Trump's 'huge lie' shows 'he’s taking everyone for an idiot': analysis

[simple1]

21 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So you do support raising corporate income taxes or not? 

 

Harris was all for it. 

 

 

 

The US taxpayer is currently funding approx $850 billion p,a, to service the interest on approx $35 trillion of national debt. IMO one method to assist servicing the debt would be to increase corporate tax. However, people who have a much greater understanding of the US economy will have published research papers, why not seek out the content e.g.

 

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR300/RR353/RAND_RR353.sum.pdf

[Yellowtail]

5 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

The US taxpayer is currently funding approx $850 billion p,a, to service the interest on approx $35 trillion of national debt. IMO one method to assist servicing the debt would be to increase corporate tax. However, people who have a much greater understanding of the US economy will have published research papers, why not seek out the content e.g.

 

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR300/RR353/RAND_RR353.sum.pdf

So you do support raising corporate income taxes or not? 

[nauseus]

On 11/13/2024 at 10:01 AM, simple1 said:

Donald Trump has convinced many Americans that the economy is terrible, but a new analysis shows that's just as false as his election fraud claims that fueled the Jan. 6 insurrection.

 

Trump's 'huge lie' shows 'he’s taking everyone for an idiot': analysis

 

Raw story...processed to hell.

[nauseus]

44 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

The US taxpayer is currently funding approx $850 billion p,a, to service the interest on approx $35 trillion of national debt. IMO one method to assist servicing the debt would be to increase corporate tax. However, people who have a much greater understanding of the US economy will have published research papers, why not seek out the content e.g.

 

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR300/RR353/RAND_RR353.sum.pdf

 

Anyone wanting any understanding at all would seek out papers that aren't 11 years out-of-date and include erroneous forecasts.

[TedG]

55 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

The US taxpayer is currently funding approx $850 billion p,a, to service the interest on approx $35 trillion of national debt. IMO one method to assist servicing the debt would be to increase corporate tax. However, people who have a much greater understanding of the US economy will have published research papers, why not seek out the content e.g.

 

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR300/RR353/RAND_RR353.sum.pdf

 

Rising the corporate tax will do nothing to service the debt.   No one in the government has a plan to address the growing debt issue.   

Edited 23 hours ago by TedG

[nauseus]

On 11/13/2024 at 1:02 PM, simple1 said:

 

I'm UK / NZ and Oz citizen. I care as US policy decision (sometimes based on falsehoods) by trump and Co often directly impact other countries economies, including where I now live, as it did last time trump was in power.

 

Can't you be less specific??

[nauseus]

On 11/13/2024 at 2:23 PM, candide said:

Of course, Trump will blame Biden for Trump's failed policies despite the fact that he inherits a good economy: low inflation, GDP growth 3 times higher than other G7 countries, low unemployment... He can blame Biden for the debt level increase under Biden, but Biden cannot be held responsible for the debt increase Trump will cause (but he will blame Biden for it, anyway).

 

The debt is heavy enough to break the economy already. Biden can be blamed at least as much as anyone else.

[still kicking]

17 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

We'll find out when Trump's tariffs mean China won't be buying any more Oz dirt.

It's not looking good for a country that depends on selling dirt.

You talking trough your backside again  

[candide]

23 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

The debt is heavy enough to break the economy already. Biden can be blamed at least as much as anyone else.

Biden can be blamed for the debt level, among others  that's exactly what I wrote.

 

Whether the current debt level will break the economy or not is just speculation for the time being (in particular if the Fed further cuts interest rates.

 

Do you think Trump's program may lead to a debt decrease or even a debt stabilisation?

 

[nauseus]

32 minutes ago, candide said:

Biden can be blamed for the debt level, among others  that's exactly what I wrote.

 

Whether the current debt level will break the economy or not is just speculation for the time being (in particular if the Fed further cuts interest rates.

 

Do you think Trump's program may lead to a debt decrease or even a debt stabilisation?

 

 

The "current" debt level is rather dynamic (always going up) and has the potential to bust the economy at any time, especially in the case of default. It was increasing even when interest rates were zero for so long. Other debt classes like mortgages, credit card debt, student loans, auto loans and personal loans and corporate debt are all risky now.

