Chinese will not be replacing trade with the US with trade from other countries.
So the recession might be global in nature. Problems in China were not being addressed by trade with the US. So less trade will agravate their internal problems as well. China will suffer worse. But at least they will have beans
Well, I'll let the Chinese worry about the Chinese. I'm only concerned with all the problems these tariffs will create for the US if we continue them much longer. It will be needless suffering for us because the Chinese aren't going to capitulate because of the tariffs. We were told they would and it would be easy more than half a decade ago, and they barely even flinched, though the tariffs continued all those year.
Project 2025’s goals are to destroy the economy and the government, among other goals, thereby causing poverty, sickness, and death. 47 is their incompetent puppet, surrounded by incompetent sub-puppets.
“It is really funny to me how those who used to call themselves "conservatives" and who used to complain about the neocons in their own Republican Party who wanted to start wars to take control over other nations, now bend over backward to justify Trump trying to seize control of peaceful Canada, of all things, and of peaceful Greenland. I guess they ran out of hostile terrorist lands to put under US control for oil, so it's' time to take over oil-rich Greenland and oil-rich Canada.”
As stated. USA has been protecting GreenLand for 80plus yrs. If the people of Green are ALLOWED to choose / what more could you possible ask for. Greenland will decide what is in their best interests. Same applies to Canada.
You talk as if Trump is invading both countries. Personally I hope Canada stays in tact as is. We have more than our fair share of socialist / communist here already.
You truly are ignorant or very disingenuous.
Where were you when H.Clinton and Obama were destabilizing and changing regimes in the beautiful days of ARAB SPRING. Crickets 🦗.
The US hasn't been there to protect Greenland. It has been allowed to be there by Denmark so it will have an arctic base from which to defend NATO and the US. Greenland, as part of NATO under Denmark, does, of course, share the same benefit. It's irrelevant to the question of whether the US should be doing all it can to entice Greenland to rebel and voter for succession from Denmark, which has even included talks of bribery in the form of annual payments to all each individual resident of Greenland if they will vote to succeed and move to the US.
By your logic, the US should try to stir up rebellions and elections for succession in all NATO countries to get any dissatisfied parts of them to join the US and help expand our empire, just as Russia did in Ukraine. Of course, that kind of rank stirring of dissension by someone who loves nothing more than chaos and dissension, would create endless animosity between all European nations and the newly ultra-imperial US.
Of course, you go beyond disingenuous and shoot off your mouth as a liar when you ask where was I on Clinton and Obama during the Arab spring and claim "crickets." I've republished articles that I wrote back then on this website, where I was EXTREMELY and CONSTANTLY critical of what I called "Hillary's Wars," often referring to her as Chillary or Killary or Pillary for her warmongering and saying she never saw a war she didn't vote for. So, like many of my occasional critics, you are just shooting your mouth off mindlessly with false accusations.
One MAJOR difference between me and you is that I stand on principle. I constantly wrote against Hillary's intrusions in Libya and Syria as her masterplan to placate Israel while Obama negotiated the "peace" deal with Iran, and about how she and Obama ignited the Arab spring. I even presented leaked documents from her State Department that I got through Wikileaks, that exposed her master plan.
I also constantly derided George Bush in years past for his regime-change war in Iraq, which he started on the false claims of WMD. I was fine with going into Afghanistan to pursue Al Qaeda, but thought Biden's withdrawal was a total disgrace in how it was carried out.
Now, I consistently stand by the same principle and argue against Trump's rank imperialism because, unlike you, I am impartial. I hate imperialism when the US is engaging in nation-building under Democrats, and I hate it when it is under warmongers Republicans. I write against the MIC all the time.
I don't mine when we are defending a nation from invasion. I hate it when we sponsor coups, and I spoke out against the US sponsorship of the coup in Ukraine, obvious as it was; but I am not against the US helping Ukraine defend itself from Russian invasion because Russia is every bit as imperial as the US. It's all about land grabs and resources. Trump has made that abundantly clear with Canada.
