Trump​ ❤️ Tariffs

[SectionC3]

13 hours ago, boyst said:

Why are you and so many people cheering the commies over your own country? Are you really that bias and politically charged to choose those commie bastards over your own country?

 

I seriously don't understand why people think China is worthy of defense or any praise compared to this country.

 

China is one of the biggest pollution ridden countries, exploits labor at all turns (child, slave), engaged in genocide, completely white washes history (tiananmen square), created the Wuhan Virus, beheads CEO's who make bad toys, and they didn't even create General Tso's recipe proving absolutely they are frauds. 

Looks like they studied well at Trump University.  Maybe they were taking lessons from us on our treatment of the 1921 Tulsa massacre, too. 

 

I find most interesting your point about the exploitation of labor.  I agree that it happens, and that we (the American consumer) benefit from it.  Nobody domestically has ever cared about that issue until now.  And I find it hard to believe that those who care about the issue do so legitimately, and are willing to endure the pain of what effectively is Trump's new national sales tax, to change wages and conditions in a distant land with a vastly different economy and value per hour of labor.  Even assuming that's the case, the next question would be whether these newfound domestic supporters of labor fairness feel the same about labor unions, and wages at WalMart (where many of them undoubtedly shop), and wages and conditions at Amazon (where many of them undoubtedly shop as well).  

 

I'm going to guess the answer to the WalMart/Amazon issues is no, and that these points about exploitation of labor are made simply to justify support for the moronic new tariff taxes that the Trump II administration has imposed.  

[All_Pro_Bills]

47 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Looks like they studied well at Trump University.  Maybe they were taking lessons from us on our treatment of the 1921 Tulsa massacre, too. 

 

I find most interesting your point about the exploitation of labor.  I agree that it happens, and that we (the American consumer) benefit from it.  Nobody domestically has ever cared about that issue until now.  And I find it hard to believe that those who care about the issue do so legitimately, and are willing to endure the pain of what effectively is Trump's new national sales tax, to change wages and conditions in a distant land with a vastly different economy and value per hour of labor.  Even assuming that's the case, the next question would be whether these newfound domestic supporters of labor fairness feel the same about labor unions, and wages at WalMart (where many of them undoubtedly shop), and wages and conditions at Amazon (where many of them undoubtedly shop as well).  

 

I'm going to guess the answer to the WalMart/Amazon issues is no, and that these points about exploitation of labor are made simply to justify support for the moronic new tariff taxes that the Trump II administration has imposed.  

I don't think any of that is important. The big picture is China poses a national security threat, has thousands of its citizens in the US spying and stealing IP and technology, has co-oped business and political leaders here through elite capture operations, all with the purpose of replacing America as world power to impose the CCP's system on the world. Not to mention running drugs and trafficking operations into the US with the the clear goal of creating social discourse and division.

 

Why does anyone think we should continue enabling their growth by running huge trade deficits, continue tranfering technology that at the time of their choosing will be used agsinst us, and remain dangerously dependent on China for many critical materials and products? And incredibly, all on terms extremely favorable to them. It's either take the pain of retaking control of the arrangements now under our terms or taking even greater pain and losing our way of life later under their terms. 

 

What I don't understand is why political leaders of both parties and presidential adminitrations let this happen. Helping the biggest threat to our country, something clear 20+ years ago, to become stronger. 

Edited Friday at 11:36 AM by All_Pro_Bills

[SectionC3]

16 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I don't think any of that is important. The big picture is China poses a national security threat, has thousands of its citizens in the US spying and stealing IP and technology, has co-oped business and political leaders here through elite capture operations, all with the purpose of replacing America as world power to impose the CCP's system on the world. Not to mention running drugs and trafficking operations into the US with the the clear goal of creating social discourse and division.