 

I don't know enough about Trump's program yet but I can't see the government debt going down soon, in any case.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/13/credit-card-debt-hits-record-1point17-trillion-new-york-fed-finds.html

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/274636/combined-sum-of-all-holders-of-mortgage-debt-outstanding-in-the-us/

 

 

Edited 22 hours ago by nauseus

[wombat]

17 hours ago, J Branche said:

How, China holds 2.6% of US debt, Japan about 3.0%

 

China would like the US to change a few things but has same limitations US has to change China 

 

Tariffs = not good for Trade, China plays the long game 10 or 20 years. Some Initiatives are accelerated.

 

China secured a good chunk of EV materials while others were still fumbling around.

 

China is usually strategic

Another good conspiracy theory shot down in flames.

Dawn those posters who don't let the truth get in the way of a good story 

🙃🫠

[wombat]

9 hours ago, still kicking said:

You talking trough your backside again  

Gina will go over and do a honey trap on Xi...that will sort the problem

[simple1]

17 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Anyone wanting any understanding at all would seek out papers that aren't 11 years out-of-date and include erroneous forecasts.

 

Apologies, just demonstrating there are credible organisations publishing fiscal research, Brookings are another More recent

 

https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/fiscal-macroeconomic-and-price-estimates-tariffs-under-both-non-retaliation-and-retaliation

 

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/tariffs-on-all-imports-would-create-chaos-for-business/

[Yellowtail]

21 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Apologies, just demonstrating there are credible organisations publishing fiscal research, Brookings are another More recent

 

https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/fiscal-macroeconomic-and-price-estimates-tariffs-under-both-non-retaliation-and-retaliation

 

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/tariffs-on-all-imports-would-create-chaos-for-business/

So you do support raising corporate income taxes or not? 

[simple1]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So you do support raising corporate income taxes or not? 

 

Why do you care if I do or don't? In principal I do, but it's a very complex subject and best left to professionals in government with access to supercomputers and financial modelling, not ideologues to make decisions.

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Why do you care if I do or don't? In principal I do, but it's a very complex subject and best left to professionals in government with access to supercomputers and financial modelling, not ideologues to make decisions.

 

You are against tariffs, because you claim they will raise prices.

 

You support corporate income taxes, which will also raise prices. 

 

Both raise prices, but tariffs benefit domestic manufacturers, while raising taxes benefits foreign companies.

 

To be clear, I am not a fan of tariffs, but I think they are a tool. 

[simple1]

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

You are against tariffs, because you claim they will raise prices.

 

You support corporate income taxes, which will also raise prices. 

 

Both raise prices, but tariffs benefit domestic manufacturers, while raising taxes benefits foreign companies.

 

To be clear, I am not a fan of tariffs, but I think they are a tool. 

 

Raising tariffs will also harm the Oz economy and other Western countries unless they are exempted.

Show us, from credible sources, where US raising tariffs have actually benefited across the board US domestic manufacturers

Edited 5 hours ago by simple1

[Yellowtail]

Just now, simple1 said:

 

Show us, from credible sources, where US raising tariffs have actually benefited across the board US domestic manufacturers

I have never made that claim. 

 

 

[simple1]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I have never made that claim. 

 

From your post above....tariffs benefit domestic manufacturers

[Yellowtail]

26 minutes ago, simple1 said:

From your post above....tariffs benefit domestic manufacturers

Which is true. You added the: "...across the board US..." which makes it untrue. 

 

 

[simple1]

34 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Which is true. You added the: "...across the board US..." which makes it untrue. 

 

 

 

OK, thought you meant across the board. Sure there may be some domestic industries which benefit from tariffs where they do not require imported products for their manufacturing production processes, Any stats available?

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

OK, thought you meant across the board. Sure there may be some domestic industries which benefit from tariffs where they do not require imported products for their manufacturing production processes, Any stats available?

The domestic industries that benefit from tariffs, are generally the ones that are in direct competition with the imported products, not manufacturers that are using the product in a process, take steel for example. 

 

Steel is (I think) about $0.25lb. in the US today. A Ford F-150 weighs about 4,000lbs. Say half the weight is steel, that's 2,000 X $0.25 = $500.

 

A 20% tariff on steel adds about $100 to the vehicle, which retails for about $35,000

 

A 20% tariff on a $35,000 Chinese pickup to compete with the Ford, is $7,000, which gives the Ford a big advantage. 

 

To be clear, I am not a supporter of tariffs, but they can be useful tools. Trump will not put 20% tariffs across the board, to do so would be insanity.