Last I checked we got a Brazilian dollar deficit.

are why inflation was/is so bad. These 🤡.

When a Republican is in the White House. Go, figure!!!

Unless we pay the tariffs?

My wife and I have been wanting to take a trip to Toronto. We'll spend every Loony there.

It sure sounds like it!

EVERYTHING!!!

amiright?

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Haulin' Hawley's plan would get myself and my wife $0.00

I'm soooooo fucking shocked.

Facts:

1. When those "Trump checks" went out during the start of COVID19 (there is still an ongoing pandemic that many are not aware of) it was a huge boon for him.

2. The average voter sees a name on the check and thinks it's from that individual. Just as they think Reagan or Clinton really built Reagan National Airport or Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport. The average voter has a limited knowledge of government.

3. In terms of individual experience, those checks were the most positive government experience the average taxpayer had in their lives. (Few voters consider the benefits of national defense, foreign aid, financial regulation, supporting Democracy, etc.)

4. The tariffs are taking in hundreds of billions of dollars and the inflation impacts have not yet hit.

5. The cost to send out the first round of CARES act checks was about $300 billion.

6. The tariff income is in proportion to what the CARES act sent out...

It is critical that if any checks go out they are labeled properly and have no Krasnov/GQP association on them and that they are not labeled as somehow being from the tariffs.

The goal for the GQP here will be to send these checks out just before the 2028 midterms and for them to be labeled as the "Trump Tariff Check"

...I don't believe #4. Tariffs of 0.1% of GDP not yet creating inflationary pressure is illogical.
It is more logical to suggest that if no inflationary pressure has yet to surface it is because those "hundreds of billions" are not real to this point.
Extending to the fact that since it's known liars reporting said revenues, they may be imaginary.

I hadn't considered the possibility but it can't be ruled out based on inflation essentially flat-lining.

I would hope that if any Congress members suspected revenue was being fudged that they would draw up impeachment charges...

I figured something that some on here are gonna find repugnant: that the modest tariffs tRump has TACO'd into are going to have a modest price impact and create modest revenue. If the treasury is reporting customs revenue accurately, it is totaling hundreds of billions so far. If they send out checks before 2028 we need to be ready to respond to that policy and perhaps even embrace it.

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/reports-statements/mts/current.html

Recall that economists predicted bigtime inflation from the earlier China tariffs and it never materialized. The new deals are also allowing us access to markets that were previously blocked through the tariff policy of other countries. I think hostility to Krasnov is clouding some folks judgements of his actions, and running us into policy canyons. We need to be able to separate the policy from the person.

...and then accuse us of being too impatient.
Will tariffs raise revenue? Sure, but at what expense to the overall economy as there is no way those increases are paid by anyone other than US consumers.
A few other points: they reported $28 billion for June. That's only $336 billion a year.
That's not even 8% of the federal budget and Hawley is already proposing legislation to give it to consumers. ($600 per person, up to 3 per household). The revenue impact on the deficit will become negligible.
As to the earlier China tariffs and economic predictions, there is scant evidence that the tariffs were actually collected. That's where the "projections" come in. It is impossible to believe that 30-50% duties on trillions of imports did not cause upward price pressure.

But somehow increasing tax rates on giant multi-national corporations importing largely slave-produced goods is supposed to be?

Is it possible we have been sold a bill of goods on this topic? Is a modest tariff that incentivizes domestic production an inherently bad policy? Consider asking someone who works in manufacturing their opinion before answering this.

What is the price passthrough rate in reality? How much do you think a $148 pair of Lululemon knickers cost them to make at a sweatshop?

https://shop.lululemon.com/p/womens-trousers/Daydrift-High-Rise-Tapered-Pant-Regular/_/prod20002107?color=70108

When the tariffs go to "50%" on this item, how much does Lululemon's costs go up? What do you estimate their markup is?

It's based on the transfer cost, often considered wholesale price.
I'm sure you're right about the mark-up, though.
If the cost to produce is $30, and the transfer cost is $40, the tariff at 50% would be $20.
The margin would then be $88 from $148 retail, or roughly 60%. The "manufacturer" could easily absorb that $20, though I'm doubtful they would.
As to your first point, I've never heard a credible argument how high tax rates on large incomes is inflationary. So, I can't comment on the comparison.

We (rightly) aren't concerned with inflation being a consequence of increasing taxes on the rich, so why would we be concerned with a modest taxation on imported product that is disproportionally produced/harvested/mined using slave labor? These products are marked up massively before they reach store shelves.

A manufacturing worker here, in a well regulated and safe environment, with a variety of insurances and benefits and protections, of course can't compete with unsafe slave labor overseas without some sort of economic incentive to keep that production here. That incentive can be a tariff.

You say you are doubtful they would absorb the hit, but here's the thing: they already have and most people didn't realize it because the news wasn't blasting it out. Part of the hit is also absorbed through a reduction in currency manipulation--another critical variable that is frequently ignored.

Some of the cost does show up in price (usually low single digits), but that's exactly the intent: give domestic manufacturers a bit of an advantage to encourage production here.

And for Lululemon the cost of those britches is gonna be single digits, not $30. They could pay a 1000% tariff and still be highly profitable.

registered Republicans.

Something---anything---to get attention off of trump's open-and-obvious links to the pedophilia news.

when you are either out of a job, locked up,
deported, or homeless?

So... really?

and the only people who would get it are those who made enough money to have already paid at least $600 in federal income tax.

What a load of fucking bullshit.....

The problem is one of their own making, and the stopgap solution is pitiable.

I'll get right on that!

Just to use in midterms against us. It wouldn't surprise me one bit.

I'm going to use the tariff cash to have something stiff on hand to drink when the rest of the forum-goers realize we have been out-maneuvered again.

And then watch haulin' Hawley haul ass to vote against it. Don't just bitch about it Dems,use it to YOUR advantage.

Get a 6,000 check. I have never had that much money at once.

And what happened to “stimulus creates inflation?”

And what happened to the “tariffs will pay the debt”?

Last edited Wed Jul 30, 2025, 12:11 PM - Edit history (1)

They're throwing Sinkers bars off the Pedo Parade Float.
Show them your boobs, America, maybe you'll get beads with that.

...that it would be $5,000. So I like to ask him if he got his $5000 yet.

I suspect that tariffs will hardly generate any revenue at all, so this just increases the deficit.

for real????

Going after blue collar workers with the same old trickle down economic policy. His support for a ban on stock trading in congress is a step in the right direction if it is done in good faith, but he's got a much, much bigger leap to make before his claim to support the working class can be seen as legit.