Tag: conservatives
Best-Selling, Liberal-Bashing 'Abundance' Is Abundantly Clueless

Best-Selling, Liberal-Bashing 'Abundance' Is Abundantly Clueless

The hot-selling book Abundance is written by liberals who bash liberals, or more precisely, try to make them feel guilty. Sure, authors Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson shed some blame on conservatives for why America doesn't build as easily as it used to. But it's those liberals in expensive cities, the authors insist, who are callously driving less-than-rich families to move elsewhere.

Klein and Thompson argue that Democrat-run "superstar" cities have failed to provide enough affordable housing because of all their building rules and regulations and pesky zoning ordinances that make it harder to build. The chief culprits are San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston and, as always, New York City. The comparisons made against them are ludicrous.

A sample complaint: "The Austin metro area led the nation in housing permits in 2022, permitting 18 new homes for every thousand residents. Los Angeles's and San Francisco's metro areas permitted only 2.5 units per thousand residents."

Where do we start? Let's start with the not-insignificant matter of buildable land. The population density of San Francisco is five times that of Austin. Even sprawling Los Angeles has nearly three times as many people per square mile as Austin does.

Another sampling: Houston "is not facing the crises of homelessness and housing affordability seen in the superstar cities of many blue states." Why? In 2023, the Boston metro area issued 10,500 new housing permits, while Houston issued almost 70,000.

Boston has nearly four times the number of people per square mile as Houston. And Boston Harbor borders a big, blue-gray body of water. The land to its east is Portugal. Of course, buying and building in Boston is harder to do — and more expensive.

Really, all the so-called superstar cities getting roasted in Abundance — San Francisco, New York, Boston, Los Angeles — are bounded by water whereas Austin and Houston can easily expand into open country. The authors speak a lot about "bottlenecks" impeding progress. I'd say that the Pacific Ocean is a significant bottleneck to Los Angeles building out. Wouldn't you?

Houston has no zoning laws, so you can put almost anything anywhere. That's the Houston way. (This dynamic metropolis might rightly bristle being left out of the list of superstar cities.) Urban Texas has some fine old neighborhoods that locals treasure, but there's a lot more history to protect in the older cities.

Let Houston be Houston, Boston be Boston and LA be unlike either.

This is a big country. The four ultra-costly superstar cities combined take up a minuscule 0.025% of the total U.S. landmass. Let's not insult the thousands of smaller cities and towns by portraying the glitzy coastal metros as the only places where opportunity beckons. Fortunes can be made anywhere. Silicon Valley was almost all fruit orchards into the 1950s.

A needed update: Austin's heralded building boom is over for now. Austin's growth, fueled by the pandemic, now limps along with sky-high office and apartment vacancy rates.

Klein and Thompson speak in that confident wonky voice, arms outstretched with futurama visions of shared prosperity. If only Americans, Democrats especially, would get out of the way.

"Democrats cannot simultaneously claim to be the party of middle-class families while presiding over the parts of the country they are leaving." They predictably single out liberal California, noting "California's most populous cities are run by Democrats."

As it happens, Democrats also preside over Austin, Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio.

Abundance operates on the assumption that liberals can be shamed for wanting to preserve landmarks, intimate Main Streets and tenements with old shops at the bottom. Pass the guilt by. Liberals, joined by their conservative neighbors, have every right to slow down the bulldozers.

Froma Harrop is an award winning journalist who covers politics, economics and culture.She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on the Providence Journal editorial board.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Trump rally, Tulsa

Suddenly, MAGA Is Feeling Doubt About Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill'

With House Republicans narrowly passing President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act—which is designed to blow up the national debt, cut taxes for the rich, and partially pay for that by gutting programs for the poor and working class—you’d think MAGA conservatives would be cheering. But many of them aren’t.

Let’s back up.

Trump defied historic voting patterns in 2024 by winning voters making under $50,000 a year, 50 percent to Democratic nominee Kamala Harris’ 48 percent. He tied her among voters making over $50,000, at 49 percent. And when the threshold was raised to $100,000, the income divide got starker: Trump won the under-$100K crowd, 51 to 47 percent, while Harris won the over-$100K vote, 51 to 47 percent.

That flipped the old partisan narrative. In general, Republicans were the party of the working class, and Democrats the party of those with more money.

While culture-war hysteria around transgender people and immigrants drove much of Trump’s support, his promise to lower prices “on Day 1” clearly resonated with economically desperate voters. Exit polls back this up. He won 76 percent of those who had faced “severe hardship” from inflation in the previous year, and 52 percent of those who’d faced “moderate hardship.” Meanwhile, Harris dominated among those who said they’d faced “no hardship,” winning 78 percent of them.

