JuneJuly

It does appear, despite being the guy that doubled the standard deduction, that he thinks most people are able to write these things off.

No, they're tax deductible, I was being facetious.

Free generators!

Maybe. And I said similar, but it's not me seeing something, it's you not knowing the definition of subsidy. People don't have to use the subsidy to buy a newer car if they don't want. That's why it's not a subsidy to the auto industry. HTH

I dont think you read the whole thing. Expedite environmental approvals, double electrical capacity and drive down inflation. I suppose you’ll want more details on each of those too. Harris says she’ll lower prices on everything. Haven’t heard a peep on how.

I’m a bit skeptical too. But, he tells you how right there in the tweet.

What's she waiting for?!?!?

How'd you figure that? The tax break is to people with car loans. Not the automakers. I'm guessing the thought is to stimulate the auto industry indirectly by allowing people to purchase more cars.

Doesn't move the needle for me as I lend money, not borrow it. But I think the economics of it is to get more people to be able to buy cars/newer cars.

Thanks, a seemingly unbiased source with lots of info. I'll concede that the consumer has indeed bore the brunt (cost) of the recent trade war with China. However, it has led to some decoupling. It appears both Trump and Biden agreed with this trade war. So far I haven't seen anything from Harris indicating she'll follow along. She's obviously not for any new tariffs. Can we trust her to leave the current ones alone or does she waive the white flag to China?

Hi there, keep the hot takes in the other threads. Policy discussion in here only. (Yes we know all politicians promise stuff to get votes)

1) Agree 2) Should be done strategically, like Trump did last time. 3) Should be done strategically, for the best interests of the collective US, not the consumer. 60% may not be high enough for some products. I do not agree the truth is closer to Harris. She's looking at it solely from the consumer stand point, just like you. The link @OldMaid just posted shows China has higher tariffs on us than we do on them. During the last discussion we agreed that they ought to at least be reciprocal. You and Harris are only looking at it from the consumer's point of view. At least Trump acknowledges he is trying to damage China (our enemy) and paydown our debt. Does the Harris campaign have any interest in those two things? Do they even comprehend it? Neither party does a really good job of messaging, that's for sure.

My guess is that Trump was right and it was beneficial to the US as a whole. That's what you are missing. You're looking at in solely from the consumer's stand point. If you have to pay $100 more for your washing machine every 10 years but that significantly hurts China then it might be worth it.

Again, I'm not saying consumers don't bear the brunt of some of the costs to tariffs, they do. But it's not a blanket sales tax like Harris claims. And it may (or may not) be in the best interest of the US on the whole. Exactly what I've demonstrated previously.

More paragraphs about what you think. Keep that in your threads, we're discussing facts in here. Thank you.

Why would I deny it and call it dumb at the same time? There is no doubt he's claiming an across the board tariff, he says it at every event. But there is no published number in the written plan nor commitment to across the board, that's what this thread was primarily based on. And I think that would be dumb. It should be done strategically like he did last time. A libertarian think tank pushing for free market, that's hardly a revelation. Instead of spending a bunch of time showing CATO's bias to their interests I'll just counter with why didn't Harris-Biden get rid of them then?

Save your child-level thoughts for the other threads. Just facts in here please.

Please read the entire thread, there is a whole page on tariffs, and educate yourself before making dumb statements like, "it gets passed down to the consumer, all economists know this". That's no proof at all. It's just saying things.

You don't think she has cheap Chinese hats for sale on her campaign website? How about a Harris-Walz friendship bracelet? That's probably more your style.

First you need to provide accurate numbers and then explain why the tariffs would be bad to US businesses because Kamala's statement that a 20% tariff is the same thing as a 20% sales tax has already been debunked in this thread. Your post comes with the assumption that all tariffs are bad, that can't be true since the Harris-Biden administration left alone the largely successful tariffs Trump put in place. The real numbers Trump has been suggesting: 1 - 10-20% on all imports 2 - 60% on China 3 - 200% on cars from Mexico

Nothing on the policy, just SIDEZZZZ. Grow up.

If you're going to make assertions like this please back it up with facts. No blanket painting with broad brushes because of your feelings, keep that to the other threads please.

Keep the low IQ hot takes to the other threads please.