Update: Vice President Kamala Harris is now the Democratic presidential nominee
- Thread starter DC_Dude
- Start date
We don't but Charlamagne has been nothing but consistent. His and Nick Wrights rise has me even more puzzled than the rise of Trump. Thing about it is, both of them just throw stuff against the wall and occasionally will say something correct.They are not as bad as Emanuel Acho with the majority of their guests looking at them like
Yep, even some of his supporters on those grand juries can’t bail him out
She will and I think this will be to have the country get to know not only her, but Walz as well. I do like that she's going to dictate the narrative and not let the media do it.
That's her key to winning. I expect lower black male numbers by st least 15 percent
The caption 
Last edited:
The link to the study is attached too.
If a BGOL MaGA member says Penn Wharton is inaccurate, then your mom should have just aborted you
Guide to the 2024 Presidential Candidates’ Policy Proposals — Penn Wharton Budget Model
In preparation for the 2024 presidential election, Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM) has compiled a brief guide to our analyses of the candidates’ policy proposals. These analyses project the policy proposals’ fiscal, distributional, and economic effects. These analyses only include proposals that ar
budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu
Vice President Kamala Harris
- Harris Campaign Policy Proposals:PWBM estimates that the Harris Campaign tax and spending proposals would increase primary deficits by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years on a conventional basis and by $2.0 trillion on a dynamic basis that includes a reduction in economic activity. Lower and middle-income households generally benefit from increased transfers and credits on a conventional basis, while higher-income households are worse off.
- We project that spending increases by $2.3 trillion over 10 years while conventional tax revenue increases by $1.1 trillion, for a difference in primary deficits of $1.2 trillion. Accounting for negative economic feedback effects, primary deficits increase to $2 trillion.
- Relative to current law, GDP falls by 1.3 percent by 2034 and by 4 percent within 30 years (year 2054). Capital investment and working hours fall, thereby reducing wages by 0.8 percent in 2034 and by 3.3 percent in 2054.
- Low- and middle-income households in 2026 and 2034 fare better under the campaign proposals on a conventional basis, while households in the top 5 percent of the income distribution fare worse. These conventional gains and losses do not include the negative impact of the additional debt burden on future generations who must finance most of the spending increases.
For more information:
The 2024 Harris Campaign Policy Proposals: Budgetary, Economic and Distributional Effects
- President Biden’s FY 2025 Budget:PWBM analyzes the main fiscal policy plan advanced by President Biden, as outlined in his FY 2025 budget. We estimate that President Biden’s FY 2025 budget proposal would reduce primary deficits by $1.7 trillion over the 2025-2034 budget window. Accounting for economic feedback effects, GDP falls by 0.8 percent relative to current law by 2034. By 2054, debt falls by 5.4 percent and GDP declines by 1.3 percent relative to current law. On a dynamic basis, President Biden’s plan would redistribute resources from high-income earners to lower income earners. For example, we estimate that a 40-year-old in the bottom income quintile would gain the equivalent of a $36,400 one-time lifetime transfer under the President’s proposed budget. We compare these dynamic redistribution calculations to our own estimates of conventional distributional analysis, using metrics commonly reported by scoring agencies. Conventional distributional analysis fails to account for the age of the taxpayer and other important economic effects. Once these factors are accounted for, our dynamic distributional estimates show that much of the proposal’s progressivity, as indicated by conventional distributional analysis, is mitigated.
For more information:
President Biden’s FY2025 Budget Proposal: Budgetary and Economic Effects
Former President Donald Trump
- Trump Campaign Policy Proposals:PWBM estimates that the Trump Campaign tax and spending proposals would increase primary deficits by $5.8 trillion over the next 10 years on a conventional basis and by $4.1 trillion on a dynamic basis that includes economic feedback effects. Households across all income groups benefit on a conventional basis.
- We project that conventionally estimated tax revenue falls by $5.8 trillion over the next 10 years, producing an equivalent amount of primary deficits. Accounting for economic feedback effects, primary deficits increase by $4.1 trillion over the same period.
- While GDP increases during part of the first decade (2025 – 2034), GDP eventually falls relative to current law, falling by 0.4 percent in 2034 and by 2.1 percent in 30 years (year 2054). After initially increasing, capital investment and working hours eventually fall, leaving average wages unchanged in 2034 and lower by 1.7 percent in 2054.
- Low, middle, and high-income households in 2026 and 2034 all fare better under the campaign proposals on a conventional basis. These conventional gains and losses do not include the additional debt burden on future generations who must finance almost the entirety of the tax decreases.
