Trump Raises Taxes, Again.

  
Via:  thrawn-31  •  2 weeks ago  •  164 comments

Trump Raises Taxes, Again.
After the 5 percent tariffs are imposed on June 10, the White House said it would increase the penalties to 10 percent on July 1 and then an additional 5 percent on the first day of each month for three months. The tariffs would stay at 25 percent

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


There he goes again, raising taxes on hard working Americans.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Thrawn 31
1  seeder  Thrawn 31    2 weeks ago

I hope his supporters are happier paying more to the federal government.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1    2 weeks ago

A certain poster who claims he pays oodles and oodles of bucks towards taxes and complains and bitches about it constantly, says he'd be glad to pay these 'tariffs'.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
1.2  Cerenkov  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1    2 weeks ago

I don't mind since I am not buying Mexican products. You enjoy though.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Cerenkov @1.2    2 weeks ago
I don't mind since I am not buying Mexican products.

Bet you're wrong.

bi-graphicsmexican%20imports%202.png

 
 
 
Cerenkov
1.2.2  Cerenkov  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.1    2 weeks ago

Nope. Good effort though.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Cerenkov @1.2.2    2 weeks ago

Yup

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
1.2.4  seeder  Thrawn 31  replied to  Cerenkov @1.2    2 weeks ago

You have no idea what you are talking about. 

 
 
 
Cerenkov
1.2.5  Cerenkov  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.2.4    2 weeks ago

I have no idea what I purchase? I think you are clueless.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
1.2.6  Cerenkov  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.3    2 weeks ago

[Removed. Don't lie about me. Removed]

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
1.2.7  seeder  Thrawn 31  replied to  Cerenkov @1.2.5    2 weeks ago

You do not. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1    2 weeks ago

All those tariffs on Mexico will help pay for the wall and other border security, since the Democrats aren't doing their jobs.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.3.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Greg Jones @1.3    2 weeks ago

It's reassuring that Trump followers understand economics in the same way the President himself does.

Could you tell me where you learned about international trade?

(I learned by reading the commentaries on the subject, by an economist who won the Nobel Prize for his work on... international trade.)

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @1.3    2 weeks ago
All those tariffs on Mexico will help pay for the wall and other border security, since the Democrats aren't doing their jobs.

American citizens are paying those tariffs, not Mexico, and the money is not earmarked for the wall.  Nice obfuscation though.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
1.3.3  seeder  Thrawn 31  replied to  Greg Jones @1.3    2 weeks ago
All those tariffs on Mexico will help pay for the wall and other border security

More likely they will go towards interest payments on our national debt. And you do realize that Mexico isn't actually paying anything right? That this amounts to a 5% tax on American consumers? 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2  Bob Nelson    2 weeks ago

It really does seem that President Trump still does not understand how tariffs work. A year into a trade war... that's kinda shocking...

Nobody's going to budge an inch for a 5% tariff. Mexican producers will pass it on to American consumers, so it will just mean higher prices in the US. Everyone will figure that this is just another temper tantrum, that will be corrected by an adult... some day...

Is this any way to run a railroad?

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    2 weeks ago

I don't the turd understands anything.  Did you hear him talking about 5G?  jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @2.1    2 weeks ago

I don't think 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

I don't think the turd understands anything 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.4    2 weeks ago
I don't think the turd understands anything

When you only hire "yes men" you never hear the truth.  Just like everyone was afraid to tell him he had toilet paper stuck to his shoe.

trump-toilet-paper-6f35.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.6    2 weeks ago

Oh man, check out Wanda Sykes' take on that on her new special on Netflix.  I think it's called Not Normal.  HILARIOUS!

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
bugsy
2.1.8  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.1    2 weeks ago
I don't think 

Couldn't be more true.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.9  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

You are right.

 
 
 
squiggy
2.1.10  squiggy  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

"I don't think"

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_41_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_43_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_68_smiley_image.pngjrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_40_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
evilgenius
2.2  evilgenius  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    2 weeks ago
Mexican producers will pass it on to American consumers,

Tomatoes and Avocados are huge imports from Mexico. I expect restaurant menu prices to jump at least 5% by the end of June.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  evilgenius @2.2    2 weeks ago

Yup.

I live in a retirement city (Yuma AZ) where a great many residents are on a tight budget. At the same time, they eat out most of the time. There's an entire industry of low-cost restaurants.

The tariffs on Mexican produce will hit these restaurants and their customers. The Mexican producers will always find customers.

This is Trump, bashing his own supporters over the head.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @2.2    2 weeks ago

We export more produce to Mexico than we import from Mexico.

 
 
 
evilgenius
2.2.3  evilgenius  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.2    2 weeks ago
We export more produce to Mexico than we import from Mexico.

No doubt Mexico will slap like tariffs on already stressed US farmers.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @2.2.3    2 weeks ago
No doubt Mexico will slap like tariffs on already stressed US farmers

So what?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.5  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.2    2 weeks ago
We export more produce to Mexico than we import from Mexico.

Are you sure? The numbers I'm looking at seem to say that Mexico exports $24 bn to the US, and imports $17 bn. Agricultural products.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  evilgenius @2.2.3    2 weeks ago

If our farmers have anything to send them.

The flooding in the middle of the country has caused farmers to delay planting crops and now it's too late for many crops like corn, soybeans, rice, and cotton.

 
 
 
evilgenius
2.2.7  evilgenius  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.6    2 weeks ago
If our farmers have anything to send them.

Yup!

 
 
 
Kavika
2.2.8  Kavika   replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.5    2 weeks ago

The 2018 figures, per the US office of Trade, exports from Mexico to the US, $26 billion. US exports to Mexico $19 billion (agriculture products).

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.5    2 weeks ago

You and Kavika are correct. I transposed the numbers. My mistake, thanks for picking up on it.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.10  Bob Nelson  replied to  Kavika @2.2.8    2 weeks ago

That’s coherent with my numbers, from 2016.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    2 weeks ago

trumpertantrum

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.4  Greg Jones  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    2 weeks ago

Is this any way to run a railroad?

What do you suggest that pressure Mexico to start shutting down the immigrant pipeline?

This is just getting Mexico's attention. And it's probably getting the attention of China also.

25% traffics would be hurtful to them and the cartels.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.4.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Greg Jones @2.4    2 weeks ago

An import tariff is paid by the importer. That is to say, by the American customer.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.4.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @2.4    2 weeks ago
What do you suggest that pressure Mexico to start shutting down the immigrant pipeline?

How about pressuring the companies that hire them???  If we had no jobs for them, they wouldn't come.

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.4.3  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @2.4    2 weeks ago
This is just getting Mexico's attention.

By punishing US taxpayers? Great plan to MAGA!!!!!! /s

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.4  Dulay  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.4.1    2 weeks ago

No matter how many times that FACT is repeated, Trump sycophants will continue to believe whatever he tells them. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.4.5  seeder  Thrawn 31  replied to  Greg Jones @2.4    2 weeks ago

If I am the president of Mexico I am telling Trump to go fuck himself. This tactic will not work for the simple fact that other countries are going to refuse to let us bully them into submission. Trump still thinks he is trying to cheat small contractors on his shitty development projects. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.5  seeder  Thrawn 31  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    2 weeks ago
It really does seem that President Trump still does not understand how tariffs work.

I know for a fact that he doesn't. I am positive he honest to god thinks the Mexican and Chinese treasuries are actually paying the US treasury. 

 
 
 
Kavika
3  Kavika     2 weeks ago

The industry to watch on this is the auto industry....5% is manageable. 10%, 15%, 20%, 25% isn't and, IMO, will cause some serious repercussion in the industry which of course will affect American auto makers, buyers and other industries that depend on the auto industry. 

 
 
 
Kavika
3.1  Kavika   replied to  Kavika @3    2 weeks ago

The import value of auto/parts in 2018 was $93 billion. Another area that the consumer will feel right away is in agriculture products which in 2018 was a $26 billion import value to the U.S. 

We exported to Mexico $299 billion worth of products in 2018. Mexico could put a tariff on those producsts and or simply find another source for them.

Anyway you look at it, the tariffs are going to bite.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Kavika @3.1    2 weeks ago
We exported to Mexico $299 billion worth of products in 2018. Mexico could put a tariff on those producsts and or simply find another source for them.

The difference is that the US accounts for 76% of all Mexican exports.  Mexico accounts for 16% of US exports.  

They would bite, but I doubt they'll get that far.

