Trump​ ❤️ Tariffs

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 hour ago, SCBills said:

This is literally every voting group.

 

Poor white people vote for politicians that speak to and/or push policy that helps them.

 

Poor black people do the same thing.  Wtf do you think they are voting for when they support Democrats at a 90% clip?

 

I love how libs get upset when white people vote for their own interests.  Everyone does this. 
 

 

I've voted consistently for higher taxes on my income bracket and more social safety net spending.  So have many liberals (again, look at the demographics).  Any D in the top 30% or so, is voting against their own financial interest.  So no, everyone doesn't do this...

 

Silver lining, trump's social security income tax proposal and renewal of tax breaks pays for several nice vacations a year if they go through  (I'll believe it when I see it).  Would I EVER vote for him because of that?  NO WAY.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

33 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

I've voted consistently for higher taxes on my income bracket and more social safety net spending.  So have many liberals (again, look at the demographics).  Any D in the top 30% or so, is voting against their own financial interest.  So no, everyone doesn't do this...

 

Silver lining, trump's social security income tax proposal and renewal of tax breaks pays for several nice vacations a year if they go through  (I'll believe it when I see it).  Would I EVER vote for him because of that?  NO WAY.

 

You're not unusual in that regard, plenty of conservatives, independents and agnostics have done so.  My thought is that asking/requiring efficiency in tax and spending is the place the dialogue should start, and tax decreases (or increases if necessary) not at constantly filling a bucket with a massive hole in the bottom. 

 

Besides, you can still contribute and really shouldn't need a compulsory tax law to handle the transfer of money.  

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

You're not unusual in that regard, plenty of conservatives, independents and agnostics have done so.  My thought is that asking/requiring efficiency in tax and spending is the place the dialogue should start, and tax decreases (or increases if necessary) not at constantly filling a bucket with a massive hole in the bottom. 

 

Besides, you can still contribute and really shouldn't need a compulsory tax law to handle the transfer of money.  

not the point.  moving the goal posts again.

 

SC stated that everyone votes in their own interest.  this was in response to my post that magas do.  he's wrong.  you agree that he is.  end of story.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

not the point.  moving the goal posts again.

 

SC stated that everyone votes in their own interest.  this was in response to my post that magas do.  he's wrong.  you agree that he is.  end of story.

I may well have missed the point here.  

 

In this case, you have boiled your vote down to your own financial interest, whereby you (theoretically) pay more, but the fact remains you still gain something in return.  Ultimately, people vote their self-interest. 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

11 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I may well have missed the point here.  

 

In this case, you have boiled your vote down to your own financial interest, whereby you (theoretically) pay more, but the fact remains you still gain something in return.  Ultimately, people vote their self-interest. 

Nope.  I've consistently voted against my own financial interests.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

29 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

Nope.  I've consistently voted against my own financial interests.

I understand your perspective.

[Niagara Bill]

When, for all that is righteous, if trump has any compassion, when....will the penguins get their trade deal....

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Niagara Bill said:

When, for all that is righteous, if trump has any compassion, when....will the penguins get their trade deal....

You worry about the Maple Leafs seceding, we’ll worry about the Penguins. 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 5/7/2025 at 2:06 PM, Andy1 said:

That article is 100% right. There is no longer a Free market. Instead Trump is using his power to determine winners and losers in his economy.

 

The tariffs are whatever he wants without the logic of policy behind them. All based on the phony rationale of a national emergency. 

 

It’s not, though! We can’t just redefine socialism to mean “any government economic interventionism that we don’t like” or “a centrally planned economy.” In Trump’s economy, the workers definitely don’t own the means of production. Corporate oligarchs still have all the power and control the flow of wealth generation.

 

Moreover, I automatically distrust the motives of any neoliberal or libertarian author attempting to equate Trump’s economy with socialism. Most Americans still associate the social democratic policies of Bernie/AOC with that of “socialism,” and so the (inevitable) failure of Trump’s economy can then somehow be blamed on the Democratic Party’s progressive wing. It’s quite the predictable ploy we have grown to expect from our country’s corporate media!

 

Let’s all be clear on how progressive tariffs would differ from Trumpian tariffs. A three-stage plan from progressives:

 

1. Carefully crafted prior labor regulations that foster an environment for competitive wage growth and healthy work conditions.

2. Keynesian stimulus packages to expedite foundational shovels-in-the-ground projects and workforce training (a good example: 2022 CHIPS Act).

3. Targeted tariffs applied to a specific and limited set of overseas industries (chosen for reasons like national security and domestic macroeconomic growth balance).

 

And by comparison, a three-stage plan from Trump:

 

1. Broad tariffs imposed on every country and trade ally, with nonsensical and often exorbitant rates.

2. Nose picking as prices predictably soar and markets collapse.

3. Removal of tariff impositions, accompanied with braggadocious “art of the deal” claims.

 

Two key reasons why you should have known all along that Trump was an economic charlatan:

 

1. He thinks trade “deficits” are inherently bad, as if this kind of deficit is in any way similar to a personal/family budgetary “deficit!”

2. He claims his tariffs are to be used for tax revenue generation, even though successfully applied tariffs are intended to do the exact opposite…INHIBIT international consumption of goods!

 

Kay’s Super Profound Conclusion: So what’s REALLY going on here?? Well, some people in America are certainly benefiting from Trump’s economic machinations! In the progressive vernacular, these people are referred to as “corporate oligarchs.” Others will be much worse off, due to the regressive taxation effect of widespread price inflation on consumer goods (followed by macroeconomic contraction). Let’s call this group the “99%.” So now Little Susie gets 3 dolls for her birthday instead of 30, Little Joey gets 5 pencils for school instead of 250, and Commie Kay gets maybe only a few dozen Squishmallows (at most) for her new queen size bed instead of THOUSANDS. I think I speak for Susie and Joey when I say, “BLEEP you, MAGA Commies!!!”