So, I consistently write against imperialism, no matter who is doing it, even when it is the US scrabbling for control/influence against Russia over Ukraine, where I stand against control BY EITHER SIDE. You, on the other hand, defend all of Trump's rank imperialism while hating it when it comes from Democrats. I have no room for party bias.
No one was ever trying to take Greenland over that I am aware of because, if they did that, they would have ALL of NATO all over them since Denmark is a NATO member. The alliance has been very strong in keeping anyone from attacking any alliance member. (Also a little too strong, unfortunately, in involving themselves in places that are not threatening alliance members at all; and that aspect of NATO I'm much against.)
Greenland cannot decide their own fate with a vote for the same reason that Puerto Rico cannot vote to become part of the Russian Federation. Greenland is already a territory of Denmark, just as Puerto Rico is a territory of the US. Maine cannot vote to become part of Canada either. We don't get to go to France and say, "We think this province is unsatisfied with its national government, so we're going to give it a chance to vote to become part of the US" or Canada or wherever. Like Russia did in Eastern Ukraine. You start wars that way. Nations need to stop stirring up dissent just to grab more land and resources and leave international boundaries alone. They need to be satisfied with what they already have and not try to rule the world. Otherwise, of world wars there will be no end.
You mean the idea of Trump trying to take over Canada. I agree. It is a bullshit idea if there ever was one.
Dumbest thing I've ever heard any president say; but, hey, let's double down on that and take Greenland, too! Make it clean sweep of the northern frontier. After all we are so great and so envied by the whole world that we DESERVE to have those lands and master them. They should be happy to bow to Trump, and kiss the sovereign's ring.
Or do you just mean that it is bullshit that the ports will be empty and then the shelves? Well, it won't take long to find out now.
You have no idea what’s coming. Greenland is happening. 2 provinces in Canada WANT to become part of USA. Not a state.
Greenland is a geopolitical issue. USA has had military there since world war 2. It’s about muting China and Russia. .. you wear the stupidity very well ..
It is really funny to me how those who used to call themselves "conservatives" and who used to complain about the neocons in their own Republican Party who wanted to start wars to take control over other nations, now bend over backward to justify Trump trying to seize control of peaceful Canada, of all things, and of peaceful Greenland. I guess they ran out of hostile terrorist lands to put under US control for oil, so it's' time to take over oil-rich Greenland and oil-rich Canada.
It's also funny to me that they want to add such a liberal-leaning populace all across the northern frontier. It will become the bluest state or set of states the US has ever known. It's even more funny that they want to add French as a new national language when they so long resisted Spanish. The French will go to war before they allow that change! Good luck with your all-out imperial quest. The really funny thing is that people like you think that is actually the intelligent position.
“Trump is losing nearly all the trade wars he started.” Not surprising, since the U.S. has lost every war we’ve started since WWII. Vietnam, the Korean War, Iraq, Afghanistan — an unbroken record of losses since 1945.
Yesterday I went on my AliExpress (China’s equivalent to Amazon) app to see how prices have changed for some of the electronic items I’ve bought over the last couple of years. So far, prices are not spiking, but I see most sellers now say “Ships from a U.S. warehouse.” For example, a 24V 100AH LiFePO4 lithium battery that costs over $400 on Amazon is still a bit under $300, including shipping, from Chinese sellers that had the foresight to transfer their wares to a U.S. warehouse ahead of time. This will not last, of course, because once the stock is gone, it’s gone. But Amazon’s stock of those batteries will be gone by then, too, since they also buy them from China. Your analogy to the bare shelves of the old Soviet Union is spot on.
So, the goal it to reduce the income taxes on the middle class and poor by hitting them with a national sales tax on everything they buy that is even steeper than their old income-tax rate?
OK, I was speaking a little tongue-in-cheek by saying "everything," but not much. I've read in more than one place about 60-70% of everything on our shelves comes from China. Then you have to add in all the other nations that we import from. Then add in all the products that have foreign parts that will see a portion of their costs go up, so some adjustment. Once you've done all that, maybe 20% remains if your lucky that will not be impacted by these enormously broad tariffs.