 
 
 
Kavika
3.1.2  Kavika   replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.1    2 weeks ago
They would bite, but I doubt they'll get that far.

Between the escalating 5% to 25% tariff on products from Mexico and if they choose to target dairy and agriculture products they damn sure will bite American consumers and growers.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  Kavika @3.1.2    2 weeks ago

I hope that Americans will someday realize that import tariffs are paid by the importer. Unless the price rise is enough to cause the buyer to look for another supplier, the only effect is to make purchases more expensive.

It takes time to organize new supply routes. Does anyone think that the Mexico tariffs will be applied long enough to make it worthwhile searching for a new supplier?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Kavika @3.1.2    2 weeks ago
Between the escalating 5% to 25% tariff on products from Mexico and if they choose to target dairy and agriculture products they damn sure will bite American consumers and growers.

Meh.  It's not actually a huge amount of money in the scope of our economy.  

Last year we imported about $350 billion from Mexico.  If all of it were taxed at 25%, we're talking about $88 billion...assuming imports stay at that level.  The US economy was $19.4 trillion last year.  

Tariffs on foreign goods also make American products more competitive, which would concern Mexico greatly.

All they need to do is send a few hundred Federales in Jeeps to patrol the border.  Trump will get to declare victory, it won't cost Mexico very much, and frankly they should help us out a bit on this, anyway.  Tariffs will go away and we'll all get on to the next "crisis".

 
 
 
Kavika
3.1.5  Kavika   replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.4    2 weeks ago

Actually Mexico is one the largest buyers of American agriculture products, $20 billion in 2018. This includes, corn/wheat/soybeans and dairy products.

The largest import to the US from Mexico is auto's....$93 billion in 2018...Agriculture products are $26 billion year. 

If they choose to put tariffs on the agri products the US farmers, already hurting, will be hurt a lot more. 

Mexico is doing a lot more than putting a few Federales on the border currently. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

I think Trump believes his fan base is too dumb to understand tariffs, thus they have no political cost for him. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @4    2 weeks ago

Whatever, but his job approval ratings shot up to 48% today.

By election day, it will likely be 60% or above

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1    2 weeks ago

By election day, it will likely be 60% or above

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1    2 weeks ago
Whatever, but his job approval ratings shot up to 48% today.

Huh? No it didn't, as of this posting, 4:36pm Pacific Time), he is at 43.1%. He has never once been above 46%. 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
4.1.3  seeder  Thrawn 31  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1    2 weeks ago
By election day, it will likely be 60% or above

No it won't. I say that with absolute certainty. More likely it is below 40% as his idiotic trade wars don't pan out, he fails to deliver on his signature campaign promises, and Americans are getting tired of his tax increases. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
5  It Is ME    2 weeks ago

"There he goes again, raising taxes on hard working Americans."

I'd have to know what I buy , as to actual product that comes from Mexico, in order to know If I'm paying more "Taxes" for them.

I buy all sorts of "Stuff".

Article was a bit vague about it.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
5.1  seeder  Thrawn 31  replied to  It Is ME @5    2 weeks ago

The US imports a ton of shit from mexico. A lot of it isn't even finished products, but rather parts that are then imported and assembled into a finished product. Auto industry is a perfect example. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5.1    2 weeks ago

Still not very specific. I may not buy anything made in Mexico at all.

 
 
 
Ender
5.1.2  Ender  replied to  It Is ME @5.1.1    2 weeks ago

I doubt you could avoid it. Car companies rely on parts from Mexico. Agricultural, tomatoes, fruits and vegetables, nuts.

A lot of electronics, computers, chips.

Vizio moved manufacturing there. A lot of flat screen components are made there.

Cement, a Mexican company is the second largest producer of cement for the US.

Tires, appliances, Gillette razors and razor blades, toothpaste, snack foods, medical equipment, heavy equipment like tractors, etc.

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.1.3  It Is ME  replied to  Ender @5.1.2    2 weeks ago
I doubt you could avoid it.

Ya never know ! jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
5.1.4  seeder  Thrawn 31  replied to  It Is ME @5.1.1    2 weeks ago

So where is everything in your house made? I mean, pull everything apart an d read the tags. You probably don't have anything that is "Made in America."

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.1.5  It Is ME  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5.1.4    2 weeks ago

Nothing from Mexico.

Mostly China.

Buying China products was still cheaper than buying American made, so I guess Tariffs really don't hurt as much as they report !

 
 
 
Sunshine
6  Sunshine    2 weeks ago
as to actual product that comes from Mexico,

It's avocados and tequila, my two major food groups. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1  It Is ME  replied to  Sunshine @6    2 weeks ago

Just buy American grown and made.

It might cost more than even the "Tariffed" versions though ! jrSmiley_27_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
6.2  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @6    2 weeks ago

Since Mexico is the sole source of tequila, time to stock up...

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.2.1  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @6.2    2 weeks ago

https://www.supercall.com/spirits/tequila/why-you-wont-find-any-american-made-tequila-brands

The US can and does produce the same thing; they just can't call it tequila. Which seems to be a problem for US consumers.

https://www.supercall.com/spirits/tequila/why-you-wont-find-any-american-made-tequila-brands

As we’ve alluded to, you can’t call anything made in the U.S. “tequila.” For Winters, that’s not a deal breaker. “I don’t give a f*ck what we call something,” he says. “It’s not about what we call it. It’s about what it smells like and what it tastes like in the glass.” Unfortunately, his customers don’t feel the same way. “Consumers have a difficult time accepting a product unless they know exactly how to categorize it. The name tells them how to enjoy it,” Winters explains. Americans are comfortable with tequila—they know what to expect from it. Anyone hoping to produce a rival agave spirit would have to compete with the massive, well-established tequila industry and its household name.
 
 
 
Dulay
6.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @6.2.1    2 weeks ago
The US can and does produce the same thing; they just can't call it tequila.

Translation: Mexico is the SOLE source of tequila. 

Thanks for playing. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.2.3  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @6.2.1    2 weeks ago

The same legal semantics apply to Bourbon, champagne, scotch, lagers, etc.

The key word being "legal", as in licensed, copyrighted, etc.

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.3  Split Personality  replied to  Sunshine @6    2 weeks ago

Finally, something we have in common.

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
livefreeordie
7  livefreeordie    2 weeks ago

Reading these posts I’m struck by one conclusion

the left and Establishment Republicans are perfectly happy with the massive invasion of illegals into our country and thus both oppose Trumps action and offer no alternative solution 

 
 
 
Cerenkov
7.1  Cerenkov  replied to  livefreeordie @7    2 weeks ago

Yep. As long as they get to bash Trump, they enjoy their impotent fury.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Cerenkov @7.1    2 weeks ago

Impotent fury, sounds like the turd 'president'

 
 
 
Cerenkov
7.1.2  Cerenkov  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.1    2 weeks ago

What are you hysterical about then?

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Cerenkov @7.1.2    2 weeks ago

Who is hysterical? 

 
 
 
Cerenkov
7.1.4  Cerenkov  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.3    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Cerenkov
7.1.5  Cerenkov  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.3    2 weeks ago

You.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  livefreeordie @7    2 weeks ago
the left and Establishment Republicans are perfectly happy with the massive invasion of illegals into our country and thus both oppose Trumps action and offer no alternative solution 

I want a reformed immigration system, I don't want open borders. I do, however, recognize that the vast majority of illegal immigrants effect me personal about as much as most daily speeders doing 10 miles over the speed limit. Is it illegal? Yes. Does it ultimately cost us extra expense? Yes, though when the amount the pay in taxes and contribute to keeping many costs down is weighed in their total cost on the economy is negligible. So yes, I'm concerned and immigration reform needs to be addressed, but I'm not screaming in rage and stamping around like it's the end of the world. It would take some serious deep seated xenophobic hatred for me to act in such a way over such a relatively minor issue. I'd have to be ignorantly worried about some imaginary 'browning" of America for me to support penalizing American consumers with higher tariffs, that's just stupid for any other reason.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2    2 weeks ago
It would take some serious deep seated xenophobic hatred for me to act in such a way over such a relatively minor issue. I'd have to be ignorantly worried about some imaginary 'browning" of America for me to support penalizing American consumers with higher tariffs, that's just stupid for any other reason.

Right there helps to explain why we don't have a good system to handle immigration and illegals.

Because someone wants to protect the border and wants to know who is coming here and when does not make them xenophobic or that they are worried over some "browning" of America.