 

Why does anyone think we should continue enabling their growth by running huge trade deficits, continue tranfering technology that at the time of their choosing will be used agsinst us, and remain dangerously dependent on China for many critical materials and products? And incredibly, all on terms extremely favorable to them. It's either take the pain of retaking control of the arrangements now under our terms or taking even greater pain and losing our way of life later under their terms. 

 

What I don't understand is why political leaders of both parties and presidential adminitrations let this happen. Helping the biggest threat to our country, something clear 20+ years ago, to become stronger. 

How do you measure trade deficits?  And, are trade deficits with a given country always a bad thing?

 

What I don't believe is measured in the trade deficit calculus employed by the Trump administration is the export of services.  I'd rather have us exporting services--educating our populous to do smart things, like engineering, for example--than making socks and ball point pens.  Let the Chinese and other countries do the menial stuff, and let's get our population trained up to do the more valuable things while they waste their time making our disposable junk.  And, if you're so concerned about helping the biggest threat to our country, maybe, just maybe, the group of idiots in charge in the White House shouldn't be alienating our allies and pushing them into the embrace of that enemy.  

[boyst]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

Looks like they studied well at Trump University.  Maybe they were taking lessons from us on our treatment of the 1921 Tulsa massacre, too. 

 

I find most interesting your point about the exploitation of labor.  I agree that it happens, and that we (the American consumer) benefit from it.  Nobody domestically has ever cared about that issue until now.  And I find it hard to believe that those who care about the issue do so legitimately, and are willing to endure the pain of what effectively is Trump's new national sales tax, to change wages and conditions in a distant land with a vastly different economy and value per hour of labor.  Even assuming that's the case, the next question would be whether these newfound domestic supporters of labor fairness feel the same about labor unions, and wages at WalMart (where many of them undoubtedly shop), and wages and conditions at Amazon (where many of them undoubtedly shop as well).  

 

I'm going to guess the answer to the WalMart/Amazon issues is no, and that these points about exploitation of labor are made simply to justify support for the moronic new tariff taxes that the Trump II administration has imposed.  

I've cared about it for a while. You're right about the US history being pretty awful but in recent years we have been much, much better than China. 

 

Your concept of fairness of Unions is interesting and I will consider it. I am not against the concept of labor unions but I am against most American unions over the last 50 years. Anyone can see the issues there.

 

Reply if you'd like to keep this on the radar. I'm going to the gym and can reply later. 

[SectionC3]

35 minutes ago, boyst said:

I've cared about it for a while. You're right about the US history being pretty awful but in recent years we have been much, much better than China. 

 

Your concept of fairness of Unions is interesting and I will consider it. I am not against the concept of labor unions but I am against most American unions over the last 50 years. Anyone can see the issues there.

 

Reply if you'd like to keep this on the radar. I'm going to the gym and can reply later. 

Ask yourself this - why do companies like WalMart and Amazon work so hard to keep unions out?  It's because unions are good for workers and bad for owners.  Unions are why we have benefits, and higher wages, and labor protections for the working class.  Meanwhile, at Amazon, we have workers enduring "super shifts" or whatever they're called delivering packages from 10a to 10p four days a week.  The conditions are horrible.  They're no better at WalMart, where people are "surviving" on $12/hour and mollifying themselves into obesity with processed food and other salves designed to make their crappy lives a little less intolerable.  

 

Those companies are awful for labor.  And this is coming from a guy who is a huge investor in Amazon.  I acknowledge it makes me a little hypocritical.  But that company can still make gobs of money even if it treats its employees better, which it should.  

Edited Friday at 12:32 PM by SectionC3

[Roundybout]

11 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Like any leftist policy.  It doesn't.

Trump is a leftist now?

[SectionC3]

2 minutes ago, Roundybout said:

Trump is a leftist now?

He's going to make the country "leftist" when this foolish tariff gambit fails.  A third way Democract should win in 2028.  But it won't be a Bill Clinton third way.  It's going to be a new third way--new blood, new economic ideas, etc.  Get ready for AOC/Bernie.  