As former Daily Kos reporter Kerry Eleveld once said in our old podcast, “Democrats are the party of voters who don’t have to look at prices when grocery shopping.”

That’s why we see so many variations of “this isn’t what we voted for” in all these “Leopards Ate Faces” stories. Yes, we could scream, “IT WAS ALL THERE IN PROJECT 2025!” But let’s be honest: Most voters aren’t policy wonks. For those doing price math in the grocery aisle, politics isn’t a priority. Trump’s promise may have been absurd, but it was simple and seductive.

But falling for those lies has a cost. On the economic front, Trump and the Republican Party are governing like they always have—for the ultrawealthy, connected, and powerful, at the direct expense of their own voters. As I’ve written repeatedly, it’s like Trump is trying to hurt his base.

Early Thursday morning, House Republicans voted to gut Medicaid, which disproportionately helps rural Americans. Their tax cuts for billionaires effectively raise taxes on low-income voters—i.e., their core voters in last year’s election. MarketWatch, reporting on a University of Pennsylvania analysis of a close-to-final draft of the GOP tax bill, noted:

  • The top 0.1 percent of households would rake in over $390,000 in after-tax income.
  • The top 1 percent would gain $44,190.
  • Households making $51,000 to $92,999 a year would get an additional $815.
  • The lowest-income households, though, will see their after-tax income shrink by $940.

Yes, that voter making under $50,000, they get to deal with Trump’s price-raising tariffs and a tax hike.

On Reddit’s r/conservative subreddit, the reactions to the House passing the bill were surprisingly muted.

Some echoed traditional deficit concerns, such as the commenter who noted, “Conservatives are supposed to want less government spending and less debt. This bill will add trillions of dollars of debt over the next 10 years. We're not even kind of moving in the right direction.”

But a surprising number took umbrage at the gutting of Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps.

One top commenter the subreddit—i.e., not a troll—wrote, “I'm all for cutting waste fraud and abuse on Medicaid and SNAP, but … I think if the medicaid/SNAP changes go through as is, GOP will get mauled in the mid-terms.”

Another top commenter noted, “[I]t's not that I like high taxes, it's that I think high taxes on the lower, middle, and upper-middle-class are much more damaging than high taxes on the ultra-rich. It's both about keeping taxes low on most people, and about preventing the concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny number of people. It's also frustrating because Trump has repeatedly spoken out in favor of such tax hikes on the richest taxpayers as a way of making budgets and tax breaks work.”

This commenter also called the Medicaid provisions “cruel,” and on SNAP, they said, “[I]t's going to deny benefits to some people we would probably prefer have them. for example the people who are going to be hit hardest are the people who live in areas where jobs are scarce, who have difficult lives with a lot of barriers to getting anything done, and who have other life responsibilities like caring for family members or doing something else important in their community that they don't get paid for.”

If only there was a party that worked to protect such people …

All over social media, Trump voters are realizing they’re the ones being labeled as “fraud and waste.” Like this gem on Threads:

Again, we can point to Project 2025—the Heritage Foundation’s agenda for a second Trump administration—and note how it promised to gut SNAP and Medicaid. Yes, we warned them. But pointing fingers now isn’t useful.

What is useful? Turning this betrayal into motivation.

No, we won’t win over all Trump voters. Many are too far gone. It’s a cult.

But we don’t need all of them. We don’t even need most. We just need a small shift.

In Pennsylvania, Trump won last year by 120,266 votes. In Michigan, it was 80,103. And in Wisconsin, 29,397. Altogether, that makes for just 229,766 votes in an election where 155,512,532 were cast—or just 0.15 percent of all ballots. That’s how small of a shift we’re talking about, though obviously, the bigger the better.

I can’t recall ever seeing a party so eagerly swing a baseball bat at its own voters—many of them new to the Republican coalition.

The pain is real. And yes, most of us are impacted in some way. But if we can turn that pain into political clarity for even a slice of those voters, we can begin to reverse the damage—and take back our future.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

The Cowardice Of Conservative And Business Elites Led Straight To This Disaster

The Cowardice Of Conservative And Business Elites Led Straight To This Disaster

A Wall Street Journal editorial described President Donald Trump's tariffs as the "dumbest trade war in history." It's important not to overrate intelligence, even in leaders. Judgment and maturity may be more crucial. But Trump is no ordinary dunce. He displays a stubborn stupidity that threatens to plunge the world into chaos and potentially into depression.

