On 2/13/2026 at 11:08 AM, impulse said:

Simples. Buy less imported crap. Make more in the USA, even if the quality costs more. Put more 'Muricans to work in manufacturing.

Do you really think it's a good idea to import almost a $Trillion more than you export every year? How long before your piggy bank breaks?

What about paying a trillion on interest on the 38+ trillion on debt every year. Then loan even more. How many Muricans are now replacing the people who worked on the land?

7 minutes ago, candide said:

Who buys cheap products from China? The rich or the poor?

What are the poor buying from Switzerland, which the current round of leftist howling is about? Oh no, the poor will have to pay an extra $8K for their Submariner.

So why were you not outraged when Biden raised tariffs on China? Why no concern for the poor back then?

China is not the only country being hit with tariffs, and it is not only cheap stuff. The poor aren't buying high end computers, smart-phones, and electronics or industrial equipment, which accounts for about two thirds of what China exports to the US.

Are you also arguing to eliminate corporate income taxes because the higher prices hurt the working poor?

Again, over 90% of everyday goods purchased by lower income families in the US are food, housing, and energy.

7 minutes ago, candide said:

Who gets tax cuts, partly financed by tariffs revenues? The rich or the poor?

The people that pay taxes, benefit from tax cuts. Who pays the taxes in the US?

The Submariner is an interesting item to single out in this debate!

It so happens that even 'American-made' watch companies like Weiss Watch Company or Fine Timepiece Solutions in Arizona are being hammered by these duties.

The reason being that there isn't a single factory in the U.S. that makes every tiny screw, gear, or hairspring.

When those critical components are imported, they are often taxed at the same rate as a finished luxury watch.

My point here being that because modern manufacturing is globally integrated, even “Made in USA” products often carry hidden tariff costs!

This isn't about "leftist howling", it’s about a repressive domestic consumption tax. Recent data from the New York Fed shows that nearly 90% of the tariff burden is paid by U.S. firms and consumers, not foreign exporters.

For the "poor", this equates to an average tax increase of $1,300 per household in 2026, not on Rolexes, but on the food, tools, and essentials that keep them going.

20 minutes ago, Jim Waldron said:

The Submariner is an interesting item to single out in this debate!

It so happens that even 'American-made' watch companies like Weiss Watch Company or Fine Timepiece Solutions in Arizona are being hammered by these duties.

The reason being that there isn't a single factory in the U.S. that makes every tiny screw, gear, or hairspring.

When those critical components are imported, they are often taxed at the same rate as a finished luxury watch.

Tiny screws, gears, spring and whatnot are small value parts. So, a company that imports ten dollars' worth of parts to make a watch has to pay $15 instead of $10 to produce a watch they sell for $4K.

Or they can but the parts from a local job-shop or make them in-house.

20 minutes ago, Jim Waldron said:

My point here being that because modern manufacturing is globally integrated, even “Made in USA” products often carry hidden tariff costs!

Sure, if you pay a 50% tariff on steel, the cost of a $70K F-Super Duty goes up ~$650

20 minutes ago, Jim Waldron said:

This isn't about "leftist howling", it’s about a repressive domestic consumption tax. Recent data from the New York Fed shows that nearly 90% of the tariff burden is paid by U.S. firms and consumers, not foreign exporters.

And 100% of corporate income taxes are paid by US consumers, no one seems to give a whit about that. Tariffs and corporate income taxes are both bad, but:

Tariffs help domestic manufacturers and hurt foreign manufacturers.

Corporate income taxed hurt domestic manufacturers and help foreign manufacturers.

Again, I am generally against tariffs.

20 minutes ago, Jim Waldron said:

For the "poor", this equates to an average tax increase of $1,300 per household in 2026, not on Rolexes, but on the food, tools, and essentials that keep them going.

This is a projection, made by the said same people that said inflation was going to skyrocket last year, and that economy would tank.

But even if $1,300 per household is it average, far and away the majority of that is absorbed by upper income households, not the poor.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

What are the poor buying from Switzerland, which the current round of leftist howling is about? Oh no, the poor will have to pay an extra $8K for their Submariner.

So why were you not outraged when Biden raised tariffs on China? Why no concern for the poor back then?

China is not the only country being hit with tariffs, and it is not only cheap stuff. The poor aren't buying high end computers, smart-phones, and electronics or industrial equipment, which accounts for about two thirds of what China exports to the US.

Are you also arguing to eliminate corporate income taxes because the higher prices hurt the working poor?

Again, over 90% of everyday goods purchased by lower income families in the US are food, housing, and energy.

The people that pay taxes, benefit from tax cuts. Who pays the taxes in the US?

Tariffs are similar to a sales tax. Unlike the wealthy, the poor spend most of their revenues on consumption, so they are more affected by it.

Of course, the wealthy are also affected when they buy an expensive Swiss watch or a German BMW, but unlike the poor, they get enough tax cuts to pay for the increase.

As concerns your assumption that businesses will use the higher profit resulting from lower taxes to lower the price of their products. This is far from certain. They can increase returns for shareholders, or buy back their stock. Which also increases the value of top management's stock options 😉. In particular when prices of imported products increase because of tariffs, thus lowering price competition. For example, studies have shown that a significant part of Trump's tax cuts has been used by companies to buy back their stock.