For more information:
The 2024 Trump Campaign Policy Proposals: Budgetary, Economic and Distributional Effects
- Extending President Trump’s Tax Policy and Jobs Act: PWBM analyzes the main fiscal policy plan advanced by former President Trump of permanently extending the expiring provisions in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. We estimate that permanently extending the TCJA would cost $4 trillion over the first decade. About $3.4 trillion of revenue loss comes from a reduction in individual tax payments, with the remainder, $600 billion, coming from a reduction in corporate taxes paid. Including economic feedback effects, GDP remains mostly flat as the negative impact of more federal debt mitigates the positive gains from reduced tax distortions. Extending the TCJA is less regressive than indicated by conventional distributional analysis. It would mostly redistribute resources from future generations to those currently alive. For example, while the extension would produce the equivalent of a one-time lifetime gain of $13,400 for a 20-year-old in the bottom income quintile, the same type of household born 30 years later would be $21,800 worse off, with even larger losses accumulating for future generations.
For more information:
The Budgetary and Economic Effects of permanently extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts’ expiring provisions
Other Relevant Analyses
- Policy Options for Reducing the Federal Debt: Spring, 2024: As shown in the analysis above, none of the major presidential candidates are proposing policies that would materially reduce federal budget deficits while growing the economy. In this brief, we analyze the budgetary and economic effects of three very different illustrative policy bundles that reduce federal budget deficits over time without shrinking the economy relative to current law with rising debt. The results also demonstrate how federal debt, as reported by the U.S. Treasury, falls short of measuring the true fiscal burden being shifted to future generations.
For more information:
Policy Options for Reducing the Federal Debt: Spring, 2024 - Immigration: The budgetary impact of removing 1 million immigrants from the U.S. economy over the next decade depends on the skill distribution of the immigrant reduction. Assuming the policy is phased-in over the first decade, PWBM estimates a federal budgetary loss of $40 - $50 billion over 10 years and $350 billion over two decades. These numbers will nearly double if the policy focuses more on higher-skill workers.
Research shows that the economic impact of reducing the immigration population depends on the skill composition of the affected immigrants. Reducing the high-skill immigrant population would reduce wages for the remaining U.S. population due to a reduction in skill complementarities and technological innovation generated by the immigrant population. Even a reduction of immigrants across a broader skill base would tend to reduce U.S. wages due to underlying skill complementarities that outweigh skill substitution. However, low-skill workers who previously immigrated and remain in the U.S. would likely see a modest but temporary increase in their wages. PWBM continues to update its immigration analysis and will provide more information as details emerge of specific policy proposals.
See the background brief here about the budgetary effects of increasing high-skill immigration, which explains the basic mechanisms of how immigration impacts the federal budget.
For more information:
Budgetary Effects of Granting Green Cards to Immigrants with Advanced STEM Degrees - Trade: The threat of trade tariffs is inherently a “game theory” problem that could lead to less or even more trade. PWBM previously estimated that the impact of an increase in tariffs and trade barriers on the federal budget and U.S. economy depends on how other countries respond to our actions. While this analysis was done several years ago, its insights remain largely unchanged for today. For example, an all-out trade war would result in little additional federal revenue---much less than a simple static score would imply and potentially even a loss in revenue---but could reduce U.S. GDP by as much as 5 percent over the next two decades. At the same time, non-U.S. countries could respond to a threat of a trade war by reducing, rather than increasing, their own trade barriers to encourage the U.S. to not enact new barriers. In this case, U.S. GDP could increase by as much as 1.3 percent over the next two decades. If all trade barriers were completely removed by the U.S. and its trading partners, then U.S. GDP could increase by as much as 8 percent over the next two decades.
See related studies here:
The Economic Costs of a Trade War
The Trade War Trade-Off: Short Term Gains Then Long-Term Losses
Decline of Globalism: Capital Flows Update
10 Things Donald Trump didn’t do for Black people
OPINION: The former president deserves credit for the handful of policies he enacted to make Black America great again. Let us know when you find one.
Michael Harriot
OPINION: The former president deserves credit for the handful of policies he enacted to make Black America great again. Let us know when you find one.
Editor’s note: The following article is an op-ed, and the views expressed are the author’s own. Read more opinions on theGrio.
On Jan. 8, 2014, Barack Obama did something for Black people.
In 2012, Black students made up 16% of public school children but represented more than a third of children who were expelled, arrested or suspended from school. Black students were suspended and expelled at three times the rate of white students and were referred to law enforcement officers twice as often as their white counterparts.
