Tarrifs

[Pat Hartman]

I guess Mayorkas telling us they are out of money doesn't count.

$750 to citizens who lost their homes to a storm
$2000+ to criminals in the country illegally

Seems right to me.

 

[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

 

[Pat Hartman]

Simple question.

Easy answer which you've gotten many times already.

 

[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.

 

[AccessBlaster]

The left claims to support American workers with pro-union policies, but at the same time they push for cheap Chinese imports that undercut those same workers. Their pro-union stance drives up costs for everyone, while the influx of cheap foreign goods leaves American industries struggling to compete.

 

[Pat Hartman]

The left claims to support American workers with pro-union policies,

What they support is keeping unions powerful so they can collect dues that they then spend to buy members of Congress. The Union has outlived its usefulness. The rust belt is dying and new industries are moving to "right to work" states.

Why does every member of Congress who manages more than a single term end up a multi-millionaire. We don't pay them that much money.

 

[RogerCooper]

Cut your own benefits. I want my money back. I did offer an option. Stop stealing from the SS trust fund.

What about the real solution? Stop spending money we don't have on supporting illegal aliens. The entire FEMA budget has been spent to support people who are in the county illegally. Are we willfully committing suicide? I didn't sign up for this. Who cares about the people of Appalachia. They're just hillbillies who will vote for Trump anyway.

Social Security and Medicare are the two biggest Federal programs. If you are not talking about cutting them, you are not talking seriously about cutting government spending.

Nothing was stolen from the Social Security trust fund. The surpluses accumulating in the trust fund were used to justify tax cuts in the early 2000's.

Pretend cuts in small programs don't reduce spending. Spending went up the Trump years faster than under Obama.

 

[moke123]

A Distributional Analysis of Donald Trump’s Tax Plan

Former President Donald Trump has proposed a wide variety of tax policy changes. Taken together, these proposals would, on average, lead to a tax cut for the richest 5 percent of Americans and a tax increase for all other income groups.

itep.org

 

[Pat Hartman]

Social Security and Medicare are the two biggest Federal programs. If you are not talking about cutting them, you are not talking seriously about cutting government spending.

You seem to not understand that the government made a contract with the American people. WE give THEM lots of money every year for 60+ years and then THEY give it back to help to support us when we are old. Either the actuaries who do the calculations to determine how much money they need to collect NOW to pay ME in the FUTURE are complete morons or Congress is stealing the money and redirecting it to other projects. If Congress convinced itself that the actuaries were wrong and we didn't need all that money, then I say we cut their salaries and use that money to pay SS and Medicare benefits for the rest of us.

There is lots of waste and fraud in both programs. Some estimates are as high as 30%. I can attest to the waste personally. I can also tell you that the government workers just don't care. For TEN months in a row, I spent 1-2 hours on the phone with Medicare, my private insurance, and my doctor's office each month trying to correct what was almost certainly a mistake. We'll give the doctor's office the benefit of the doubt and not accuse them of fraud. Somebody simply typed in the wrong ICD code. It happens more than you think. It also happened to be a large mistake and so I took it upon myself to try to get the money back for the Medicare since they were unlikely to discover the error. My doctor had billed for an office procedure he did not do and the charge was $2800. Not life or death money but enough for me to bother to try to make it right. I never succeeded. There is a limit to the number of hours I want to spend talking with people who don't care. How many people do you know who compare the doctor's billing when they get the Medicare statement? Of those, how many would bother to try to rectify a problem? If more people did, Medicare would be more used to correcting mistakes and probably be better at it.

Presidents technically do not control spending although they can certainly veto bills. Unfortunately, the way Congress writes bills, there are always poison pills in every bill and the President doesn't have line item veto. So, it is yeah or nay and the pork barrel spending continues. And the stupid, useless program spending continues. Congress really needs to clean up their act. And the President needs to just let the government shut down. And NOT pay people who get temporary layoffs. AND we need a Convention of States to propose Amendments, one of which should be line item veto.

 

[Steve R.]

Government programs tend to expand beyond their original mission statement. Politicians love that type of mission creep as they can figuratively "give-away-the-store", especially given the situation that they won't be around when it all falls apart. Below is a quickie review of the changes to Social Security program over time.

12 Ways Social Security Has Drastically Changed Since Its Inception

See how Social Security has changed, and what it means for you.

www.gobankingrates.com

Social Security: Summary of Major Changes in the Cash Benefits Program

 

[AngelSpeaks]

You seem to not understand that the government made a contract with the American people. WE give THEM lots of money every year for 60+ years and then THEY give it back to help to support us when we are old. Either the actuaries who do the calculations to determine how much money they need to collect NOW to pay ME in the FUTURE are complete morons or Congress is stealing the money and redirecting it to other projects. If Congress convinced itself that the actuaries were wrong and we didn't need all that money, then I say we cut their salaries and use that money to pay SS and Medicare benefits for the rest of us.

There is lots of waste and fraud in both programs. Some estimates are as high as 30%. I can attest to the waste personally. I can also tell you that the government workers just don't care. For TEN months in a row, I spent 1-2 hours on the phone with Medicare, my private insurance, and my doctor's office each month trying to correct what was almost certainly a mistake. We'll give the doctor's office the benefit of the doubt and not accuse them of fraud. Somebody simply typed in the wrong ICD code. It happens more than you think. It also happened to be a large mistake and so I took it upon myself to try to get the money back for the Medicare since they were unlikely to discover the error. My doctor had billed for an office procedure he did not do and the charge was $2800. Not life or death money but enough for me to bother to try to make it right. I never succeeded. There is a limit to the number of hours I want to spend talking with people who don't care. How many people do you know who compare the doctor's billing when they get the Medicare statement? Of those, how many would bother to try to rectify a problem? If more people did, Medicare would be more used to correcting mistakes and probably be better at it.

Presidents technically do not control spending although they can certainly veto bills. Unfortunately, the way Congress writes bills, there are always poison pills in every bill and the President doesn't have line item veto. So, it is yeah or nay and the pork belly spending continues. And the stupid, useless program spending continues. Congress really needs to clean up their act. And the President needs to just let the government shut down. And NOT pay people who get temporary layoffs. AND we need a Convention of States to propose Amendments, one of which should be line item veto.

Yes to Convention of States. Hubby and I volunteer for them

 

[AccessBlaster]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1846236976451637544

 

[Pat Hartman]

I caught part of that interview. What a moron the interviewer is. His entire objective was to make Trump look stupid but his efforts backfired.