Joe Ferguson forever Posted Thursday at 04:59 PM Posted Thursday at 04:59 PM 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 Posted Thursday at 05:38 PM Posted Thursday at 05:38 PM 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. 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted Thursday at 05:42 PM Posted Thursday at 05:42 PM 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 Posted Thursday at 05:50 PM Posted Thursday at 05:50 PM 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 Posted Thursday at 06:02 PM Posted Thursday at 06:02 PM 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 Posted Thursday at 06:34 PM Posted Thursday at 06:34 PM 29 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: Nope. I've consistently voted against my own financial interests. I understand your perspective.
Niagara Bill Posted Friday at 10:55 AM Posted Friday at 10:55 AM When, for all that is righteous, if trump has any compassion, when....will the penguins get their trade deal....
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted Friday at 11:58 AM Posted Friday at 11:58 AM 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. 1
ComradeKayAdams Posted Friday at 12:03 PM Posted Friday at 12:03 PM 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!!!” 4
Buddy Hix Posted Friday at 10:50 PM Posted Friday at 10:50 PM https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/detroit-three-automakers-blast-trump-uk-trade-deal-2025-05-08/ Trump and his ***** press secretary can’t explain his plan because he doesn’t have one. Just a big cluster***** of policies that can be changed on a whim, based on whoever can enrich Trump the most. 1 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted Friday at 11:54 PM Posted Friday at 11:54 PM 11 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said: 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! no one is confusing trump's politics with Bernie's...
Andy1 Posted Saturday at 02:47 AM Posted Saturday at 02:47 AM 13 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said: 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!!!” It’s taken me a few rereads to see what you are getting at about the socialism comment. Every time dems propose modest tax increase, increases in fuel efficiency standards, health care, or just about any progressive social policy, the immediate reaction by the right is to scream socialism/communism. Now Trump (the guy with the golden toilet) is imposing the largest tax increase in history, telling Americans they should be happy with less, and all we hear is crickets from the right. I totally agree with how progressive tariffs would and have differed from the moronic Trump approach. The Trump tariffs are on everything and everywhere, and that means they are really not about anything they claim. The reason for them is not about trade deficits since they apply to countries we have trade surpluses with. There is no national trade deficit emergency, which is what Trump declared, since we have had trade deficits for 50 years. They are not about curbing fentanyl (the justification originally used) since they apply to all countries. It’s not about returning jobs to America since they apply to everything, including products or food items we will never produce here. If it were about helping American companies, there would be stated policies, gradual implementation with predictability so business could plan and adapt and incentives would be offered. None of that applies. So by default, it’s about something they can’t say. And that answer is likely the greed for wealth and power of a megalomaniac and corporate greed of the oligarchs. Everything else is distraction for justification of their actions. They can’t lie about the economy though. When store shelves are empty and prices are stupid high, people will know why. Companies will show the Trump tax on their invoices. Trump has put himself in quite a box of his own making. The pressure is on to deliver amazing trade deals. Otherwise he, his party and his economy will be a colossal failure. The extreme Trump agenda may be what brings a future public backlash favoring more social democratic policies and anti corruption legislation. 1 1 1
4th&long Posted Saturday at 11:39 AM Posted Saturday at 11:39 AM FAFO. People are sharing receipts from tariffs. Trump can't bully every company to not show the tariff charge. "It's Real Y'all": People Are Sharing Their Tariff Receipts, And My Wallet Is Not Ready For What's Coming https://flip.it/N6bjTd
ComradeKayAdams Posted 20 hours ago Posted 20 hours ago On 5/9/2025 at 7:54 PM, Joe Ferguson forever said: no one is confusing trump's politics with Bernie's... Some in media circles already are, though, which was my point. I’m referring strictly to their ECONOMIC politics, of course, and nothing else. Specifically: standard progressive protectionism versus Trump’s current tariff policies. You and I may find the conflation absurd, but the average American doesn’t follow politics nearly as closely as we do. Corporate establishment propaganda can be disturbingly effective on such people. On 5/9/2025 at 10:47 PM, Andy1 said: It’s taken me a few rereads to see what you are getting at about the socialism comment. Do you understand now? Or do you want me to clarify my thoughts? I was basically providing commentary on political strategy and on how the word “socialism” is being misconstrued for the purposes of propaganda. To elaborate a bit further, think of American politics as divided into 4 factions: far-left populist progressives who tend to vote for Democrats, centrist establishment neoliberals who also tend to vote for Democrats, MAGA