To address these school discipline disparities, the Obama administration used a legal concept called “disparate impact.” According to the longstanding, court-approved interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a policy can be discriminatory if it negatively affects a legally protected group, even if the discrimination was unintentional. So on Jan. 8, 2014, the civil rights division of the Department of Education issued a “Dear Colleague” letterthreatening every public school district in America with disparate impact lawsuits “based on public reports of racial disparities in student discipline.”
It worked.
Just four years later, out-of-school suspension rates dropped dramatically. By the 2017-18 school year, nearly 52,000 fewer Black students received out-of-school suspensions and the number of Black students arrested at school dropped by more than 5,000 students. According to the Learning Policy Institute, between 2012 and 2018, “the Black-white suspension gap decreased among secondary students in 45 states and Washington, DC.” Decades of school discipline racial disparities also decreased for Hispanic and Native American students. In fact, during the entirety of the Obama administration, out-of-school suspension rates dropped for all students, regardless of race — something that had not happened since the DOE began collecting this data in 1973.
White people hated it.
Not only did conservatives call for Trump to rescind the Obama-era policy but to justify their position, they claimed Obama’s “Dear Colleague” was harmful to Black people. The Heritage Foundation (the think tank responsible for Project 2025) said Obama’s “illegal racial quotas” ignored Black children who were affected by “poverty, broken families and neighborhood crime.” The pro-white race scholars who redefined critical race theory for the Manhattan Institute alleged the rule hurt “predominantly minority schools with predominantly minority teachers.” The National Review begged Trump to rescind Obama’s policy because Black children need discipline to help mitigate “the devastating effects of single-parent homes.” So, despite the research, data and actual proof that showed Obama’s policy benefitted all children, on Dec. 21, 2018, Trump’s Federal Commission on School Safety reversed Obama’s Dear Colleague letter …
For Black people.
When Trump says he did “more for the Black population than any president since Abraham Lincoln,” these are the examples he cites. While there are numerous articles dissecting Trump’s racism, xenophobia and hate for anyone who’s not a straight white Christian, his claims about what he did for Black Americans are rarely challenged. Because of this, many of the people who believe “Obama didn’t do anything for Black people” are willing to believe that Trump gave them stimulus checks, hooked them up with a “Black job” and got their uncle out of jail.
He didn’t.
Recommended Stories
To set the record straight, we decided to examine 10 of Trump’s biggest pro-Black political achievements to see exactly what he did to make Black America great again.10. Greatest Black economy in history
Donald Trump was not wrong to claim responsibility for the lowest Black poverty rate in history. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2019, only 16.3% of Black Americans lived in poverty, which was historically low. Do you know who else presided over the lowest poverty rate in history? Barack Obama. And Bill Clinton. And George H.W. Bush.It’s almost like the Black poverty rate keeps going down.
The same is true for the historically low unemployment rate that Trump often touts. But if Trump deserves credit for lifting Black people out of poverty, shouldn’t he take the blame for the biggest rise in Black unemployment in history, which also happened under his watch? Even if one excuses Trump by blaming the rise in Black unemployment and poverty on a worldwide pandemic, then one must also concede that Biden is a better caretaker of the Black economy. The Black unemployment rate, poverty rate, the Black-to-white unemployment gap and the number of Black Americans without health insurance reached record lows under Joe Biden.
Apparently, lying is not a “Black job.”
9. Record HBCU funding
Trump said he “saved historically Black colleges and universities” by signing the FUTURE Act, which provided annual funding for HBCUs. And technically, he didNot only did the Trump administration fund HBCUs at the same rate as the Obama administration, but every single one of the Trump administration’s budget proposals tried to decrease federal spending on HBCUs. Most of his fellow Republicans voted against the FUTURE Act. And, according to Rep. Alma Adams, D-N.C., who wrote the bill, “The only words the president contributed were his signature.”
I’m sure you’re shocked to learn that Trump is trying to take credit for a Black woman’s work.
8. The Trump stimmie
Contrary to the claims of noted economist and bootyhole color commentator Sexyy Red, Trump was not responsible for the coronavirus stimulus package that gave millions of Americans $2,000 in COVID relief funds. As Politico notes, Trump “railed against the $900 billion coronavirus relief bill” after Democrats forced it through Congress and threatened a government shutdown.To be fair, Trump wasn’t siding with his party when he tried to lower stimulus payments to $600. Republicans actually supported the COVID relief legislation. Instead, Trump didn’t want Democrats to get credit for actually helping people going into a national election.
But let’s say Trump was responsible for the stimmie checks. Does that mean Sexyy Red is willing to sell her vote for a measly $2,000?
