Originally posted by: Mark
Did he say China was going to pay them?
David won't admit it, due to his horrid character flaws.
And neither you nor anyone else said that Trump mentioned the amounts or percentages of his proposed tariffs during the debate. It was probably because numbers like "one hundred" are hard for him to remember--he didn't have a teleprompter or Hannity holding up a cue card.
Originally posted by: Mark
The debate moderator summarizes Trump's tariff position. Trump agrees and then defends by saying China is going to pay them which we both know isn't true.
https://youtu.be/h3DZ1FqN9VY?si=kzthBDR-RrL8mHpP
Why is Trump lying about China paying the tariffs.
David used to think that China was paying the tariffs, and it wasn't very long ago that he said as much, just 5 days ago. He's learned so much about tariffs in a short period of time, unless you count the lifetime he's spent believing MAGA lies.
Originally posted by: MaxFlavor
Harris started weak, she should have spent more time talking to the press to shake her nerves going into this. Trump's new haircut is a big improvement, does it signal he's worried? Harris definitely won the debate.
My only point is my long-held annoyance that Trump is too stupid or as usual just a liar about how tariffs work and who pays them. Just like he said that Mexico would pay for the failed wall, foreign countries don't pay tariffs, it's Econ 101 or high school economics. Yet MAGA eats it up and believes it, it's so basic it's embarrassing.
A group can argue about the pros and cons of tariffs endlessly , with individual industries and / or specific markets potential benefits / drawbacks varying all over the map. EG, depending on timing and the specific market, imposed tariffs can be good and/or bad in the short term for the US economy. I think history backs that up depending on the industry / market ( and the timing).. though major errors have certainly occurred.
More critical is our current $35 Trillion US Debt, imo. Neither major political party has put forth any concrete incentive legislation to address it and both have contributed to the balooned debt over time. I blame D's and R's equally..both guilty as hell. Interest costs on the debt this year are forecast to be about $1 Trillion, roughly 17% of federal spending. The dollar as the world's reserve currency is fragile..the US fiscal sky is kinda falling and evident.
What do we do? Solutions? Is it even a real problem? Just keep firing up the digital money presses? Where do we make cuts in the wasteful and occasional fraudulent action / inaction of Congress? Spending cuts, tax reform, less wasteful spending..all / none of those? This is at least as important short -term vs who ends up in the White House this fall, imo. How much more irresponsible accounting practices can we stand?
Makes a guy wanna drink and gamble.
Originally posted by: Nines
A group can argue about the pros and cons of tariffs endlessly , with individual industries and / or specific markets potential benefits / drawbacks varying all over the map. EG, depending on timing and the specific market, imposed tariffs can be good and/or bad in the short term for the US economy. I think history backs that up depending on the industry / market ( and the timing).. though major errors have certainly occurred.
More critical is our current $35 Trillion US Debt, imo. Neither major political party has put forth any concrete incentive legislation to address it and both have contributed to the balooned debt over time. I blame D's and R's equally..both guilty as hell. Interest costs on the debt this year are forecast to be about $1 Trillion, roughly 17% of federal spending. The dollar as the world's reserve currency is fragile..the US fiscal sky is kinda falling and evident.
What do we do? Solutions? Is it even a real problem? Just keep firing up the digital money presses? Where do we make cuts in the wasteful and occasional fraudulent action / inaction of Congress? Spending cuts, tax reform, less wasteful spending..all / none of those? This is at least as important short -term vs who ends up in the White House this fall, imo. How much more irresponsible accounting practices can we stand?
Makes a guy wanna drink and gamble.
Historically, no tariffs have EVER worked as intended. Our last blanket tariffs extended the Great Depression by several years, and tariffs on individual categories of products have caused economic harm while failing to "protect" the relevant domestic industry--by which I mean attempting to force consumers to buy domestic products. The usual result is that consumers buy the better imported products and pay more for them, and the government gets richer. Not really a position that the Enemies of Big Goverment should take!
Those who are unsophisticated about economics react reflexively to the bad word "debt" without considering context. Borrowing is not inherently a bad thing. Consider your numbers, which I won't vet. Our annual interest costs are approximately 3% of the national debt, yes? What's inflation at...3%, yes? So we pay the interest with increasingly cheaper dollars. The net cost to us is ZERO.
Wouldn't YOU borrow to finance your needs at zero interest? I would. I'd buy a few casinos.
I won't argue about whether this or that spending is "wasteful." The personal definition of that depends on what political ax you want to grind.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Historically, no tariffs have EVER worked as intended. Our last blanket tariffs extended the Great Depression by several years, and tariffs on individual categories of products have caused economic harm while failing to "protect" the relevant domestic industry--by which I mean attempting to force consumers to buy domestic products. The usual result is that consumers buy the better imported products and pay more for them, and the government gets richer. Not really a position that the Enemies of Big Goverment should take!
Those who are unsophisticated about economics react reflexively to the bad word "debt" without considering context. Borrowing is not inherently a bad thing. Consider your numbers, which I won't vet. Our annual interest costs are approximately 3% of the national debt, yes? What's inflation at...3%, yes? So we pay the interest with increasingly cheaper dollars. The net cost to us is ZERO.
Wouldn't YOU borrow to finance your needs at zero interest? I would. I'd buy a few casinos.
I won't argue about whether this or that spending is "wasteful." The personal definition of that depends on what political ax you want to grind.
The longer the explaination, one can rest assured it is a lie.
Originally posted by: David Miller
The longer the explaination, one can rest assured it is a lie.
Yet, you can't tell us what I said was supposedly a "lie." You don't have the intellect to comprehend a tenth of what I said.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Yet, you can't tell us what I said was supposedly a "lie." You don't have the intellect to comprehend a tenth of what I said.