Finally, your are ignoring the redistribution aspect of taxes, which can be used to improve the situation of low revenue classes.

19 minutes ago, candide said:

Tariffs are similar to a sales tax. Unlike the wealthy, the poor spend most of their revenues on consumption, so they are more affected by it.

Yes, the left loves sales taxes and yes, sales taxes absolutely disproportionally hurt the poor.

But again, lower income families spend over 90% of their monthly income on food, energy and housing, very little of which are imported.

19 minutes ago, candide said:

Of course, the wealthy are also affected when they buy an expensive Swiss watch or a German BMW, but unlike the poor, they get enough tax cuts to pay for the increase.

Ah yes, the left's old "tax cuts for the rich: lie.

19 minutes ago, candide said:

As concerns your assumption that businesses will use the higher profit resulting from lower taxes to lower the price of their products. This is far from certain. They can increase returns for shareholders, or buy back their stock. Which also increases the value of top management's stock options 😉. In particular when prices of imported products increase because of tariffs, thus lowering price competition. For example, studies have shown that a significant part of Trump's tax cuts has been used by companies to buy back their stock.

You assume all the greedy companies will reduce their prices when tariffs are lifted, but not when taxes are reduced, why is that?

19 minutes ago, candide said:

Finally, your are ignoring the redistribution aspect of taxes, which can be used to improve the situation of low revenue classes.

That's really what it comes down to, the left needing to "redistribute" wealth to buy votes and maintain power.

Were you not one of the leftists also moaning that prices would go up when illegal aliens were deported, because companies would have to pay higher wages? Does it not seem like a better long-term solution (not for the left of course) to have more opportunity and higher wages for the poor?

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, the left loves sales taxes and yes, sales taxes absolutely disproportionally hurt the poor.

But again, lower income families spend over 90% of their monthly income on food, energy and housing, very little of which are imported.

Ah yes, the left's old "tax cuts for the rich: lie.

You assume all the greedy companies will reduce their prices when tariffs are lifted, but not when taxes are reduced, why is that?

That's really what it comes down to, the left needing to "redistribute" wealth to buy votes and maintain power.

Were you not one of the leftists also moaning that prices would go up when illegal aliens were deported, because companies would have to pay higher wages? Does it not seem like a better long-term solution (not for the left of course) to have more opportunity and higher wages for the poor?

Baseless assumptions. Fact is that the K shaped pattern has been amplified in 2025. You can gaslight as much as you want, it is a fact.

22 minutes ago, candide said:

Baseless assumptions. Fact is that the K shaped pattern has been amplified in 2025. You can gaslight as much as you want, it is a fact.

Oh, the k shape again, that's strong brother. You get that from RawStory?

7 hours ago, Presnock said:

A far as I am concerned, this is my final chat with you as you don't present any real facts that alter my opinion of DJT.

That's (my personal oppinion) a good idea. Don't feed the trolls.

The blocking list on AN is a good opportunity to avoid useless answering.

Just now, Schoggibueb said:

That's (my personal oppinion) a good idea. Don't feed the trolls.

The blocking list on AN is a good opportunity to avoid useless answering.

Yeah, you learned your lesson, knife to a gunfight and whatnot.

47 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Oh, the k shape again, that's strong brother. You get that from RawStory?

Blah blah

44 minutes ago, candide said:

Blah blah

Aw, you lefties are too sharp for me!

Story in today's USA Today not Raw Story

Americans, not other countries, paid Trump's tariffs in 2025

Updated Feb. 16, 2026

American consumers and companies paid nearly 90% of the cost of President Donald Trump’s tariffs through late 2025, according to a new report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

On the campaign trail in September 2024, promoting tariffs, Trump told supporters, “It’s not going to be a cost to you, it’s going to be a cost to another country.”

Trump repeated the claim in a Jan. 30 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, writing, “The data shows that the burden, or ‘incidence,’ of the tariffs has fallen overwhelmingly on foreign producers and middlemen, including large corporations that are not from the U.S.”

The New York Fed study, published Feb. 12, suggests otherwise.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2026/02/15/americans-paid-trump-tariffs-2025-inflation/88692687007/

Has anyone on the board here argued that anyone other than consumers pay tariffs?

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Has anyone on the board here argued that anyone other than consumers pay tariffs?

You can answer that question by doing a search on the forum.

Despite the high tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump on dozens of countries, the US trade deficit barely decreased last year. Imports of goods and services exceeded exports by approximately $901.5 billion, according to the Commerce Department in Washington. This is only about $2 billion less than in 2024.

The deficit is due to trade in goods: this rose by 2.1 percent to almost 1241 billion dollars, while the surplus in trade in services increased by 8.9 percent to 339.5 billion dollars.

Studies show that the tariffs are almost entirely paid by American importers and consumers.

The Americans are footing the bill.

Who picks up Trump's Tariff bill?

The American people, one way, or another.