No more than you wanting immigration reforms makes you an advocate for open borders.

 
 
 
Sunshine
7.2.2  Sunshine  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2    2 weeks ago

Maybe it doesn't effect you, but it does effect people living near the border and in those states. 

Of course you don't give a shit, it isn't in your backyard....not your problem, right?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.2.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sunshine @7.2.2    2 weeks ago
Maybe it doesn't effect you, but it does effect people living near the border and in those states.  Of course you don't give a shit, it isn't in your backyard....not your problem, right?

I live in California about 30 minutes from Salinas, one of our many agricultural meccas. I am very aware of the undocumented immigrant population around me. They are part of our communities and I accept that regardless of how bitter and self absorbed I could choose to be about it, focusing on some perception that these "illegals" are "stealing" something from me or my family, I can recognize that they are people too, they are mothers and fathers and their ancestors were likely migrating all over this State regardless of borders long before my ancestors arrived. They are not the enemy. The broken immigration system is the enemy, the poverty and corruption in Mexico is the enemy, the paramilitary groups in South America are the enemy, the gangs are the enemy. Those who instead believe the undocumented immigrants are the enemy are in my opinion, xenophobes. Many I'm sure will want to hide their motives, claim to be worried about the crime, or something about taxes or jobs. But undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit violent crime than a native born American, they pay over $15 billion in taxes making up for nearly all of their supposed "cost", and I have yet to hear from someone who lost their job to an undocumented immigrant. Again, it's not like I'm saying I want open borders, I do not. That would be like advocating for no speed limits on any roads. But the speeders we do have need to be treated humanely, and get punishments equivalent to the crimes, not taking their children away or sending them back to almost certain extreme hardship or even death all because they dared put their brown toe over our border. And yes, I point out "brown toe" because not a single fucking one of you complain about the Canadian undocumented immigrants, none of you are championing a northern wall even though 70% of undocumented immigrants are here from Visa overstays and the country most visa overstays come from is Canada. Even a large amount of drugs are coming across the northern border, but nothing from the sycophant Trump supporters, its all about the southern border where the "brown" immigrants are coming in. Give up the pretense, just admit what you are or maybe change your narrative to include every border and every skin color.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.4  Dulay  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2.3    2 weeks ago

Well said. 

I have a friend that owns a huge ranch in Hollister and went to watch the monarchs migrate through the mountains in your area. Beautiful. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
7.3  seeder  Thrawn 31  replied to  livefreeordie @7    2 weeks ago
perfectly happy with the massive invasion of illegals into our country

I just don't care. Cheap labor is low on my list of problems. Besides, its not like the illegals are any shittier than most Americans.

I am just not a fan of "solutions" that don't even attempt to address the actual problem and that will cost me more for absolutely nothing. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8  Nerm_L    2 weeks ago

Don't want to pay the tariffs then don't buy imports.  The economics are pretty simple.

 
 
 
lib50
8.1  lib50  replied to  Nerm_L @8    2 weeks ago

The tariffs will  also be in goods that are used in US manufacturing,   and that will raise prices on it here, a made in the USA product.  I wish to god people would learn about tariffs and how they work instead of just blindly following someones brainfart.    Prices will go up and everybody WILL be impacted because that is how the economy works now.  We pay.  Higher prices.  Because an idiot who doesn't understand the least bit about how tariffs work had a hissy fit and decided to deflect from Mueller, and throw a bone to Putin.  I can't even pretend this shit is ok. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @8.1    2 weeks ago

You know, just because someone isn't opposed to these tariffs does NOT mean they don't understand it just because they hold a different opinion than you.

And please--deflect from Mueller? Who are you trying to kid here?

Mueller finished his report, made his statements, and has resigned. What is there to deflect FROM with Mueller now? And what does Putin have to do with anything regarding tariffs?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.2  Nerm_L  replied to  lib50 @8.1    2 weeks ago
The tariffs will  also be in goods that are used in US manufacturing,   and that will raise prices on it here, a made in the USA product.

Don't want to pay the tariffs then don't buy imports.  How difficult is that to understand?

The United States is not technologically limited.  The United States does not lack resources or labor.  The United States doesn't lack sufficient capital.  There isn't any reason that domestic business cannot supply the domestic market.

If the United States is not capable of growing enough tomatoes to meet domestic demand then the United States should not be wasting boatloads of money building space telescopes, joy riding on Mars, or sending people to the moon.  The country's priorities have gone way off the tracks.

 
 
 
lib50
8.1.3  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.1    2 weeks ago

I've yet to see a coherent post about tariffs and how they impact Americans - from Trump on down - in a global economy.  Because they make no sense and harm too many.  Who is paying, who is losing, and how the hell tariffs are a tool to deal with immigration?  This whole thing is damaging major industries and farmers and we are all paying higher costs in the end no matter how many people think they can avoid it, impossible because its all connected.   Everybody is impacted.  Trump doesn't have a clue what tariffs are and who pays, and it trickles down.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
8.1.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  lib50 @8.1    2 weeks ago
I wish to god people would learn about tariffs and how they work instead of just blindly following someones brainfart.

       jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @8.1.3    2 weeks ago

One might question the coherence of a post about tariffs also including Putin and Mueller.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
8.1.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.5    2 weeks ago
One might question the coherence of a post about tariffs also including Putin and Mueller.

True.

OTOH, when faced with incomprehensible behavior (like these tariffs), one is forced to reach for any explanation imaginable.

We haven't yet reached the point where anyone is suggesting that Mr Trump is deliberately sabotaging the United States, in favor of his good friends Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un... but "Manchurian President" fits the circumstances as well as anything else...

We are reduced to just hoping the President is clueless, and his advisors too wimpish to challenge his nonsense. That's a very, very low bar...

 
 
 
MUVA
8.1.7  MUVA  replied to  lib50 @8.1.3    2 weeks ago

I have also yet to see s coherent post just more partisan tripe. 

 
 
 
lib50
8.1.8  lib50  replied to  MUVA @8.1.7    2 weeks ago

Well feel free to post all the data that shows how well tariffs are working and who is paying.  Here's a start.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybroadman/2019/05/31/mr-trump-failed-trade-tariffs-101-at-wharton/

the costs to date of the tariffs have been borne almost entirely by U.S. importers. In addition, in light of the fact that most of the 2018 tariffs imposed by Trump were on Chinese capital goods, as economic theory would suggest, the (IMF) calculations indicate that while some portion of the tariffs has been passed on to U.S. consumers, another portion has been absorbed by the U.S. importing firms through lower profit margins. Complementing the IMF’s research, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) recently estimated the prospective costs of the 15 percentage-point increase in tariffs that Mr. Trump announced in May 2019. These will cover about $300 billion in U.S. imports of Chinese consumer goods, including clothing, mobile phones and toys. The FRBNY estimates these will result in an annual cost of $831 per American household. This is about twice the size of what the FRBNY estimated as the costs on U.S. consumers from Trump’s 2018 tariffs. Importantly, the May 2019 tariffs, along with those in place since 2018, would mean that essentially all Chinese imports to the U.S. have been subjected to increased tariffs by the Trump Administration.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/are-tariffs-just-another-tax-on-consumers-51557581400

“Countries don’t pay tariffs,” says Jason Pye, vice president for legislative affairs at FreedomWorks, a conservative advocacy group based in Washington. “Businesses don’t pay tariffs. Only consumers pay these costs. Tariff increases are nothing more than a tax hike on individuals.”
 
 
 
lib50
8.1.9  lib50  replied to  Bob Nelson @8.1.6    2 weeks ago
OTOH, when faced with incomprehensible behavior (like these tariffs), one is forced to reach for any explanation imaginable.

Nailed it.   I also mentioned brainfart, and have a few I've not put to print.   Politics mentioned because the moron brings it into everything.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
8.1.10  seeder  Thrawn 31  replied to  Bob Nelson @8.1.6    2 weeks ago
We are reduced to just hoping the President is clueless, and his advisors too wimpish to challenge his nonsense.

Indeed. The best we can do is hope that the president is a big of a moron as he appears.

 
 
 
lib50
8.1.11  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.5    2 weeks ago
One might question the coherence of a post about tariffs also including Putin and Mueller.

Like Chris Wallace did on Fox?  Perhaps we both might be on to something, since nothing else makes sense. 

https://t.co/DqICY90O6J

Fox News’ Chris Wallace spoke with Shepard Smith this afternoon to discuss the potential ramifications of President Donald Trump threatening tariffs on Mexico.

