Tarrifs (1 Viewer)

[Isaac]

 

[Isaac]

Ok, for anyone who yells at me for that ... "I'm sorry" in advance.

As a self appointed administrator for just 5 minutes, I felt I simply had to copy 2 things from the jokes thread over here, since they're so , ummm, Not Jokes and relevant

 

[Steve R.]

Consider this. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are offering to reduce government spending.
Recently Harris sat down with Stephanie Ruhle and was asked about tax policy. Ruhle at one point asked what would happen if Harris could not get Congressional approval for proposed tax increases. Harris's response: "but we have to raise taxes" as if there is no other possible option. As usual, Ruble does not ask an obvious followup question of what Harris would do should she not get the funding she wants. Clearly, reducing federal spending is off the table with Democrats. Moreover, Harris does not seem to be aware that she would need to negotiate. That displays a high degree of unilateral authoritarianism. My way or the highway. Democrats are the threat to democracy.

Kamala Harris Tells MSNBC "We Have To Raise Corporate Taxes," Says Donald Trump "Not Very Serious" About Key Issues

 

[RogerCooper]

Social Security - The government has been taking money from me at gunpoint for 60+ years. It is MY money and I want it back. "They" have permanently "fixed" SS at least three times since the 1980's. Either the actuaries are dumber than rocks or the money is being diverted to other places. You, on the other hand, should never collect SS because you don't believe in it. Congress has looked at privatizing SS but it is too big a slush fund for them to give up. The extended family has gone the way of the dodo bird. Children no longer care for their parents when they get old. They leave it to the government. So, SS was invented. No one was thinking about a population bubble back in the 30's. But WWII happened and what followed was a population bubble. I am at the leading edge of that bubble and its impact will pass in another 15 years which will bring us back to more workers paying in than collecting so the point will be moot at some point. Of course, If Congress hadn't actually spent the "trust fund" on other stuff, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Like all insurance, SS is designed to pay out as little as possible but Congress wasn't paying attention and medical science expanded our life spans to the point where SS is paying out more than the actuaries planned for. But, don't worry about that either, the food industry is making us sick enough that life expectancy is dropping again.

Medicare is rife with fraud. I get several phone calls a month from various companies trying to sell me something that Medicare will pay for. Many of these items are not high cost so they tend to be easy to get approval for. If something costs $50 per month, how much effort should Medicare expend to determine if you need it? The problem is when you multiply that by thousands. We have computers. All we need to do is to use them to find the fraud. It is there in the statistics for all to see.

Defense is also a money pit, largely due to the way the government procurement process. I've worked for a number of large companies in the "military-industrial complex". The government calls up and says, give us a quote to make 100 of these every year for 5 years. And we do. so they order 1 and we charge them for 100% of the tooling to make the one. Using our cost accounting system, I can absolutely prove to you that the toilet seat cost $300. It's the same concept that allows hospitals to charge inpatients $15 each day for new paper slippers. But we won't go into the ridiculous cost of health care.

Most of your complaints are valid (or even understated with US spending twice as much on healthcare as Japan for worse results), but I don't see any specific recommendations for legislation. For example, the Social Security deficit could be cured by doing the following:

1. Cut benefits 10%
2. Raise payroll taxes 10%
3. Double legal immigration (bringing large numbers of young workers who will not receive Social Security for decades)

Complaining about high government spending doesn't mean anything. The Republican party has lost interest in doing anything other than complaining since the 1990's. Talking about waste and fraud means nothing if you are not suggesting legislation which would reduce waste and fraud.

 

[Isaac]

Talking about waste and fraud means nothing if you are not suggesting legislation which would reduce waste and fraud

But why is legislation the only answer?

If one party commits a lot of waste, and the other party commits less, then one possible solution is to just stop voting for the party that commits waste. That alone will stop the increasing flow of waste.

 

[Steve R.]

1. Cut benefits 10%

Austerity may be needed. No issue there.
(PS: Over time the scope of Social Security has expanded beyond its original intention. Restore Social Security to its original intent.)

2. Raise payroll taxes 10%

No, find other austerity type cuts. Other federal handouts can be reduced to "force" people back to work. Don't work, you starve.