I know. We all know that corporations (and any businesses) will pass on taxes like tariffs to the consumer to the fullest extent they can, rather than just soaking up the loss. Yet, many consumers prefer to remain in denial about that and just agree with Trump's officianados as they claim that will not happen. Why wouldn't it when it always does?
That’s the scam sales pitch by the administration to try to justify Trump’s Big Beautiful Tax Cuts which will primarily benefit the wealthy. Notice that there was a brief flurry of discussion from the administration about not renewing tax cuts for millionaires. Trump just shot that down. Word is that they’ve done the same for repealing the carried interest exemption which benefits wealthy hedge fund operatives.
There was no way the tariff taxes (which are ultimately primarily paid by the less well off consumers) would ever offset the loss of revenue we’d experience from the planned tax cuts.
For sure, and it's kind of hard for those tariff taxes to even be collected when you keep taking them off as quickly as you put them on because of the damage they are doing to the entire economy. Also hard to make revenue off of them if you are truly using them to negotiate better trade deals since that means they end as soon as a better deal is reached. So, it's all nonsense. Just a heap of sales pitches that contradict each other.
"We're going to apply extraordinarily high tariffs so we can lower taxes on the middle class and poor so that we can raise taxes even more as a tax on everything they buy--a tax that gets marked up for profit by retailers who apply their profit margins to the total cost they paid with tariffs. We're going use tariffs to get better trade deals and then we'll eliminate them, but revenue will still rise because of the tariffs."
The amazing thing is that people keep believing these obviously nonsensical contradictions.
Chinese will not be replacing trade with the US with trade from other countries.
So the recession might be global in nature. Problems in China were not being addressed by trade with the US. So less trade will agravate their internal problems as well. China will suffer worse. But at least they will have beans
Well, I'll let the Chinese worry about the Chinese. I'm only concerned with all the problems these tariffs will create for the US if we continue them much longer. It will be needless suffering for us because the Chinese aren't going to capitulate because of the tariffs. We were told they would and it would be easy more than half a decade ago, and they barely even flinched, though the tariffs continued all those year.
Project 2025’s goals are to destroy the economy and the government, among other goals, thereby causing poverty, sickness, and death. 47 is their incompetent puppet, surrounded by incompetent sub-puppets.
Bullshit
Your words not mine
“It is really funny to me how those who used to call themselves "conservatives" and who used to complain about the neocons in their own Republican Party who wanted to start wars to take control over other nations, now bend over backward to justify Trump trying to seize control of peaceful Canada, of all things, and of peaceful Greenland. I guess they ran out of hostile terrorist lands to put under US control for oil, so it's' time to take over oil-rich Greenland and oil-rich Canada.”
• Leave a comment
You are truly delusional.
As stated. USA has been protecting GreenLand for 80plus yrs. If the people of Green are ALLOWED to choose / what more could you possible ask for. Greenland will decide what is in their best interests. Same applies to Canada.
You talk as if Trump is invading both countries. Personally I hope Canada stays in tact as is. We have more than our fair share of socialist / communist here already.
You truly are ignorant or very disingenuous.
Where were you when H.Clinton and Obama were destabilizing and changing regimes in the beautiful days of ARAB SPRING. Crickets 🦗.
The US hasn't been there to protect Greenland. It has been allowed to be there by Denmark so it will have an arctic base from which to defend NATO and the US. Greenland, as part of NATO under Denmark, does, of course, share the same benefit. It's irrelevant to the question of whether the US should be doing all it can to entice Greenland to rebel and voter for succession from Denmark, which has even included talks of bribery in the form of annual payments to all each individual resident of Greenland if they will vote to succeed and move to the US.
By your logic, the US should try to stir up rebellions and elections for succession in all NATO countries to get any dissatisfied parts of them to join the US and help expand our empire, just as Russia did in Ukraine. Of course, that kind of rank stirring of dissension by someone who loves nothing more than chaos and dissension, would create endless animosity between all European nations and the newly ultra-imperial US.