A "tenth" of what you say is enough to fill a persons head full of shit.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Historically, no tariffs have EVER worked as intended. Our last blanket tariffs extended the Great Depression by several years, and tariffs on individual categories of products have caused economic harm while failing to "protect" the relevant domestic industry--by which I mean attempting to force consumers to buy domestic products. The usual result is that consumers buy the better imported products and pay more for them, and the government gets richer. Not really a position that the Enemies of Big Goverment should take!
Those who are unsophisticated about economics react reflexively to the bad word "debt" without considering context. Borrowing is not inherently a bad thing. Consider your numbers, which I won't vet. Our annual interest costs are approximately 3% of the national debt, yes? What's inflation at...3%, yes? So we pay the interest with increasingly cheaper dollars. The net cost to us is ZERO.
Wouldn't YOU borrow to finance your needs at zero interest? I would. I'd buy a few casinos.
I won't argue about whether this or that spending is "wasteful." The personal definition of that depends on what political ax you want to grind.
I'd cut back on spending before any further borrowing of any kind. Clearly, your analysis suggests the current US debt isn't a problem.. and that we're paying zero interest on bouts of money printing / continued borrowing . That's before we even address any sort of wasteful spending ( which is wide and deep). So, I disagree and am thankful you aren't managing my finances.
I'd agree that more often than not, tariffs have not been / are not a good long term solution, particularly for consumers. I can dig up some instances where they were beneficial short-term..but to what end?
Originally posted by: Nines
I'd cut back on spending before any further borrowing of any kind. Clearly, your analysis suggests the current US debt isn't a problem.. and that we're paying zero interest on bouts of money printing / continued borrowing . That's before we even address any sort of wasteful spending ( which is wide and deep). So, I disagree and am thankful you aren't managing my finances.
I'd agree that more often than not, tariffs have not been / are not a good long term solution, particularly for consumers. I can dig up some instances where they were beneficial short-term..but to what end?
Why WOULDN'T we print money? What else would we do--make it out of fairy dust?
I know that "printing money" has been a conservative shibboleth for quite some time now--a sure sign of evil and decay. But consider what would happen if we DIDN'T print money. Our wealth would continue to accumulate--resources discovered and developed, capital assets created, working force increased, etc. The existing dollars would be chasing a greater and greater amount of goods and services. The result would be DEflation, an economic consequence that's worse than inflation if and when the population is stable or increasing. The US went through a period of deflation in the late 19th century, as postbellum Treasury policies didn't create enough currency to keep up with rapid industrialization, expansion, and immigration. The result was social unrest, which by the way led directly to organized labor and SOOOOOOOOCIALISM. (And civil rights, and women's suffrage, and expanded gummint, which I assume you hate.)
We HAVE to print money so that the money supply continues to be an adequate representation of our ever-increasing accumulated wealth. Hell, we'd have to print money even if we got no richer, just to represent population increase (more human capital).
"Wasteful spending" is and always has been code for "spending on something that doesn't benefit me and/or benefits people I don't like." I reject that concept. I'm an American, and spending that benefits my fellow Americans, even if they're on the other side of the country and/or not in my ethnic/social/economic class, ipso facto benefits me. I can tell you don't feel that way. It's a trope; cut to the old man grumbling about property taxes because they help pay for schools, and he doesn't have any kids.
I'm a student of history, but the vast majority of American voters are woefully ignorant of that subject. How many people out of 1,000 know off the tops of their heads what the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were, the story behind them, and their consequences? How many MAGAs? Trump sure as shit doesn't!!
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Why WOULDN'T we print money? What else would we do--make it out of fairy dust?
I know that "printing money" has been a conservative shibboleth for quite some time now--a sure sign of evil and decay. But consider what would happen if we DIDN'T print money. Our wealth would continue to accumulate--resources discovered and developed, capital assets created, working force increased, etc. The existing dollars would be chasing a greater and greater amount of goods and services. The result would be DEflation, an economic consequence that's worse than inflation if and when the population is stable or increasing. The US went through a period of deflation in the late 19th century, as postbellum Treasury policies didn't create enough currency to keep up with rapid industrialization, expansion, and immigration. The result was social unrest, which by the way led directly to organized labor and SOOOOOOOOCIALISM. (And civil rights, and women's suffrage, and expanded gummint, which I assume you hate.)
We HAVE to print money so that the money supply continues to be an adequate representation of our ever-increasing accumulated wealth. Hell, we'd have to print money even if we got no richer, just to represent population increase (more human capital).
"Wasteful spending" is and always has been code for "spending on something that doesn't benefit me and/or benefits people I don't like." I reject that concept. I'm an American, and spending that benefits my fellow Americans, even if they're on the other side of the country and/or not in my ethnic/social/economic class, ipso facto benefits me. I can tell you don't feel that way. It's a trope; cut to the old man grumbling about property taxes because they help pay for schools, and he doesn't have any kids.
I'm a student of history, but the vast majority of American voters are woefully ignorant of that subject. How many people out of 1,000 know off the tops of their heads what the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were, the story behind them, and their consequences? How many MAGAs? Trump sure as shit doesn't!!
Again - US imposes major tariff hikes on Chinese imports, EVs hit with 100% duty - A 100% duty will be imposed on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), starting September 27. Other tariffs include 50% on solar cells and 25% on steel, aluminum, and EV batteries. The decision is aimed at reducing reliance on China's supply chain dominance. - https://mxmnews.com/article/1fa64b3e-bad2-4da6-82cd-a1ff5c5dd442?us-imposes-major-tariff-hikes-on-chinese-imports-evs-hit-with-100-duty
