Liberation Day

[displacedtexan]

How come no one is championing this effort as a kick in the balls to the wealthiest 1%, who undoubtedly consume more than us regular joes? It's a tax on them just as it is a tax on us. A tax they can't avoid.

But a tax they can much more easily afford.

The 1% do spend far more than the rest of us, but it's also a lower percentage of their net worth.

 

[Flyjunky]

Well, that's thing -it doesn't require an economic genius to look at the arithmetic behind the tariffs and realize they are, at best, simplistic and, at worst, the product of idiots. You could have assigned a tariff reasoning project to a 10th grade economic class and came out with more logical and systematic reasoning. Nor does it require an economic genius to ask why the hell are we now tariffing coffee when we can't produce coffee. Nor does it take an economic genius to examine the history of tariffs in the US and question the end results of such measures, particularly when stacked up against the resulting Great Depression (You might also consider the government programs (aka spending) it took to get the US out of the Great Depression). It doesn't take a genius to look at the trade deficits of countries roughly the size of some US states and conclude why they may very well import less than they export and, if there is an issues, perhaps negotiate trade agreements that address specific trade concerns without resorting to blanket tariffs.
None of what has transpired in the last 24 hours is the product of genius: these aren't genius economics so it doesn't require genius level analysis.

And it doesn’t take a genius to see that it’s all about negotiation. Too many sky is falling people crying about this without a clue on how things will turn out. If all this is so easy then why are we so far in debt and why hasn’t anyone done anything about it instead of just keep on doing what we’ve always done?

Would you like to make a wager that we end up with better trade deals with most countries when this is all over?

Maybe we should just go back to Bidenomics and the build back better plan? I hear the last geniuses thought that was the way forward and it’s being taught to those same 10th graders in economics classes around the country.

Look, every single person knows our economy was being held together with toothpicks and scotch tape. Economic numbers, job numbers, etc were constantly being revised down after their release. They had to literally change the definition of a recession so we wouldn’t be considered in one! We simply can’t continue on the same path we’ve been on for decades, it’s not sustainable. We give away billions to other countries for nothing in return. We have terrible trade imbalances, everyone knows it. We have fraud and corruption at a scale most didn’t realize. At some point we have to bite the bullet and do the hard things. Whether the mechanism for that is what’s happening now or not, things need to change. Maybe, just maybe, if we presented a unified population hell bent on change other nations would see that we are tired of being the world’s bank and know we are 100% done with it. Yet, propaganda and in-fighting are seen by those who want to keep the status quo as an opportunity to exploit and further divide.

 

[CorbLand]

And it doesn’t take a genius to see that it’s all about negotiation. Too many sky is falling people crying about this without a clue on how things will turn out. If all this is so easy then why are we so far in debt and why hasn’t anyone done anything about it instead of just keep on doing what we’ve always done?

Would you like to make a wager that we end up with better trade deals with most countries when this is all over?

Maybe we should just go back to Bidenomics and the build back better plan? I hear the last geniuses thought that was the way forward and it’s being taught to those same 10th graders in economics classes around the country.

Look, every single person knows our economy was being held together with toothpicks and scotch tape. Economic numbers, job numbers, etc were constantly being revised down after their release. They had to literally change the definition of a recession so we wouldn’t be considered in one! We simply can’t continue on the same path we’ve been on for decades, it’s not sustainable. We give away billions to other countries for nothing in return. We have terrible trade imbalances, everyone knows it. We have fraud and corruption at a scale most didn’t realize. At some point we have to bite the bullet and do the hard things. Whether the mechanism for that is what’s happening now or not, things need to change. Maybe, just maybe, if we presented a unified population hell bent on change other nations would see that we are tired of being the world’s bank and know we are 100% done with it. Yet, propaganda and in-fighting are seen by those who want to keep the status quo as an opportunity to exploit and further divide.

A lot of people championing this also have no idea how this will play out either.

It’s not a bad thing to question it or to post the other side. Questioning things is good. Posting the other side of things is good. Playing devils advocate is good.

Orange man good, orange man bad syndrome is alive and well on both sides of the aisle and they are both bad.

