Anonymous #3 6d

Harris was also planning to give tax credits for first time homebuyers, which would have helped the purchasing power of younger families. And overall, many of the economists in the country backed her economic plan as being positive for the American people. Meanwhile, Trump had disclosed almost zero of his plans for presidency prior to election. Once he announced tariffs while in office, nearly every economist condemned them as being negative for every American, especially the working class.

6

Anonymous #3 6d

Trump could have entered office and done nothing and the economy would have continued to get better. But he’s taken every action to make it worse from putting tariffs onto products Americans depend on to importing cheaper beef from Argentina to undercut American cattle ranchers. Harris also could have done nothing and the economy would have improved. But she also displayed plans that were going to continue to improve it. So it’s highly likely the economy would have been better under Harris

2

Anonymous #3 6d

And if I were to offer an example from my own life: In October 2024, gas prices in my area were well under $3.00 a gallon and I could get a Ribeye steak for slightly less than $20.00 a pound. In October 2025, gas is averaging around $3.15 a gallon in my area and ribeye is now up to nearly $23.00 a pound. Oil and Beef are two industries Trump’s actions have directly impacted, and the price has increased for both, as economists had known would happen should Trump’s plans been enacted.

1

Anonymous #1 6d

What does that anger towards corporate money have to do with economic policy under Harris? And AIPAC isn’t relevant either

1

Anonymous #3 6d

Are you in the mid-Atlantic? If you don’t mind me asking

1

Anonymous #4 6d

Apologies I framed that badly. Let me correct a bit. At its core, solving systemic corruption in this country means overturning Citizens’ United and getting corporate money out of our political system. Insipid scheming has taken priority over average Americans since 2010 and not one establishment Democrat wants to lose their paycheck.

1

Anonymous #4 6d

As for AIPAC, I bring them up not only as touchstone of foreign meddling and scheming in our government. But to say that a lot of the corporate ties that people decry as “only Republican” is tunnel vision for how corporate interest groups throw money in both directions to have impact on our politics, removing the voices of voters.

1

Anonymous #4 6d

AIPAC feels like red herring on my part. But I would like to recall Biden saying he’d help Israel more than the Tangerine Fascist, showing where priorities of the DNC truly rests. Backing genocidal regimes who throw money into their accounts.

1

Anonymous #1 6d

I think OP is asking whether layoffs would happen at the same rate, cost of living would be the same, etc. Macroeconomic stuff, not corruption

1

Anonymous #4 6d

Macroeconomic wise? There’s a case to be made the Inflation Reduction Act could’ve been strengthened and more green energy jobs or infrastructure projects would stimulate growth. I don’t think the cost of living would’ve show much improvement but there was some stabilization of prices by 2024 in some parts of the country that there might’ve been a positive trajectory to seize upon.

3

Anonymous #4 6d

I have, as you noted, a rather outsized look on corporate money in our politics. Simply for that problem being so corrosive that it goes in all directions of government function. For me, that’s a major hurdle in improvement of QOL for normal Americans. For macroeconomics, I don’t think we would’ve seen drastic changes in either direction with Harris. Good or bad. But some foundation could’ve been laid for economic stimulus for wide swathes of the country.

5

Anonymous #4 6d

Now for the caveat of all this, I have a big problem with Harris actually putting forth these sort of things during her campaign. Not enough consistency in her goals but it seemed by the end that there would’ve been a continuation of a number of economic recovery programs the Biden administration started.

2

Anonymous #1 6d

Ah yeah, makes sense. She did need to flesh those out more, unless I’m forgetting stuff

1

Anonymous #4 6d

No I am not

1

Anonymous #4 6d

Oh good. I’m afraid of rambling on and losing the point.

1

Anonymous #3 6d

hmm idk what other region is seeing $3.15/gal for regular rn. Was just curious

1

Anonymous #4 6d

East coast: 3.05 to 3.30. Except Jersey; 2.90ish over there

1

Anonymous #3 6d

Yeah, I’m around Philly so those are the prices I’m seeing. But it varies considerably by gas station. The general trend just feels like it hasn’t changed significantly in either direction tbh

1