3. Double legal immigration (bringing large numbers of young workers who will not receive Social Security for decades)

From where? The Biden/Harris administration is illegally importing low skilled illegal immigrants flooding this country with a new underclass that will be dependent on federal welfare. The illegal immigration program of Biden/Harris is racist and importing people who are not familiar with Western cultural values. The people the that the US should import (legally) must contribute to both the the economy and the culture.

Just to toss this in: what about the environmental effects? Every immigrant brought into this country uses resources and generate pollution. What is worse, the current process of importing illegal immigrants moves people from a low-carbon footprint environment to a high-carbon footprint environment which undermines the very concept of the "green economy".

 

[RogerCooper]

But why is legislation the only answer?

If one party commits a lot of waste, and the other party commits less, then one possible solution is to just stop voting for the party that commits waste. That alone will stop the increasing flow of waste.

How do parties commit waste? Waste is the result of laws and policies. Changing parties has no effect in and of itself. The US regularly rotates between Republicans and Democrats without changing the amount of waste.

Laws can make a difference. Goldwater-Nichols substantially reduced waste in the military by eliminating much duplication between the different branches of the military. Things can be done. Goldwater-Nichols passed the Senate unanimously.

 

[RogerCooper]

From where? The Biden/Harris administration is illegally importing low skilled illegal immigrants flooding this country with a new underclass that will be dependent on federal welfare. The illegal immigration program of Biden/Harris is racist and importing people who are not familiar with Western cultural values. The people the that the US should import (legally) must contribute to both the the economy and the culture.

Just to toss this in: what about the environmental effects? Every immigrant brought into this country uses resources and generate pollution. What is worse, the current process of importing illegal immigrants moves people from a low-carbon footprint environment to a high-carbon footprint environment which undermines the very concept of the "green economy".

Low-skilled immigrants are needed in the economy as well. There are plenty of low-skilled jobs to fill. We don't need PhD's doing the work in food-processing plants.

Your environmental argument is peculiar. Are suggesting that Americans needs to reduce their carbon footprint by decreasing the population? Only a few on the far left suggest that. Most people seem to think we can use our large and prosperous economy to solve the CO2 problem.

 

[Steve R.]

Low-skilled immigrants are needed in the economy as well. There are plenty of low-skilled jobs to fill. We don't need PhD's doing the work in food-processing plants.

There are already many people here who could work, but are not. Remove government subsidies and they may well find the incentive to work.

Low-skilled immigrants are needed in the economy as well. There are plenty of low-skilled jobs to fill. We don't need PhD's doing the work in food-processing plants.

Your environmental argument is peculiar. Are suggesting that Americans needs to reduce their carbon footprint by decreasing the population? Only a few on the far left suggest that. Most people seem to think we can use our large and prosperous economy to solve the CO2 problem.

The problem is people. People use resources and generate pollution. Technology has made our life better, but too many people believe that waving the magical wand of technology will solve all problems. It won't. To repeat, the problem is people.

 

[Isaac]

Changing parties has no effect in and of itself

I disagree with that entirely. If the republicans had been in control, inflation probably would not be as bad and the trillions of dollars in that spending bill probably would have been drastically lessened.

 

[moke123]

The entire FEMA budget has been spent to support people who are in the county illegally.

FEMA apparently disagrees with you.

https://www.fema.gov/disaster/current/hurricane-helene/rumor-response

 

[jpl458]

You miss the reciprocal part. If they add tariffs to our exports, we add tariffs to the stuff we import from them. American car companies can't sell their cars in Germany and other European countries because the tariffs are so high that American cars are way more expensive than locally manufactured cars. If France has tariffs on California wines, then why shouldn't we add tariffs to their wines?

If we tariff goods from China, who pays the tariff? China or who? Simple question.

 

[AccessBlaster]

"Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas warned the Federal Emergency Management Agency does not have enough funding to cover the rest of the hurricane season."

My guess as to why he said that was they want to blame climate change. They can't say we are running out of money because of foolish spending on illegal immigration. After this election they will abandon the migrants and press for more climate spending.

