Biden Out of Race

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Never cared either way, still don’t, and still don’t understand why anyone else cares. I’m glad it made Alex jones fake cry though

I see you identify as a republican based on your response, but I was more referring to the collective Republican Party. It seems as though Republican politicians cared an awful lot about Epstein a year ago, but all of a sudden they don’t. Curious, don’t ya think? 🤔
 
Soft power gained by governmental actions is overrated. You can play dense all you want, the soft power is in American corporations and has been for 30 years.

I’m sure Microsoft/exxon/nvidia/eli Lilly/salesforce/raytheon/boeing/tesla will stop being American companies projecting soft power in due time if we make it too costly on other countries. Maybe pigs will fly out of our butts too.

That's soft power too.

So are tariffs a good idea or not? If not, why would you give democrats a pass for keeping them? They raise prices, lower soft power, constrict diplomacy, lower prosperity, am I missing something here?

They're not, outside of very limited use cases. I've already explained why I would give a pass to a potential Dem President on this issue, twice.

I blame Trump more for starting stupid policy than for Democrats being slow to roll it back. I do think it would be rolled back, eventually. You even made a point about a 10 year timeline. If Dems kept signficant tariffs on Canada and some others after 10 years, yeah I think that's absolutely bad.

Uh huh, so that’s why democrats are peachy with tariffs now? Talk about rationalization. This was the end of the economy 3 months ago and now you’re ok with keeping them?

Peachy? Who is peachy about them? I think they're bad policy but I also understand there are other priorities to consider. The weirder thing is you're trying to get people upset over something that hasn't happened yet. It's not 2028. We don't have a Dem President. We don't know what Trump will have done with the tariffs by then. So many unknowns at this point.

If you want to be upset with the tariffs (or at the tariffs imposed in 2028 and beyond?) be upset with the guy who is starting/ending/changing them as his mood changes.
 
Uh huh, so that’s why democrats are peachy with tariffs now? Talk about rationalization. This was the end of the economy 3 months ago and now you’re ok with keeping them?

I took the view that the economy was always going to rebound and adjust to the tariffs eventually. The meme is right on a couple levels. It's not just about MAGA declaring victory.

Screenshot_20250404_080049_Reddit~2.jpg
 
Uh huh, so that’s why democrats are peachy with tariffs now? Talk about rationalization. This was the end of the economy 3 months ago and now you’re ok with keeping them?
I don't recall commenting on Democrats' opinions on tariffs. Lemme go look at my posts again concerning my own opinions ... nope, not peachy.

Maybe you could go read what I wrote again too. After all, you quoted me.

As a reminder, 3 and 6 months ago Trump was playing Trumpian brinkmanship games with massively higher tariffs. It's as if some college frat boy was talking about guzzling a liter of vodka and sensible people said "that's stupidly suicidal", and he ended up only drinking six shots of it, and the sensible people said "that's pretty dumb", and then you showed up to chime in with "wow you Chicken Littles sure flip flopped"!
 
That's soft power too.



They're not, outside of very limited use cases. I've already explained why I would give a pass to a potential Dem President on this issue, twice.

I blame Trump more for starting stupid policy than for Democrats being slow to roll it back. I do think it would be rolled back, eventually. You even made a point about a 10 year timeline. If Dems kept signficant tariffs on Canada and some others after 10 years, yeah I think that's absolutely bad.



Peachy? Who is peachy about them? I think they're bad policy but I also understand there are other priorities to consider. The weirder thing is you're trying to get people upset over something that hasn't happened yet. It's not 2028. We don't have a Dem President. We don't know what Trump will have done with the tariffs by then. So many unknowns at this point.

If you want to be upset with the tariffs (or at the tariffs imposed in 2028 and beyond?) be upset with the guy who is starting/ending/changing them as his mood changes.

Oh I’m not happy about the tariffs at all. I think it’s the actual worst thing Trump has done and I don’t see it working as he or anyone else thinks.

