tariffs will wipe out any gains from tax cuts for average american

[JimBowie1958]

You did not discuss it, you dismissed it.
Saying you don't care about certain people is not the same as explaining why the cost to them, is out weighted by something else.

Not sure libtards are capable of digesting your critical thinking point of order there, dude.

Draw something with crayons and scan it and post that and maybe they might grasp it, though the odds are not favorable even then.

 

[Correll]

HIs refusal to discuss the downside, demonstrates your point on that.

I have discussed it, not sure what more you want. I do not think we should sacrifice the prosperity of the country as a whole to help people that refuse to change with the times.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You did not discuss it, you dismissed it.


Saying you don't care about certain people is not the same as explaining why the cost to them, is out weighted by something else.

The cost is out weighed because they are a tiny segment of society that is losing what it lost as much due to technology and a changing world than anything else.

Suck it up and move on!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I live in the Rust Belt. It is not a tiny segment of society. And the impact looms very large here, is not limited to here. It might be less obvious in your community, but there are Americans everywhere who have been negatively impacted by the wage stagnation of the last 50 years (on the lower end).

Good news for you..the Govt is using our tax dollars to help out you poor rural community folks...

USDA Announces 47 Rural Communities and Regions that will Receive Technical Assistance to Help Build Long-Term Economic Growth



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

That shows, at most, that some other people care about the people you dismiss.


You seem unable to, indeed, even unfamiliar with the very concept of comparing cost and benefit of a policy.


Why do you support "Free Trade"?

 

[DOTR]

The full force of the Chinese and Mexican tariffs and subsequent retaliation would mean that consumers are facing an additional $3,994 in costs because of tariffs, more than four times the $930 tax cut for middle earners that the Republican Party touts as its signature legislative achievement under Trump.

These comparisons attempt to measure the direct benefit to households of the tax cuts -- including larger paychecks -- with the direct and indirect effects of tariffs, including lost jobs, higher prices, and retaliatory tariffs from trading partners.

The tariffs are “clearly demolishing” the benefits of the tax cuts for both businesses and consumers, said Daniel Ikenson, who directs trade policy at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Many households and consumers have been spared so far, but the next round of tariffs will be more problematic.”

Trump’s Tariffs Have Already Wiped Out Tax Bill Savings for Average Americans

So you wanted a bigger tax cut? I don’t remember seeing you agitating for that. In fact Mr Trump has to fight like hell against your people for what he got.

 

[DOTR]

The full force of the Chinese and Mexican tariffs and subsequent retaliation would mean that consumers are facing an additional $3,994 in costs because of tariffs, more than four times the $930 tax cut for middle earners that the Republican Party touts as its signature legislative achievement under Trump.

These comparisons attempt to measure the direct benefit to households of the tax cuts -- including larger paychecks -- with the direct and indirect effects of tariffs, including lost jobs, higher prices, and retaliatory tariffs from trading partners.

The tariffs are “clearly demolishing” the benefits of the tax cuts for both businesses and consumers, said Daniel Ikenson, who directs trade policy at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Many households and consumers have been spared so far, but the next round of tariffs will be more problematic.”

Trump’s Tariffs Have Already Wiped Out Tax Bill Savings for Average Americans

Why are you always on the side of corporate big wigs?
661 U.S. companies warn Trump against tariff fight with China

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The full force of the Chinese and Mexican tariffs and subsequent retaliation would mean that consumers are facing an additional $3,994 in costs because of tariffs, more than four times the $930 tax cut for middle earners that the Republican Party touts as its signature legislative achievement under Trump.

These comparisons attempt to measure the direct benefit to households of the tax cuts -- including larger paychecks -- with the direct and indirect effects of tariffs, including lost jobs, higher prices, and retaliatory tariffs from trading partners.

The tariffs are “clearly demolishing” the benefits of the tax cuts for both businesses and consumers, said Daniel Ikenson, who directs trade policy at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Many households and consumers have been spared so far, but the next round of tariffs will be more problematic.”

Trump’s Tariffs Have Already Wiped Out Tax Bill Savings for Average Americans

Why are you always on the side of corporate big wigs?
661 U.S. companies warn Trump against tariff fight with China

There is always a choice...you can side with big government or you can side with private companies. As a capitalist I will go with the latter, as a statist, you go with the former.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That shows, at most, that some other people care about the people you dismiss.


You seem unable to, indeed, even unfamiliar with the very concept of comparing cost and benefit of a policy.


Why do you support "Free Trade"?

Because I support freedom.

You can support either big government or you can support free trade.

 

[Correll]

That shows, at most, that some other people care about the people you dismiss.


You seem unable to, indeed, even unfamiliar with the very concept of comparing cost and benefit of a policy.


Why do you support "Free Trade"?

Because I support freedom.

You can support either big government or you can support free trade.

So, your commitment is based solely on ideology and not on a cost benefit analysis?