 

[AccessBlaster]

If we tariff goods from China, who pays the tariff? China or who? Simple question.

It doesn't matter because it makes the items more expensive causing consumers to look for alternatives such as locally produced. Jon already explained this a month ago. Go back and read his explanation.

BTW Biden is still doing it, making it a bipartisan issue

 

[Isaac]

If we tariff goods from China, who pays the tariff? China or who? Simple question.

Depends upon how the importers react. There are various routes they could go, depending on their current profit margin and supply chain options
I think you would have to be God to be certain who would end up paying what.

 

[Isaac]

If we tariff goods from China, who pays the tariff? China or who? Simple question.

Nobody. People stop buying so much from China. (one possible result, which nobody can perfectly predict - not even you!)

 

[jpl458]

It doesn't matter because it makes the items more expensive causing consumers to look for alternatives such as locally produced. Jon already explained this a month ago. Go back and read his explanation.

BTW Biden is still doing it, making it a bipartisan issue

Then why does Trump keep saying we will take in millions from the tariffs? Every economist I read, and it's a number of them, state that the importers pay the higher price and pass it on to the consumers.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Every economist I read, and it's a number of them, state that the importers pay the higher price and pass it on to the consumers.

I support any effort to buy American, even if it means supporting the Biden/Harris tariffs.

 

[Steve R.]

Then why does Trump keep saying we will take in millions from the tariffs? Every economist I read, and it's a number of them, state that the importers pay the higher price and pass it on to the consumers.

Please do some research! You are not demonstrating that you understand the topic.

What Is A Tariff; Who Pays Tariffs, And What Are Their Impacts?

A tariff is a tax on imports, often known as a duty or a trade barrier. The purpose of a tariff is generally to protect domestic production and jobs, though economists say other domestic sectors and customers ultimately pay for tariffs. The U.S. has applied tariffs on imports for centuries, ...

When the US was young, government was small, before the industrial revolution, and before the income tax; one of the major revenue sources for the federal government was the tariff. Unfortunately, the word "tariff" has now become reviled to the point that there is little rationale discussion concerning the topic.

A Brief History of Tariffs in the United States

Tariffs in the Early United States

Among the first acts signed into law by the first Congress was The Tariff Act of 1789.[5] The Act had two purposes: (1) to promote trade, and (2) to raise revenue for the federal government.[6] Notably, Alexander Hamilton was a strong proponent of the legislation.[7] Hamilton viewed the Act as playing key roles in protecting the burgeoning American manufacturing sector from foreign competition and in promoting industrial growth over the long term.[8] This law was not without controversy,[9] but it eventually grew to be an important source of revenue for the federal government. It is estimated that in some years during the 19th Century, the tariff provided as much as 95% of the revenue for the federal government.[10] (emphasis added)

The Demise of the Tariff

In the early 1900’s, the adoption of the income tax [11] and the tremendous industrial expansion of the late 1800’s [12] undermined the historical justifications for the tariff in two ways: (1) the U.S. no longer needed the tariff to fund the federal government, and (2) the U.S. no longer needed to protect its industry from foreign competition.[13]

 

[Isaac]

Please do some research! You are not demonstrating that you understand the topic.

What Is A Tariff; Who Pays Tariffs, And What Are Their Impacts?


When the US was young, government was small, before the industrial revolution, and before the income tax; one of the major revenue sources for the federal government was the tariff. Unfortunately, the word "tariff" has now become reviled to the point that there is little rationale discussion concerning the topic.

A Brief History of Tariffs in the United States

Here is an example of a tariff that has been upheld by many presidential administrations and by most accounts has helped save the US auto industry:

The U.S. tariff rate on light trucks, such as pickup trucks and SUVs, has been 25% since 1965. The Johnson administration applied that 25% "chicken" tax as punishment for Europe's tax on U.S. chicken imports. The protectionist measure has long outlived that trade spat.

That U.S. tariff has long protected domestic manufacturing from imports because it adds $5,000 to the cost of a $20,000 truck or SUV. To avoid that U.S. tariff, Germany's Mercedes-Benz decided in the 1990s to build an SUV assembly factory in America, as other foreign manufacturers have done.