So your issue is that immediately killing the tariffs creates too much economic and foreign relations effect and that it’s better to back them off slowly. I tend to disagree given how quickly we appear to have adjusted to the current insane rates and threats.

We aren’t all that far away from the democrats being able to roll them back if they want. It’s only a year and a half until there’s a likely democratic house that can shut the emergency power BS down real quick and get rid of the tariffs.

I think if they’re not going to immediately go after the tariffs they’ll need to have a really good reason beyond soft power not to. Americans do not care about soft power at all and it won’t drive their votes. If the economy is going to be similar under democrats then what’s their angle to win people back from Trump endorsed house republicans? I think that’s their best chance to get the house, but if the economic argument isn’t there then there won’t be much of an argument that anyone takes seriously
 
  • Like
Reactions: pgg
We aren’t all that far away from the democrats being able to roll them back if they want. It’s only a year and a half until there’s a likely democratic house that can shut the emergency power BS down real quick and get rid of the tariffs.

It would be good if they did.

I think if they’re not going to immediately go after the tariffs they’ll need to have a really good reason beyond soft power not to. Americans do not care about soft power at all and it won’t drive their votes. If the economy is going to be similar under democrats then what’s their angle to win people back from Trump endorsed house republicans? I think that’s their best chance to get the house, but if the economic argument isn’t there then there won’t be much of an argument that anyone takes seriously

Meh. I'm not going to blame them for being slow to roll them back if they have the power.

I suppose if the idea is that removing tariffs will make the economy even hotter then Dems might take that route. I don't know. We'll see what tariffs are like a year from now and in 2028. It might be a big issue on people's minds for the midterms or maybe Trump will have ****ed something else up and something else will be on their minds.
 
It would be good if they did.



Meh. I'm not going to blame them for being slow to roll them back if they have the power.

I suppose if the idea is that removing tariffs will make the economy even hotter then Dems might take that route. I don't know. We'll see what tariffs are like a year from now and in 2028. It might be a big issue on people's minds for the midterms or maybe Trump will have ****ed something else up and something else will be on their minds.

I think the first 6 months of the term was the best chance the democrats will have to make their bones and campaign slogans. They’ve got the immigration issues (weak to moderately strong), the foreign policy issues (weaker), the tariffs (strongest by far in my view), the BBB (moderate) and the social/cultural issues (weak).

Beyond that there isn’t much that sticks in my mind, and time will shorten pretty soon to where campaigns need to start planning. It’ll be hard to run on the BBB personal economic issues while simultaneously softly endorsing tariffs.
 
I think the first 6 months of the term was the best chance the democrats will have to make their bones and campaign slogans. They’ve got the immigration issues (weak to moderately strong), the foreign policy issues (weaker), the tariffs (strongest by far in my view), the BBB (moderate) and the social/cultural issues (weak).

Beyond that there isn’t much that sticks in my mind, and time will shorten pretty soon to where campaigns need to start planning. It’ll be hard to run on the BBB personal economic issues while simultaneously softly endorsing tariffs.

Now you're talking about campaign strategy?

It depends heavily on what district/state you're in. I assume attacking the tariffs will play better in some places than others. I wouldn't presume to know at this point. If Trump drops all of the tariff nonsense a few months before the election, this could all be a moot point. In TACO we trust. I don't know how many "deadlines" we're past at this point for the Mexico tariffs.

I don't particularly care which campaign strategies Dems use as long as they're effective/legal.
 
Last edited:
Now you're talking about campaign strategy?

It depends heavily on what district/state you're in. I assume attacking the tariffs will play better in some places than others. I wouldn't presume to know at this point. If Trump drops all of the tariff nonsense a few months before the election, this could all be a moot point. In TACO we trust. I don't know how many "deadlines" we're passed at this point for the Mexico tariffs.

I don't particularly care which campaign strategies Dems use as long as they're effective/legal.

