zlacker

[parent] [thread] 36 comments
1. sender+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-04-03 19:00:34
Dems just need to spin these tariffs as the largest tax increase in US history (which is basically correct).
replies(9): >>davidw+g1 >>trhway+h1 >>kubb+N1 >>mmooss+73 >>KerrAv+m3 >>basisw+c4 >>marknu+Ed >>soupfo+Qe >>rufus_+Oi
2. davidw+g1[view] [source] 2025-04-03 19:07:07
>>sender+(OP)
Even Mike Pence came out and said that.
replies(1): >>Izikie+q2
3. trhway+h1[view] [source] 2025-04-03 19:07:08
>>sender+(OP)
and done purely on Presidential authority without Congress.
replies(2): >>Animal+w2 >>Izikie+S2
4. kubb+N1[view] [source] 2025-04-03 19:09:51
>>sender+(OP)
I’m curious to see how they are going to fumble this.
replies(1): >>k_roy+Mc1
◧◩
5. Izikie+q2[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-03 19:12:21
>>davidw+g1
Is this a sign republicans in congress may do something?
replies(3): >>jghn+R2 >>ncalla+G3 >>fullsh+2d
◧◩
6. Animal+w2[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-03 19:12:44
>>trhway+h1
No taxation without representation!
◧◩◪
7. jghn+R2[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-03 19:14:23
>>Izikie+q2
Only a carefully selected subset. Just enough of the most vulnerable of them so they can be on record as being against this, but not enough of them to change any outcomes.
◧◩
8. Izikie+S2[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-03 19:14:29
>>trhway+h1
Matt Levine on his column today went over this.
9. mmooss+73[view] [source] 2025-04-03 19:15:13
>>sender+(OP)
It's also a tax on everyone, to the benefit of large corporations which can now increase prices / decrease value), due to less competition.
replies(1): >>trhway+Fa
10. KerrAv+m3[view] [source] 2025-04-03 19:16:34
>>sender+(OP)
How would they get the message out even if they had one? Republicans own the media.
replies(1): >>Alexan+Ah
◧◩◪
11. ncalla+G3[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-03 19:17:53
>>Izikie+q2
I wouldn’t be surprised if we get enough Republicans in congress to pass a law taking the tariff power away from Trump, but Trump will veto that law.

I would be quite surprised if we can get enough Republicans to override that veto

12. basisw+c4[view] [source] 2025-04-03 19:20:11
>>sender+(OP)
They won’t even need to spin it. People are going to feel it very quickly.
◧◩
13. trhway+Fa[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-03 19:52:57
>>mmooss+73
Which is one of the reasons the countries with high tariffs have had worse economy overall and specifically much worse than the US economy. The higher your tariffs the worse the protected industry and the whole economy.
replies(1): >>mmooss+2h
◧◩◪
14. fullsh+2d[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-03 20:05:03
>>Izikie+q2
No, Mike Pence is a villain to Trumpist republicans. He speaks for the old guard republicans who still think this is all just a temporary blip and populism will be forgotten in 4-8 years.
15. marknu+Ed[view] [source] 2025-04-03 20:09:07
>>sender+(OP)
I thought Dems loved taxes
replies(1): >>JohnFe+Fo
16. soupfo+Qe[view] [source] 2025-04-03 20:15:56
>>sender+(OP)
Coming right on the heels of the largest layoff in US history (which is still ongoing, depending on your definition).
◧◩◪
17. mmooss+2h[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-03 20:26:48
>>trhway+Fa
Yes - with free trade, the US is the wealthiest economy in the history of the world. Economic research says it works. What is the reasoning for throwing it away?

I hear the nonsense reasoning from the Trump crowd, but many know it's nonsense even as they say it. What is their real goal here?

replies(4): >>JohnFe+2o >>Distra+gs >>jrs235+yD >>sunflo+sW
◧◩
18. Alexan+Ah[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-03 20:30:06
>>KerrAv+m3
Which media? Most "traditional" media is quite left leaning.
replies(2): >>weard_+Mr >>mostly+QK
19. rufus_+Oi[view] [source] 2025-04-03 20:36:16
>>sender+(OP)
>> Dems just need to spin these tariffs as the largest tax increase in US history

And then what? From a quick look at the 2024 Democratic Party Platform:

"Democrats will make billionaires pay a minimum income tax rate of 25 percent, raising $500 billion in 10 years. We’ll end the preferential treatment for capital gains for millionaires, so they pay the same rate on investment income as on wages"

Tax increase.