 

[Flyjunky]

Well I’ve been liberated of about 15 grand so far. Someone asked how do we ourselves out of this economic house of cards. Simple start paying our bills. Want to reduce interest payments, pay down the principle. Government has three basic ways to raise money. Print it, use taxes and of course tariffs. Printing money doesn’t work, Germany tried that between the wars. So that leaves taxes and tariffs. As much as I hate paying taxes, that track is the only reasonable way out of this hole. Instead of a tax cut everyone gets an increase, whatever money is generated is directed to the debit principle. In the meantime do surgical cuts to the budget, not the sledgehammer we have been seeing reducing our costs. I’m out of money either way, but at least this way willl make the country stronger in the future. As long as the idiots in Congress don’t use the new revenue to feed the pigs at the trough. Once the debit is reduced to a certain point, stop the tax increase. When I needed extra money I got a second job and reduced my costs. All of this of course means Congress has do its job and make unpopular decisions. I pretty much dispise all politicians, particularly the bunch currently running things, so flame away

With all the grift and fraud being found you think increasing taxes will do any good? We’ve raked in record tax money the past few years…where did it go? That was a rhetorical question, we all know where it went. Before we raise any taxes as much fraud and corruption needs to be rooted out. Otherwise we’re just throwing those higher taxes into the same hole as always, gone forever with no reduction in deficit.

You think once taxes are raised they will just lower them back down. We’re talking about the govt, correct?

 

[Salmon River Solutions]

As someone that owns a shop. Do you think it will actually employ people at good wages or will the vast majority of the jobs be automated and/or low wage?

Yes and no.

Someone has to program automation, someone has to prototype parts. These are the skilled machinists that make a good wage. There are also operators, which some also make good wages, some make median wages for manufacturing jobs.

It will add more manufacturing jobs, and I would say 50% of those jobs are higher paying jobs where you're making a decent living.

The bigger concern in my eyes is the skills gap. You can't just train someone for 6 months for these higher paying jobs. We're talking the 5-10 years experience people.

Ken

 

[KurtR]

Well I’ve been liberated of about 15 grand so far. Someone asked how do we ourselves out of this economic house of cards. Simple start paying our bills. Want to reduce interest payments, pay down the principle. Government has three basic ways to raise money. Print it, use taxes and of course tariffs. Printing money doesn’t work, Germany tried that between the wars. So that leaves taxes and tariffs. As much as I hate paying taxes, that track is the only reasonable way out of this hole. Instead of a tax cut everyone gets an increase, whatever money is generated is directed to the debit principle. In the meantime do surgical cuts to the budget, not the sledgehammer we have been seeing reducing our costs. I’m out of money either way, but at least this way willl make the country stronger in the future. As long as the idiots in Congress don’t use the new revenue to feed the pigs at the trough. Once the debit is reduced to a certain point, stop the tax increase. When I needed extra money I got a second job and reduced my costs. All of this of course means Congress has do its job and make unpopular decisions. I pretty much dispise all politicians, particularly the bunch currently running things, so flame away

Ya they have shown they will do the right thing and use money they get to pay down the debt. I trust a fart after eating at taco bell more than i trust that would happen.

 

[Poser]

And it doesn’t take a genius to see that it’s all about negotiation.

Remains to be seen, but kicking off a trade war and attempting to negotiate against newly formed coalitions of other countries who may be able to replace you or do so out of pure will, may very well be where this backfires. There are advantages to having your allies dependent upon you and one could easily argue that detail hold significant monetary value unto itself.

Too many sky is falling people crying about this without a clue on how things will turn out.

Retort: Too many of the "Trump is a genius" people are celebrating this without a clue of how things will turn out.

If all this is so easy then why are we so far in debt and why hasn’t anyone done anything about it instead of just keep on doing what we’ve always done?

I don't know if anyone has said its easy. I understand your frustration with the debt. It's a massive problem, but it's not a simple one. There have been attempts to address it in the past (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act (1985), Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Budget Control Act of 2011, Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017), but political gridlock and differing economic philosophies have made these difficult. They will also make this tariff strategy difficult. Could be that strategic tariffs could have been used, you know, *strategically* as one part of a potential solution. However, that seems to have required too much intellectual circuitry for the Trump Admin. So, specific to this portion of the conversation, I'm criticizing this nuclear option attempt that lacks rational arithmetic. Call me crazy, but I want sound logic, reason, and rational decision making.