dullards, and libertarians who tend to vote for Republicans. As Trump’s economy collapses and Bernie’s “Fighting Oligarchy Tour” surges in popularity, the other two factions (neoliberals and libertarians) seek to fill the power void by associating both populist factions (MAGA dullards and Bernie progs) with the unpopular economy. Progressives should NOT rely on an emergent economic depression to counter the propaganda. They need to figure out how to communicate effectively with the American people. Even though I’m (apparently) not the best consultant on such matters, I’ll still recommend a simple visual display of two superimposed plots: one showing American worker productivity since the early Reagan administration, and another showing inflation-adjusted wage growth in that same time span. The observed difference in slope is the labor exploitation of the American Neoliberal Era. In theory, market socialism would eliminate the difference in slope. In practice, progressive taxation policies (as guided by professional economists) can suffice. 1
Roundybout Posted 20 hours ago Posted 20 hours ago 13 hours ago, B-Man said: THIS IS NOT HOW TARIFFS WORK
Andy1 Posted 18 hours ago Posted 18 hours ago 1 hour ago, ComradeKayAdams said: Some in media circles already are, though, which was my point. I’m referring strictly to their ECONOMIC politics, of course, and nothing else. Specifically: standard progressive protectionism versus Trump’s current tariff policies. You and I may find the conflation absurd, but the average American doesn’t follow politics nearly as closely as we do. Corporate establishment propaganda can be disturbingly effective on such people. Do you understand now? Or do you want me to clarify my thoughts? I was basically providing commentary on political strategy and on how the word “socialism” is being misconstrued for the purposes of propaganda. To elaborate a bit further, think of American politics as divided into 4 factions: far-left populist progressives who tend to vote for Democrats, centrist establishment neoliberals who also tend to vote for Democrats, MAGA dullards, and libertarians who tend to vote for Republicans. As Trump’s economy collapses and Bernie’s “Fighting Oligarchy Tour” surges in popularity, the other two factions (neoliberals and libertarians) seek to fill the power void by associating both populist factions (MAGA dullards and Bernie progs) with the unpopular economy. Progressives should NOT rely on an emergent economic depression to counter the propaganda. They need to figure out how to communicate effectively with the American people. Even though I’m (apparently) not the best consultant on such matters, I’ll still recommend a simple visual display of two superimposed plots: one showing American worker productivity since the early Reagan administration, and another showing inflation-adjusted wage growth in that same time span. The observed difference in slope is the labor exploitation of the American Neoliberal Era. In theory, market socialism would eliminate the difference in slope. In practice, progressive taxation policies (as guided by professional economists) can suffice. Thanks much for the clarification. I see your point now. You have better knowledge of economic theory than myself. The one thing I’m confident about is that a group of corporate elites will mightily enrich themselves along with Trump during his term. Lower income Americans will struggle due to the various impacts of the Trump tax. During this period and after, there will be a battle of ideas on what to do differently and those wealthy elites will push their corporate propaganda on the public and through the halls of Congress to prevent change. Here is the chart I think you are referring to. One of Trumps advantages (?) is that he speaks at a fourth grade level. He does not speak about logical, rational, realistic solutions to issues. He does not explain complex issues. Instead his speech connects to many people’s emotions. Immigrants are rapists and murderers, Mexico will pay for the wall, America is getting ripped off by other countries, tariffs will force other countries to pay us billions and billions of dollars, we will be richer than ever before, etc. His message is unconstrained by reality. Trump has proven that a lot of the undecided Americans, who do decide elections, believe these types of emotional messaging. Dems need to find a simple message and a messenger who speaks below college level language, to connect with the common, uninterested voters. They shouldn’t fall into the trap of campaigning on rational programs for real problems (CHIPS act was that) as the voters who decide elections don’t care about that. Their message needs broad appeal and drop the group identity politics. Given the nature of their supporters, that will be a challenge. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted 18 hours ago Author Posted 18 hours ago Vet starts small business selling a clever Shark Tanky playmat for high chairs. Product catches on. Manufactured in China, growing warehouse/supply business in Minnesota. Takes out SBA and personal loan to grow as she signs deal to supply Target and Walmart. Personal loan is secured by her family's home. Tariffs hit. Would have to pay $320,000 to get her next shipment from China. That's completely beyond the company's ability to pay. Inventory shrinks. Has no idea if the company will survive. Can't pay back loans with no future revenue stream. Now looking to see if she can go international - maybe sell in Canada, Europe (no special China tariffs) but that's a longshot. American dream/small inventor destroyed by silly tariff games.
Recommended Posts