purchase it or don't.

There's no such thing as price gouging. No one is forcing you to buy anything.

This is really f'n basic stuff.

So when COVID happens and the same milk or egg price triples, there is nothing that should be done about it?

Y'all been complaining about "inflation" for 3 years. The inflation passed, this is price gouging the consumer.

Nope. Nothing can be done.

If you tell me I have to sell X for $Y, I'll walk away and sell somewhere else. You'll create black markets and shortages.

Uh no. That's only if there are supply constraints. If you're a monopoly, then you can dictate the price and create excess profits. Those monopolies can be broken up or regulated. You can also tax excess profits. That won't create shortages and will be hard to create black markets.

Uh no. I've have the subject matter expertise to produce and distribute the product. I'll just put it on a boat and move it overseas OR offshore altogether. Half of the companies you are talking about are not monopolies and the other half aren't even in the U.S.

Don't know why you suddenly went to "monopolies". Was that easy thinking for you?

You are going to offshore milking cows or chicken-laying-eggs?

No, they just won't be available anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Empty words. "Targeting price gouging".

Solicits an emotional response.

She won't do anything. The bottle of salad dressing will remain $10 until sales go down. She can't do anything.

Yes, she can, in concert with the House and Senate. Remember Schoolhouse Rock and "I'm just a bill?"

The House and the Senate are not going to pass such ridiculous legislation.

Why not? If companies are ripping off consumers to excess profit and the GOP calls that "inflation" then why shouldn't there be more regulation around it to help protect American consumers?

If you don't want to be regulated, then don't take the subsidies. If you take subsidies, then expect to be regulated. Agri-business can decide which they want, but they shouldn't get both.

The problem is not price gouging. That is a red herring by the Democrats to deflect from the fact that is was the policies of the Biden/Harris administration that caused the inflation - namely, out of control spending, over regulation, and higher fuel prices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Empty words. "Targeting price gouging".

Solicits an emotional response.

She won't do anything. The bottle of salad dressing will remain $10 until sales go down. She can't do anything.

Yes, she can, in concert with the House and Senate. Remember Schoolhouse Rock and "I'm just a bill?"

The House and the Senate are not going to pass such ridiculous legislation.

Why not? If companies are ripping off consumers to excess profit and the GOP calls that "inflation" then why shouldn't there be more regulation around it to help protect American consumers?

If you don't want to be regulated, then don't take the subsidies. If you take subsidies, then expect to be regulated. Agri-business can decide which they want, but they shouldn't get both.

Ripping off? You aren't being ripped off. Don't like it, don't buy it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a $10 bottle of salad dressing that was $5 less than a year ago.

Now what? What will a Harris administration do to fix that?

What will Trump do? She's going after price gouging. Can't do anything about the past -- which, as you know, affected every other country as well and with a worse recovery than the U.S.

"She's going after..."

What does that even mean?

Supporting the House and Senate to pass anti-price-gouging bills.

The Dems offered one up post COVID and the GOP voted it down.

So, try again but this time, hopefully with a majority in both the House and Senate.

Uh, it's a product or service. Purchase it or don't.

There's no such thing as price gouging. No one is forcing you to buy anything.

This is really f'n basic stuff.

So when COVID happens and the same milk or egg price triples, there is nothing that should be done about it?

Y'all been complaining about "inflation" for 3 years. The inflation passed, this is price gouging the consumer.

Nope. Nothing can be done.

If you tell me I have to sell X for $Y, I'll walk away and sell somewhere else. You'll create black markets and shortages.

Eggs and milk receive government subsidies. To turn around and triple prices "because you can" is a total rip-off to the American consumer. Same with the subsidies agribusiness and oil receive. Maybe we should just remove all the subsidies then?

By all means, remove all the subsidies.

Good luck fighting with the red state farmers on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Empty words. "Targeting price gouging".

Solicits an emotional response.

She won't do anything. The bottle of salad dressing will remain $10 until sales go down. She can't do anything.

Yes, she can, in concert with the House and Senate. Remember Schoolhouse Rock and "I'm just a bill?"

The House and the Senate are not going to pass such ridiculous legislation.

Why not? If companies are ripping off consumers to excess profit and the GOP calls that "inflation" then why shouldn't there be more regulation around it to help protect American consumers?

If you don't want to be regulated, then don't take the subsidies. If you take subsidies, then expect to be regulated. Agri-business can decide which they want, but they shouldn't get both.

The problem is not price gouging. That is a red herring by the Democrats to deflect from the fact that is was the policies of the Biden/Harris administration that caused the inflation - namely, out of control spending, over regulation, and higher fuel prices.

Then please explain why inflation was worse everywhere else around the world? Did Biden pass legislation in other countries as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Empty words. "Targeting price gouging".

Solicits an emotional response.