 

(I'm not saying I'll vote for AOC, or for Bernie, in a primary.  I believe in capitalism, and ruggedness, as well as equality of opportunity, but not equality of outcome. But I will damn sure vote for them with bells on in a general if they're running again Ted Cruz, JD, or a different Trump acolyte.)

[Doc Brown]

3 hours ago, Roundybout said:

Trump is a leftist now?

No.  I said tariffs are a leftist policy.  I just view it as an unneeded business regulation that hurts both the owner of a business and it's employees just because free trade "isn't fair."  It also prioritizes labor over capital which the left is supposed to be doing.

[The Frankish Reich]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

No.  I said tariffs are a leftist policy.  I just view it as an unneeded business regulation that hurts both the owner of a business and it's employees just because free trade "isn't fair."  It also prioritizes labor over capital which the left is supposed to be doing.

Yes, certainly ever since the Reagan Revolution tariffs have been considered counterproductive (and also contrary to any freedom agenda) by Republicans. The conservative economists eventually convinced Democrats of this wisdom, hence the free trade agreements negotiated by Clinton and Obama.

 

Just another way in which today's so-called Republicans have revived the worst instincts and policies of old, forgotten Democrats. Bernie Sanders has morphed into Donald Trump.

[Homelander]

 

[JFKjr]

Still negotiating.

[boyst]

12 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

Ask yourself this - why do companies like WalMart and Amazon work so hard to keep unions out?  It's because unions are good for workers and bad for owners.  Unions are why we have benefits, and higher wages, and labor protections for the working class.  Meanwhile, at Amazon, we have workers enduring "super shifts" or whatever they're called delivering packages from 10a to 10p four days a week.  The conditions are horrible.  They're no better at WalMart, where people are "surviving" on $12/hour and mollifying themselves into obesity with processed food and other salves designed to make their crappy lives a little less intolerable.  

 

Those companies are awful for labor.  And this is coming from a guy who is a huge investor in Amazon.  I acknowledge it makes me a little hypocritical.  But that company can still make gobs of money even if it treats its employees better, which it should.  

Unions hurt businesses. They also hurt the little man. I've been in unions, Ohio had them. They didn't do anything for the low members and only protected the lifers. Of course, that's in my experience and irrelevant to the overall experience. 

 

Union shops for places like Walmart, Amazon, UPS, and other service driven careers cause issues and create problems for the youth and unemployed looking to get into the job force. They are unskilled labor. Unskilled labor having any union is not something I support. Nor public sector unions; you should not be able to hold a government entity in jeopardy for your employment.

 

The super shifts you're talking about are not generally Amazon that pile on the hours. They're Amazon contractors. There are websites you go and bit on the contract for delivery companies. It's pretty awesome if you need big cash quick. The Amazon services are the same - contract gigs not meant for full time employment. There is no skill required to read an address and drive a car; those doing it voluntarily take the position as anyone who has a job. No one is forced to work. 

 

No one should survive on $12/hr and those that do rely heavily on gov subsidies. If we gave those folks more in wages it will effect across the board prices and inflate the price of everything vs dole out welfare.

 

Remember, the top 10% pay 98% of taxes (maybe I'm off on that, but it's damn near close) I know the top 2% pay something like 90% of the income taxes.

 

Of course, this is my opinion so others may disagree.  

 

There are no golden companies. The closest I know is some chocolate company, Tony's chocolany. They are the only candy factory that ensures no slave, no exploitation, and fairly paid employees. Evidently sugar and chocolate trades involve a lot of slavery and bad things. Same with bananas btw. Monkeys are now being used a lot. 😝

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, boyst said:

Unions hurt businesses. They also hurt the little man. I've been in unions, Ohio had them. They didn't do anything for the low members and only protected the lifers. Of course, that's in my experience and irrelevant to the overall experience. 