Well, ok. Thought it was kind of disingenuous of you to discuss the BENEFITS of your policy then.



Freedom is not always the answer. IN this case, "freedom" means the freedom to let our enemies **** US.


That is not a reasonable policy position.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, your commitment is based solely on ideology and not on a cost benefit analysis?

Why do you keep pretending I have not done the "cost benefit analysis" It is not that complicated.

The cost is that a small group of people get left behind if they refuse to change with the times.

Well, ok. Thought it was kind of disingenuous of you to discuss the BENEFITS of your policy then. Same thing that happened when Ag no longer needed as much manual labor or when cars replaced horses or when we no longer needed telephone operators.

You cannot stop progress just because some people are whiny.

Freedom is not always the answer. IN this case, "freedom" means the freedom to let our enemies **** US.


That is not a reasonable policy position.

Unless that freedom is being used to unlawfully harm me, then yes freedom is always the answer.

Nobody is ******* the US, that is just a lie you keep parroting from your party masters. Any jobs that were lost were lost because American companies choose to take advantage of cheaper labor in other parts of the world, which any good capitalist would.

A business of any sort has on goal, one purpose for its very existence...that is to make money.

 

[Correll]

So, your commitment is based solely on ideology and not on a cost benefit analysis?

Why do you keep pretending I have not done the "cost benefit analysis" It is not that complicated.

The cost is that a small group of people get left behind if they refuse to change with the times.

Well, ok. Thought it was kind of disingenuous of you to discuss the BENEFITS of your policy then. Same thing that happened when Ag no longer needed as much manual labor or when cars replaced horses or when we no longer needed telephone operators.

You cannot stop progress just because some people are whiny.

Freedom is not always the answer. IN this case, "freedom" means the freedom to let our enemies **** US.


That is not a reasonable policy position.

Unless that freedom is being used to unlawfully harm me, then yes freedom is always the answer.

Nobody is ******* the US, that is just a lie you keep parroting from your party masters. Any jobs that were lost were lost because American companies choose to take advantage of cheaper labor in other parts of the world, which any good capitalist would.

A business of any sort has on goal, one purpose for its very existence...that is to make money.

1. When pressed on why you felt the benefits outweighed the costs, your response was "I side with Freedom". That is not a cost benefit analysis, that is rigid ideology. You have refused to consider the costs. You dismiss them, and the people bearing them.


2. I have considered and admitted the benefits of "free trade". THe macro economic numbers are good. Lots of people benefit from that. America's economy grows.


3. Our trading enemies are certainly ******* US. "Legally"? I don't care if it is legal or not. Why would you even say that?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

1. When pressed on why you felt the benefits outweighed the costs, your response was "I side with Freedom". That is not a cost benefit analysis, that is rigid ideology. You have refused to consider the costs. You dismiss them, and the people bearing them.

I have considered the costs, and the benefits far outweigh the any cost.

2. I have considered and admitted the benefits of "free trade". THe macro economic numbers are good. Lots of people benefit from that. America's economy grows.

And yet you claim that is a bad thing. Odd

3. Our trading enemies are certainly ******* US. "Legally"? I don't care if it is legal or not. Why would you even say that?

Nobody is getting fucked, you are just parroting talking points that you cannot support. Countries getting fucked over do not have the largest GDP in the world, they do not have sub 4% unemployment, they do not have millions of more open jobs than people to fill them, they do not set records for number of straight months of economic expansion or job growth.

 

[Correll]

1. When pressed on why you felt the benefits outweighed the costs, your response was "I side with Freedom". That is not a cost benefit analysis, that is rigid ideology. You have refused to consider the costs. You dismiss them, and the people bearing them.

I have considered the costs, and the benefits far outweigh the any cost.

2. I have considered and admitted the benefits of "free trade". THe macro economic numbers are good. Lots of people benefit from that. America's economy grows.

And yet you claim that is a bad thing. Odd

3. Our trading enemies are certainly ******* US. "Legally"? I don't care if it is legal or not. Why would you even say that?

Nobody is getting fucked, you are just parroting talking points that you cannot support. Countries getting fucked over do not have the largest GDP in the world, they do not have sub 4% unemployment, they do not have millions of more open jobs than people to fill them, they do not set records for number of straight months of economic expansion or job growth.

1. No, when challenged on your analysis of the costs, you dismissed it, insulted those who pay it, and said "Freedom". THat is not considering the costs. Your support of "Free Trade" is NOT based on what is good for America and/or Americans.


2. No, I claim that the benefits of the "Free Trade" are good. YOu seem to completely fail to understand the concept of comparing cost and benefit. Results are normally a mix of GOOD and BAD. The trick is to compare the two and see which is more.


3. Yes, we are getting fucked. That you spout the Upside of "Free Trade" is dishonest, because you refuse to seriously consider the Downside.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

3. Yes, we are getting fucked. That you spout the Upside of "Free Trade" is dishonest, because you refuse to seriously consider the Downside.