Wallace said clearly Trump is trying to focus on keeping his big campaign promise of cracking down at the border, because “a lot of what he promised hasn’t happened.” He also said it may have a personal element, given the number of people coming across the border.

Smith noted the Republican criticisms––from a number of GOP senators thus far––of the tariff threat. Wallace said if Trump’s gambit works he gets Mexico to crack down and it’ll be a success, but not if the U.S. ends up in a trade war.

Smith said the overall effect, “whether for the good or bad or by design or not,” is that this has overtaken discussion of the Mueller report.
 
 
 
Ender
8.1.12  Ender  replied to  lib50 @8.1.3    2 weeks ago
in a global economy

That is what gets me most of all. Some act like we can be independent from the rest of the world.

It doesn't work that way. I can buy a t-shirt that an American company sells, even a small time person that designs his own logo etc, yet the shirts will still come from over seas. They only print on the shirts after they receive them.

If the cost of the shirt, ink goes up, the small time screen printer will raise prices.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @8.1.11    2 weeks ago

If it has taken over the Mueller Report, I suspect it is like someone yelling squirrel and y'all pivoting away from the Mueller Report all on your own because it didn't produce what you wanted it to.

 
 
 
lib50
8.1.14  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.13    2 weeks ago

Think we don't notice you can't provide links and proof to counter our facts? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @8.1.14    2 weeks ago

Think I didn't notice how you address people who differ in any opinion other than your own?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.16  Nerm_L  replied to  lib50 @8.1.3    2 weeks ago
I've yet to see a coherent post about tariffs and how they impact Americans - from Trump on down - in a global economy.  Because they make no sense and harm too many.  Who is paying, who is losing, and how the hell tariffs are a tool to deal with immigration?  This whole thing is damaging major industries and farmers and we are all paying higher costs in the end no matter how many people think they can avoid it, impossible because its all connected.   Everybody is impacted.  Trump doesn't have a clue what tariffs are and who pays, and it trickles down.

Claiming that tariffs only affects consumers is an incoherent description and demonstrates a woeful lack of understanding about the purpose of tariffs.  Tariffs are really about the competition between foreign and domestic producers.  

In a healthy capitalist economy workers are consumers and consumers are workers.  Consumption isn't possible without income.  And income can only be obtained by producing something.  International trade means that the United States is not producing what is consumed; so there isn't a source of income.  A lack of domestic production and associated jobs affects consumers far more than do tariffs.  In that scenario the United States must resort to handing out money to provide income that supports consumption; usually depending more upon public debt as a source of money to replace income as domestic production declines.

Even pure Socialism doesn't avoid the necessity of producing something to supply a domestic market.  Without domestic production the government wouldn't have sufficient income to support consumption. 

Tariffs are really about protecting income and wages.  Wages that do not keep pace with inflation has a larger long-term negative impact on consumption than would tariffs.

Tariffs can also be used as a type of economic sanction against a country that engages in behavior threatening the United States.  Economic sanctions against North Korean trade serves the same purpose as tariffs placed on Mexican trade.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.17  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.13    2 weeks ago

That whole 'squirrel' thingy caused a bit of a 'pivot' in the stock market...

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @8.1.17    2 weeks ago

No real surprise there, was it?

Doesn't the stock market almost always react to financial news?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.19  Nerm_L  replied to  Ender @8.1.12    2 weeks ago
That is what gets me most of all. Some act like we can be independent from the rest of the world.

It doesn't work that way. I can buy a t-shirt that an American company sells, even a small time person that designs his own logo etc, yet the shirts will still come from over seas. They only print on the shirts after they receive them.

If the cost of the shirt, ink goes up, the small time screen printer will raise prices.

International trade is an economic competition between workers.  When workers are able to sell more of what they produce obtain more economic benefit from their labor.  Workers who sell less of what they produce receive less economic benefit.  That's the harsh reality of economics.

Consumption requires income obtained from producing something.  Without income, all prices are too high.  

Tariffs are only one tool to protect incomes.  Patents and copyrights serve the same purpose as tariffs; the intent is to protect the means of obtaining income.    

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.20  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.2    2 weeks ago
The country's priorities have gone way off the tracks.

So is it your posit that in a free market economy, the United States should defund NASA and start planting tomatoes? Since private growers can't find enough laborers. who the hell is going to plant and harvest these government grown tomatoes? 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
8.1.21  r.t..b...  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.16    2 weeks ago
Tariffs are really about the competition between foreign and domestic producers.  

And in the zero sum game of all games, subsidies will be doled out when the intended outcome quickly becomes economically unfeasible. Paying soybean farmers not to grow soybeans is rather counter intuitive. We live in a global economy, like it or not, and as we have become primarily a service-based economy, the U.S. is dependent on foreign products...a conundrum that is certainly not solved by initiating a dubiously motivated trade war. Just my two-cents...soon to be devalued.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.22  Nerm_L  replied to  Dulay @8.1.20    2 weeks ago
So is it your posit that in a free market economy, the United States should defund NASA and start planting tomatoes? Since private growers can't find enough laborers. who the hell is going to plant and harvest these government grown tomatoes? 

Why doesn't the United States just import the scientific data from from a foreign supplier?  Apparently in a free market the United States isn't supposed to produce its own scientific data.  The free trade model is that the United States is just supposed to create a demand that foreign producers supply.

How the hell can Mexico find enough labor to supply the United States with tomatoes?  Tomato harvesting involves the same type of work in Mexico as it does in the United States.  Maybe NASA should be spending more time figuring out how to harvest tomatoes in the United States instead of trying to figure out how to grow tomatoes on Mars.  Even if NASA succeeds in growing tomatoes on Mars, it will be necessary to send Mexican pickers to harvest them.  That's work that US astronauts won't do.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.23  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.19    2 weeks ago
International trade is an economic competition between workers.  When workers are able to sell more of what they produce obtain more economic benefit from their labor.  Workers who sell less of what they produce receive less economic benefit.  That's the harsh reality of economics.

The VAST majority of workers PRODUCE at a set wage, have no control over the sale of that produce and gain NOTHING from the actual sale of what they produce. 

The harsh reality of economics is that all too many EMPLOYERS are the sole beneficiary of the sale of the product of workers who are not paid a living wage. 

Consumption requires income obtained from producing something.

Or inheritance. 

Without income, all prices are too high.

Revelatory. 

Tariffs are only one tool to protect incomes.

Taxes protect incomes? How did your reach that conclusion? 

Patents and copyrights serve the same purpose as tariffs; the intent is to protect the means of obtaining income.

Utter bullshit. The purpose of tariff taxes is to protect industry. Whether that industry 'obtains income' is irrelevant. In fact, Trump claims it's all about 'National security'. 

Patents and copyrights protect intellectual property. There are enumerable patents and copyrights that never make a dime. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
8.1.24  Bob Nelson  replied to  r.t..b... @8.1.21    2 weeks ago

    jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.25  Nerm_L  replied to  r.t..b... @8.1.21    2 weeks ago
And in the zero sum game of all games, subsidies will be doled out when the intended outcome quickly becomes economically unfeasible. Paying soybean farmers not to grow soybeans is rather counter intuitive. We live in a global economy, like it or not, and as we have become primarily a service-based economy, the U.S. is dependent on foreign products...a conundrum that is certainly not solved by initiating a dubiously motivated trade war. Just my two-cents...soon to be devalued.

Yep, subsidizing consumers is certainly smarter than subsidizing producers.  Where's that universal basic income fit into the picture?

Everyone complains about income disparities.  So, where is that increased income supposed to come from?  Where's the government going to find enough money to provide a basic income?  Wage stagnation hurts consumers far more than does tariffs.  

 
 
 
r.t..b...
8.1.26  r.t..b...  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.25    2 weeks ago
Everyone complains about income disparities.

Two different discussions. Granted, wage stagnation is a long standing problem that will require serious debate, but the tariffs just instituted are not about economics. It is but an unapologetic political maneuver.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
8.1.27  Bob Nelson  replied to  r.t..b... @8.1.26    2 weeks ago

    jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ender
8.1.28  Ender  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.19    2 weeks ago

I would not call sanctions a tariff. I would call it a tool yet not one to protect income.

Some decry a trade imbalance yet what more do we have to export? The tax plan was to lower corporate taxes to supposedly bring companies here. I guess we didn't see the big boom that was promised so instead threaten with a tariff...