Of course, you go beyond disingenuous and shoot off your mouth as a liar when you ask where was I on Clinton and Obama during the Arab spring and claim "crickets." I've republished articles that I wrote back then on this website, where I was EXTREMELY and CONSTANTLY critical of what I called "Hillary's Wars," often referring to her as Chillary or Killary or Pillary for her warmongering and saying she never saw a war she didn't vote for. So, like many of my occasional critics, you are just shooting your mouth off mindlessly with false accusations.
One MAJOR difference between me and you is that I stand on principle. I constantly wrote against Hillary's intrusions in Libya and Syria as her masterplan to placate Israel while Obama negotiated the "peace" deal with Iran, and about how she and Obama ignited the Arab spring. I even presented leaked documents from her State Department that I got through Wikileaks, that exposed her master plan.
I also constantly derided George Bush in years past for his regime-change war in Iraq, which he started on the false claims of WMD. I was fine with going into Afghanistan to pursue Al Qaeda, but thought Biden's withdrawal was a total disgrace in how it was carried out.
Now, I consistently stand by the same principle and argue against Trump's rank imperialism because, unlike you, I am impartial. I hate imperialism when the US is engaging in nation-building under Democrats, and I hate it when it is under warmongers Republicans. I write against the MIC all the time.
I don't mine when we are defending a nation from invasion. I hate it when we sponsor coups, and I spoke out against the US sponsorship of the coup in Ukraine, obvious as it was; but I am not against the US helping Ukraine defend itself from Russian invasion because Russia is every bit as imperial as the US. It's all about land grabs and resources. Trump has made that abundantly clear with Canada.
So, I consistently write against imperialism, no matter who is doing it, even when it is the US scrabbling for control/influence against Russia over Ukraine, where I stand against control BY EITHER SIDE. You, on the other hand, defend all of Trump's rank imperialism while hating it when it comes from Democrats. I have no room for party bias.
So who was protecting them.? For How long ? And why can’t they decide their own fate ?
No one was ever trying to take Greenland over that I am aware of because, if they did that, they would have ALL of NATO all over them since Denmark is a NATO member. The alliance has been very strong in keeping anyone from attacking any alliance member. (Also a little too strong, unfortunately, in involving themselves in places that are not threatening alliance members at all; and that aspect of NATO I'm much against.)
Greenland cannot decide their own fate with a vote for the same reason that Puerto Rico cannot vote to become part of the Russian Federation. Greenland is already a territory of Denmark, just as Puerto Rico is a territory of the US. Maine cannot vote to become part of Canada either. We don't get to go to France and say, "We think this province is unsatisfied with its national government, so we're going to give it a chance to vote to become part of the US" or Canada or wherever. Like Russia did in Eastern Ukraine. You start wars that way. Nations need to stop stirring up dissent just to grab more land and resources and leave international boundaries alone. They need to be satisfied with what they already have and not try to rule the world. Otherwise, of world wars there will be no end.
You mean the idea of Trump trying to take over Canada. I agree. It is a bullshit idea if there ever was one.
Dumbest thing I've ever heard any president say; but, hey, let's double down on that and take Greenland, too! Make it clean sweep of the northern frontier. After all we are so great and so envied by the whole world that we DESERVE to have those lands and master them. They should be happy to bow to Trump, and kiss the sovereign's ring.
Or do you just mean that it is bullshit that the ports will be empty and then the shelves? Well, it won't take long to find out now.
You have no idea what’s coming. Greenland is happening. 2 provinces in Canada WANT to become part of USA. Not a state.
Greenland is a geopolitical issue. USA has had military there since world war 2. It’s about muting China and Russia. .. you wear the stupidity very well ..
