Economic, taxes, and tariffs discussion

[MagSeven]

Really gonna hurt the farm belt badly...I can't imagine how Cheeto can spin what are almost sure to be disastrous results in his favor.

As long as his base blindly accepts it and continues to approve him, he's not going to care what anyone else thinks.

[TranaGreg]

isn't the farm belt a big part of his base?

my guess is that the economic hardships that will continue to be faced by farmers - and others - will be blamed on everything but the new tarriffs. Kind of reminds me of this classic onion article ...

Man Blames Hangover On Everything But How Much He Drank

[revo]

As long as his base blindly accepts it and continues to approve him, he's not going to care what anyone else thinks.

Yep. This is scary. It's like pigs being led to the slaughter and thanking their executioner:



Across Poplar Bluff, a struggling town of 17,000 in a remote pocket of southeast Missouri, many residents are reluctant to criticize Trump as they grapple with the prospect that their community could be one of the trade war’s first casualties.

“Most workers are behind Trump, no matter what,” said Diane Brogdon, 54, a machine operator who has worked for the company for 12 years. Asked whether she would rethink her support for Trump if she lost her job at the nail plant, Brogdon said probably not. The tariffs ultimately would be good for the nation — even if it left her unemployed.

“Overall, he’s done good,” she said. “I’m not going to be selfish just because of me.”



Hughey continues to back Trump, even as he worries that if the company shuts down, he will not be able to make his $800 monthly mortgage or come up with $700 a month for payments on his Dodge pickup, Chrysler sedan and Harley-Davidson Street Fighter.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-missouri-town-tariff-20180705-story.html

[Hornsby]

As long as his base blindly accepts it and continues to approve him, he's not going to care what anyone else thinks.

People talk like they don't care, and in the example that Revo posted, even say that they'll stay behind Trump no matter how hard that it hits them personally. I suspect that this is nothing but bluster, and when when money stops coming in, they'll vote for their pocketbook in the end. People always do.

He MAY stay at 40%, but that is nowhere near enough to win an election, nor to carry others across the finish line.

[B-Fly]

they'll vote for their pocketbook in the end. People always do.

See, I'm not sure I buy that. From a pure pocketbook perspective, I should probably vote Republican, as should most of my upper middle class suburban neighbors and relatives, yet almost none of us do vote Republican, and I'd like to think it's because we have embraced a set of values we believe in separate and apart from naked self-interest. But I think that applies for many social conservatives, too, and I think many Trump supporters will continue supporting Trump regardless of whether its in their economic self-interest to do so.

[TranaGreg]

See, I'm not sure I buy that. From a pure pocketbook perspective, I should probably vote Republican, as should most of my upper middle class suburban neighbors and relatives, yet almost none of us do vote Republican, and I'd like to think it's because we have embraced a set of values we believe in separate and apart from naked self-interest. But I think that applies for many social conservatives, too, and I think many Trump supporters will continue supporting Trump regardless of whether its in their economic self-interest to do so.

beat me to it, I was going to post something along the same lines

[Hornsby]

See, I'm not sure I buy that. From a pure pocketbook perspective, I should probably vote Republican, as should most of my upper middle class suburban neighbors and relatives, yet almost none of us do vote Republican, and I'd like to think it's because we have embraced a set of values we believe in separate and apart from naked self-interest. But I think that applies for many social conservatives, too, and I think many Trump supporters will continue supporting Trump regardless of whether its in their economic self-interest to do so.

Sure, but you're still comfortable financially. You're not wondering where the payments are coming from for your vehicles, housing, food, clothing, etc. These Trump voters are, for the most part, probably not comfortable financially. I look at the farmers in my area, and they LOOK like they have a lot, but most are betting each and every year that the crops come in and the prices are good. It's a very tenuous situation for a large block of Trump voters. And many of these people are not dyed in the wool Republicans, they swung over because the Trump message resonated with them...the message may resonate less when they start getting hit in the wallet.

[B-Fly]

Sure, but you're still comfortable financially. You're not wondering where the payments are coming from for your vehicles, housing, food, clothing, etc. These Trump voters are, for the most part, probably not comfortable financially. I look at the farmers in my area, and they LOOK like they have a lot, but most are betting each and every year that the crops come in and the prices are good. It's a very tenuous situation for a large block of Trump voters. And many of these people are not dyed in the wool Republicans, they swung over because the Trump message resonated with them...the message may resonate less when they start getting hit in the wallet.