What is the downside to having the largest GDP in the world, having sub 4% unemployment, or millions of more open jobs than people to fill them, or setting records for number of straight months of economic expansion or job growth?

What are the downsides to those things?

The only "downside" you can point to is some people refuse to adapt to the new economy.

Nobody is getting fucked, the companies that moved jobs overseas were not forced to do so by the countries they moved to. Those companies made financial decisions, which is what they are supposed to do.

Perhaps your anger should be targeted on those companies and not the countries they went to

 

[Correll]

3. Yes, we are getting fucked. That you spout the Upside of "Free Trade" is dishonest, because you refuse to seriously consider the Downside.

What is the downside to having the largest GDP in the world, having sub 4% unemployment, or millions of more open jobs than people to fill them, or setting records for number of straight months of economic expansion or job growth?

What are the downsides to those things?

The only "downside" you can point to is some people refuse to adapt to the new economy.

Nobody is getting fucked, the companies that moved jobs overseas were not forced to do so by the countries they moved to. Those companies made financial decisions, which is what they are supposed to do.

Perhaps your anger should be targeted on those companies and not the countries they went to

We already discussed that Upside of the policy in the macro economic numbers.


It is when we tried to compare those to the Downside of those that pay the cost, that you instead dismissed the cost, insulted those that pay it, and then said "Freedom".


Your support of "Free Trade" is NOT based on what is good for America, or Americans, as you have demonstrated by your refusal to discuss it, and indeed, the difficulty you have in even understanding the idea of cost/benefit analysis.


My opposition to "Free Trade" is based on my analysis that the long term cost, especially the long term SOCIAL cost, is greater than the long term economic benefits.


I am willing to discuss either my analysis, or your ideological opposition. But it is not reasonable of you to claim to have done a cost benefit analysis, when you didn't, or can't.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

We already discussed that Upside of the policy in the macro economic numbers.


It is when we tried to compare those to the Downside of those that pay the cost, that you instead dismissed the cost, insulted those that pay it, and then said "Freedom".

That is because I get nothing but anecdotes and sob stories.

Your support of "Free Trade" is NOT based on what is good for America, or Americans, as you have demonstrated by your refusal to discuss it, and indeed, the difficulty you have in even understanding the idea of cost/benefit analysis.

The Macro numbers show what is good for America and Americans as a whole. It is impossible to make everyone happy. Your "downside" has always been a part of progress, there have always been changes in where the jobs were, people have always had to adapt or get left behind. There is no standing still, if you are not moving you will get run over.

Also, freedom is always what's good for the country.

My opposition to "Free Trade" is based on my analysis that the long term cost, especially the long term SOCIAL cost, is greater than the long term economic benefits.


I am willing to discuss either my analysis, or your ideological opposition. But it is not reasonable of you to claim to have done a cost benefit analysis, when you didn't, or can't.

I am a numbers guy, my career revolves around numbers. If you wish to discuss the "down side" you better be able to put some cold hard facts to it and not just feelings.

 

[Correll]

We already discussed that Upside of the policy in the macro economic numbers.


It is when we tried to compare those to the Downside of those that pay the cost, that you instead dismissed the cost, insulted those that pay it, and then said "Freedom".

That is because I get nothing but anecdotes and sob stories.

Your support of "Free Trade" is NOT based on what is good for America, or Americans, as you have demonstrated by your refusal to discuss it, and indeed, the difficulty you have in even understanding the idea of cost/benefit analysis.

The Macro numbers show what is good for America and Americans as a whole. It is impossible to make everyone happy. Your "downside" has always been a part of progress, there have always been changes in where the jobs were, people have always had to adapt or get left behind. There is no standing still, if you are not moving you will get run over.

Also, freedom is always what's good for the country.

My opposition to "Free Trade" is based on my analysis that the long term cost, especially the long term SOCIAL cost, is greater than the long term economic benefits.


I am willing to discuss either my analysis, or your ideological opposition. But it is not reasonable of you to claim to have done a cost benefit analysis, when you didn't, or can't.

I am a numbers guy, my career revolves around numbers. If you wish to discuss the "down side" you better be able to put some cold hard facts to it and not just feelings.

1. You had your chance to try to challenge my observations, you choose to dismiss the cost and cry "FREEDOM". That was you showing that your position is NOT based on what is good for America and Americans. It is too late to walk it back now.


2. THe macro economic numbers show the macro economic numbers, not how the cost falls across our society or how it effects our communities. That you just keep going back the macro economic numbers, after demonstrating that your support is not based on a cost/benefit analysis, is disingenuous of you.


3. YOu are not a numbers guy. YOu have your chance to discuss numbers, and you choose to dismiss the costs, without going into the "numbers" of it, and instead you made an ideological statement ie "FREEDOM".