Liberation Day

Status
Not open for further replies.
But I know enough that Tariffs have never worked historically and are paid by the consumer.
This is not a true statement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tariffs_in_the_United_States

"The United States pursued a protectionist policy from the beginning of the 19th century until the middle of the 20th century. Between 1861 and 1933, they had one of the highest average tariff rates on manufactured imports in the world. After 1942, the U.S. began to promote worldwide free trade. After the 2016 presidential election, the US increased trade protectionism.[2]"

"According to Dartmouth economist Douglas Irwin, tariffs have served three primary purposes: "to raise revenue for the government, to restrict imports and protect domestic producers from foreign competition, and to reach reciprocity agreements that reduce trade barriers."[3] From 1790 to 1860, average tariffs increased from 20 percent to 60 percent before declining again to 20 percent.[3] From 1861 to 1933, which Irwin characterizes as the "restriction period", the average tariffs increased to 50 percent and remained at that level for several decades. From 1934 onwards, which Irwin characterizes as the "reciprocity period", the average tariff declined substantially until it leveled off at 5 percent.[3]"

"Tariffs were the greatest (approaching 95% at times) source of federal revenue until the federal income tax began after 1913. For well over a century the federal government was largely financed by tariffs averaging about 20% on foreign imports. At the end of the American Civil War in 1865 about 63% of Federal income was generated by the excise taxes, more than twice the 25.4% generated by tariffs. In 1915 during World War I, tariffs generated 30.1% of revenues. Since 1935, tariff income has continued to be a declining percentage of Federal tax income."
 
Tariffs usually lead to higher costs for consumers since businesses pass the burden down. If auto prices rise 5-25%, both new and used markets will feel it. Your example with heavy equipment vendors shows how companies adjust prices even before tariffs take effect. Unfortunately, unless domestic production ramps up, these costs are hard to avoid.
 
But the money that the currently working "investors" are paying into to SS is actually going into SS, correct? The money isn't being routed elsewhere to a offshore bank account with the investors be given fake reports. Therefore, its not a Ponzi scheme.

Funding sustainability issues? yes.
Ponzi Scheme? No.
Wrong, it either pays current beneficiaries are gets loan to the US government. If I "loan" myself 10K from my savings and spent it, if I told you I had 10K saved due to being owned the money from myself, you would hopefully be smart enough to laugh at me.

A Ponzi Scheme requires deception, the government just uses violence to keep getting paid. No one reasonable can say I will get money back from the thousands I pay in, but the pretext for me paying in remains that I will get a return, which means the current justification is a lie (aka fraudulent), if they just termed it welfare for the elderly, then it would not be fraud. The semantic difference you argue are only meaningful if you believe a group of people have different moral standards than the individual.

This basically boils down to you not being able to defend social security on the merits, so you nit pick the semantics. It is a form of red herring's fallacy.
 
We'll see. The Democrats currently have an approval rating of less than 30% in all polls.
It won’t matter, the propaganda machine will be running on high. Look to the last 4 years and what it was almost able to do. We have people so stupid they are protesting because we are trying to get rid of govt waste. A huge number will do whatever the media tells them.

We have way too many in this country who can’t see beyond what is right in front of them. A little pain right now is all they feel and want to return to a failing system that will destroy us all years down the road. They would rather be robbed by every other country and our own govt than make any changes that might inconvenience them.
 
Wrong, it either pays current beneficiaries are gets loan to the US government. If I "loan" myself 10K from my savings and spent it, if I told you I had 10K saved due to being owned the money from myself, you would hopefully be smart enough to laugh at me.

A Ponzi Scheme requires deception, the government just uses violence to keep getting paid. No one reasonable can say I will get money back from the thousands I pay in, but the pretext for me paying in remains that I will get a return, which means the current justification is a lie (aka fraudulent), if they just termed it welfare for the elderly, then it would not be fraud. The semantic difference you argue are only meaningful if you believe a group of people have different moral standards than the individual.