I’m trying to differentiate the two parties based on issues I think voters actually care about. These differences drive votes in the end and I’m curious what people think on the major issues that I believe drive turnout.

Certainly more interesting than griping about every single day of trumps term. At least to me
 
Clown show. Are they punking him? Does Ashton Kutcher come out at the end? Would these US Senators pass their oral boards? Are they DEI admits? One dummy has never heard of “Signapoor” and the people who voted for him are likely stupider than him. I wanna know their admissions stats.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clown show. Are they punking him? Does Ashton Kutcher come out at the end? Would these US Senators pass their oral boards? Are they DEI admits? One dummy has never heard of “Signapoor” and the people who voted for him are likely stupider than him. I wanna know their admissions stats.



Lol.

Are they all/mostly Republicans?
 

Lol
Even if everything in that article is true regarding what she said, it’s all subjective. The article says Trump, per her, never did anything concerning. We are to believe that she has an appropriate moral compass of what is “concerning”? I wouldn’t trust her judgement on much of anything
 
Even if everything in that article is true regarding what she said, it’s all subjective. The article says Trump, per her, never did anything concerning. We are to believe that she has an appropriate moral compass of what is “concerning”? I wouldn’t trust her judgement on much of anything
Hey, the administration is trying hard. If that stuff does not die down, I have a feeling democrats will run on releasing file in the midterm election.
 
Just say Trump firing this lady was bad and move on. I know you don't want to actually defend his actions here right?

You're consistently more upset about an "overreaction" than about some of the indefensible actions themselves. Whether it be your boy Hegseth (yeah, I haven't forgotten the hour video I watched at your request to get a measure of his "character") still in the White House running his own foreign policy or just grifting off access with another meme coin event. Or firing this lady for doing her job...

As much as you say others are overly critical of Trump, you are one of his most ardent defenders on here anymore. Even if that defense amounts to obfuscation of his actions and painting his critics as chicken little.


If the conversation was isolated to her firing and not a means to pivot the continuous doom prognostication coming from y’all I would gladly have done that.

Hegseth comments towards women in the military were taken out of context. Which was the point of the video, which you or someone like you agreed with after “watching”, no?

I’m on record being critical of Trump, likely many times over the left having anything remotely positive to say here.
 
Someone mentioned estate taxes generate 25-50 billion per year for the USA govt.

Well the trump tariffs already generates a whooping 30 billion in ONE MONTH deposited into the us treasury. That my friends is how you generate tax revenue. Not nickeling and dining the super rich who will always evade taxes.

On the flip side. Guess who ultimately pays for the tarrifs….you guessed it. The American people will pay for it with higher prices at the point of sale. It’s ingenious.

And that’s what I keep telling people. We have a shared responsibility to all pitch in and pay down the debt. No one likes to pay extra but that’s the reality of the situation.
 
Someone mentioned estate taxes generate 25-50 billion per year for the USA govt.

Well the trump tariffs already generates a whooping 30 billion in ONE MONTH deposited into the us treasury. That my friends is how you generate tax revenue. Not nickeling and dining the super rich who will always evade taxes.

On the flip side. Guess who ultimately pays for the tarrifs….you guessed it. The American people will pay for it with higher prices at the point of sale. It’s ingenious.

And that’s what I keep telling people. We have a shared responsibility to all pitch in and pay down the debt. No one likes to pay extra but that’s the reality of the situation.
It's a regressive tax hike, kind of like a flat rate tax would be. And if that was the strategy - to raise revenue and eliminate the deficit and debt - then I'd have less criticism of it.

Broadly speaking, in the long run barriers to free trade make everyone less prosperous. The entire point of trade is that each side sends a good (or monetary unit) that is of less value to them than the good (or monetary unit) they receive. This is a universal truth and has been the driving force between all trade between all humans for the entirety of history. Trade makes BOTH sides wealthier. It is not a zero sum game, and Trump's consistent framing of it as a contest to be won or lost is stupid.