On 2/17/2026 at 6:05 AM, JerryM said:

American consumers and companies paid nearly 90% of the cost of President Donald Trump’s tariffs through late 2025, according to a new report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

And what was the team Trump reaction to the NY Fed research above: OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!

Fed's Kashkari: Hassett comments about Fed researchers represent another attack on independence

WASHINGTON, Feb 19 (Reuters) - The call by a top Trump administration official for New York Federal Reserve staff to "be disciplined" for recent research on tariffs was just the latest move by the administration to undermine the independence of the central bank, Minneapolis Fed president Neel Kashkari said on Thursday.

In a Wednesday CNBC interview, top administration economic adviser Kevin Hassett called recent New York Fed research "shoddy" in its conclusion that roughly 90% of the cost of the administration's import tariffs were being paid by the U.S. The analysis, consistent with estimates by other economists and organizations, included among its authors a top economist in the New York Fed's research division and a Columbia University professor who have collaborated together on several pieces of research on international prices and tariff impacts.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/feds-kashkari-hassett-comments-about-fed-researchers-represent-another-attack-2026-02-19/

5 hours ago, JerryM said:

And what was the team Trump reaction to the NY Fed research above: OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!

Fed's Kashkari: Hassett comments about Fed researchers represent another attack on independence

WASHINGTON, Feb 19 (Reuters) - The call by a top Trump administration official for New York Federal Reserve staff to "be disciplined" for recent research on tariffs was just the latest move by the administration to undermine the independence of the central bank, Minneapolis Fed president Neel Kashkari said on Thursday.

In a Wednesday CNBC interview, top administration economic adviser Kevin Hassett called recent New York Fed research "shoddy" in its conclusion that roughly 90% of the cost of the administration's import tariffs were being paid by the U.S. The analysis, consistent with estimates by other economists and organizations, included among its authors a top economist in the New York Fed's research division and a Columbia University professor who have collaborated together on several pieces of research on international prices and tariff impacts.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/feds-kashkari-hassett-comments-about-fed-researchers-represent-another-attack-2026-02-19/

How does the Fed dare defy the party line! 😅

13 hours ago, Schoggibueb said:

Despite the high tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump on dozens of countries, the US trade deficit barely decreased last year. Imports of goods and services exceeded exports by approximately $901.5 billion, according to the Commerce Department in Washington. This is only about $2 billion less than in 2024.

The deficit is due to trade in goods: this rose by 2.1 percent to almost 1241 billion dollars, while the surplus in trade in services increased by 8.9 percent to 339.5 billion dollars.

Studies show that the tariffs are almost entirely paid by American importers and consumers.

The Americans are footing the bill.

In 2025, imports actually rose 5% and the trade deficit was the third-largest ever.

On 2/14/2026 at 12:18 PM, Yellowtail said:

You claimed the president applying tariffs was "blatantly illegal". Clearly this is not true, because other presidents have applied tariffs. So it's not at lie, it's an untruth? Or you misspoke?

You have an incredibly wonderful day!

No other president has imposed tariffs unilaterally as Trump has done, without the involvement of Congress.

As the article below points out:

Bamboozled: What made anyone think the Trump tariffs were legal?

The US Constitution is quite clear that tariffs are entirely Congress’s prerogative.

Presidents [...] have administered some tariffs selectively under delegated authority. They have never imposed a single tariff [...] without first getting a grant of authority from Congress.

https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2026/bamboozled-what-made-anyone-think-trump-tariffs-were-legal

On 2/14/2026 at 9:44 AM, Yellowtail said:

While the Court may ultimately determine that presidents applying tariffs is unconstitutional, to say it is "blatantly illegal" is just to lie. Trump is not the first president to apply tariffs, and over the years, long before Trump, Congress has been handing over their powers to the Executive Branch.

All of the sudden with Trump, the left wants to claw that power back. That's fine with me, I think the President has more power than the Constitution intended, but that did not start with Trump and again, to say as much is to lie.

Well, the Supreme Court has now ruled that Trump's tariffs were indeed, completely illegal.

Supreme Court rules Trump’s tariffs illegal

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/feb/20/supreme-court-rules-donald-trumps-tariffs-illegal/

On 2/13/2026 at 1:30 PM, SunnyinBangrak said:

Right. Americans want hugely expensive electric cars that will last 6 or 7 years, made by rare earths mined by kids in the Congo, manufactured in China in coal powered factories, that devalue 50% as soon as they drove out of the showroom.

Are we at peak stupidity yet?

And you typed this on a device made in America from locally sourced materials, running on Texas crude?

4 hours ago, tomazbodner said:

And you typed this on a device made in America from locally sourced materials, running on Texas crude?

Looking back at history, nations have always imported products from far away lands. Isn't this what the goal of many explorers were? Marco Polo, Columbus, etc.....

5 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Well, the Supreme Court has now ruled that Trump's tariffs were indeed, completely illegal.

Supreme Court rules Trump’s tariffs illegal

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/feb/20/supreme-court-rules-donald-trumps-tariffs-illegal/

According to Trump's latest rant, the justices who voted against him and his tariffs are "fools and lap dogs."

That label fits his underlings perfectly.