Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Statement from Jerome Powell

federalreserve.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

771–780 of 871 posts

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#771

Post by johnnyanmac »

zzzeek wrote: post #702
doom2 wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's just navel-gazing to pretend like what he's doing has high approval Then how is it being reflected in Congress? Where are the Republicans speaking loudly on behalf of their dissatisfied constituents and voting on bills accordingly? We shouldn't have to wait every two years for a midterms or general election for the negative approval rating to make itself known, politicians can choose any time to act in a way t…

they're basically fucked. they can't turn against Leader, because their base would abandon them immediately. But they desperately wish they could hold him back, because they are well aware they are going to get creamed in November. as far as "bills", there's no bills because that's up to Mike Johnson who is a super loyalist. His district is very safe (Cook R+26).

> their base would abandon them immediately...they are going to get creamed in November.

These seem contradictory. So they risk losing their voters if they oppose Trump, but also know voters will vote them out?

>that's up to Mike Johnson who is a super loyalist. His district is very safe (Cook R+26).

That's part of why we've had so many forced votes around Johnson.

And I guess we'll see in Novemeber which branch is true. Either the R's are safe and the voter base is strong/popular enough to keep them in, or they are actually unpopular and at best scared of Trump (and at worst, super loyalist) and they will go down with the ship.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#772

Post by throwworhtthrow »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #600
mlrtime wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been reading this topic for years. It is very common with a certain party that the other side votes against their interest, or is too dumb to vote (literacy). You can also see it in race voting, where people will say a certain race is voting against their interest just to vote for someone with the same skin color. It's actually a talking point that actively pushes people away from their cause. Does this type of…

datsci_est_2015 explains it better than I would just a few comments down, but this isn't what I mean. I mean that people who are semi-literate or illiterate are terrible thinkers. They are, in fact, fundamentally incapable of understanding the modern world they find themselves in and are CONSTANTLY taken advantage of. Bad thinkers make bad decisions, and are vulnerable to being manipulated in ways that good thinkers…

Ironic misuse of apostrophe's.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#773

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

eudamoniac wrote: post #768
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me your phrase "publicly dropped support for abortion" sounds like "neglecting to bring up the topic". If you mean that Democratic leaders should somehow convince their members to support abortion restrictions that they oppose, I'm not sure why you would presume that's possible.

I'm imagining a candidate saying something like, "I want to help America with x y z [blue team related] issues. I want to bridge the aisle with Republicans and voters. To that end, I vow to not support any measures for the expansion of abortion. I believe that right now it's more important to help Americans in other ways. This is a contentious issue, but if we can set it aside for the moment, I believe D and R can co…

Again, Democratic politicians routinely made such statements in the era before Roe was overturned. The longstanding Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funds from being used in any way to expand, promote, or perform abortions. There was just no way to get around the fundamental problem that, to a critical mass of Republican voters, "I'd like to maintain the status quo so we can focus on other issues" was an unacceptable pro-abortion stance.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#774

Post by allturtles »

Youden wrote: post #762
Aurornis wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Margins in recent elections have been thin enough that higher voter turnout among young generations could have easily changed the outcome. Blaming broken democracy is just a cop out. Youth voter turnout for primary elections, where there are many candidates, is also low. More parties isn’t going to change anything.

You're missing the point. There were only two possible outcomes: Democrats or Republicans. Both were bad and unappealing. Both are too dependent on the status quo to serve as vehicles for real change (so primaries are pointless too). "More parties", through elimination of first past the post, absolutely changes things. It allows you to vote for someone who truly represents you and your interests without "throwing awa…

Well we are getting some "real change" now, so I guess the monkey's paw works.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#775

Post by johnnyanmac »

dfxm12 wrote: post #695
Aurornis wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the political will of a plurality of American voters. This fallacy gets repeated over and over, but it's obviously false. Have you really never voted for a candidate who went on to do things you didn't agree with? It's a quintessential fact of politics that voting for a candidate is not equivalent to an endorsement of everything that candidate does in the future. It's a premise that is obviously false when…

Have you really never voted for a candidate who went on to do things you didn't agree with? I'm having a hard time thinking of things this admin and their party has done but hasn't directly campaigned on, directly praised someone else doing, etc. On the flip side of that, which empty promise, if fulfilled, would be worth the situation we're otherwise in?

well they had quite a few contradictions. They campaigned on "No new wars" and meanwhile the US hit Venezuela and might be trying to do the same on Greenland and Mexico. Campaigned on jobs but manufacturing has been plummeting all year. Campaigned on cheaper groceries but things are more expensive.