 

Union shops for places like Walmart, Amazon, UPS, and other service driven careers cause issues and create problems for the youth and unemployed looking to get into the job force. They are unskilled labor. Unskilled labor having any union is not something I support. Nor public sector unions; you should not be able to hold a government entity in jeopardy for your employment.

 

The super shifts you're talking about are not generally Amazon that pile on the hours. They're Amazon contractors. There are websites you go and bit on the contract for delivery companies. It's pretty awesome if you need big cash quick. The Amazon services are the same - contract gigs not meant for full time employment. There is no skill required to read an address and drive a car; those doing it voluntarily take the position as anyone who has a job. No one is forced to work. 

 

No one should survive on $12/hr and those that do rely heavily on gov subsidies. If we gave those folks more in wages it will effect across the board prices and inflate the price of everything vs dole out welfare.

 

Remember, the top 10% pay 98% of taxes (maybe I'm off on that, but it's damn near close) I know the top 2% pay something like 90% of the income taxes.

 

Of course, this is my opinion so others may disagree.  

 

There are no golden companies. The closest I know is some chocolate company, Tony's chocolany. They are the only candy factory that ensures no slave, no exploitation, and fairly paid employees. Evidently sugar and chocolate trades involve a lot of slavery and bad things. Same with bananas btw. Monkeys are now being used a lot. 😝

That's the fallacy.  Nobody's going to give them anything.  They have to take it.  Maybe they should aspire to more and to earn better.  But maybe organization helps them get fair value.  Which is where unions come in.  

 

And, why not support unskilled labor banding together?  Especially if you're worried about the exploitation of labor overseas.  In the end, with respect to domestic labor unions, what's the difference to you?  Rising tides raise all boats. 

10 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

No.  I said tariffs are a leftist policy.  I just view it as an unneeded business regulation that hurts both the owner of a business and it's employees just because free trade "isn't fair."  It also prioritizes labor over capital which the left is supposed to be doing.

 

It's not a regulation.  It's a tax.  Tariffs can be good to protect industries from dumping.  Steel is a good example of that.  Placing tariffs on disposable crap, like what Trump is doing, is not.  

[Big Turk]

Just a way to trash the economy and allow the rich to essentially steal from the middle class.

[Doc Brown]

32 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

t's not a regulation.  It's a tax.  Tariffs can be good to protect industries from dumping.  Steel is a good example of that.  Placing tariffs on disposable crap, like what Trump is doing, is not.  

I know its's not but I just view the two as having similar results although regulations are more broad.  Unnecessary government regulations hurts businesses (especially small businesses), costs jobs, hampers economic growth, and can be an extra tax on the consumer like tariffs. 

[boyst]

14 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

That's the fallacy.  Nobody's going to give them anything.  They have to take it.  Maybe they should aspire to more and to earn better.  But maybe organization helps them get fair value.  Which is where unions come in.  

 

And, why not support unskilled labor banding together?  Especially if you're worried about the exploitation of labor overseas.  In the end, with respect to domestic labor unions, what's the difference to you?  Rising tides raise all boats. 

 

It's not a regulation.  It's a tax.  Tariffs can be good to protect industries from dumping.  Steel is a good example of that.  Placing tariffs on disposable crap, like what Trump is doing, is not.  

Would you rather corporations/private entities ensure security of living for the society or would you rather the government ensures this level?

[SectionC3]

30 minutes ago, boyst said:

Would you rather corporations/private entities ensure security of living for the society or would you rather the government ensures this level?

That's a non sequitur.  That aside, define "security of living."

[boyst]

2 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

That's a non sequitur.  That aside, define "security of living."

Explain your belief that is a non sequitur, and let me think I'm the definition of living.

[Homelander]

Just a little short term pain folks - day 89

 

 

[Big Blitz]

1 hour ago, Homelander said:

Just a little short term pain folks - day 89

 

 

 

 

Learn to scam Medicaid.  It’s a common thing in New York.  

 

 

I’m sorry those workers that have been getting laid off since last year are based in a state that refuses to DOGE.