True, when one is at risk of true financial hardship, it is presumably far more treacherous to vote against your own economic self interest.

[TranaGreg]

I'm still not convinced. I have family in central Canada - some still farm, some have moved to the cities. Their politics beliefs are held as dearly as their religious beliefs; I can't imagine a scenario where they vote in a different direction (they would give up their livelihood before that happened, and many have).

[Hornsby]

I'm still not convinced. I have family in central Canada - some still farm, some have moved to the cities. Their politics beliefs are held as dearly as their religious beliefs; I can't imagine a scenario where they vote in a different direction (they would give up their livelihood before that happened, and many have).

I think that part of the scenario is that Trump really isn't a political belief, he's more of a cult of personality thing. He really does very little politically that doesn't benefit himself in one way or another, just look at the string of deals that his family is still involved with, that will directly, and indirectly benefit him in the long term. I just don't believe that he's anything other than Trump, and as he bounces from one stance to another, people will tire and gradually fall out.

[chancellor]

He really does very little politically that doesn't benefit himself in one way or another, just look at the string of deals that his family is still involved with, that will directly, and indirectly benefit him in the long term.

Possibly. Reality is, he's successfully implemented more conservative and libertarian political successes than either Bush did over a much longer period, and has arguably done more than Reagan did in his first term, and certainly in his first two years.

I just don't believe that he's anything other than Trump, and as he bounces from one stance to another, people will tire and gradually fall out.

Wishful thinking. If the economy tanks, you may be right. But if the economy continues to be good through this election cycle and the next, he'll get plenty of support.

[Hornsby]

Possibly. Reality is, he's successfully implemented more conservative and libertarian political successes than either Bush did over a much longer period, and has arguably done more than Reagan did in his first term, and certainly in his first two years.



Wishful thinking. If the economy tanks, you may be right. But if the economy continues to be good through this election cycle and the next, he'll get plenty of support.

Do you really think that the economy is going to stay where it is, or even possibility improve? Because I can see no evidence that it will, companies are pulling back, what was once the middle class has less and less spendable cash, and the farm and rust belts look like they'll suffer more under the tariffs...please, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't like to see the majority of the population suffer.

[Moonlight J]

Not sure where this discussion fits, but this entire thread about the F-35 is worth a read. What a gigantic waste of money:

https://twitter.com/MikeRoach3/status/1015212921071329281

[Sour Masher]

Not sure where this discussion fits, but this entire thread about the F-35 is worth a read. What a gigantic waste of money:

https://twitter.com/MikeRoach3/statu...12921071329281

Yep, as I've said before, this is one of the most infuriating things about the general GOP stance of attacking "welfare queens" while either 1. supporting, 2. being indifferent to, or 3. just not caring enough about this to make real noise on this sort of astonishing wastefulness. I hear people say, "well, the government is wasteful in all areas, that isn't new, and why I want less government!"

No, that is the same sort of false equivalency and whataboutary that we are hearing with those trying to normalize Trump. Yes, there are other examples of government waste, just as there are examples of other presidents doing lesser degrees of many of the things Trump does, but we are talking about magnitudes of difference in terms of degree.

How anyone who claims to be a fiscal conservative can support the party that feeds the military industrial complex to this degree, with this much obvious corruption and waste, totaling the staggering, mind-boggling, unfathomable amount of upwards of ONE TRILLION DOLLARS, to develop a plane that has done no earthly good for anyone at all except the fat cats lining their pockets and the folks getting paid to putter around with these things, is utterly beyond me. Campaign finance reform and this sort of waste in the biggest line item in our budget should be right at the top of the list for who to vote for in the minds of all fiscal conservatives. If you want the tax cuts, make your candidates address these issues. Then we can all feel good about them. We should hold all politicians accountable for this sort of waste, and get much angrier about it than welfare waste.