Would you like to make a wager that we end up with better trade deals with most countries when this is all over?

1. I won't deny that it's possible that tariffs could lead to improved trade deals in the long run if they are used strategically as leverage and ultimately lead to the reduction of trade barriers. It is possible.

2. It's also possible that tariffs could damage trade relationships and lead to worse trade deals, characterized by increased protectionism and reduced trade flows. It could also compromise or ruin our relationship with critical allies.

Another possibility is that the trade landscape remains largely unchanged, with tariffs eventually being removed or reduced without significant changes to underlying trade agreements. This could also have complicated or ruined our relationship with critical allies.

Wager? I don't particularly want to wager against my own interests, but, if I'm wrong, I'm certainly willing to eat crow. In fact, I do hope I'm eating crow. The alternative to eating crow in front of a bunch of Trumpians on a hunting forum is far worse than eating crow to a bunch of Trumpians on a hunting forum.

Maybe we should just go back to Bidenomics and the build back better plan? I hear the last geniuses thought that was the way forward and it’s being taught to those same 10th graders in economics classes around the country.

Did I propose this? To my recollection, the "build back better" plan didn't even pass?
You seem to be suggesting that anything that Trump does is better than anything else.

Look, every single person knows our economy was being held together with toothpicks and scotch tape. Economic numbers, job numbers, etc were constantly being revised down after their release. They had to literally change the definition of a recession so we wouldn’t be considered in one! We simply can’t continue on the same path we’ve been on for decades, it’s not sustainable. We give away billions to other countries for nothing in return. We have terrible trade imbalances, everyone knows it. We have fraud and corruption at a scale most didn’t realize. At some point we have to bite the bullet and do the hard things. Whether the mechanism for that is what’s happening now or not, things need to change. Maybe, just maybe, if we presented a unified population hell bent on change other nations would see that we are tired of being the world’s bank and know we are 100% done with it. Yet, propaganda and in-fighting are seen by those who want to keep the status quo as an opportunity to exploit and further divide.

Regarding the economy being held together "by toothpicks and scotch tape," what specific indicators are you referring to?

Regarding 'giving away billions,' it's important to distinguish between different types of foreign aid – humanitarian assistance, development aid, military aid. What specific programs are you concerned about, and what are their stated goals and outcomes? I know the default is "American First", but only the most obtuse would deny that everything affects everything else: disaster, war, famine, disease will all impact America.

Trade imbalances are a complex issue. While large deficits can be a concern, as we have discussed, they don't automatically indicate a negative economic situation.

A unified population is certainly desirable, but achieving it requires open dialogue and a willingness to consider different viewpoints. How do we bridge the divides and find common ground on these complex issues? How do you, where you're at with this, convince me, where I'm at with this, to be unified with you? That requires some amount of compromise by both of us, right?

These are all easy things to say as they are common talking points and catch phrases. I'm not trying to be dismissive, but I'm curious if these are anything more than catch-phrased talking points.

 

[Flyjunky]

Remains to be seen, but kicking off a trade war and attempting to negotiate against newly formed coalitions of other countries who may be able to replace you or do so out of pure will, may very well be where this backfires. There are advantages to having your allies dependent upon you and one could easily argue that detail hold significant monetary value unto itself.



Retort: Too many of the "Trump is a genius" people are celebrating this without a clue of how things will turn out.



I don't know if anyone has said its easy. I understand your frustration with the debt. It's a massive problem, but it's not a simple one. There have been attempts to address it in the past (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act (1985), Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Budget Control Act of 2011, Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017), but political gridlock and differing economic philosophies have made these difficult. They will also make this tariff strategy difficult. Could be that strategic tariffs could have been used, you know, *strategically* as one part of a potential solution. However, that seems to have required too much intellectual circuitry for the Trump Admin. So, specific to this portion of the conversation, I'm criticizing this nuclear option attempt that lacks rational arithmetic. Call me crazy, but I want sound logic, reason, and rational decision making.



1. I won't deny that it's possible that tariffs could lead to improved trade deals in the long run if they are used strategically as leverage and ultimately lead to the reduction of trade barriers. It is possible.

