Jump to content
JuneJuly

Trump vs Harris Policy Thread - $10,000 PER KID FOR HOMESCHOOL $7,000 COST OF LIVING REDUCTION

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

First off your information is incorrect. He started with 10% then went to 20%. It’s not between 10 and 20%. However even 10% would be catastrophic. So would 60% on China (that could also threaten a war with China BTW) but I have heard him say 100%. Yesterday he said 200% on all foreign cars not just Mexico, but again even on Mexico would lead to terrible results. 
 

Next I’m not going to get into some silly game of whether or not tariffs are actually sales tax. The point is they would be devastating to our economy, far far worse than anything Kamala is proposing. 
 

Finally while personally I believe that all tariffs are bad and strongly disapprove of what Biden has done regarding this issue, it’s irrelevant, because the new tariffs proposed by Trump would be so much worse than anything we’ve ever done in our history (even including Smoot-Hawley which caused the Great Depression) that you can’t really compare. 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JuneJuly said:

Why would I deny it and call it dumb at the same time? :wacko: 

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?

The Cato link list several studies at the bottom which draw the same conclusion.  The cost of the trump tariffs were passed to the consumer.  If you want to provide conflicting evidence, go right ahead.

As far as your question for why Biden left the tariffs?  I don't know and I think it was a mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JuneJuly said:

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.  

It's not a blanket sales tax (Harris).  It's also not China that pays the tariff (Trump).  The truth is much closer to Harris, and we have evidence from the latest round of tariffs that consumers did in fact pay 100% (or more in the case of washing machines) or real close to 100% of Trumps tariffs.

1) Strategic tariffs can work yes. 

2) 10-20% across the board is dumb and will result in CPI increase. 

3) 60% on everything China is catastrophic.  It's dangerous. 

Feel free to provide facts if you disagree with 1-3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TrailGuy said:

As far as your question for why Biden left the tariffs?  I don't know and I think it was a mistake.

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is populist nationalism. It ain't conservatism, it's not liberalism, it's not socialism or fascism, it's just whatever Trump thinks will make people do a transaction of their vote for his promises. It's completely destructive too and I'd be worried except the man is a complete fabricator, I'd trust a street junkie over him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TrailGuy said:

It's not a blanket sales tax (Harris).  It's also not China that pays the tariff (Trump).  The truth is much closer to Harris, and we have evidence from the latest round of tariffs that consumers did in fact pay 100% (or more in the case of washing machines) or real close to 100% of Trumps tariffs.

1) Strategic tariffs can work yes. 

2) 10-20% across the board is dumb and will result in CPI increase. 

3) 60% on everything China is catastrophic.  It's dangerous. 

Feel free to provide facts if you disagree with 1-3

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

This is populist nationalism. It ain't conservatism, it's not liberalism, it's not socialism or fascism, it's just whatever Trump thinks will make people do a transaction of their vote for his promises. It's completely destructive too and I'd be worried except the man is a complete fabricator, I'd trust a street junkie over him.

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, OldMaid said:

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.

Quote

Those worried about the threat that China poses to U.S. prosperity say the costs imposed by tariffs are worth the benefits. Total imports from China are down from pre-2018 trends as intended, and imports from China on products with high tariffs cratered in 2019 and 2020. 

It appears both Trump and Biden agreed with this trade war.

Quote

 

The Biden administration has not reduced any of Trump’s tariffs on China, and in May 2024 raised tariffs on steel, aluminum, medical equipment, lithium-ion batteries, and solar cells.

Biden’s May 2024 tariff increases follow much of the same logic as Trump’s initial 2018 tariffs, albeit without mention of the U.S. trade deficit with China.

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, JuneJuly said:

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.

 

More paragraphs about what you think 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep missing (or avoiding) the fact that the new proposed tariffs are SIGNIFICANTLY greater than those put up before and kept on by Biden, so much so as to make the issue of Biden maintaining the previous tariffs and their supposed effectiveness (both of which points you keep bringing up) as totally irrelevant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JuneJuly said:

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)

I’m not denying its policy. That was strictly a statement that the policy was based on populism only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

You keep missing (or avoiding) the fact that the new proposed tariffs are SIGNIFICANTLY greater than those put up before and kept on by Biden, so much so as to make the issue of Biden maintaining the previous tariffs and their supposed effectiveness (both of which points you keep bringing up) as totally irrelevant. 

Hint. When Timmy talks "facts", he really means his emotions. 😉

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harris has no policy. She's a racist that goes into fake bigoted accents when talking to different cultures. 

It's racist and offensive to all minorities. 

Ask Pedocrats if they care 🌈 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JuneJuly said:

 

 

How would this relate to people who use the standard deduction? Also, if say someone borrows 30k for 60 months at 5%, the total interest paid is 4k. Just estimating favorably to this claim, that would be about 2k deduction in the first year. So, 400 tax savings that year maybe. Not a bad idea, but stimulate massive domestic auto production seems questionable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Herbivore said:

How would this relate to people who use the standard deduction? Also, if say someone borrows 30k for 60 months at 5%, the total interest paid is 4k. Just estimating favorably to this claim, that would be about 2k deduction in the first year. So, 400 tax savings that year maybe. Not a bad idea, but stimulate massive domestic auto production seems questionable. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, JuneJuly said:

 

 

Now Trump wants to subsidize big automakers? 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Now Trump wants to subsidize big automakers? 

