2024 Presidential Race

#45,052
#45,052
BigOrangeMojo said:
So, if Kamala put a 200% tax on all products sold at Wal Mart and not Target brcause Wal Mart wasnt woke enough, you'd be OK with that?
Click to expand...
Walmart, target, Amazon, are distributors or middle men of products. You can buy "made in the usa" or you can buy "made in china" with any of them.
I don't see the comparison at all.
 
#45,053
#45,053
JD Vance really said this.

“if the path to prosperity was flooding your nation with low-wage immigrants, then Springfield, Ohio, would be the most prosperous city in the world.”

What about the US's path to prosperity? Throughout our history, we've been flooded with low-wage immigrants and it's how we became the greatest economic power the world had ever seen.

And his argument is non-sequitur. Springfield being the most prosperous city is setting the bar too high. It's also anecdotal, and for it to be a good anecdote, he needs to show Springfield is not more prosperous a decade down the road.

Once again, the AL city Jeff Sessions held up as a cautionary tale about low-wage immigrants flooding a community....the city was doing significantly better by every economic measure
 
#45,054
#45,054
n_huffhines said:
Exactly, why couldn't he find a legitimate example? You did. Bro, the point isn't that there is no such thing as $4 eggs. The point is he is a liar and part of the mockery is that he should be able to find examples of inflation, so why be so lazy, incompetent, and lie?

FWIW, I can get $4.89 eggs and $3.29 eggs at my Kroger, so sharing $4.89 would be deceitful for me. Wonder if you got cheaper eggs in your town?

View attachment 680341
Click to expand...
Did Biden/Harris administration just start yesterday?
What were they when they come into office, and what were they at their highs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#45,056
#45,056
Orange_Vol1321 said:
Walmart, target, Amazon, are distributors or middle men of products. You can buy "made in the usa" or you can buy "made in china" with any of them.
I don't see the comparison at all.
Click to expand...

For the last time, we arent talking about China. We are talking about a 200 % selective and punitive tarrif on 1 company for political reasons

If Kamala put a 200% tax on SEC football because it was not woke enough, would you be fine with that?
 
#45,057
#45,057
BigOrangeMojo said:
Im not anti tarrif, especially for a manipulative country like China but that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about an administration that is proposing to use punitive tarrifs against only 1 company in an industry who wants to produce overseas when that company's competitors produce overseas. That type of selective power dramatically increases power of govt.

If Kamala put a 200% not woke enough tax only on SEC football, there would be an outcry here
Click to expand...
I am talking about general widesweeping tariffs on foreign countries that engage in predatory practices that cost millions of American jobs. Not one industry. That was what was called an 'example'.

Your woke tax example is insipid.
 
#45,058
#45,058
SpaceCoastVol said:
I am talking about general widesweeping tariffs on foreign countries that engage in predatory practices that cost millions of American jobs. Not one industry. That was what was called an 'example'.

Your woke tax example is insipid.
Click to expand...

You went to China because you had no sensible retort of Big Govt Don trying to increase govt power by going after Deere for political reasons....
 
#45,062
#45,062
SpaceCoastVol said:
Calm down.
Click to expand...

BigOrangeMojo said:
You need to calm down
Click to expand...
I'm fine dude. You are the one running off the rails and flailing your arms about Trump.... again. I was having a discussion about tariffs in general and you are so full of Trump vitriol that you can only see one thing.

Again, good talk and have a wonderful day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#45,065
#45,065
BigOrangeMojo said:
For the last time, we arent talking about China. We are talking about a 200 % selective and punitive tarrif on 1 company for political reasons

If Kamala put a 200% tax on SEC football because it was not woke enough, would you be fine with that?
Click to expand...
To be accurate, he said John Deere and anybody else that does it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#45,066
#45,066
hog88 said:
I'm not picking up what you're putting down. Right now all campaign donations go through the campaigns.
Click to expand...
have every single campaign donation go into a single trust fund from all parties, with tracking for every dollar. who it is going to, who it is from. every expense from the campaign HAS to be reimbursed from that singular trust fund.