"We’ll put an end to abusive life insurance tax shelters, and stop billionaires from exploiting retirement tax incentives that are supposed to help middle-class families save"

Tax increase.

"We’ll eliminate the 'stepped-up basis' loophole for the wealthiest Americans"

Tax increase.

"Democrats will close the 'carried interest' loophole"

Tax increase.

"we’ll increase our new stock buyback tax to 4 percent"

Tax increase.

"Trump doesn’t care: he slashed the corporate tax rate to 21 percent, down from 35 percent. President Biden will raise that rate back to 28 percent"

Tax increase.

"And for those billion-dollar tax dodgers, the President signed a historic 15 percent corporate minimum tax into law"

Tax increase.

"He also reached a global minimum tax agreement with 140 countries"

Tax increase.

"Biden will double the tax rate that American multinationals pay on foreign earnings to 21 percent"

Tax increase.

"It means ending special tax breaks for corporate jets, and boosting fuel taxes on corporate and private jet travel"

Tax increase.

"We’ll also eliminate the so-called 'like-kind exchange' loophole that allows wealthy real estate investors to avoid paying taxes on real estate profits, as long as they keep investing in real estate"

Tax increase.

"It offers corporate landlords a basic choice for the next two years: either cap rent increases at 5 percent, or lose a valuable federal tax break"

Tax increase.

"We oppose the use of private-school vouchers, tuition tax credits, opportunity scholarships, and other schemes that divert taxpayer-funded resources away from public education"

Tax increase.

"Democrats will make Medicare permanently solvent, by making the wealthy pay their fair share in Medicare taxes"

Tax increase.

"To cover those costs, the law finally restored a vital 'polluter pays' tax that had lapsed 26 years before"

Tax increase.

"fight for a global minimum tax that ensures corporations pay their fair share"

Tax increase.

Spinning the tariffs as a tax increase will do what for the Dems, exactly? Democrats love taxes on corporations, do they not think the consumer bears much of the costs of those taxes?

replies(2): >>sender+Rz >>Boiled+0V
◧◩◪◨
20. JohnFe+2o[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-03 21:04:17
>>mmooss+2h
I wish I knew. Nothing I hear from that crowd makes any actual sense except one thing: they have developed such a seething hatred for more than half of their fellow citizenry that they're willing to destroy the entire country, including themselves, just to hurt them.

But that also makes no real sense. So I don't know.

replies(2): >>mmooss+Vp >>hakfoo+ci1
◧◩
21. JohnFe+Fo[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-03 21:07:27
>>marknu+Ed
Nobody loves taxes, including Democrats.
◧◩◪◨⬒
22. mmooss+Vp[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-03 21:13:28
>>JohnFe+2o
> they have developed such a seething hatred for more than half of their fellow citizenry that they're willing to destroy the entire country, including themselves, just to hurt them.

That is the people following (speaking very generally). The leaders are leading people in that direction for a reason.

replies(1): >>JohnFe+Ws
◧◩◪
23. weard_+Mr[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-03 21:22:43
>>Alexan+Ah
If you mean they're not yet state controlled mouthpieces of a conservative dictator, sure, I guess that counts as left leaning?

I see a lot of shock and gossip.

And a LOT of reporting about how the dictator is pissing off his rich enablers.

I guess if you consider the left and the right to both be bootlickers of the oligarchs we're both right.

I don't see a lot of content that supports your thesis I guess.

◧◩◪◨
24. Distra+gs[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-03 21:25:55
>>mmooss+2h
The problem is they don't think it's nonsense. They really believe this will pay down the deficit, bring jobs back to the US, make it great again.

They see it as closing loopholes - "rebadging made in China as made in Vietnam, Thailand, Japan? Nice try, Trump's smarter than that!"

