Current events discussion

[RobGMN Premium Member]

I'm not a bill Clinton fan by any means but after losing the house and having to work across party lines played a huge part in what he accomplished as president...in today's extreme polarization I don't see that being possible again anytime soon...maybe not even in my lifetime and I'm only 47

I remember the Reagan years feeling like a more "united" America, in spite of his ultimately failed economic polices. Maybe it was my youth, maybe it was the anti-Communist sentiment, I dunno.

But there is no argument that we are polarized heavily, and I think it's absolutely used as a tool to gain support from supporters.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

You know history, I'm sure. And history is that tariffs generally were dropped in favor of taxes (here in the US, at least).
If we're going to just increase the taxes in SOME way, why not be honest about it?
Keeping the current sales taxes and adding a tariff tax on top of that doesn't cost less than if you just taxed the products more.

If that sub amp costs you $30 more tomorrow, would it be OK if it was tariff-based, but not tax-based?
The same people who will scream bloody murder about a tax increase are accepting a tariff, because "MAGA!!!"

It's a matter of semantics, but the money comes out of our pocket either way.

It's not a matter of semantics. If the amps coming from China cost $30 more, while the Brazilian ones stay at the same price, that will affect the market. That's vastly difference from a national sales tax. Furthermore, it discounts things like tariffs (allegedly) getting Mexico to break up migrant caravans.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

I'm not a bill Clinton fan by any means but after losing the house and having to work across party lines played a huge part in what he accomplished as president...in today's extreme polarization I don't see that being possible again anytime soon...maybe not even in my lifetime and I'm only 47

Crazy thing is one of the guys who helped bridge the gap back then was Joe Biden. Sleepy Joe wasn't so sleepy back then.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

I remember the Reagan years feeling like a more "united" America, in spite of his ultimately failed economic polices. Maybe it was my youth, maybe it was the anti-Communist sentiment, I dunno.

But there is no argument that we are polarized heavily, and I think it's absolutely used as a tool to gain support from supporters.

Reagan actively worked across the isle. His quote “My eighty-percent friend is not my twenty-percent enemy” wouldn't hold up today in any political party operating in the US

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Depends on what the purpose of the tariff is and the benefits we see from them...with all the waste and bloat in government on pretty much every level there's no reasonable reason to be forced into more taxes.

A tariff IS a tax that gets paid to our government, just under a different name.
This is what I mean about the semantics of being OK paying a tariff, but being mad about taxes.
Tariffs don't get earmarked for specific use. They become part of the coffers, and get used just like tax money.

What is better, a $400 amp with $35 in taxes added on, or a $400 amp with $35 in tariffs added on?

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

A tariff IS a tax that gets paid to our government, just under a different name.
This is what I mean about the semantics of being OK paying a tariff, but being mad about taxes.
Tariffs don't get earmarked for specific use. They become part of the coffers, and get used just like tax money.

What is better, a $400 amp with $35 in taxes added on, or a $400 amp with $35 in tariffs added on?

If the tariff is only to raise revenue for the government then it's trash and not even remotely how a tariff should be used...but you're still only arguing the revenue side of a tariff...again not all benefits from a tariff are economic...they can be used a negotiating tactic to gain a more favorable negotiation in other areas. Mexico can't afford a 25% tariff on their goods, their economy is too small to absorb that hit. So you threaten or implement the tariff to gain leverage in other areas such as immigration and drugs...it puts their skin in the game instead of just enabling a problem.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

I remember the Reagan years feeling like a more "united" America, in spite of his ultimately failed economic polices. Maybe it was my youth, maybe it was the anti-Communist sentiment, I dunno.

But there is no argument that we are polarized heavily, and I think it's absolutely used as a tool to gain support from supporters.

It's because the fight for the political middle got abandoned by both parties. Trump is now pursuing the political middle, but the left seems to think that the only reason Trump won is because 1/2 the country is a bunch of -ists and -phobes. The left will not be able to pursue effective policy until they realize that Trump & the GOP won because they have something to offer other than we should elect our next POTUS based on DEI.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

If the tariff is only to raise revenue for the government then it's trash and not even remotely how a tariff should be used

Bingo. They have been used as a tool to try to get more, but that hasn't worked, so they are just a money grab.

An identical repeat of a failed attempt to get more sure seems like a bad idea.
Maybe instead if tariffs that do nothing, we just lock down imports of all the goods from foreign countries, and make the stuff here.

There are two ways to win: be better, or eliminate the competition entirely.
We can't be better and we know it.
That leaves...

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Reagan actively worked across the isle. His quote “My eighty-percent friend is not my twenty-percent enemy” wouldn't hold up today in any political party operating in the US

I think it may hold up for Trump. Look at who he it trying to stack his cabinet with: Tulsi Gabbert, Chavez, RFK jr, etc. It's a very moderate looking cabinet.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Bingo. They have been used as a tool to try to get more, but that hasn't worked, so they are just a money grab.

An identical repeat of a failed attempt to get more sure seems like a bad idea.
Maybe instead if tariffs that do nothing, we just lock down imports of all the goods from foreign countries, and make the stuff here.

There are two ways to win: be better, or eliminate the competition entirely.
We can't be better and we know it.
That leaves...

Why can't we be better?

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

I think it may hold up for Trump. Look at who he it trying to stack his cabinet with: Tulsi Gabbert, Chavez, RFK jr, etc. It's a very moderate looking cabinet.

I'd vote the gabbard ticket regardless of what party she runs under. That woman is sharp and has some common sense...a rare combination in modern politics

RFK really might have beaten Trump if he would've had the dem endorsement instead of being tossed aside

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

An identical repeat of a failed attempt to get more sure seems like a bad idea.

When have we used a drastic sized tariff to do something about the caravans coming through mexico? Can't be a repeat if it hasn't been done.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Why can't we be better?

Because Obama said something along those lines

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Why can't we be better?

Because we want to get paid more to make a product but pay less to buy it.

No one wants to open business to break even or operate at a loss. And you can't make profit if you have to pay out what you take in.
Hell, our farmers can't even get by without subsidies and welfare, and they grow something we can't live without.

So we turn to offshore mfg to allow for profit.
It's on the backs of other countries, when it used to be on the backs of Americans.

Remember the fur trade from history books?
The laborers (indigenous people, more often than not) had to pay the "boss" for their food, clothing, basic needs. And they needed that stuff before the first portage was ever made, so they were immediately indebted to the boss.
And it just so happened that their needs cost as much as their pay, or even more. They were the "offshore cheap labor".

Fast forward to now. Bezos is a bazillionaire from selling imported goods, who pays min wage wherever he can.
You don't get wealthy by breaking even.

If we could do it better, don't you think we would have done that instead of offshoring many decades ago?