It should go without saying that our constitutional system was never meant to be so vulnerable to the whims and fantasies of one man. Nothing as critical as the entire world trading system or the maintenance of the NATO alliance should be decided by which side of the bed the emperor woke up on today, but due to the cowardice and cupidity of the GOP and others, we've gradually lost our antibodies to strongman rule and find ourselves bowing before a power-drunk man/child.

His peculiar blind spots and obsessions now threaten everyone. All of those supposedly worldly-wise Wall Street types who either supported or did not oppose Trump's return to power deserve some of the blame today. One thinks of Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, who has a long history opposing tariffs but was becalmed to the point where he told a Davos audience in January that tariffs are a good "economic weapon" and that critics should "get over it."

This kind of insouciance in the face of a severe economic threat is breathtaking. Even if Wall Street executives and others who chose to believe that Trump was preferable to Kamala Harris were indifferent to the civil liberties implications of a Trump second term and uninterested in public health and the administration of justice, you'd think they'd be interested in their own bottom lines. You would think they might have noticed that one of Trump's only long-term convictions was that America had been victimized by world trade and that tariffs would solve all of our problems.

Trump has an obsession with trade. He always has, and his views are wrong historically, economically and even morally. At his Rose Garden declaration of "Liberation Day" he repeated his oft-stated view that the U.S. has been "looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far" for 50 years and more. Long-term trade deficits, he declared, are a "national emergency" that "threaten our way of life."

In vain did a procession of first-term advisers attempt to disabuse Trump of his absurd views about trade. They patiently explained that it is Americans, not foreigners, who pay tariffs. He was deaf to this. They noted that trade deficits are not a measure of wealth, far less who is "winning" or "losing." If we buy coffee from Costa Rica and they buy nothing from us (which isn't true, but just as an illustration), in no sense has Costa Rica taken advantage of, far less "raped," America. We gave them dollars and they gave us coffee in return.

That is called commerce, and nearly every exchange between a willing buyer and willing seller yields two winners, not one. Besides, as those first-term Trump advisers also tried to convey, those Costa Rican businessmen then take those dollars and buy American assets.

The global trading system the United States shepherded into existence in the post-World War II era has been a boon to people around the globe, and no one has benefitted more than the people of the United States. We've run trade deficits with many nations for many reasons. Sometimes that's a reflection of savings versus investment rates in other countries (think Germany). Sometimes it's a reflection of relative wealth (Vietnamese consumers can't afford to purchase as many American products as Americans can afford to purchase of Vietnamese products).

But in any case, it doesn't really matter because countries that run big trade deficits can be super wealthy. The United States has run trade deficits since the late 1970s and has also been the richest nation on the globe during those years. In fact, even during Trump's first term, which he has widely proclaimed to have been the greatest economy in the history of the universe, we ran consistent trade deficits. In fact, the trade deficit increased during the first Trump administration from $481 billion in 2016 to $679 billion in 2020.

In a saner world, Trump's delusions would not guide U.S. policy. They'd be checked by his own advisers, the Congress and the public. But here we are.

This is not the first time in history that a leader's misconceptions have been implemented on a broad scale, but you have to reach into the history of dictatorial regimes to find parallels. In the Soviet Union in the 1930s, the ideas of agronomist Trofim Lysenko gained acceptance not because they were true but because Stalin wanted them to be true. Lysenko promised a new golden age with dramatically improved crop yields that would transform even Siberia into a paradise of orchards and gardens. This was touted by Stalin as the "new biology" and ruthlessly enforced. Naysayers were arrested and executed. The result was repeated famines in the USSR and in China, where Mao also embraced the fallacy. Millions of men, women and children starved to death because a leader was able to impose his fantasies on a whole society.

Global trade is an engine of prosperity, and one man's stupidity now threatens billions.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Trump's Mass Deportation Plan

Right-Wing Spanish Media Cover Up Trump's Mass Deportation Plan

Conservative Spanish-language media personalities have been downplaying President-elect Donald Trump’s plans for mass deportations, claiming that Democrats and the media are fearmongering about Trump’s deportation scheme, which economists suggest would increase inflation as well as food and housing costs. These media figures have claimed that Trump “will not deport working immigrants” and that he is considering “immigration reform for all of those in the United States that are doing it right.”

In truth, Trump has vowed to stage the “largest deportation operation in American History,” and Tom Homan — the Project 2025 contributor and former Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) acting director who Trump selected to carry out this campaign — has claimed, “No one’s off the table.”

Recently, during an interview with NBC News’ Kristen Welker, Trump doubled down on his campaign promise to end birthright citizenship, falsely suggesting he could enact his plan through executive action and that he would “change” the 14th Amendment.