2. It's also possible that tariffs could damage trade relationships and lead to worse trade deals, characterized by increased protectionism and reduced trade flows. It could also compromise or ruin our relationship with critical allies.

Another possibility is that the trade landscape remains largely unchanged, with tariffs eventually being removed or reduced without significant changes to underlying trade agreements. This could also have complicated or ruined our relationship with critical allies.

Wager? I don't particularly want to wager against my own interests, but, if I'm wrong, I'm certainly willing to eat crow. In fact, I do hope I'm eating crow. The alternative to eating crow in front of a bunch of Trumpians on a hunting forum is far worse than eating crow to a bunch of Trumpians on a hunting forum.



Did I propose this? To my recollection, the "build back better" plan didn't even pass?
You seem to be suggesting that anything that Trump does is better than anything else.




Regarding the economy being held together "by toothpicks and scotch tape," what specific indicators are you referring to?

Regarding 'giving away billions,' it's important to distinguish between different types of foreign aid – humanitarian assistance, development aid, military aid. What specific programs are you concerned about, and what are their stated goals and outcomes? I know the default is "American First", but only the most obtuse would deny that everything affects everything else: disaster, war, famine, disease will all impact America.

Trade imbalances are a complex issue. While large deficits can be a concern, as we have discussed, they don't automatically indicate a negative economic situation.

A unified population is certainly desirable, but achieving it requires open dialogue and a willingness to consider different viewpoints. How do we bridge the divides and find common ground on these complex issues? How do you, where you're at with this, convince me, where I'm at with this, to be unified with you? That require some amount of compromise by both of us, right?

These are all easy things to say as they are common talking points and catch phrases. I'm not trying to be dismissive, but I'm curious if these are anything more than catch-phrased talking points.

I can agree with much of that but too much is an unknown right now and yet it’s the same sky is falling attitude as always. How about we let things settle for a few weeks before we decide to continue going down the same path that we have for the last 6 decades?

 

[KurtR]

Remains to be seen, but kicking off a trade war and attempting to negotiate against newly formed coalitions of other countries who may be able to replace you or do so out of pure will, may very well be where this backfires. There are advantages to having your allies dependent upon you and one could easily argue that detail hold significant monetary value unto itself.



Retort: Too many of the "Trump is a genius" people are celebrating this without a clue of how things will turn out.



I don't know if anyone has said its easy. I understand your frustration with the debt. It's a massive problem, but it's not a simple one. There have been attempts to address it in the past (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act (1985), Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Budget Control Act of 2011, Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017), but political gridlock and differing economic philosophies have made these difficult. They will also make this tariff strategy difficult. Could be that strategic tariffs could have been used, you know, *strategically* as one part of a potential solution. However, that seems to have required too much intellectual circuitry for the Trump Admin. So, specific to this portion of the conversation, I'm criticizing this nuclear option attempt that lacks rational arithmetic. Call me crazy, but I want sound logic, reason, and rational decision making.



1. I won't deny that it's possible that tariffs could lead to improved trade deals in the long run if they are used strategically as leverage and ultimately lead to the reduction of trade barriers. It is possible.

2. It's also possible that tariffs could damage trade relationships and lead to worse trade deals, characterized by increased protectionism and reduced trade flows. It could also compromise or ruin our relationship with critical allies.

Another possibility is that the trade landscape remains largely unchanged, with tariffs eventually being removed or reduced without significant changes to underlying trade agreements. This could also have complicated or ruined our relationship with critical allies.

Wager? I don't particularly want to wager against my own interests, but, if I'm wrong, I'm certainly willing to eat crow. In fact, I do hope I'm eating crow. The alternative to eating crow in front of a bunch of Trumpians on a hunting forum is far worse than eating crow to a bunch of Trumpians on a hunting forum.



Did I propose this? To my recollection, the "build back better" plan didn't even pass?
You seem to be suggesting that anything that Trump does is better than anything else.




Regarding the economy being held together "by toothpicks and scotch tape," what specific indicators are you referring to?

