John: Recently, Trump announced more tariffs to combat the trade deficit, but I truly don’t think Trump understands what a trade deficit is. After all, I have a trade deficit with Walmart. All of my adult life I have bought hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of goods from Wally World, but they haven’t spent a dime with me. However, this is a fair trade since Walmart has provided low cost groceries and dry goods for my family and me and greatly increased my quality of life. At the same time, Trump and all of Washington ignore the real deficit problem – the growing annual budget deficit that will cause long-term inflation and instability in the economy. Why is Trump doing this? Can you make a steelman argument for Trump’s trade and tariff policy?
John, do you think Trump and/or his economic advisors are really too stupid to understand who actually pays his tariffs, or is he just selling the lie that foreign countries are "pouring billions of dollars into the USA" because he believes his MAGA base is too stupid to understand what a tariff actually is?
By the "shipper" you mean the importer, or the foreign country that ships the products to the US? If you think the foreign entity pays the tariff, you've been misled.
Think of it this way. If you were to go on vacation to Jamaica, and buy a case of rum, when you return to the US, you go through customs, and pay a duty on the rum that you are importing into the US. The Jamaican government doesn't pay that duty, nor does the Jamaican liquor store where you bought the rum - YOU pay it. That duty is a tariff.
Now take that example and scale it up to billions of dollars of foreign merchandise being purchased by US companies to be sold in the USA. Those companies that are importing the foreign products pay the tariffs. They can choose to absorb that cost, or pass it on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Either way, it is a tax on Americans, paid by Americans - either at the corporate level or the consumer level.
John, The USA taxes, all shipment coming into the United States from various countries (or not). The tax amount is in the tariffs for that individual country and the commodity’s descriptions.
What comes next? Is the buyer negotiates with the seller?
There are different ways to save SS, balance our budget and pay down the national debt. The best way is probably the most opposed. There was a bipartisan cmmttee late in Pres. GW Bush's 2nd term or early in Pres. Obama's 1st term to study a way out of the debt/deficit crises. It concluded that we cannot 1) tax our way out of the debt alone, 2) grow our way out of the debt alone or 3) we cannot cut our way out of the debt alone. (DUH!) The cmmttee gave an all-of-the-above approach that would not seriously threaten our economy but would have virtually all sectors of our nation giving at least a little.
What we need is a moderate Democrat as POTUS and a Congress with a majority who'll go along with fiscal discipline. We need a President Clinton type...without the cigar. Because our fiscal hole is deeper and because we're a much more strident and polarized nation, balancing the budget and paying down the debt will be far harder now than it was in the mid and late 1990's. But I think it can be done if the stars amazingly align.
When Pres. Clinton proposed his first fiscally responsible budget proposing tax increases, mainly to the above $200,000 a year crowd many of the national GOP and their henchmen in the right-wing media created a loud drumbeat - shouting in unison "Hey man, it's the largest tax increase in the history of the world." Many also predicted a severe recession, almost praying that it'd happen. Incidentally, part of his budget proposal coupled tax increases with budget cuts.
In fact, Rush Limbaugh offered to bet anyone $1 million that our national budget deficit would actually be higher one year after the tax increases took effect.
We all know how that turned out. Hint: Mr. Limbaugh was lucky that no one took him up on his $1 million bet.
For better or for worse. we have a consumer driven economy. Fiscal policy must not seriously threaten consumerism, at least now or in the immediate future. Tax increases should be targeted at the upper echelons, perhaps those making $400,000 or more a year - after all, they benefit the most from a healthy economy. FICA caps should be eliminated, perhaps with a sunset provision. The budget should be gone over line-by-line, eliminating or reducing spending that is not for those truly in need. But this must be done carefully and wisely. This is hard, but Pres. Clinton busted his gut in the early months of his 1st term doing just that. Cuts should not occur in places that would seriously threaten our standing internationally or that would make wise investments in our economy.