It's a big maybe, but maybe if Trump actually managed to end the Ukraine War and push out Russia the chaos would have been a net benefit (from a utilitarian POV). Instead, he berated Zelensky on camera.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#776

Post by johnnyanmac »

LastTrain wrote: post #656
throwawayqqq11 wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you observe is cognitive dissonance resolved by ignorance. I dont have any advice for you, since i dont know your close ones, but a warning. When these conflicts dont get resolved in a constructive way, this behavioral conditioning might lead to repulsion targeting you. I have lost a long time childhood friend, even though my approach to him was always calm but persistent for over a decade.

Yes. The hardest thing about all of this is watching people I've known for years defend the indefensible. It is really difficult to stomach hearing your grandma call for the insurrection act.

What do you feel makes their support so unwavering? Are they fine with anything as long as they feel the "bad people" are hurt? Do they genuinely see themselves getting richer? Do they simply only watch Fox News and other conservative media and never consider what's happening in their neighborhood?

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#777

Post by Cornbilly »

drpepper42 wrote: post #334
the_real_cher wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the fed replaced the gold standard.

No it did not. I don't know why people repeat this so often but it is very frustrating. Nixon unilaterally ended the gold standard because the US was printing money to pay for Vietnam and the rest of the world called the US on its bullshit. The end of the gold standard is relatively recent in history and the verdict is still out on the impact.

>I don't know why people repeat this so often but it is very frustrating.

The Ron Paul fandom spread this myth around incessantly during the late 2000s.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#778

Post by johnnyanmac »

LastTrain wrote: post #758
bpt3 wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say "our lifetime" you must be talking about people who were born after 2004? Reagan was certainly more popular among Republicans, and I think W was at the end of his first term (he definitely was right after 9/11 when approval ratings for anything American were approximately 100% within America).

Your intuition about this is wrong. Reagan's approval among Republicans averaged about 83%, Trump's numbers are typically over 90%, although currently he's down to an all-time low of around 85%. You are quite wrong about GW as well. While he had a mandate, at first, for Iraq, he was deeply polarizing in pretty much every other regard.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/699221/trump-approval-rating-dr...

seeing Dem numbers be in the single didgits and republican numbers in the high 80's really exemplifies how utterly divided the "United" States has become. I don't think any other president in the last century has been so divisive.

There's basically no more room for Dem's to disapprove, so I guess it's up to "Independents" to wake up.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#779

Post by johnnyanmac »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #625
tharmas wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All true but what about his proposal to increase defense spending by a Whopping $500 Billion? Are his supporters 'down' with that?

Is Congress down with that? Down enough to actually pass a budget that contains it?

Immigration, no. Oil, maybe. I don't think any of congress wants to risk escalation to a war on top of all the situations stacked up today.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#780

Post by morgan814 »

warkdarrior wrote: post #744
morgan814 wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bizarrely, voter turnout among younger people remains low I understand why my age group has low turnout. It's a disgusting chore that I force myself to do. In part, it might be a chicken and egg situation. My age cohort doesn't vote because candidates suck. Candidates suck because they pander to those who do vote. Now to show my political biases: In 2016 Sanders had a huge amount of support from young people but th…

> Young people put in effort showed up. It bought them exactly one legally rigged primary. It is certainly wise to give up after one failed effort. Never try again. /s

Oh I agree and I vote. More people need to vote. But I understand why people feel little motivation to.
Post reply on HN