Regarding 'giving away billions,' it's important to distinguish between different types of foreign aid – humanitarian assistance, development aid, military aid. What specific programs are you concerned about, and what are their stated goals and outcomes? I know the default is "American First", but only the most obtuse would deny that everything affects everything else: disaster, war, famine, disease will all impact America.

Trade imbalances are a complex issue. While large deficits can be a concern, as we have discussed, they don't automatically indicate a negative economic situation.

A unified population is certainly desirable, but achieving it requires open dialogue and a willingness to consider different viewpoints. How do we bridge the divides and find common ground on these complex issues? How do you, where you're at with this, convince me, where I'm at with this, to be unified with you? That requires some amount of compromise by both of us, right?

These are all easy things to say as they are common talking points and catch phrases. I'm not trying to be dismissive, but I'm curious if these are anything more than catch-phrased talking points.

The being able to sit down and discuss differing view points and coming to solutions that uses good from both points is something that has been lost. Its seems its always a hard line in the sand and no one will cross to fix anything

 

[CorbLand]

I can agree with much of that but too much is an unknown right now and yet it’s the same sky is falling attitude as always. How about we let things settle for a few weeks before we decide to continue going down the same path that we have for the last 6 decades?

I mean, I would hope that there is a little more plan by people than the “let’s do this and see what happens” strategy when it comes to a nations and potentially global economy but I might be a little crazy.

 

[S.Clancy]

Average joe foots the bill and pain, every time

top 10% owns something like 90-95% of stocks.....

 

[Historybuff]

Has anyone listened to what secretary of commerce Howard Lutnik or secretary of treasury Scott bessent says about tariffs and what they are trying to accomplish with the tariffs? I didn't think so. I guess we'll just have to cope and seethe at the water coolers until it plays out

 

[JustABritCrazy]

I think we all agree the deficit is the true problem. He corruption and fraud part I believe is overblown to serve political ends. I worked as a govt manager for 22 years. I can guarantee you I would have been fired if I tried a quarter of the stuff alledfged and I know my employees would have turn me in for doing it. Is there fraud and waste yes undoubtedly but just because you don’t like something doesn’t make it fraud and waste.

As for Congress the main problem I see is re-electing the same idiots over and over. Do I have any faith in them putting country above their re-election chances, nope. Do I have any faith in them making hard decisions for the betterment of the country, nope. Do I have faith in them compromising their viewpoint to reach a consensus for moving forward, nope.

Tariffs will not generate enough income alone to deal with the deficit. Spending cuts will not generate enough income to deal with the deficit. Cutting taxes will not generate enough added investment to deal with the deficit. Since we’re all economic geniuses here how does the country go about reducing that 3 trillion dollar debt. I agree what’s worked in the past isn’t helping.

 

[Historybuff]

Telegram

t.me

 

[NDGuy]

top 10% owns something like 90-95% of stocks.....

We purchase the goods, food, and make the mortgage/rent payments. You cool with your housing and groceries going up another 20-30%?

They don't give a **** about losing millions.

 

[Historybuff]

 

[Poser]

Has anyone listened to what secretary of commerce Howard Lutnik

" They hate our beef because our beef is beautiful and theirs is weak. It’s unbelievable!"
-Howard Lutnik

 

[MountainTracker]

View attachment 862877

This is the goal, bring down the US 10y, cut rates, refi the US debit.

Dollar milkshake engaged.




Buy btc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[S.Clancy]

We purchase the goods, food, and make the mortgage/rent payments. You cool with your housing and groceries going up another 20-30%?

They don't give a **** about losing millions.

I don't know why my housing would go up 20-30%. It would take my property taxes tripling from current values to do that.

Maybe groceries will. If they went up 30% that would be like 125$ a month.

I'm just not really a consumer, so I don't really buy other shit, besides tags. I literally spend more on hunting (gas and tags) than I do food a year. Saying that out loud sounds ridiculous.

 

[MuleyFever]

I don't know why my housing would go up 20-30%. It would take my property taxes tripling from current values to do that.

Maybe groceries will. If they went up 30% that would be like 125$ a month.

I'm just not really a consumer, so I don't really buy other shit, besides tags. I literally spend more on hunting (gas and tags) than I do food a year. Saying that out loud sounds ridiculous.

Well, at least gas should come down.