For some companies, they are learning that it is easier to manufacture in that country than to export, transport over seas.

Take Toyota for example. They were going to expand their operations in the US but with their home company over seas, they have halted plans for now. Tariffs are actually halting expansion into the US.

Some US companies build plants in other countries to avoid shipping and costs.

As far as copyright and patents, some can be ridiculous. Like copyrighting a word or phrase.

Other countries will still import for now until it is no longer profitable. Either the US will pay more for the goods or stop buying it.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.29  Nerm_L  replied to  Dulay @8.1.23    2 weeks ago
The purpose of tariff taxes is to protect industry. 

YES, YES, YES.  Now you are catching on.

Like it or not, the United States must have industry to provide jobs.  Jobs provide income.  Income allows consumption.  Consumption pays for industry supporting jobs that provide income which allows consumption.

Believing that consumption doesn't depend upon jobs is magical thinking.  Workers are consumers and consumers are workers.  It's a self sustaining cycle within the domestic economy.

Think of it in the same manner as climate change.  Dumping a pollutant into the cycle disrupts the self sustaining cycle.  In the carbon cycle the pollutant is CO2 that disrupts the natural self sustaining carbon cycle.   In the domestic economy imports are the pollutant that disrupts the natural self sustaining economic cycle in the United States..

 
 
 
r.t..b...
8.1.30  r.t..b...  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.29    2 weeks ago
In the domestic economy imports are the pollutant that disrupts the natural self sustaining economic cycle in the United States..

Great in theory, Nerm. But those post-WWII days when we produced our own durable consumer goods are long gone. We must adapt to the reality that we are dependent on foreign imports for these goods and need to be proactive in how to best integrate this reality into tenable, mutually beneficial relationships. Tariffs are reactionary at best, and are rife with potentially deleterious unintended consequences. Bottom line, we will all be paying more...and that isn't good for anybody.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.31  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.18    2 weeks ago
No real surprise there, was it? Doesn't the stock market almost always react to financial news?

So now it's not like 'someone yelling squirrel', it's 'financial news'. Got ya...

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @8.1.31    2 weeks ago
Got ya...

Oh, that IS good news.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
8.1.33  Bob Nelson  replied to  r.t..b... @8.1.30    2 weeks ago

Hmmm... This is... strange. Successive cogent posts on economics. On NewsTalkers.

Strange...

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.34  Nerm_L  replied to  r.t..b... @8.1.30    2 weeks ago
Great in theory, Nerm. But those post-WWII days when we produced our own durable consumer goods are long gone. We must adapt to the reality that we are dependent on foreign imports for these goods and need to be proactive in how to best integrate this reality into tenable, mutually beneficial relationships. Tariffs are reactionary at best, and are rife with potentially deleterious unintended consequences. Bottom line, we will all be paying more...and that isn't good for anybody.

So, World War II broke economics?  I think not.

The idea of integrating dependence upon foreign suppliers into tenable, mutually beneficial relationships is strictly a geopolitical objective that really has nothing to do with economics.  Trade economics and avoidance of tariffs is being utilized as a tool for purely political purposes.

It's true that co-dependence lessens potential conflict but that is not a healthy relationship.  It becomes necessary to ignore abuses to maintain the co-dependent relationship.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
8.1.35  r.t..b...  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.34    2 weeks ago
It becomes necessary to ignore abuses to maintain the co-dependent relationship.

No, it takes a realization that we find ourselves in a rapidly evolving global economy with technology progressing faster than we can assimilate into previous economic models. The challenges are vast but the opportunities are endless. Let the innovators of today be the old explorers of the New World and watch what we can achieve. Protectionism and isolationism will only prolong the inevitable...so we either adapt or become irrelevant. Nice dialogue, Nerm...thanks.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.36  Nerm_L  replied to  Ender @8.1.28    2 weeks ago
For some companies, they are learning that it is easier to manufacture in that country than to export, transport over seas.

Then those companies become part of the domestic economy.  US companies building factories in China are not engaged in international trade, they are participating in a domestic economy.

Take Toyota for example. They were going to expand their operations in the US but with their home company over seas, they have halted plans for now. Tariffs are actually halting expansion into the US.

A Toyota factory in the United States is participating in the domestic economy; that factory is not exporting to the United States.  The Toyota factory creates jobs that provide income which allows buying Toyota vehicles.  A Toyota factory built in the United States sustains itself within the domestic economy.

Some US companies build plants in other countries to avoid shipping and costs.

Then those US companies have become part of the other country's domestic economy.  Those US companies are not engaged in international trade.

Either the US will pay more for the goods or stop buying it.

YES.  That's the point.  It works the same way as a carbon tax discouraging the consumption of fossil fuels while encouraging consumption of alternatives.  Unfortunately, domestically produced goods have become the alternative to imports rather than the other way round.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.37  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.22    2 weeks ago
Why doesn't the United States just import the scientific data from from a foreign supplier?

Why would we buy data from a foreign supplier? Isn't the US gathering our own data? Are you claiming that US corporations aren't as good as foreign corporations at gathering data? I think that Boeing, Dynetics, Honeywell, Lockheed, Northrop, Raytheon and other US contractors could refute your posit. 

Apparently in a free market the United States isn't supposed to produce its own scientific data.

Apparently, you're uninformed. 

The free trade model is that the United States is just supposed to create a demand that foreign producers supply.

It is? 

How the hell can Mexico find enough labor to supply the United States with tomatoes?

I thought you had a basic understanding of economics...

Tomato harvesting involves the same type of work in Mexico as it does in the United States.

Why yes, YES it does. Backbreaking work, 14 hour work day while being paid for only 12. Most citizens can't tolerate it and our immigration 'policy' doesn't promote migrate workers. 

Maybe NASA should be spending more time figuring out how to harvest tomatoes in the United States instead of trying to figure out how to grow tomatoes on Mars.

Are you under some delusion that the US doesn't know how to harvest tomatoes? 

Even if NASA succeeds in growing tomatoes on Mars, it will be necessary to send Mexican pickers to harvest them.

Does NASA still have funding for the Mars mission? I thought Trump took it for his Space Force. 

That's work that US astronauts won't do.

They will if they want to eat...

 
 
 
Ender
8.1.38  Ender  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.36    2 weeks ago

Toyota willing/unwilling to expand in the US still has a major impact. They can open a factory yet when a lot of the parts still have to be imported it still has an impact. Would it be cost effective for them to do so.

There is no way that everything can or could be manufactured here. We are reliant on the rest of the world. We are all intertwined.

 
 
 
Kavika
8.1.39  Kavika   replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.36    2 weeks ago
Then those companies become part of the domestic economy.  US companies building factories in China are not engaged in international trade, they are participating in a domestic economy.

If the end product is exported or if parts are imported to China from other countries then it is international trade. 

Both GM and Ford export autos made in their China plants to the U.S. 

A Toyota factory in the United States is participating in the domestic economy; that factory is not exporting to the United States.  The Toyota factory creates jobs that provide income which allows buying Toyota vehicles.  A Toyota factory built in the United States sustains itself within the domestic economy.

Toyota in the US brings parts from Japan and other countries to assemble autos, making it international trade. Toyota also exports thousands of autos from the U.S. to other countries. 

The BMW (German) plant in South Carolina exported $8.7 billion worth of BMW's to other countries. It's all international trade. 

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.40  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.29    2 weeks ago
YES, YES, YES.  Now you are catching on.

Actually, what I am doing is cogently stating facts rather than blathering BS. 

In the domestic economy imports are the pollutant that disrupts the natural self sustaining economic cycle in the United States..

Why are you talking about 'the domestic economy"? IS there such a thing when our industries are so reliant on imports to produce their product? 

BTFW, where do you propose to sell all of this production by our 'workers'? Do you propose to eliminate exports? Care to estimate the hit our 'domestic economy' will take? 

Or do you propose that we ONLY export goods? How's that going to work? Please DO tell us all about your plan for a closed market economy. 

 
 
 
Kavika
8.1.41  Kavika   replied to  Kavika @8.1.39    2 weeks ago

When it comes to 100% ''made in America'' there isn't one auto, of foreign or domestic ownership that qualifies. 

The highest % of an auto ''made in America'' is two Jeep models and Jeep is owned by Fiat/Chrysler a foreign corporation.  They are around 70 to 75% American.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.42  Nerm_L  replied to  Ender @8.1.38    2 weeks ago
Toyota willing/unwilling to expand in the US still has a major impact. They can open a factory yet when a lot of the parts still have to be imported it still has an impact. Would it be cost effective for them to do so.

