Trump's closing argument? Really???

[FreeinChrist]

Trump noted that tariffs were the means of funding the Federal government prior to the Income Tax Amendment, 1913.
There is a long history of tariffs in this country and it worked very well.
Tariffs are a better means of regulating international trade than treaties like NAFTA as tariffs are flexible.
Tariffs are Constitutional and have a long history in this country

Tariffs are meant to raise the price of foreign made goods over American made goods. That is all good except when:
1. we don't make the item in the US
2. The foreign country creates tariffs in response to US tariffs so that our products are not al all competitive with other countries.

This is how tariffs work - say Costco or Walmart wants to sell a certain item from China. They buy the product and then they pay the tariff associated with the item, NOT CHINA, and then they decide how much to charge consumers, passing on all or part of the tariff to the consumer.

It raises the cost for Americans for many products used daily..

Trump acts like the foreign country pays the tariff. They don't.

 

[QvQ]

DoE is basically a giant bank that also does some school policy stuff. Look at the way their budget breaks down - it's mostly grants:

The Fact Sheets from the Department of Education deterrmine what is taught in schools.
I doubt some school in a rural area suddenly decided to teach gender ideology.
And the Dept of Education enforces those dictates through the power to grant.

Tariffs would reduce the size of government?

Gee golly whillikers!
With a death tax, a tax on unrealized capital gains, with 100% tax on corporations and a 100% income tax, by sucking up every dime in this country the Federal Government can grow and grow and grow.
O, the Joy!

 

[FreeinChrist]

The Fact Sheets from the Department of Education deterrmine what is taught in schools.
I doubt some school in a rural area suddenly decided to teach gender ideology.
And the Dept of Education enforces those dictates through the power to grant.

Tariffs would reduce the size of government?

Gee golly whillikers!
With a death tax, a tax on unrealized capital gains, with 100% tax on corporations and a 100% income tax, by sucking up every dime in this country the Federal Government can grow and grow and grow.
O, the Joy!

The Departiment of Education sets up goals and standards. The cirriculum is determined by the district with the approval of parents.

Tariffs will increase the cost of living for Americans, not reduce the size of government.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The Fact Sheets from the Department of Education deterrmine what is taught in schools.

No, they don't. "Fact sheets" are not official policy or regulation. They're publications intended to inform people.

I doubt some school in a rural area suddenly decided to teach gender ideology.
And the Dept of Education enforces those dictates through the power to grant.

They don't have to accept the money, do they?

Tariffs would reduce the size of government?

Gee golly whillikers!

If the main concern here is economic conditions on the ground (at least that's what the other poster said his concern was), what do you think will happen if you kill off an entity that constitutes 15%+ of GDP? The federal government employs over 4 million people, with over 1 million of them being active duty military. What happens if you just put 4 million people out of work?

Trump has claimed that tariffs funded the government just fine until 1913, but you know what we didn't have much of in 1913? A standing army. That wasn't much of a thing until after WW2. Do you guys want the biggest, baddest, most advanced military like Trump does? Or do you want a bunch of under-funded conscripts who only show up when there's a war?

 

[QvQ]

A standing army. That wasn't much of a thing until after WW2. Do you guys want the biggest, baddest, most advanced military like Trump does? Or do you want a bunch of under-funded conscripts who only show up when there's a war?

Under funded conscipts?
Referring to the US Army in WWII?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Under funded conscipts?
Referring to the US Army in WWII?

No, what we had prior to then (really, prior to WW1) and what we'd have again if you tried to fund everything with tariffs.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Under funded conscipts?
Referring to the US Army in WWII?

Do you know how badly the US went into debt in WWII? Taxes for the rich went very high. Those conscripts were brave and wonderful. My dad was one, and was in the second wave on D-day at Omaha beach.

But consider this - Pearl Harbor was bombed Dec. 7, 1941. The US struggled mightily in the Pacific. It took until June 1944 to raise and prepare an army to invade Normandy and fight the Germans. It took that long to build the tanks and airplanes and the armor needed. Women could not buy nylons or silk stockings as that all went to making parachutes. The Jeep plant in 1942 was owned by Ford at that time and it was coverted to building B24 bombers (over 8000 were built) and that took time to make and change out the machinery. They produced one an hour once they were up and running but still, there was a gap between wanting them and getting them. Same with ships.

And forget it if your tire went bad in that time. You couldn't buy a new one. ALL rubber went to the war effort for planes, jeeps, tanks and more.

Point is, we have a huge budget now for the military, so we are not in that spot again. Tariffs couldn't begin to fund that. And tariffs raise the prices for consumers.

 

[QvQ]

Back when the US was the manufacturing power house of the world, tariffs would be possible.
However, after Clinton, free trade, we are too dependent on foreign products.
Frankly, the US is going down. I personally don't see any way to stop it.

Kamala as surrogate to Obama's 4th term?
He is out campaigning at this moment.
I don''t believe Obama is the answer either.

64% of the people are saying the country is heading in the wrong direction.

Can Trump turn it around?
Probably too late for that but at least get a start on the right road.
Meanwhile, the voters have to live with their choices.
Biden has been very hard to live with.
Kamala may be worse.
Choice is yours.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Back when the US was the manufacturing power house of the world, tariffs would be possible.