What's especially bad is
1) targeting allied countries with bizarrely punitive tariffs
2) the slipshod and incompetent calculation of trade deficits to set the rates
3) the day to day and week to week unpredictability - this is more harmful than the tariffs themselves
4) the proceeds from tariffs aren't even offsetting tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy or increases in spending

Tariffs aren't ALL bad. Trump is just screwing the country with them. I dunno, maybe he thinks the USA a 14-year-old girl?
 
State of U.S. Tariffs: August 7, 2025. Yale Budget Lab.

"Overall Price Level & Distributional Effects: The price level from all 2025 tariffs rises by 1.8% in the short-run, the equivalent of an average per household income loss of $2,400 in 2025$. This assumes the Federal Reserve does not react to tariffs and so the real income adjustment comes primarily through prices rather than nominal incomes; if the Federal Reserve reacted, the adjustment could in part come in the form of lower nominal incomes. Annual pre-substitution losses for households at the bottom of the income distribution are $1,300 . The post-substitution price increase settles at 1.5% , a $2,100 loss per household."

Lot of caveats with these numbers. Their assumption that the tariffs will stay in effect in perpetuity is a big one.

 
Someone mentioned estate taxes generate 25-50 billion per year for the USA govt.

Well the trump tariffs already generates a whooping 30 billion in ONE MONTH deposited into the us treasury. That my friends is how you generate tax revenue. Not nickeling and dining the super rich who will always evade taxes.

On the flip side. Guess who ultimately pays for the tarrifs….you guessed it. The American people will pay for it with higher prices at the point of sale. It’s ingenious.

And that’s what I keep telling people. We have a shared responsibility to all pitch in and pay down the debt. No one likes to pay extra but that’s the reality of the situation.
Lol

A shared responsibility to pitch in...yet you also argue that its better to tax the average citizen because the super rich will just evade it anyways.

The super rich evade it because the government allows it. They donate to the GOP who fight against every attempt to raise taxes on the rich. And the average GOP voter swallows that nonsense just like they swallowed immigration issues, trans issues, obama birth certificate, burisma, emails, etc

The government could tax the rich and collect..IF they wanted to

Tariffs are a terrible way to raise revenue. They decrease economic activity, investment and increase costs. It will just decrease growth and ultimately decrease tax revenue below what the tariffs generate
 
Lol

A shared responsibility to pitch in...yet you also argue that its better to tax the average citizen because the super rich will just evade it anyways.

The super rich evade it because the government allows it. They donate to the GOP who fight against every attempt to raise taxes on the rich. And the average GOP voter swallows that nonsense just like they swallowed immigration issues, trans issues, obama birth certificate, burisma, emails, etc

The government could tax the rich and collect..IF they wanted to

Tariffs are a terrible way to raise revenue. They decrease economic activity, investment and increase costs. It will just decrease growth and ultimately decrease tax revenue below what the tariffs generate
I’m just telling u that’s how revenue gets collected. The rich buy off both political parties with their lobbying power. It’s never gonna to change.

Things like real estate have so many tax laws changes that continues to favor that industry. Clinton gave a big boost to tax free real estate sales and now trump gives the real estate industry another blank check for tax savings.

Becuase look at where most of tax revenue is collected. They need the common people to contribute to taxes collected one way or another. And it’s much harder for the common person to evade the taxes or take advantage of the tax laws.
 
I’m just telling u that’s how revenue gets collected. The rich buy off both political parties with their lobbying power. It’s never gonna to change.

Things like real estate have so many tax laws changes that continues to favor that industry. Clinton gave a big boost to tax free real estate sales and now trump gives the real estate industry another blank check for tax savings.

Becuase look at where most of tax revenue is collected. They need the common people to contribute to taxes collected one way or another. And it’s much harder for the common person to evade the taxes or take advantage of the tax laws.