Ford and General Motors recently stopped manufacturing sedans because they can't compete with foreign suppliers within the United States.  And quite a few workers were laid off.  When foreign owned expansion causes domestically owned contraction then the result is only a regional competition within the United States.  Adding jobs by eliminating jobs isn't a sustainable economic approach.

There is no way that everything can or could be manufactured here. We are reliant on the rest of the world. We are all intertwined.

That's true.  The United States does lack some natural resources.  But the United States is not deficient in technical capability, labor, or capital.

Recent news reporting has been that China is considering banning export of rare earth metals to the United States.  According to USGS data the United States exports more rare earth minerals than the United States consumes as refined metal.  The United States has become dependent upon China to process and refine natural resources of the United States to supply the country's consumption.  Who obtains the most economic benefit from that relationship?

The United States exports timber and imports furniture.  The United States exports grains and imports processed food.  The United States exports natural resources and imports manufactured goods.  Who obtains the most economic benefit from that type of trade?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
8.1.43  Bob Nelson  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.42    2 weeks ago
Ford and General Motors recently stopped manufacturing sedans because they can't compete with foreign suppliers within the United States.

Ford (not GM) recently ceased production of sedans because sedans are not competitive with SUVs. Nothing to do with foreign trade.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.44  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.36    2 weeks ago
US companies building factories in China are not engaged in international trade, they are participating in a domestic economy. Those US companies are not engaged in international trade.

Are you claiming that none of the US companies in China export to countries around the world? 

Oh and BTFW, what makes you think that those US companies in China aren't IMPORTING goods they need to produce their product? 

Unfortunately, domestically produced goods have become the alternative to imports rather than the other way round.

If that were true, why would it be unfortunate? 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.45  Nerm_L  replied to  Kavika @8.1.39    2 weeks ago
If the end product is exported or if parts are imported to China from other countries then it is international trade. 

What components used in the assembly of automobiles is the United States unable to produce?  

Both GM and Ford export autos made in their China plants to the U.S. 

GM and Ford autos produced in China are part of the Chinese domestic economy.  Doesn't Chinese exports benefit the Chinese economy?  Don't workers in China receive more economic benefit from those exports than do workers in the United States?  And if the United States doesn't have jobs because of those GM and Ford imported automobiles then where does the money come from to buy them?

If international trade was balanced then the economic benefit from trade would be balanced.  Balanced international trade would establish a self sustaining economic cycle.  But that is not the economic reality of international trade.

The BMW (German) plant in South Carolina exported $8.7 billion worth of BMW's to other countries. It's all international trade. 

So a domestic producer exporting manufactured products is a good thing?  How does that reconcile with importing manufactured goods?

 
 
 
Kavika
8.1.46  Kavika   replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.42    2 weeks ago
The United States exports timber and imports furniture.  The United States exports grains and imports processed food.  The United States exports natural resources and imports manufactured goods.  Who obtains the most economic benefit from that type of trade?

Nerm....The U.S. imports billions of dollars worth of timber every year. Most come from Canada but the U.S. imports timber from numerous other countries.

As far as agriculture products go the U.S. exports billions of dollars of wheat/grain/soybeans/cotton/cheese/diary products/pees,beans and lentils world wide. This has nothing to do to with these products being processed and shipped back to the U.S. this is product that the farmers/ranchers have exported for profit since the U.S. can only absorb so much. China is the largest consumer of U.S. soybeans and Mexico is one of the largest consumer of US corn and wheat. 

It is in our best interest that we keep this trade open and free...

The U.S. benefits from this type of trade. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
8.1.47  livefreeordie  replied to  Kavika @8.1.46    2 weeks ago

We haven’t ever had free trade. Most nations impose tariffs on US goods ranging from 10-100%

https://www.prosperousamerica.org/harley_davidson_loves_tariffs

 
 
 
livefreeordie
8.1.48  livefreeordie  replied to  Dulay @8.1.40    2 weeks ago

If domestic production increases, import demand decreases. We are the largest consumer economy in the world

deregulation would also help domestic small business be more competitive. International global corporations are less affected by regulation than small businesses who are strangled by the costs of over regulation. Deregulation would make US small business more price competitive 

 
 
 
Kavika
8.1.49  Kavika   replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.45    2 weeks ago
What components used in the assembly of automobiles is the United States unable to produce?  

Nerm....come on, each and every country can more than likely produce most products needed...That is not the question. It is international trade and I pointed out to you that this is international trade. 

GM and Ford autos produced in China are part of the Chinese domestic economy.  Doesn't Chinese exports benefit the Chinese economy?  Don't workers in China receive more economic benefit from those exports than do workers in the United States?  And if the United States doesn't have jobs because of those GM and Ford imported automobiles then where does the money come from to buy them?

Of course China benefits from the plants being there. But so does Ford since that profit earned is part of their overall portfolio and thus adds to the profit of the company which benefits share holder and workers. 

If international trade was balanced then the economic benefit from trade would be balanced.  Balanced international trade would establish a self sustaining economic cycle.  But that is not the economic reality of international trade.

I didn't claim that international trade is balanced. That would be impossible. There will always be areas that we have a surplus in and a deficit in. 

o a domestic producer exporting manufactured products is a good thing?  How does that reconcile with importing manufactured goods?

Not sure what your point is Nerm....I pointed out that the BMW plant in SC (foreign owned) manufactured here and also exported which is a net gain to the U.S.

 
 
 
Kavika
8.1.50  Kavika   replied to  livefreeordie @8.1.47    2 weeks ago
We haven’t ever had free trade. Most nations impose tariffs on US goods ranging from 10-100%

You are aware that long before Trump the US has imposed tariffs on foreign products, right?

Since the 1960's the U.S. has imposed an import tax on vans and light trucks of 25% coming from Europe. That is only part of the tariffs that we have and do impose. 

 
 
 
Ender
8.1.51  Ender  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.45    2 weeks ago

Trade will never be equal when one country produces more than another or when one country consumes more than another.

It will never be equal with all the wage and cost of living discrepancies. 

Mountainous regions produce different things than arid regions.

The only way it would ever be equal is if everyone was on the same footing, which we will never all be.

Trade should not be used for any political agenda, as trade is for the people themselves. Certain things can only be grown in certain regions and certain places are more adept at building certain things.

Trade should be based on need or want. Not used as a political football.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.52  Dulay  replied to  livefreeordie @8.1.48    2 weeks ago
If domestic production increases, import demand decreases.

What proof do you have of that? How many products in Walmart are from US manufacturers?

My buddy has 2 young boys that need at least 3 pairs of sneakers a year. How many people that shop at Walmart could afford $600 sneakers for their kids? @ Walmart they'd pay $70 for sneakers for their growing kids. 

I realize that regulation costs the US jobs BUT instead of deregulating here, we should be promoting regulation there.

I live in an area where manufactures, oil and chemical companies have dumped their shit for decades. Many of those industries have moved on, leaving their SHIT PILES behind. Hell, even the government got into the act. There is STILL high levels of POISONS in our water and 'land fills' that have never been cleaned up. Pregnant women and children can't eat the fish that come out of our lakes and streams.

My area is not unique, it's happened all over the country. They suck the profit out of a place, dump their shit and move on. It's NOT sustainable. 

Here's an EPA map of JUST industrial pollution sites: 

https://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/cimc/f?p=cimc:map::::71:P71_WELSEARCH:NULL|Cleanup||||true|false|false|false|false|false|||sites|Y

I've run quite a few small businesses in my day and our employees were lucky that we were held to EPA, OSHA and EEOC regulations. We managed to make a fair profit while protecting our employees and the environment. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
8.1.53  livefreeordie  replied to  Kavika @8.1.50    2 weeks ago

You just validated my point that we’ve never had free trade

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.54  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  livefreeordie @8.1.53    2 weeks ago

Of course, we did. We just can't make things as cheaply. 

 
 
 
Kavika
8.1.55  Kavika   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.54    2 weeks ago
You just validated my point that we’ve never had free trade

Actually I didn't validate your point. I pointed out that we have tariffs on some items and non tariffs on others. Other countries are the same....