No, that's backwards. When you have the upper hand in manufacturing is exactly when you don't want tariffs, because tariffs usually wind up being applied on both sides and making your goods more expensive abroad means you'll export less stuff. We used tariffs when our industrial base was weak, so that it was less likely to be undercut by foreign competition.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I say the country is heading in the wrong direction but not because of Biden. I think it is because of the animosity and anger and divisiveness that seems overwhelming in this country.

Biden will go down as a successful president. He got the infrastructure bill passed, and the Chips Act passed (talk about bringing manufacturing back to the US), and the Inflation Reduction Act, established the Office of Gun Violence Prevention to teach gun safety in schools, and passed an Election Reform Act, which makes the VPs roll at the certification ceremonial, and makes it to the apparent winner gets funds asap to start building the next administration and that electors are picked based on the laws in place before the election. No Jan. 5th.

There is so much more.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

However, after Clinton, free trade, we are too dependent on foreign products.

That's the consequence of a global economy - relatively inexpensive means of transporting goods allow labor-intensive manufacturing to happen in much lower-cost areas. You can't just magically undo that. Moving manufacturing back onshore would massive investments in infrastructure and would incur enormous costs for labor and land - and even if we managed to do that, we'd still be dependent on other countries for raw materials.

64% of the people are saying the country is heading in the wrong direction.

But do those 64% agree on what the right direction is? If the country is going "up", and 25% think we should be going "left", 25% think we should be going "right", and 14% think we should be going "down", then 64% think the country is going in the wrong direction, but a plurality support the current direction.

 

[QvQ]

When you have the upper hand in manufacturing is exactly when you don't want tariffs, because tariffs usually wind up being applied on both sides and making your goods more expensive abroad

Autarky, and America had it. America produced a large percentage of what it consumed.
We shipped our pruduction out.
I hauled our manufacturing base to the ports and the border back in the 90's
Now we have to buy rather than sell.

 

[QvQ]

But do those 64% agree on what the right direction is? If the country is going "up", and 25% think we should be going "left", 25% think we should be going "right", and 14% think we should be going "down", then 64% think the country is going in the wrong direction, but a plurality support the current direction.

I looked it up.
The 36% who think the US is going in the right direction matches the 25% who think the economy is good. So "direction of the country" tends to be an economic question.

As I said, the voters have to live with their choices.
Biden was difficult to live with
Biden said, "Kamala and I are singing from the same song book"
Which is starting to look more and more like an Obama singalong.

 

[stevil]

Is Trump just that vulgar and uncouth, or is this from dementia?

Well, he isn't a Spring chicken.
He has always been divisive and controversial. He craves attention and so he says outlandish and odd things. Certainly tries to spark emotion in those listening to him. So people either love him or hate him.

He would be much better as a Shock Jock radio show host than a president.
Even then, I guess you have some Shock Jocks who are highly knowledgable and ask some very challenging questions and some who are just jumping in on the latest thing, parroting what they've heard but not really understanding details nor having the ability to distinguish between truth or propoganda but just using whatever they find amusing and/or beneficial to their own narrative.
Trump fits into this latest category.

He is definitely a salesman. in my view a cheap car yard salesman, willing to say anything to make the deal. Not someone I would trust. I just assume everything he says is a lie or a fantastical story.

 

[stevil]

Yeah, it is too late to go back. We should have figured this out a year ago, or at least a few months ago. Romney should have been elected during the primaries.

Well, if at some point Trump is deemed unfit, say for example he does get diagnosed with Dementia or something, then your presidency would fall onto the VP, which would be JD Vance, should they win the upcoming election.

 

[stevil]

Biden said, "Kamala and I are singing from the same song book"

Isn't that what all presidents and VPs say during their presidency?

 

[AlexB23]

Well, if at some point Trump is deemed unfit, say for example he does get diagnosed with Dementia or something, then your presidency would fall onto the VP, which would be JD Vance, should they win the upcoming election.

Yeah, that would not be good either, as Vance is just a copy of Trump, but 40 years younger.

 

[stevil]

Yeah, that would not be good either, as Vance is just a copy of Trump, but 40 years younger.

That's what people are voting for. It really doesn't matter if Trump is suspected of having Dementia. They get the Republican ticket and that is Trump and if something happens to Trump, they then get Vance.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Then so is Harris, even though no one took a shot at her. There is always a possibility for any candidate. It is nothing special about Trump.

He isn't willing to die for America.

Do you see your inconsistency here? Trump isn't willing to die for his country even though he had two failed assassination attempts and is continuing to run. However he also is willing to die for his country which doesn't make him special because that is what he is expected to do as a presidential candidate. I am not looking for an argument. But please see the hypocritical double standard that dissolves the credibility of your statement.

 

[stevil]

Do you see your inconsistency here? Trump isn't willing to die for his country even though he had two failed assassination attempts and is continuing to run. However he also is willing to die for his country which doesn't make him special because that is what he is expected to do as a presidential candidate. I am not looking for an argument. But please see the hypocritical double standard that dissolves the credibility of your statement.

Are we talking about Mr bone spurs here?
The person who has said that risking STDs is his personal Vietnam.

Trump Has Mocked the U.S. Military His Whole Life

Egged on by his father, the U.S. president began expressing contempt for Americans who fight in wars as far back as high school, his classmates…

foreignpolicy.com

Trump had called American war dead “losers” and “suckers”

Trump aborted a visit to another World War I cemetery, blaming the weather, he remarked, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.”

Standing at the grave of the younger Kelly, who died in Afghanistan in 2010, Trump reportedly turned to the secretary and said: “I don’t get it. What was in it for them?”