Like children, poor people need better lobbyists.
 
Making the Smithsonian change their exhibits to align with President Pedo’s views of American history, faking economic data and jobs reports, firing competent people who report/publish negative news, getting a successful late night TV show that’s been running for over 30 years cancelled bc the host said stuff that hurt trump’s feelings, corrupting every branch of government including the courts and DOJ so that they don’t go against his agenda, deploying the military into blue cities, gerrymandering the map to rig future elections, soft pardoning the most notorious child sex trafficker in US history to avoid investigation and release of files showing he’s complicit…. and can go on and on. Lying and scamming everyday to maintain semblance of legitimacy. If it walks like a duck...

 
Well that didn't take long. Trump declares an emergency because of a threat that doesn't exist and starts military takeover of DC, hands over city leadership positions to Bondi and other loyalists. Totally no authoritarian precedent there...
 
Goons doing what goons do. Intimidation campaign.



More enroute.

i guess loan forgiveness for this but not for physicians and teachers etc....

i have no loans for the record.....
 
i guess loan forgiveness for this but not for physicians and teachers etc....

i have no loans for the record.....
You can absolutely get a lot of loan forgiveness if you work as a physician for the federal government (VA)

Edit: looks like nurses too


Honestly it’s ridiculous how much we subsidize student loans. Instead of forgiving 40k per year tax free can you imagine if the VA just paid an extra 40k per year post-tax? It would become one of the best PCP jobs in America overnight
 
It’s a religion.


Intel stock climbs 7% on report Trump administration is considering stake in chipmaker​


Is it only socialism when democrats do it? Everyone seems to be ok with whatever Trump does these days.




“Unlike any leader of any free-market economy around the world, President Trump has seized control of private enterprise’s strategic decision-making and investment policies while invading corporate board rooms so that he may dictate leadership staffing, punish corporate critics, and demand public compliance with his political agenda. This is far more dangerous to capitalism than a city-run grocery store.

Many free-market economists and business leaders who have long worshipped the free-market ideals of Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand, and Milton Friedman should be aware that their idols would be rolling in their graves right now, as rather than pursue standard laissez-faire conservative economic policies, MAGA has gone Marxist and even, increasingly, Maoist.

As Greg Ip warned this week in The Wall Street Journal, “The US marches toward state capitalism with American characteristics … President Trump is imitating [the] Chinese Communist Party by extending political control ever deeper into the economy.” Ip pointed out that in the past, crisis-driven government bailouts of the banking and automotive sectors, such as TARP, were acute, targeted assistance, with brief and bipartisan rescue aims. Similarly, government incentives to drive investments in chips manufacturing, oil exploration, space exploration, internet development, agricultural vitality, cancer detection, disease treatment, and clean energy were not ownership deals with preferred companies or corporate cronies.”

Indeed, Ip’s warnings mirror our own, as we were the first to accurately, presciently warn—over a year ago—that many of Trump’s economic positions more closely resemble communism than capitalism, as part of what we called “the coming MAGA assault on capitalism.” It certainly looks like MAGA is going Marxist if not even Maoist, especially across Trump’s vicious personal targeting of individual business leaders; government crackdown on business freedom of expression; weaponization of government powers; apparent extortion of businesses; and insertion of government into an unprecedented, outsized role in private sector strategic investment, capital flows and business decision-making.

Marxism and Maoism were both, of course, expressions of the communist theory that spilled forth from Karl Marx’s pen in the 19th century, brought to life in the brutal one-party states of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China under its leader Mao Zedong, before it evolved into “capitalism with Chinese characteristics” starting in the 1970s, around the time of President Richard Nixon’s fateful visit to Beijing.