This basically boils down to you not being able to defend social security on the merits, so you nit pick the semantics. It is a form of red herring's fallacy.


Pffft. A Ponzi Scheme is designed to deceive and enrich the scheme's operator. Where is that happening?
Social Security benefits are based on your contributions through taxes, not on investment returns. You're entitled to benefits based on your work history, not on the promise of investment gains like in a Ponzi scheme.
Social Security is part of our social contract, ensuring support for retirees. It's about societal responsibility, not deceit like a Ponzi scheme. Does it have it flaws and shortcomings? Certainly. Could it run dry? possibly. Does it qualify as a Ponzi Scheme? No.
 
It won’t matter, the propaganda machine will be running on high. Look to the last 4 years and what it was almost able to do. We have people so stupid they are protesting because we are trying to get rid of govt waste. A huge number will do whatever the media tells them.

We have way too many in this country who can’t see beyond what is right in front of them. A little pain right now is all they feel and want to return to a failing system that will destroy us all years down the road. They would rather be robbed by every other country and our own govt than make any changes that might inconvenience them.
Well said…….unfortunately.
 
Pffft. A Ponzi Scheme is designed to deceive and enrich the scheme's operator. Where is that happening?
Social Security benefits are based on your contributions through taxes, not on investment returns. You're entitled to benefits based on your work history, not on the promise of investment gains like in a Ponzi scheme.
Social Security is part of our social contract, ensuring support for retirees. It's about societal responsibility, not deceit like a Ponzi scheme. Does it have it flaws and shortcomings? Certainly. Could it run dry? possibly. Does it qualify as a Ponzi Scheme? No.
I never brought up Soc Security man, but here it goes it was solvent until legislators started raiding it in the 80’s and now it is 100% a ponzi, I pay in and I will never see it, likely. The age class has completely flipped in this country and we have a shrinking population so how will less people pay in and pay for more people who are having longer and longer life expectancy? No one at the top is getting rich but it is absolutely used to buy compliance and votes.
Poser,
How did Obama, pelosi, Schumerc, Warren, heck even Dan Crenshaw earn 10’s or 100’s of millions dollars being public servants earning 175k a year? Crazy right? I have a very successful relative who earned about that much their life, they were frugal and invested a lot they are retired now and worth about 6 million… or all the NGO’s taking millions or billions in tax payer dollars often run by politically connected leftist netting the hundreds of thousands or millions to the C suite employees? That is the real ponzi, those political elites are the ones who sold us at the global market for cheap profits and delivered our birthright largely to the globalist. We are trying to claw back some semblance of a national identity. I really hope it’s not too late.
 
However, do you know what a Ponzi scheme is? Do you know how social security is currently financed? By definition it is using funds from new investors to pay earlier investors, which is exactly what social security is doing at present. Regardless of designed intent, in function, it currently fits with the exception that rather than relying on paying early investors well, it relies on the full might of the federal government to insure continued financing.
The only reason SS is not a Ponzi scheme is that the Federal Government has the power to throw the new investors (young people) in jail if they do not pay. With out that power SS collapses over night just like all of the other Ponzi schemes.
 
But the money that the currently working "investors" are paying into to SS is actually going into SS, correct? The money isn't being routed elsewhere to a offshore bank account with the investors be given fake reports. Therefore, its not a Ponzi scheme.

Funding sustainability issues? yes.
Ponzi Scheme? No.
Actually the money is getting routed into politicians pet projects. If it was going to an offshore bank account we might have a chance at getting some of it back.
 
The only reason SS is not a Ponzi scheme is that the Federal Government has the power to throw the new investors (young people) in jail if they do not pay. With out that power SS collapses over night just like all of the other Ponzi schemes.
With fewer of the younger generation not willing/wanting to work and with birth rates being at an all time low, social security isn’t looking good for the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top