JuneJuly

You should just delete your account right now with the crap you posted in the cat eating thread. Oooof. Yikes.

Lol. You're an easy mark. A nobody on Twitter with a video from McGreggor Metals from who knows when. A whopping 150 employees. 2 stars on Google Their website dead posts. They're probably thrilled with that Twitter hack. Watch the full video retard, it's not what your quick Twitter twitch thinks it is. Nice work boyo.

Data. Your probably not familiar with it.

Independent Voters Tracked with Trump During the Debate.

Undecided Voters Not Swayed by the Debate - Times

Link?

And his noggin is made of glass.

He's bad. Game would be over if Bills had a run defence.

You should see the guys triggered over cat memes. Lol

No.

I wish it were your community and your pets.

Can you elaborate? I'm not getting your point. It would be very appealing to anyone who regularly works overtime. Obviously. Same for those who regularly work for tips if tips weren't to be taxed.

Way harder than removing tax on tips?

Always going to be exceptions and what ifs, but, I think in general hard workers take jobs that require extra and long hours. Every single one of these campaign promises is to buy votes. Nobody is saying hey here are the things I'm planning on doing that nobody cares about.

Huge new announcement. No Taxes on Overtime The worker's president.

And I'll point you to my previous post where an economists seemed to agree the tariffs implemented in his first term were targeted and successful. And Biden left them in place. Actions > Words Harris - "Trump sold us out on China". Her administration left the tariffs in place. I'm sure you can understand my concern.

Trump says all kinds of stuff. There isn't a percentage in Agenda 47. It may or may not get passed down to the consumer, or offset by reduction in other taxes. Our conversation that past couple hours illustrates that. 20% tariff across the board is dumb. 20% tariff across the board will result in a 20% sales tax is dumb.

I was looking for this 10% quote, whatever it was and found this nugget from an economist: That's an example of smart and strategic. If we can hurt China in specific sectors and where corporations spread the cost not absorbed by China to a few pennies across all their goods.... that's a good thing. In this example virtually all the tariff can be used to pay down US dept.

Link? I don't see that specific in Agenda 47 We shouldn't have a trade deficit, tariffs ought to at least be reciprocal and used where it's to our advantage. I don't like the word "baseline" if that mean across the board. It should be looked at more strategically. The very last sentence does however, dismiss the sales tax narrative. Swapping one tax for the other would be smart if used to our advantage over China.

I said "example simplified" and used a most basic example just to make sure we understood each other. Note that the cost per ton is landed and contracts account for price fluctuations. It's not a valid argument to say it's more complex than that while simultaneously stating that it "most assuredly" would result in anything. We can leave it at you believe tariffs should only be a last resort and I believe they should be used to our full advantage.

#3 And it's not necessarily a negotiation. The global market would adjust, China adjusting prices, if they want to sell us their steel. Example simplified: China cost of steel $2.00 ton. India cost of steel $2.40 ton. We suddenly put a 25% tariff on China steel. It now costs $2.50 a ton to buy steel from China. China would have to reduce their $2.00 cost or corporations in the US would start buying steel from India because it's cheaper.

I don't think it's worth distinguishing the difference between the China government and China corporations. But yes, China is forced to absorb some of the cost of the tariffs in the cost of their goods for the reasons I listed. That's what I wrote.

Thinking one political policy is going to solve all the issues we have with China production of low cost goods is pretty short sighted. Note that I said, "It's a balance for sure, but, if done strategically tariffs can be used to better America's interest."

Sure. And we will start with the premise you have in your head: The consumer is going to end up paying. I agree with that, the consumer always ends up paying the increase cost for materials, production or increased tax(tariff). For example, raising the minimum wage. Or imposing higher tax on companies and corporations. But that's simplistic and missing some of the nuance on the global market stage. Putting a tariff on something that is cheaper in China doesn't necessarily trickle all that cost down to the consumer. Why? Because if the cost of the same product from a different country (or making it in the US) is cheaper than China plus the tariff then China is forced to absorb some of that cost in order to remain competitive on the global marker. Otherwise we will buy it from another country (or make it ourselves). Yes the price of goods go up in the scenario above, however, it's not a direct "sales tax" if done strategically and it damages China. China is not our friend. And any of the goods produced on the global market that switch to being made in America the cost goes directly back into American jobs, American wages and American corporations. Any goods we purchase from other companies benefit allies and not China. All the while the tariffs we do collect, mainly from China, goes directly into the government coffers resulting in lowering the US dept. It's a balance for sure, but, if done strategically tariffs can be used to better America's interest.

I guess I shouldn't be shocked the self proclaimed party of intelligence doesn't want to (can't) discuss policy.