Both Marxism and Maoism claimed to champion “ordinary people” against corrupt or exploitative elites, while both targeted intellectuals, bureaucrats, and traditionalists, and purged institutions to enforce ideological purity, especially during Stalin’s “Great Terror” and Mao’s “Cultural Revolution.” Both centralized leadership to the point of creating a cult of personality, demanding intense loyalty and the glorification of the sole figure who could fix the country’s problems. Both prized loyalty over expertise, sidelining critics and dissenters in favor of a tightly controlled political narrative. Sound familiar?”
 
Last edited by a moderator:

“Unlike any leader of any free-market economy around the world, President Trump has seized control of private enterprise’s strategic decision-making and investment policies while invading corporate board rooms so that he may dictate leadership staffing, punish corporate critics, and demand public compliance with his political agenda. This is far more dangerous to capitalism than a city-run grocery store.

Many free-market economists and business leaders who have long worshipped the free-market ideals of Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand, and Milton Friedman should be aware that their idols would be rolling in their graves right now, as rather than pursue standard laissez-faire conservative economic policies, MAGA has gone Marxist and even, increasingly, Maoist.

As Greg Ip warned this week in The Wall Street Journal, “The US marches toward state capitalism with American characteristics … President Trump is imitating [the] Chinese Communist Party by extending political control ever deeper into the economy.” Ip pointed out that in the past, crisis-driven government bailouts of the banking and automotive sectors, such as TARP, were acute, targeted assistance, with brief and bipartisan rescue aims. Similarly, government incentives to drive investments in chips manufacturing, oil exploration, space exploration, internet development, agricultural vitality, cancer detection, disease treatment, and clean energy were not ownership deals with preferred companies or corporate cronies.”

Indeed, Ip’s warnings mirror our own, as we were the first to accurately, presciently warn—over a year ago—that many of Trump’s economic positions more closely resemble communism than capitalism, as part of what we called “the coming MAGA assault on capitalism.” It certainly looks like MAGA is going Marxist if not even Maoist, especially across Trump’s vicious personal targeting of individual business leaders; government crackdown on business freedom of expression; weaponization of government powers; apparent extortion of businesses; and insertion of government into an unprecedented, outsized role in private sector strategic investment, capital flows and business decision-making.

Marxism and Maoism were both, of course, expressions of the communist theory that spilled forth from Karl Marx’s pen in the 19th century, brought to life in the brutal one-party states of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China under its leader Mao Zedong, before it evolved into “capitalism with Chinese characteristics” starting in the 1970s, around the time of President Richard Nixon’s fateful visit to Beijing.

Both Marxism and Maoism claimed to champion “ordinary people” against corrupt or exploitative elites, while both targeted intellectuals, bureaucrats, and traditionalists, and purged institutions to enforce ideological purity, especially during Stalin’s “Great Terror” and Mao’s “Cultural Revolution.” Both centralized leadership to the point of creating a cult of personality, demanding intense loyalty and the glorification of the sole figure who could fix the country’s problems. Both prized loyalty over expertise, sidelining critics and dissenters in favor of a tightly controlled political narrative. Sound familiar?”
It is just insane that no one is saying anything about it.

Are people just saying Trump will be Trump?

Asking for Nvidia and AMD to give you a percentage of their profit, and also the government thinking about taking ownership of a publicly traded company is insane to me.
 
It is just insane that no one is saying anything about it.

Are people just saying Trump will be Trump?

Asking for Nvidia and AMD to give you a percentage of their profit, and also the government thinking about taking ownership of a publicly traded company is insane to me.
But people aren’t talking as much about Epstein now, are they?
 
It is just insane that no one is saying anything about it.

Are people just saying Trump will be Trump?

Asking for Nvidia and AMD to give you a percentage of their profit, and also the government thinking about taking ownership of a publicly traded company is insane to me.


I’m not 100% opposed to central planning and incentivizing important industries. That’s how China captured the lead in manufacturing, clean energy, and the EV industry. But the general flow of money went in the opposite direction there. The government subsidized key industries in order to capture and dominate these industries. They didn’t impose export tariffs.
 