The residents of Pound Town must really be hurting.
7. PPP Loans
According to the popular narrative, Trump’s Paycheck Protection Program really benefitted the Black community — even if many of the PPP loans were fraudulent.Again, not only did Trump oppose the legislation, but he funneled billions of federal dollars to his conservative allies to bail out their businesses. PPP loans were basically Trump’s friends and family slush fund. But what about all those Black scammers who got loans?
According to the actual data, Black-owned businesses received less than 2% of PPP loans. White-owned businesses got 83%.
Black scammers really need to step their game up.
6. Education reform
Trump’s biggest education policy involved a plan to steal Black people’s money.According to numerous studies, Black homeowners pay higher property taxes than their white counterparts. Black taxpayers also pay higher federal income taxes. While federal taxes and property taxes make up about half of school funding, according to Edbuild, “the average nonwhite school district receives $2,226 less than a white school district.”
Trump is gonna fix that.
When Trump boasts that he “called on Congress to pass school choice legislation to expand educational opportunities for all American children, especially those in our nation’s inner cities,” he’s talking about his school choice plan, which would use $500 billion in taxes to send kids to mostly white private schools. His Education Freedom Scholarships and Opportunity Act would also give tax breaks and scholarships to people who already send their children to private and Christian schools. And if you think the Department of Education Title IX program that supplements low-income schools would bridge the gap …
Trump wants to get rid of the Department of Education.
5.
One of the programs Trump loves to tout is his Opportunity Zones — his 2017 tax plan that offers tax incentives to encourage investment in low-income and minority neighborhoods.
While it sounds like a brilliant idea, a 2022 study of 100 areas that received these tax breaksfound that opportunity zones are essentially a plan to colonize Black neighborhoods. Not only did Trump’s plan benefit wealthy investors, but the rise in housing costs displaced low-income residents at alarming rates. Meanwhile, Trump’s Department of Housing and Urban Development rolled back Obama-era policies that fought housing discrimination in white areas.
4. Criminal justice reform
Perhaps the highlight of Trump’s anti-racist legislation is the First Step Act. A report by the U.S. Sentencing Commission revealed that 91.3% of the 1,051 people who received retroactive sentencing reductions due to the passage of the First Step Act were Black. He should be proud.But that’s not quite what happened.
In 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which narrowed the gap in racially discriminatory crack vs. cocaine sentences by 82%. To pass the legislation, Republicans agreed to support the bill as long as the Democrats didn’t make the legislation retroactive.
The first draft of Trump’s First Step Act did not address the crack vs. cocaine disparity. It didn’t address drug sentencing. It didn’t address sentencing reform at all. The amendments were only included when liberal organizations like the Color of Change and the Prison Policy Initiativeurged Democratic lawmakers to vote against the bill unless Republicans agreed to include prison reform, sentencing reform initiatives and rehabilitation programs. Conservative senators eventually agreed and Trump signed the bill, which simply made Obama’s bill original bill retroactive
Thanks, Obama.
3. Reformed the police
Trump loves to say he was the only president who actually reformed the police, but is it true?On June 16, 2020, Trump signed an “Executive Order on Safe Policing for Safe Communities” that promised to ban chokeholds, increase mental health training and track police officers who committed illegal uses of force.
It did none of that. Not only did Trump encourage cops to be more brutal, he militarized the police, promised to expand the death penalty for drug dealers and wants to pass a law to protect cops from prosecution. Trump’s Supreme Court appointees effectively ended affirmative action, and his administration stopped enforcing consent decrees — a tool used to monitor law enforcement agencies with repeated civil rights violations.
To be fair, giving cops more freedom to kill Black people is technically a reform.
2. Fixed the border
Trump claims undocumented immigrants are stealing all of the “Black jobs,” so immigration reform helps Black people.Even if he was correct (he isn’t), Trump forced Republicans to kill bipartisan immigration reform legislation. He was the originator of the plan to bus undocumented migrants to majority-Black cities. He embraced white nationalism by explaining that Black migrants come from “shithole countries.”
Most importantly, Trump was bad at protecting the border. He deported fewer people than Obama and Biden. Biden stopped and arrested more undocumented migrants than Trump, and used policy to reduce the number of crossings instead of a stupid wall.
By the way, Trump only built 47 miles of new border wall.
1. Trump did more for Black people than Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln didn’t intend to free the slaves. Abraham Lincoln didn’t free the slaves; the 13th Amendment did. In fact, Abraham Lincoln expressed exactly what he wanted to do for Black people:OK, this one’s a tie.