If you take out more money than money donated to your cause you have a lien or have to pay it back with interest. maybe lien is on the party.

The two parties are responsible for checking/approving each reimbursement by their opponent. fail to approve a "good" reimbursable your party has to pay it out, not the trust. party is dishonest in how it reports some aspect of the opponents work, party and campaign are financially responsible.

any money left over, and all interest, goes to the debt of whatever locale. only if there is no debt at that level of government is the remainder given out to the party who raised it.

set up some rules on the way reimbursements must happen, set up a council/committee judge, to review and decide any disagreements between the two sides.
 
#45,067
#45,067
evillawyer said:
Click to expand...

Trickle down has been greatly overused and distorted for decades because it’s “catchy” red meat for politicians, far left Keynesian economists and low info voters. Yet, nothing wrt our monetary and fiscal policy changes as we continue to add to the debt, constant stimulus spending, bank bailouts, trillions on social safety nets, billions on illegal immigrants, 100’s of billion on subsidies across a multitude of industries, nearly 50% of workers pay no federal income tax, child tax credits along with other tax credits, created the ACA under Obama, instituted jobs programs, training initiatives and so on. Tell me how that isn’t the Democrat version of “trickle down”?

All those things are fine to an extent, but why aren’t things better for the people they purport to be trying to help with all this spending on them? The answer isn’t that we need vastly more spending. We can probably agree on some “targeted” tax increases, a simpler tax system and leaner bureaucracies which would save tons of money, time, manpower and red tape, but by and large blaming the fate of many in the work force, the lower middle class and the poor on trickle down economics is disingenuous. Bush Sr, Clinton and Obama all raised taxes. Kamala likely will as well. Again, Why hasn’t all this trickle down, direct spending on the lower middle class, lower income people helped?? We have a spending problem and a completely wasteful govt.
 
Last edited:
#45,068
#45,068
SpaceCoastVol said:
I'm fine dude. You are the one running off the rails and flailing your arms about Trump.... again. I was having a discussion about tariffs in general and you are so full of Trump vitriol that you can only see one thing.

Again, good talk and have a wonderful day.
Click to expand...

So, you are good with selective political retaliation. Good to know for Trump's indictment thread since you cant rely on that (valid) point...

And @McDad, someone didnt catch TayTay lyrics...
 
#45,070
#45,070
utvolpj said:
How many answers do you need? I'm still not in favor of the govt artificially manipulating markets with the tariffs at the expense of consumers. Health and welfare is a different issue

If you want to get picky it's different from city to city in this country.
Click to expand...
is it anti-free market to ban/tax/tariff something that is also anti-free market?
 
  • Like
Reactions: USF grad in TN and SpaceCoastVol
#45,072
#45,072
LouderVol said:
have every single campaign donation go into a single trust fund from all parties, with tracking for every dollar. who it is going to, who it is from. every expense from the campaign HAS to be reimbursed from that singular trust fund.

If you take out more money than money donated to your cause you have a lien or have to pay it back with interest. maybe lien is on the party.

The two parties are responsible for checking/approving each reimbursement by their opponent. fail to approve a "good" reimbursable your party has to pay it out, not the trust. party is dishonest in how it reports some aspect of the opponents work, party and campaign are financially responsible.

any money left over, and all interest, goes to the debt of whatever locale. only if there is no debt at that level of government is the remainder given out to the party who raised it.

set up some rules on the way reimbursements must happen, set up a council/committee judge, to review and decide any disagreements between the two sides.
Click to expand...

So have the government control my political speech?
 
#45,074
#45,074
hog88 said:
So have the government control my political speech?
Click to expand...
how is your speech being controlled? Your money donated to X can only be used by X, it is just tracked by Y. tracking which at least theoretically exists on some level already.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top