I’m not 100% opposed to central planning and incentivizing important industries. That’s how China captured the lead in manufacturing, clean energy, and the EV industry. But the general flow of money went in the opposite direction there. The government subsidized key industries in order to capture and dominate these industries. They didn’t impose export tariffs.

Well - to take "clean energy" as one example - it's not just that China decided to put government investment in solar panels to boost their manufacturers. It's that they subsidized the process so much that Chinese manufacturers could dump their product way, way below cost overseas to harm foreign competitors.

(If ever there's an argument in favor of high/punitive focused tariffs ... there it is.)

Central planning is inherently inefficient and wasteful compared to raw capitalism. It's literally government picking winners rather than the market.

This is very different than "incentivizing important industries" which governments should be doing. It's unfortunate that the industries our government incentivizes so enthusiastically are things like corn, dairy, and oil.

Or you could look at perverse incentives and centuries-behind-the-times laws that lead to wasted resources and even destruction of scarce resources ... we could start by looking square at your own state's water management policies and its complete inability to change historic water rights that leads to outrageous agricultural waste.

China does some of these things better, but that doesn't mean we should emulate them.
 
Well - to take "clean energy" as one example - it's not just that China decided to put government investment in solar panels to boost their manufacturers. It's that they subsidized the process so much that Chinese manufacturers could dump their product way, way below cost overseas to harm foreign competitors.

(If ever there's an argument in favor of high/punitive focused tariffs ... there it is.)

Central planning is inherently inefficient and wasteful compared to raw capitalism. It's literally government picking winners rather than the market.

This is very different than "incentivizing important industries" which governments should be doing. It's unfortunate that the industries our government incentivizes so enthusiastically are things like corn, dairy, and oil.


Why don’t we do this to wipe out our competition?
 
Well - to take "clean energy" as one example - it's not just that China decided to put government investment in solar panels to boost their manufacturers. It's that they subsidized the process so much that Chinese manufacturers could dump their product way, way below cost overseas to harm foreign competitors.

(If ever there's an argument in favor of high/punitive focused tariffs ... there it is.)

Central planning is inherently inefficient and wasteful compared to raw capitalism. It's literally government picking winners rather than the market.

This is very different than "incentivizing important industries" which governments should be doing. It's unfortunate that the industries our government incentivizes so enthusiastically are things like corn, dairy, and oil.

Or you could look at perverse incentives and centuries-behind-the-times laws that lead to wasted resources and even destruction of scarce resources ... we could start by looking square at your own state's water management policies and its complete inability to change historic water rights that leads to outrageous agricultural waste.

China does some of these things better, but that doesn't mean we should emulate them.
Yup. Punitive, focused tariffs are more logical and potentially effective.

Although, in the case of solar panels, its probably better to subsidize our own combined with tariffs on certain chinese panels. That way we create a market of cheap energy production

Right now we subsidize coal and oil, even though those are dying technologies, more expensive for energy generation (and thats even when you dont account for the pollution, adverse health effects, global warming, etc)

All for some votes in red states. Meanwhile China is investing full force into solar, fusion, nuclear, etc. we are celebrating coal and gas...
 
I was against the tariff, but if they are using the proceed to pay for debt/deficit, I am for it now. I know prices are starting to go up but we gotta do something.
 
I was against the tariff, but if they are using the proceed to pay for debt/deficit, I am for it now. I know prices are starting to go up but we gotta do something.
Problem is...its a consumption tax. And taxing consumption when the US economy is primarily based on consumption is a recipe for a recession. This will typically drive down tax revenues and GDP

Taxing the rich for the same amount would have far less detrimental economic effects
 
Problem is...its a consumption tax. And taxing consumption when the US economy is primarily based on consumption is a recipe for a recession. This will typically drive down tax revenues and GDP

Taxing the rich for the same amount would have far less detrimental economic effects
I understand that, but congress (especially the GOP) will never raise taxes on the rich.
 
Top