Penny wise and Trillion dollar foolish. Every damn person who spends time and effort decrying the stupidity and fecklessness of liberals throwing money at social welfare issues while allowing those discussions to distract them from the far, far, far bigger spending debacle that is the MIC in this country needs to look in the mirror on this issue. What I say to all those folks is, you fight to cut completely useless nonsense like the F-35 first, and then we can have a reasonable discussion about how spending a few million on meals on wheels, or libraries, or PBS, or even a few hundred billion on universal health care may not be the very best use of tax payer dollars. I can respect those who feel that way, and there probably are better solutions in some cases (teaching folks how to fish instead of buying them fish, but in the meantime, I'd rather buy some fish to feed folks rather than a trillion dollars of vaporware).

Until you decide to lead with how much a waste of money the F-35 is, until you are out at rallies and marches against this spending, until you attack every single politician who has ever voted to fun this money pit, please and kindly refrain from talking about how necessary it is to trim the budget of things like feeding old people some meals, which by the way, data shows keeps them out of expensive nursing homes and out of emergency care. Please stop holding up Reagan era, racially charged images of "welfare queens" living off the hard work of good honest folk. Getting angry over giving pennies to the poor and hungry and sick while not saying enough about giving a much bigger chunk of your paychecks to things like the F-35.

And yes, I am aware Democrat politicians turn a blind eye to MIC overspending too, and we should be holding all politicians accountable for doing that. But at least Dems don't spend so much time attacking welfare spending while also being complicit in this complete waste of tax payer money.

Edit: This is an issue that should unite all voters, but somehow nothing ever changes much for the better. It just stays about the same under Dems, and generally gets worse under Repubs. As a tax payer, it pisses me off.

[Hornsby]

Yep, as I've said before, this is one of the most infuriating things about the general GOP stance of attacking "welfare queens" while either 1. supporting, 2. being indifferent to, or 3. just not caring enough about this to make real noise on this sort of astonishing wastefulness. I hear people say, "well, the government is wasteful in all areas, that isn't new, and why I want less government!"

No, that is the same sort of false equivalency and whataboutary that we are hearing with those trying to normalize Trump. Yes, there are other examples of government waste, just as there are examples of other presidents doing lesser degrees of many of the things Trump does, but we are talking about magnitudes of difference in terms of degree.

How anyone who claims to be a fiscal conservative can support the party that feeds the military industrial complex to this degree, with this much obvious corruption and waste, totaling the staggering, mind-boggling, unfathomable amount of upwards of ONE TRILLION DOLLARS, to develop a plane that has done no earthly good for anyone at all except the fat cats lining their pockets and the folks getting paid to putter around with these things, is utterly beyond me. Campaign finance reform and this sort of waste in the biggest line item in our budget should be right at the top of the list for who to vote for in the minds of all fiscal conservatives. If you want the tax cuts, make your candidates address these issues. Then we can all feel good about them. We should hold all politicians accountable for this sort of waste, and get much angrier about it than welfare waste.

Penny wise and Trillion dollar foolish. Every damn person who spends time and effort decrying the stupidity and fecklessness of liberals throwing money at social welfare issues while allowing those discussions to distract them from the far, far, far bigger spending debacle that is the MIC in this country needs to look in the mirror on this issue. What I say to all those folks is, you fight to cut completely useless nonsense like the F-35 first, and then we can have a reasonable discussion about how spending a few million on meals on wheels, or libraries, or PBS, or even a few hundred billion on universal health care may not be the very best use of tax payer dollars. I can respect those who feel that way, and there probably are better solutions in some cases (teaching folks how to fish instead of buying them fish, but in the meantime, I'd rather buy some fish to feed folks rather than a trillion dollars of vaporware).

Until you decide to lead with how much a waste of money the F-35 is, until you are out at rallies and marches against this spending, until you attack every single politician who has ever voted to fun this money pit, please and kindly refrain from talking about how necessary it is to trim the budget of things like feeding old people some meals, which by the way, data shows keeps them out of expensive nursing homes and out of emergency care. Please stop holding up Reagan era, racially charged images of "welfare queens" living off the hard work of good honest folk. Getting angry over giving pennies to the poor and hungry and sick while not saying enough about giving a much bigger chunk of your paychecks to things like the F-35.

And yes, I am aware Democrat politicians turn a blind eye to MIC overspending too, and we should be holding all politicians accountable for doing that. But at least Dems don't spend so much time attacking welfare spending while also being complicit in this complete waste of tax payer money.