 
 
 
livefreeordie
8.1.56  livefreeordie  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.54    2 weeks ago

We’ve never had a time without tariffs from ourselves or other nations upon us.   We used tariffs as opposed to domestic taxes for federal revenue at the beginning of our nation.

at no time in the past 100 years have we experience zero tariffs on US exports

 
 
 
livefreeordie
8.1.57  livefreeordie  replied to  Kavika @8.1.55    2 weeks ago

That was my statement, not Perrie’s

 
 
 
Kavika
8.1.58  Kavika   replied to  livefreeordie @8.1.57    2 weeks ago

I'm aware that it was your statement...It was misplaced under Perrie...It still stands.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
8.1.59  livefreeordie  replied to  Kavika @8.1.58    2 weeks ago

Your response had no relevance because it was not either agreeing or disputing what I said which was that we’ve never had free trade with no tariffs or the fact that many countries impose much higher tariffs on US goods than we do on theirs

https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h963.html

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.60  Dulay  replied to  livefreeordie @8.1.56    2 weeks ago

So what you're saying is that the US has never had a 'free trade' economy and everyone that touts it as the reason for our success is full of shit. Good to know. 

BTW, 'free trade' doesn't mean that NO tariffs exist, it means that a MINIMUM of tariffs exist. 

Sheesh. 

 
 
 
Kavika
8.1.61  Kavika   replied to  livefreeordie @8.1.59    2 weeks ago
Your response had no relevance because it was not either agreeing or disputing what I said which was that we’ve never had free trade with no tariffs or the fact that many countries impose much higher tariffs on US goods than we do on theirs

Actually I pointed out to you that we have tariffs on some items, none on others. That is true of other countries as well...So it is relevant and accurate.

NAFTA, North American Free Trade Agreement....

 
 
 
Krishna
8.1.62  Krishna  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.45    2 weeks ago
What components used in the assembly of automobiles is the United States unable to produce?  

This has already been discussed:

Why would tariffs on Mexico hurt American companies? If anything, wouldn't it seem to hurt Mexican companies-- but help American companies?

Well, here's why:

GM Stock, Ford Stock Fall

GM stock fell 1.5% and Ford stock 2% in late trade. U.S. tariffs on Mexico would affect supply chains for General Motors and Ford. Mexico is a big producer of cars, trucks and parts.

A tariff would significantly raise the cost of parts (from mexico) that are used in the production of cars in the U.S.! This would significantly raise the cost to American car manufacturers. Increased cost of American made vehicles would hurt sales-- if it continued these American manufacturers would eventually have to lay off workers, even perhaps close a few factories.

And the American factories that depend upon imported parts can retool entire factories overnight! (Read it all)

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.63  Nerm_L  replied to  Kavika @8.1.49    2 weeks ago
Nerm....come on, each and every country can more than likely produce most products needed...That is not the question. It is international trade and I pointed out to you that this is international trade. 

Why?  Does the United States lack timber?  Is the United States relying on other countries destroying their forests so the United States doesn't have to?

Of course China benefits from the plants being there. But so does Ford since that profit earned is part of their overall portfolio and thus adds to the profit of the company which benefits share holder and workers. 

A factory in China is part of the Chinese economy; those factories provide the benefit of jobs and income.  A factory in China does not provide jobs and income in the United States economy.  So, claiming that Chinese factories benefit US workers doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Passive investors obtain benefit from sale of products; it doesn't matter where the factories are located or where the products are sold.  Passive investors obtaining economic benefit from foreign operations that do not provide any benefit to US workers is why income and wealth disparity has increased so rapidly and so much.

Not sure what your point is Nerm....I pointed out that the BMW plant in SC (foreign owned) manufactured here and also exported which is a net gain to the U.S.

The SC BMW plant only provides a benefit to the US economy because the plant is located in the United States.  If the BMW plant replaced imports into the US instead of exporting then the plant would actually provide more economic benefit to the United States.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.64  Nerm_L  replied to  Kavika @8.1.49    2 weeks ago
Nerm....come on, each and every country can more than likely produce most products needed...That is not the question. It is international trade and I pointed out to you that this is international trade. 

Let's test that idea and show why free trade does not integrate dependence upon foreign suppliers into tenable, mutually beneficial relationships.

Central America is made of of small countries, like Honduras and Guatemala, that lack a variety of natural resources and have populations too small to support a diverse industrial sector.  These small countries depend upon obtaining manufactured products from the international markets.  However, consumers in Honduras and Guatemala are competing with US consumers for manufactured goods.  The United States' heavy dependence upon imports is actually depriving consumers in countries that must rely on imports access to the international markets.  Honduras and Guatemala simply cannot compete with the United States.

Using free trade to establish tenable, mutually beneficial relationships among countries actually requires nations with industrial capability to begin supplying the international markets.  The United States sucking up a large share of goods available on international markets in reality creates an obstacle to achieving the stated goal of free trade.  The United States simply isn't doing its part to maintain world peace.

One of the reasons we are experiencing large migrations from Central America into the United States is so those consumers can have more access to manufactured goods available on the international markets.  The consumers in Honduras and Guatemala cannot compete with US consumers, they have to migrate to the United States to obtain goods from the international markets.

If the United States really believed that free trade establishes mutually beneficial relationships between countries then the US needs to utilize its industrial capability to supply the international markets.  Achieving peace through consumption means that supplying the international marketplace is a necessity.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.65  Nerm_L  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.54    2 weeks ago
Of course, we did. We just can't make things as cheaply. 

We don't know if that is really true.  It's like rebuilding the roof for Notre Dame cathedral.  The natural resources are available to replace the roof exactly as it was.  But the needed industrial capability and work skills have been lost.  The greatest cost for replacing Notre Dame's roof will be revitalizing the capability and skills needed to do the work.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.66  Nerm_L  replied to  Krishna @8.1.62    2 weeks ago
GM stock fell 1.5% and Ford stock 2% in late trade. U.S. tariffs on Mexico would affect supply chains for General Motors and Ford. Mexico is a big producer of cars, trucks and parts.

Passive investors make money from the sale of products.  It doesn't matter where the factories are located or where the products are sold.

A tariff would significantly raise the cost of parts (from mexico) that are used in the production of cars in the U.S.! This would significantly raise the cost to American car manufacturers. Increased cost of American made vehicles would hurt sales-- if it continued these American manufacturers would eventually have to lay off workers, even perhaps close a few factories.

That establishes an economic incentive to produce the parts domestically.  Sufficiently large tariffs provides an economic opportunity for domestic investment in industrial capability that supports domestic jobs and income.  Shareholders don't care where the factories are located or where the products are sold; shareholders are only concerned with scraping money off sales.

Foreign production doesn't provide any greater benefit for shareholders than does domestic production.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.67  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.64    2 weeks ago
One of the reasons we are experiencing large migrations from Central America into the United States is so those consumers can have more access to manufactured goods available on the international markets.  The consumers in Honduras and Guatemala cannot compete with US consumers, they have to migrate to the United States to obtain goods from the international markets.

What an utter load of bullshit. You said:

Consumption requires income obtained from producing something. Without income, all prices are too high.

Their ACCESS to 'manufactured goods available on the international markets' isn't limited because they 'cannot compete with US consumers', it's limited because they lack sufficient INCOME and a safe enough society in which to obtain and spend what little they do have. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.68  Nerm_L  replied to  Dulay @8.1.67    2 weeks ago
Their ACCESS to 'manufactured goods available on the international markets' isn't limited because they 'cannot compete with US consumers', it's limited because they lack sufficient INCOME and a safe enough society in which to obtain and spend what little they do have. 

And Honduras and Guatemala doesn't have sufficient natural resources and manpower to supply what their populations need and demand.  Honduras and Guatemala will always be dependent upon imported manufactured products.  Consumers in those countries will always compete with other consumers in the international markets.

It's true that Honduras and Guatemala could establish enough industry to create jobs and income.  That really is a necessity that allows consumption.  But Honduras and Guatemala will always be at an economic disadvantage in international trade because the countries lack the ability to domestically supply more of their consumer demand.  

The United States dependence upon imports exacerbates the natural disadvantages of countries like Honduras and Guatemala.  There is actually little Honduras and Guatemala can do to become competitive with the United States.  If the United States wants to utilize free trade to establish global peace then the United States needs to use its natural advantages to overcome the natural disadvantages of countries like Honduras and Guatemala.  The United States sitting on its industrial haunches and deliberately being a slacker in international trade establishes an insurmountable obstacle to achieving global peace.

The United States is certainly capable of domestically supplying more of what US consumers demand.  Hondurans and Guatemalans shouldn't have to compete with US consumers for manufactured products.  And the United States is also capable of providing a supply of manufactured products to countries with natural disadvantages.  That's the only way that free trade can possibly establish global peace.