It is really funny to me how those who used to call themselves "conservatives" and who used to complain about the neocons in their own Republican Party who wanted to start wars to take control over other nations, now bend over backward to justify Trump trying to seize control of peaceful Canada, of all things, and of peaceful Greenland. I guess they ran out of hostile terrorist lands to put under US control for oil, so it's' time to take over oil-rich Greenland and oil-rich Canada.
It's also funny to me that they want to add such a liberal-leaning populace all across the northern frontier. It will become the bluest state or set of states the US has ever known. It's even more funny that they want to add French as a new national language when they so long resisted Spanish. The French will go to war before they allow that change! Good luck with your all-out imperial quest. The really funny thing is that people like you think that is actually the intelligent position.
“Trump is losing nearly all the trade wars he started.” Not surprising, since the U.S. has lost every war we’ve started since WWII. Vietnam, the Korean War, Iraq, Afghanistan — an unbroken record of losses since 1945.
Yesterday I went on my AliExpress (China’s equivalent to Amazon) app to see how prices have changed for some of the electronic items I’ve bought over the last couple of years. So far, prices are not spiking, but I see most sellers now say “Ships from a U.S. warehouse.” For example, a 24V 100AH LiFePO4 lithium battery that costs over $400 on Amazon is still a bit under $300, including shipping, from Chinese sellers that had the foresight to transfer their wares to a U.S. warehouse ahead of time. This will not last, of course, because once the stock is gone, it’s gone. But Amazon’s stock of those batteries will be gone by then, too, since they also buy them from China. Your analogy to the bare shelves of the old Soviet Union is spot on.
The tariffs are to reduce US income taxes for those with less than 200 thousand dollar income and to return manufacturing to the USA.
So, the goal it to reduce the income taxes on the middle class and poor by hitting them with a national sales tax on everything they buy that is even steeper than their old income-tax rate?
Not EVERYTHING, David-only those items being imported. Don't be disingenuous, to use a favorite euphemism for "lie"...
OK, I was speaking a little tongue-in-cheek by saying "everything," but not much. I've read in more than one place about 60-70% of everything on our shelves comes from China. Then you have to add in all the other nations that we import from. Then add in all the products that have foreign parts that will see a portion of their costs go up, so some adjustment. Once you've done all that, maybe 20% remains if your lucky that will not be impacted by these enormously broad tariffs.
Taxes on corporations are passed to consumers. Why aren’t people concerned about that?
China just announced they would drop their 125% tariff on Ethylene.
I know. We all know that corporations (and any businesses) will pass on taxes like tariffs to the consumer to the fullest extent they can, rather than just soaking up the loss. Yet, many consumers prefer to remain in denial about that and just agree with Trump's officianados as they claim that will not happen. Why wouldn't it when it always does?
It’s Trump’s version of, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” — PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year in 2013.
That’s the scam sales pitch by the administration to try to justify Trump’s Big Beautiful Tax Cuts which will primarily benefit the wealthy. Notice that there was a brief flurry of discussion from the administration about not renewing tax cuts for millionaires. Trump just shot that down. Word is that they’ve done the same for repealing the carried interest exemption which benefits wealthy hedge fund operatives.
There was no way the tariff taxes (which are ultimately primarily paid by the less well off consumers) would ever offset the loss of revenue we’d experience from the planned tax cuts.
For sure, and it's kind of hard for those tariff taxes to even be collected when you keep taking them off as quickly as you put them on because of the damage they are doing to the entire economy. Also hard to make revenue off of them if you are truly using them to negotiate better trade deals since that means they end as soon as a better deal is reached. So, it's all nonsense. Just a heap of sales pitches that contradict each other.
"We're going to apply extraordinarily high tariffs so we can lower taxes on the middle class and poor so that we can raise taxes even more as a tax on everything they buy--a tax that gets marked up for profit by retailers who apply their profit margins to the total cost they paid with tariffs. We're going use tariffs to get better trade deals and then we'll eliminate them, but revenue will still rise because of the tariffs."
The amazing thing is that people keep believing these obviously nonsensical contradictions.
Unfortunately thats the scam sales pitch for controlled demolition of the US economy