She won't do anything. The bottle of salad dressing will remain $10 until sales go down. She can't do anything.

Yes, she can, in concert with the House and Senate. Remember Schoolhouse Rock and "I'm just a bill?"

The House and the Senate are not going to pass such ridiculous legislation.

Why not? If companies are ripping off consumers to excess profit and the GOP calls that "inflation" then why shouldn't there be more regulation around it to help protect American consumers?

If you don't want to be regulated, then don't take the subsidies. If you take subsidies, then expect to be regulated. Agri-business can decide which they want, but they shouldn't get both.

Ripping off? You aren't being ripped off. Don't like it, don't buy it.

Things like milk and eggs are sort of a necessity that are subsidied by the US government. Pop-tarts? Sure, I can make a decision on that if I need to.

[Anonymous]

Daily reminder that nothing will improve if Kamala Harris is elected president. In fact, things will get worse due to her general incompetence, and on top of it, we'll all have to spend years listening to her moronic statements. Vote with your brain. Not for the "vibes."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Daily reminder that nothing will improve if Kamala Harris is elected president. In fact, things will get worse due to her general incompetence, and on top of it, we'll all have to spend years listening to her moronic statements. Vote with your brain. Not for the "vibes."

Actually, Trump plans to raise more tariffs, change the tax code to a VAT system and export the cheap labor that exists in our country, all of which will make things more expensive for lower and middle income people. Higher income people can afford to absorb those changes.

Also, we are seeing inflation in check, consumer confidence rising and our economy poised to roll on all cylinders once interest rate cuts take effect. if you are going to blame Harris, then you have to give credit for the state of things currently on the economic front.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Empty words. "Targeting price gouging".

Solicits an emotional response.

She won't do anything. The bottle of salad dressing will remain $10 until sales go down. She can't do anything.

Yes, she can, in concert with the House and Senate. Remember Schoolhouse Rock and "I'm just a bill?"

The House and the Senate are not going to pass such ridiculous legislation.

Why not? If companies are ripping off consumers to excess profit and the GOP calls that "inflation" then why shouldn't there be more regulation around it to help protect American consumers?

If you don't want to be regulated, then don't take the subsidies. If you take subsidies, then expect to be regulated. Agri-business can decide which they want, but they shouldn't get both.

The problem is not price gouging. That is a red herring by the Democrats to deflect from the fact that is was the policies of the Biden/Harris administration that caused the inflation - namely, out of control spending, over regulation, and higher fuel prices.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a $10 bottle of salad dressing that was $5 less than a year ago.

Now what? What will a Harris administration do to fix that?

What will Trump do? She's going after price gouging. Can't do anything about the past -- which, as you know, affected every other country as well and with a worse recovery than the U.S.

"She's going after..."

What does that even mean?

Supporting the House and Senate to pass anti-price-gouging bills.

The Dems offered one up post COVID and the GOP voted it down.

So, try again but this time, hopefully with a majority in both the House and Senate.

Uh, it's a product or service. Purchase it or don't.

There's no such thing as price gouging. No one is forcing you to buy anything.

This is really f'n basic stuff.

So when COVID happens and the same milk or egg price triples, there is nothing that should be done about it?

Y'all been complaining about "inflation" for 3 years. The inflation passed, this is price gouging the consumer.

Nope. Nothing can be done.

If you tell me I have to sell X for $Y, I'll walk away and sell somewhere else. You'll create black markets and shortages.

Eggs and milk receive government subsidies. To turn around and triple prices "because you can" is a total rip-off to the American consumer. Same with the subsidies agribusiness and oil receive. Maybe we should just remove all the subsidies then?

Eggs do not receive direct subsidies. The federal government does buy agricultural food products including those used in nutrition programs. I'm not sure of the mechanics of the WIC program (which includes eggs) but at least some of it involves competitive bidding.

The USDA buys powdered milk, cheese and butter as well for the purpose of maintaining minimum price supports, but this does not stop dairy farmers from often discarding milk because of the low prices they get.

There are marketing boards for several kinds of farm products--beef, pork, eggs, milk are the ones I know of. This uses checkoff programs where a nominal tax is collected when commodities are sold--for beef it is $1 per head. These are established via producer referendums (i.e. sent to ag producers--there are a number of special census reports farmers complete reporting their production of everything from fruit to nuts with cheese and grain and hay and cattle and sheep and bees included).

185 crops are eligible to be covered under federal crop insurance, which is often required by farm lenders. This does not include animal products, just crops. The policies are sold by insurance agencies but supported by the feds. Claims can be denied based on whether the operator used good farming practices. This has been a problem for sustainable practices that use cover crops as the USDA has not caught up to those practices, which then limits access to not just insurance but lending for those farmers.

Egg prices reflect multiple factors but the biggest is avian flu, which also affects poultry in general. High egg prices have nothing to do with federal subsidies.