The United States is the largest economy on the planet.  The United States is also the largest consumer of manufactured goods available in international markets.  The United States is utilizing its natural advantages in a selfish manner and ignoring the global consequences of its selfishness.  Achieving global peace really is going to require all countries to do their share according to their abilities and natural advantages.

 
 
 
Kavika
8.1.69  Kavika   replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.64    2 weeks ago
Central America is made of of small countries, like Honduras and Guatemala, that lack a variety of natural resources and have populations too small to support a diverse industrial sector.  These small countries depend upon obtaining manufactured products from the international markets.  However, consumers in Honduras and Guatemala are competing with US consumers for manufactured goods.  The United States' heavy dependence upon imports is actually depriving consumers in countries that must rely on imports access to the international markets.  Honduras and Guatemala simply cannot compete with the United States.

The consumer in those countries are not competing with buyers in the US for manufactured goods. There are plenty of manufactured goods in those counties for them to purchase that are either locally manufactured or imported from other countries. There are regularly scheduled container ships bringing in goods from all over the world to those countries. 

Using free trade to establish tenable, mutually beneficial relationships among countries actually requires nations with industrial capability to begin supplying the international markets.  The United States sucking up a large share of goods available on international markets in reality creates an obstacle to achieving the stated goal of free trade.  The United States simply isn't doing its part to maintain world peace.

Countries with industrial capability, of which there are hundreds, are already supplying the international market. The U.S. is part of the industrialized countries doing just that. 

One of the reasons we are experiencing large migrations from Central America into the United States is so those consumers can have more access to manufactured goods available on the international markets.  The consumers in Honduras and Guatemala cannot compete with US consumers, they have to migrate to the United States to obtain goods from the international markets.

No, that simply isn't true Nerm....The vast majority are escaping poverty/violence and has nothing to do with obtaining goods from the U.S. 

 
 
 
Ender
8.1.70  Ender  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.65    2 weeks ago
 It's like rebuilding the roof for Notre Dame cathedral.  The natural resources are available to replace the roof exactly as it was.  But the needed industrial capability and work skills have been lost.

Actually that is backwards. They would know or can find artisans to do the work, it is the materials that they cannot get. The old wood forests that were used are very limited and with what is left, they don't want to destroy. So they can rebuild it, they just won't have the same wood in which to replace.

http://fortune.com/2019/04/16/notre-dame-after-fire-rebuild/

 
 
 
Kavika
8.1.71  Kavika   replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.63    2 weeks ago
Why?  Does the United States lack timber?  Is the United States relying on other countries destroying their forests so the United States doesn't have to?

Nerm, you ask a question and I answer it. It seems you don't like the answer so you're off in another direction. I suggest that you ask the importer why they are importing lumber from Canada. 

A factory in China is part of the Chinese economy; those factories provide the benefit of jobs and income.  A factory in China does not provide jobs and income in the United States economy.  So, claiming that Chinese factories benefit US workers doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

It does provide income to the American corporation which benefits both the shareholders and the employees. It also provides jobs since some of the components are imported from the US manufactured by American workers. 

The SC BMW plant only provides a benefit to the US economybecausethe plant is located in the United States.  If the BMW plant replaced imports into the US instead of exporting then the plant would actually provide more economic benefit to the United States.

BMW employees American workers, pays taxes in American and their exports help add to our export dollars. They also manufacture for the US market...It would seem to me that they are doing a good job for America. 

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.72  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.68    2 weeks ago
Consumers in those countries will always compete with other consumers in the international markets.

Do you think that repeating the same BS ad nauseam makes it more true? 

The United States dependence upon imports exacerbates the natural disadvantages of countries like Honduras and Guatemala.

How? Be specific. 

There is actually little Honduras and Guatemala can do to become competitive with the United States.

What makes you think they NEED to become competitive with the US? 

If the United States wants to utilize free trade to establish global peace then the United States needs to use its natural advantages to overcome the natural disadvantages of countries like Honduras and Guatemala.

We already do though we could do more. 

The United States sitting on its industrial haunches and deliberately being a slacker in international trade establishes an insurmountable obstacle to achieving global peace.

Sounds like you have an issue with capitalism. 

The United States is certainly capable of domestically supplying more of what US consumers demand.

I asked you to tell us about your closed market economy plan required to reach your goal of self sufficiency, but you failed to do so. You also failed to address the COST to our economy of higher prices on consumer goods. 

 BTFW, you keep harping on 'global peace' yet deny the value of a 'global economy'.

Oh and please explain why you think that trade is the keystone to 'global peace'. 

The United States is utilizing its natural advantages in a selfish manner and ignoring the global consequences of its selfishness.

Yet that is EXACTLY what Trump was elected to do and he's only exasperated the problem with the enthusiastic support of his sycophants. 

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.73  Dulay  replied to  Ender @8.1.70    2 weeks ago

It's good to see unfounded proclamation meeting fact. Thanks for the link. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
8.2  seeder  Thrawn 31  replied to  Nerm_L @8    2 weeks ago

That's right! Just make sure you research out where every part, of every good you buy is made and then you are avoiding the tax!

 
 
 
Krishna
8.2.1  Krishna  replied to  Thrawn 31 @8.2    2 weeks ago
That's right! Just make sure you research out where every part, of every good you buy is made and then you are avoiding the tax!

Here's more on the subject:

 Mexico is a big producer of cars, trucks and parts.

The following article is a bit more technical, but this part may help to understand the complexity of the situation:

How Much of your Car is Made in Mexico?

The Issue:

The vertical integration of automobile production across the three NAFTA countries is viewed as one of the most important international supply chains in North America and the world. Given the reliance on auto parts and labor from Canada and Mexico, an escalation of trade tensions is raising uncertainty for the U.S auto industry. While the NAFTA renegotiation has been ongoing for over a year, more recently, the U.S. Commerce Department initiated an investigation into whether imports of autos and auto parts imperil national security.

This could result in a 25 percent tariff on imported vehicles – a policy whose effects are hard to gauge accurately since obtaining a precise measure of the degree of integration in auto production in North America is challenging.

My recent research shows that commonly held views of supply chain integration in automobile production among the United States, Canada and Mexico understate the true depth of these linkages by a substantial extent. This suggests that imposing protectionist measures that disrupt the tight trade linkages in automobile production among NAFTA countries could cause greater economic disruption than what would be concluded based on traditional, lower estimates of international supply-chain integration.

There's a lot more HERE.

And right here on NT--->(LINK)

(P.S: These raised Tariffs on cars imported from Mexico would be so detrimental that my guess is that trump won't actually go through with it.)

 
 
 
Krishna
8.2.2  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @8.2.1    2 weeks ago
(P.S: These raised Tariffs on cars imported from Mexico would be so detrimental that my guess is that trump won't actually go through with it.)

I'm not 100% certain, but my guess is that Trump won't go through with this. 

The last I heard (Friday) was that the "word on The Street" was that White House Chief Assistant-Moron Stephen Miller put this nutty idea into Trump's head.

But:Even Lighthizer , at least in this instance, had the brains to see how destructive this idea is (not only for the U.S. as a whole but also for Trump's ratings. AS well as the harm it would do to the U.S. auto-industry). And perhaps also significant albeit a bit less so-- Mnuchin is also aware of how crazy it is. 

I think Lighthizer has a lot of sway with Trump...and the idea is so incredibly self-destructive-- that my guess is that Trump won't go through with it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Krishna @8.2.2    2 weeks ago

No surprise that it would have been Miller who put this stupid idea into the moron 'president's' head.  More fuel for the fire to his rabid base.

 
 
 
Krishna
 
 
Thrawn 31
9.1  seeder  Thrawn 31  replied to  Krishna @9    2 weeks ago

For a few reasons, all of them stupid. My country is an embarrassment. Can't believe i volunteered 5 years of my life for this fucking shit show. 

 
 
 
Krishna
9.1.1  Krishna  replied to  Thrawn 31 @9.1    2 weeks ago

For a few reasons, all of them stupid. My country is an embarrassment. Can't believe i volunteered 5 years of my life for this fucking shit show. 

You volunteered 5 years of your lifwe to help raise taxes?

Just curious-- why did you do that?

(Perhaps I don't understand your comment-- but why are you so in favour of higher taxes???)

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

epistte
Dulay
XXJefferson#51


49 visitors