The POTUS must use his bully pulpit to repeatedly emphasize fiscal responsibility - balancing the need to dig ourselves out of the hole while feeding our long-term and short-term economy and protecting our interests internationally on the one hand, but to support those truly needing help on the other. He must veto any and all bills increasing spending that are not strictly within this framework.
Such a POTUS if he has the proper PR gift and the backbone could I think galvanize the large middle - including moderate liberals and moderate conservatives - and isolate the ideologues on both sides or at least minimize their damage. Hopefully the "Hey man, that's class warfare" cry will be overridden.
I think MD's Gov. Wes Moore is probably just the person who could do this. He has leg. and ex. exp. He has military experience and I think he's a combat vet, he ran his own business and is VERY relatable. The right-wing hate machine would go nuts trying to demonize him. Hopefully he has no skeletons.
If not Gov. Moore, then Gov. Shapiro of PA. There are others as well, but it should be a Democrat. If such a Republican presidential candidate emerged, he would have difficulty (assuming the Democratic nominee was NOT from the Sen. Sanders/Rep. AOC wing of their party). He would probably get few of the moderate liberals and definitely none of the progressives and quite possibly a lot of conservatives or right-wingers would not vote for pres. or not vote at all. At any rate, it's highly unlikely that a Republican favoring tax increase would win his party's nomination.
John: Recently, Trump announced more tariffs to combat the trade deficit, but I truly don’t think Trump understands what a trade deficit is. After all, I have a trade deficit with Walmart. All of my adult life I have bought hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of goods from Wally World, but they haven’t spent a dime with me. However, this is a fair trade since Walmart has provided low cost groceries and dry goods for my family and me and greatly increased my quality of life. At the same time, Trump and all of Washington ignore the real deficit problem – the growing annual budget deficit that will cause long-term inflation and instability in the economy. Why is Trump doing this? Can you make a steelman argument for Trump’s trade and tariff policy?
Yep, Bailey. Mary Ann too! :))
I didn't even know Loni Anderson died, I just presumed she had passed already.
The things you know..
"No. And I’m a bit surprised, Tim, that you thought I might have. Or maybe you were just trying to trigger me. If so, mission accomplished, sir!"
No, it was serious question. Good answer.
John, do you think Trump and/or his economic advisors are really too stupid to understand who actually pays his tariffs, or is he just selling the lie that foreign countries are "pouring billions of dollars into the USA" because he believes his MAGA base is too stupid to understand what a tariff actually is?
There is no behavior Trump will not employ to evade being wrong about anything.
Tariffs are the only way we can reduce our deficit and save Social Security.
If the FUNDS received through tariffs give half to reduce the deficit and the other half used to save Social Security.
Another way to save Social Security is raise the caps on age so the wealthy would pay more.
>>Tariffs are the only way we can reduce our deficit and save Social Security.
Whoever told you that doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Tariffs can't do either of those things.
>>If the FUNDS received through tariffs give half to reduce the deficit and the other half used to save Social Security.
Utter nonsense.
>>Another way to save Social Security is raise the caps on age so the wealthy would pay more.
I'm begging you to read at least one serious analysis, by one serious economist, on the national debt.
my comments on the tariffs were my thoughts alone. I stand behind using those means to turn around the problems we know are confronted with.
Those means mathematically can't turn around the problems in question. You're proposing a fantasy to fix a real-life problem.
You might as well be saying, "Unicorns can fix Social Security."
Conrad, who do you think pays the tariffs?
The shipper pays the TARIFFS in most cases. The Shipper negotiate the cost, but the United States has a minimum charge in those countries tariffs
By the "shipper" you mean the importer, or the foreign country that ships the products to the US? If you think the foreign entity pays the tariff, you've been misled.
Think of it this way. If you were to go on vacation to Jamaica, and buy a case of rum, when you return to the US, you go through customs, and pay a duty on the rum that you are importing into the US. The Jamaican government doesn't pay that duty, nor does the Jamaican liquor store where you bought the rum - YOU pay it. That duty is a tariff.