How'd you figure that?

Quote

A subsidy is a direct or indirect payment to individuals or firms, usually in the form of a cash payment from the government or a targeted tax cut.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Now Trump wants to subsidize big automakers? 

Don’t use words you don’t know the meaning of. HTH

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Did you think he's called fnretard because he knows things?

They have no self control. Two pump chumps. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, JuneJuly said:

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, Herbivore said:

How would this relate to people who use the standard deduction? Also, if say someone borrows 30k for 60 months at 5%, the total interest paid is 4k. Just estimating favorably to this claim, that would be about 2k deduction in the first year. So, 400 tax savings that year maybe. Not a bad idea, but stimulate massive domestic auto production seems questionable. 

 

20 minutes ago, JuneJuly said:

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.

@RLLD @jerryskids can you offer a perspective here? To me it seems like optics, wouldn't help anyone that takes the standard deduction, if there is relief not enough to stimulate sales or production. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Now Trump wants to subsidize big automakers? 

how on earth did you come up with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2024 at 5:04 PM, JuneJuly said:

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.  

they all know why the tariffs were left.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a Harris commercial I watched today she said “I will lower the cost of everyday items— fuel, healthcare, groceries.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MLCKAA said:

In a Harris commercial I watched today she said “I will lower the cost of everyday items— fuel, healthcare, groceries.”

What's she waiting for?!?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we will just forget the subsidizing Obama and Harris /Biden have done for the auto manufacturers and concentrate on Trump! Not actually proposing it, right Fnord and the rest of you libtards? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Herbivore said:

 

 

@RLLD @jerryskids can you offer a perspective here? To me it seems like optics, wouldn't help anyone that takes the standard deduction, if there is relief not enough to stimulate sales or production. 

I'm not a tax expert, but I believe you are correct that a deduction would only help those who itemize, which would disproportionately help richer folks who itemize and buy a car.  It would need to be a tax credit to apply to everyone.

I think what Trump is philosophically trying to do with things like this and the "no tax on tips" policy is to find things which actually help poorer people. Kamala's "we're going to tax the rich, because fair words!" has never worked and won't again.  The rich will avoid it, and the middle class will end up paying for the boondoggles Kamala enacts.

That being said, without knowing more, and presuming it is a credit or something that actually works, my brain always turns to unintended consequences.  In this case, I could see interest rates on car loans going up, which would put more month to month pressure on people to make payments, even if they get it back when they file taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I'm not a tax expert, but I believe you are correct that a deduction would only help those who itemize, which would disproportionately help richer folks who itemize and buy a car.  It would need to be a tax credit to apply to everyone.

I think what Trump is philosophically trying to do with things like this and the "no tax on tips" policy is to find things which actually help poorer people. Kamala's "we're going to tax the rich, because fair words!" has never worked and won't again.  The rich will avoid it, and the middle class will end up paying for the boondoggles Kamala enacts.

That being said, without knowing more, and presuming it is a credit or something that actually works, my brain always turns to unintended consequences.  In this case, I could see interest rates on car loans going up, which would put more month to month pressure on people to make payments, even if they get it back when they file taxes.

don't really disagree with anything you said except I think Trump says this cause his supporters will blindly believe he is trying to help them while he isn't. but yes, we'll see how it plays out. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure I’m the only middle class person that posts here, and I’m still benefiting from the Trump tax cuts. But you libtards can go ahead and tell me I’m not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Herbivore said:

don't really disagree with anything you said except I think Trump says this cause his supporters will blindly believe he is trying to help them while he isn't. but yes, we'll see how it plays out. :cheers:

Fair enough. I've stated before that Trump is driven by narcissism, and that includes adulation from folks for helping them.  The whole "Trump just wants to make himself and his fat cat buddies rich" is silly IMO.  Trump is worth plenty of money; he's not going through all of the trials and tribulations of a presidential race to get secret service people to stay at his resorts.  But, that's the message the Left MSM has positioned, and a lot of people buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Psychic Observer said:

How is he going to cut energy prices in half in 12 months?

Hint: it's a lie.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, JuneJuly said:

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

No he doesnt he just says maximum energy production.  He has no plan or ideas.  He just says stuff.  He doesn't even understand how the price of oil influences domestic production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, The Psychic Observer said:

No he doesnt he just says maximum energy production.  He has no plan or ideas.  He just says stuff.  He doesn't even understand how the price of oil influences domestic production.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Psychic Observer said:

How is he going to cut energy prices in half in 12 months?

Hint: it's a lie.

Kamala’s lies are much more far fetched about rent and groceries. But you’re good with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×