One thing that always strikes me is the willingness of the US to sacrifice a vast majority of their economy for a small segment.
For instance now you are seeing farmers manufacturers, new home builders and consumers all being asked to sacrifice for steel and lumber producers.
In the past I have seen companies and people asked to pay more just to protect the insurance companies.
Tell me how this makes sense fiscally?
There’s a nifty projection that by 2040 that 30% of the US citizenry will be responsible for electing 70% of the US Senate. There will be more variants of the above as a result it seems.
as long as $$ = access, that stuff won’t change.
i guarantee that there are a ton of people here who live paycheck to paycheck, not knowing if their retirement money will last until death, who fight every day for rich people and their rights at the expense of their own. when you have that so ingrained into the poor there is no way for the poor to stand up and take back the special privileges that the rich are afforded in politics in our country.
it’s all about the Benjamins.
Most of Trump’s tariffs are illegal in my opinion and if one is intellectually honest, I think should agree for one simple reason.
He is NOT doing them for national security reasons which is what makes them legal in the first place.
Regardless of how compelling an argument can be made of national security implications one might dig up, they are not intended, Trump’s tariffs are designed to boost the economy, nothing else.
Whether or not they do boost the economy is rife with controversy as we all know and this thread is a perfect example. Personally, I think it NUTS to risk hundreds of thousands to possibly millions of jobs to protect a few thousands.
I know…right? I mean, we change the use of our bathrooms for hundreds of millions of people that was designated by the sex they were born with…which can now make them highly uncomfortable and possibly place them in a dangerous situation…for a select few who “feel” differently.
I think there are industries with national security impact.
Well as a Trump supporter you would buy that. But for decades lumber,steel and aluminum are not national security issues.
The US sells weapons to foreign countries all the time now if you want to complain about national security start there.
I am not a Trump supporter.
What are military ships, aircraft and vehicles made out of?
How are they supposed to fight back if we don’t sell them weapons? What are those weapons made out of?
You have a steel industry and allies supplying you already. As I keep say to Trumpies if it was really a national security issue nationalize it.
You don’t want to be labeled a Trump supporter don’t defend him when he does stupid stuff.
Allies can become enemies. Nationalize it? Why? So it can run at half capacity?
I don’t defend him. You are so blind with hatred for his personality you can’t even think about the policies.
It’s actually pathetic.
Why do we import anything we can make or grow here?
Do you “think” healthcare has a national security impact?
Yes. Why did you put think in quotation marks?
Oh so it is not so serious a national security issue that the government can let private industry without any obligation to national security control it.
The government is not efficient.
What ever you have to tell yourself.
And you wonder why you are considered a Trumpy
No government is efficient. It has nothing to do with Trump.
It’s kinda like the government asking the majority population to help the minority population. The majority can spread the pain around a bit more easily to help solve systemic societal injustices against an important segment of our society.
Every good man is for that right? So how is your examples different?
The original tarrifs were for national security reasons. After that, the retaliation is to protect the original tarrifs . It’s a war… just like people say.
BTW… where did you learn about national defense infrastructure? Did you graduate from the Army War College or Naval Post Grad school?
Maybe you can raise taxes on that minority to pay for the bailouts and unemployment that results from protecting them.
One thing that always strikes me is the willingness of the US to sacrifice a vast majority of their economy for a small segment.
For instance now you are seeing the middle class, and gainfully employed all being asked to sacrifice for the habitual welfare recipients.
In the past I have seen companies and people asked to pay more just to protect the willfully unemployed.
Tell me how this makes sense fiscally?