Now take that example and scale it up to billions of dollars of foreign merchandise being purchased by US companies to be sold in the USA. Those companies that are importing the foreign products pay the tariffs. They can choose to absorb that cost, or pass it on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Either way, it is a tax on Americans, paid by Americans - either at the corporate level or the consumer level.
John, The USA taxes, all shipment coming into the United States from various countries (or not). The tax amount is in the tariffs for that individual country and the commodity’s descriptions.
What comes next? Is the buyer negotiates with the seller?
There are different ways to save SS, balance our budget and pay down the national debt. The best way is probably the most opposed. There was a bipartisan cmmttee late in Pres. GW Bush's 2nd term or early in Pres. Obama's 1st term to study a way out of the debt/deficit crises. It concluded that we cannot 1) tax our way out of the debt alone, 2) grow our way out of the debt alone or 3) we cannot cut our way out of the debt alone. (DUH!) The cmmttee gave an all-of-the-above approach that would not seriously threaten our economy but would have virtually all sectors of our nation giving at least a little.
What we need is a moderate Democrat as POTUS and a Congress with a majority who'll go along with fiscal discipline. We need a President Clinton type...without the cigar. Because our fiscal hole is deeper and because we're a much more strident and polarized nation, balancing the budget and paying down the debt will be far harder now than it was in the mid and late 1990's. But I think it can be done if the stars amazingly align.
When Pres. Clinton proposed his first fiscally responsible budget proposing tax increases, mainly to the above $200,000 a year crowd many of the national GOP and their henchmen in the right-wing media created a loud drumbeat - shouting in unison "Hey man, it's the largest tax increase in the history of the world." Many also predicted a severe recession, almost praying that it'd happen. Incidentally, part of his budget proposal coupled tax increases with budget cuts.
In fact, Rush Limbaugh offered to bet anyone $1 million that our national budget deficit would actually be higher one year after the tax increases took effect.
We all know how that turned out. Hint: Mr. Limbaugh was lucky that no one took him up on his $1 million bet.
For better or for worse. we have a consumer driven economy. Fiscal policy must not seriously threaten consumerism, at least now or in the immediate future. Tax increases should be targeted at the upper echelons, perhaps those making $400,000 or more a year - after all, they benefit the most from a healthy economy. FICA caps should be eliminated, perhaps with a sunset provision. The budget should be gone over line-by-line, eliminating or reducing spending that is not for those truly in need. But this must be done carefully and wisely. This is hard, but Pres. Clinton busted his gut in the early months of his 1st term doing just that. Cuts should not occur in places that would seriously threaten our standing internationally or that would make wise investments in our economy.
The POTUS must use his bully pulpit to repeatedly emphasize fiscal responsibility - balancing the need to dig ourselves out of the hole while feeding our long-term and short-term economy and protecting our interests internationally on the one hand, but to support those truly needing help on the other. He must veto any and all bills increasing spending that are not strictly within this framework.
Such a POTUS if he has the proper PR gift and the backbone could I think galvanize the large middle - including moderate liberals and moderate conservatives - and isolate the ideologues on both sides or at least minimize their damage. Hopefully the "Hey man, that's class warfare" cry will be overridden.
I think MD's Gov. Wes Moore is probably just the person who could do this. He has leg. and ex. exp. He has military experience and I think he's a combat vet, he ran his own business and is VERY relatable. The right-wing hate machine would go nuts trying to demonize him. Hopefully he has no skeletons.
If not Gov. Moore, then Gov. Shapiro of PA. There are others as well, but it should be a Democrat. If such a Republican presidential candidate emerged, he would have difficulty (assuming the Democratic nominee was NOT from the Sen. Sanders/Rep. AOC wing of their party). He would probably get few of the moderate liberals and definitely none of the progressives and quite possibly a lot of conservatives or right-wingers would not vote for pres. or not vote at all. At any rate, it's highly unlikely that a Republican favoring tax increase would win his party's nomination.
Bob, I enjoyed reading your reply. It’s very reasonable and thought provoking. Thank you for your insight.
Regards