Rather than focusing on these claims, conservative personalities on social media turned attention to Trump’s claims that he was willing to “work something out” for Dreamers, immigrants who were brought to the US as minors and remain undocumented. Ignoring his previous failed attempt to gut the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program — which has provided benefits like temporary relief from deportation and work authorization to more than 835,000 migrants who came to the U.S. as children — conservative personalities argued Trump has “dismantled the narrative” that he is “racist.”

Downplaying Trump's plans for mass deportations

Conservative Spanish-language personalities are claiming that the left is “sowing fear” about Trump’s plans for mass deportations and that Trump “will not deport working migrants.”

  • On Actualidad Radio’s Cada Tarde, conservative personality Marian de la Fuente claimed, “There has been a lot of misinformation” about “family separation and kids and parents who will be deported.” She added, “This type of information, in the way the liberal networks are conveying it, should really be modified,” explaining that “they are obviously trying to sow fear.”[Actualidad Radio, Cada Tarde, 11/12/24]
  • During a guest appearance on Fox Noticias, Voz Media political analyst Alfonso Aguilar argued that Democrats “want to sow fear.” He said that they “say this is an effort to deport people indiscriminately, that the country will be militarized, that we will have patrols of soldiers through urban migrant communities, and that is totally false.” He also claimed, “The armed forces will be used, or the national guard, but in a supporting role.” [Fox Deportes, Fox Noticias, 11/20/24]
  • On his Voz Media podcast, Aguilar claimed, “The left and many in the media are sowing fear” and that “they want to tell us the country is going to be militarized, that there will be mass indiscriminate deportations [and] that they will deport grandma.” He added, “That has become a Democratic talking point.” Aguilar made these claims in an episode where he interviewed Fox News contributor Sara Carter. [YouTube, 11/26/24]
  • In a segment criticizing The View’s Ana Navarro’s claims that Trump’s plan for mass deportations “means grandmothers,” Fox Noticias host Rachel Campos-Duffy claimed that “liberals are losing their mind over Trump’s new border czar.” During the segment, Campos-Duffy mistranslated an Axios headline that said, “Immigrant advocates mobilize against mass deportation,” to claim, “According to the media, immigration advocates are mobilizing against the plan to impose law and order at our borders.” [Fox Deportes, Fox Noticias, 11/13/24; Axios, 11/12/24]
  • On TikTok, Luis Sin Filtro, a conservative influencer with over 566,000 followers, argued that “it's obviously impossible” for the Trump administration to deport American citizens. He also claimed that Homan “has clearly and specifically said that threats to public safety will be the priority,” arguing, “It's most likely that if you find yourself in one of those raids, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. If you are informed and have not committed any crimes in this country, you won't be affected negatively. On the contrary, there is a very big chance for you to build your case in an immigration court and end up with a working permit.” [TikTok, 11/12/24]
  • PelucasGB, a conservative personality with over 56,300 followers, shared a video arguing that “Trump will not deport working immigrants” and that “Trump’s rhetoric has always been against criminals.” He also claimed that Trump could “pass immigration reform for all of those in the United States that are doing it right,” and that Trump “will be the one to make your dream of having status in the United States come true.” [TikTok, 11/26/24]

Ignoring Trump's hostility to DACA

Despite Trump’s previous attempts to gut DACA, Spanish-language social media figures are claiming his comments on Meet the Press that he would potentially “work something out” for Dreamers “dismantled the narrative” that he is “racist” and “the most anti-immigrant man ever.”

  • Luiyo2.0, a conservative personality with over 152,700 followers on TikTok, argued Trump’s comments on Meet the Press “completely dismantled the narrative against Donald Trump in which they claim he is racist.” He added, “If this is true and Trump can solve the DACA problem, he will undoubtedly become one of the best presidents in the United States of America.” [TikTok, 12/9/24]
  • LuisSinFiltro shared a video claiming, “Trump said he plans to work with Democrats to legalize Dreamers, that is to give them permanent status, not just temporary protection like DACA.” He added, “Trump just dragged all those political activists and ‘pro-immigration,’ ‘non-for-profit’ organizations that said Donald Trump is the most anti-immigrant man in history.” [TikTok, 12/9/24]
  • PelucasGB shared a video claiming that “while Democrats try to discredit Donald Trump by saying he wants to deport everyone,” he “said he wants Dreamers to be able to stay in the United States.” He went on to claim that Trump “could become the second Republican president in history to deliver a reform for everyone regardless of nationality.” [TikTok, 12/9/24]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World