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
25. JohnFe+Ws[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-03 21:29:35
>>mmooss+Vp
Yeah, I agree. But what is that reason?
replies(2): >>mmooss+nu >>sender+gz
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
26. mmooss+nu[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-03 21:37:22
>>JohnFe+Ws
Ruling out money - though domestic companies can cash in from the lack of competition, and it fits the current model of building businesses with large 'moats' so you can enshittify charge rent-extracting prices.

The other usual option is power. I think it's clear that these people will do anything, go to any extreme for power. What is the path from these tarriffs. It's also possible that they made a mistake.

In a different thread I speculated that their plan is to blame their enemies and objects of hatred for the results: >>43575061

But it seems like they need a positive result from this?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
27. sender+gz[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-03 22:10:29
>>JohnFe+Ws
I'm not sure I buy it, but this is one theory:

https://bsky.app/profile/chrismurphyct.bsky.social/post/3llu...

replies(1): >>spacem+BL
◧◩
28. sender+Rz[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-03 22:13:42
>>rufus_+Oi
Well, tariffs are about as regressive as you can get, so I fail to see the contradiction with advocating higher taxes on the wealthy.
replies(1): >>rufus_+c61
◧◩◪◨
29. jrs235+yD[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-03 22:41:31
>>mmooss+2h
To tank the economy so billionaires can scoop up more/the remaining assets for pennies on the dollar as leveraged/in debt non billionaires have to sell their homes or lose them in foreclosure.
◧◩◪
30. mostly+QK[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-03 23:44:12
>>Alexan+Ah
First of all you might want to update that assumption, but traditional media aside Zuckerberg is all in on the clown show and he owns the major social media platforms.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
31. spacem+BL[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-03 23:50:45
>>sender+gz
Seems reasonable to me. He'll pick and choose who to give relief to depending on how they bend the knee. It's still going to crash the economy and ruin the country though. In sane times, congress could take the toys away from the executive branch which is obviously abusing its powers. However, we're not in sane times.
replies(1): >>Pleasu+1R1
◧◩
32. Boiled+0V[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-04 01:30:02
>>rufus_+Oi
And it's simplistic analysis like this is why people fall for stuff like this.

Equating a tax on Billionaires to a tax on every import! A tax on corporate jets - it's laughable that people can't see the most basic economic differences in these.

◧◩◪◨
33. sunflo+sW[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-04 01:45:43
>>mmooss+2h
Power. The power to punish. The power to attempt to make people or countries do what you want. It is not economic. It only makes sense if you think like a mobster.
◧◩◪
34. rufus_+c61[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-04 03:45:01
>>sender+Rz
>> Well, tariffs are about as regressive as you can get

I don't know.

I used to be poor, maybe 60% of my income went to housing.

That wasn't imported.

My food was mostly sugar, wheat, corn, and high fructose corn syrup.

Also not imported.

Maybe the car. I had an older car that I worked on myself, but it was made in Japan.

That would be the main one.

The job I had back then is gone, I was a manual laborer and what I did for work in the early 1990's doesn't exist now, it has been automated away.

I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. It was shitty work but I didn't have to talk to anyone. Are tariffs going to bring back shitty work for people like I used to be?

Whatever happened to all those losers of the year?

◧◩
35. k_roy+Mc1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-04 05:06:00
>>kubb+N1
I wanted to argue...

then I couldn't

◧◩◪◨⬒
36. hakfoo+ci1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-04 06:14:34
>>JohnFe+2o
The bloviation on manufacturing is cargo-culting. It's a promise of a better time for an electorate that's being squeezed by ever increasing precarity. It's a rose-coloured version of 1950, when people with a high-school diploma could walk into a giant General Motors factory and get a job that paid enough to raise a family, own a house, and retire at 60 with a pension. Obviously, this was based on the US being a dominant manufacturing power.

(They neglect that what made it the dominant manufacturing power was a war that killed tens of millions and sidelined most other industrial nations, but perhaps that's plan B when this doesn't work)

As for using tarriffs to deliver the factories, they assume the US market is so vast and desirable, that it's worth building plants and full supply chains specifically for it. I'd expect that any firm that believed that had onshored their factories years ago due to plain economics, without a comical tarriff regime to spur it. (I'm thinking of how "foreign" automakers sprinkled plants all over the South making models that largely fit US preferences)

Conversely, I suspect you'll see a lot of firms say "we'll just skip the US entirely" -- the factory you built in Viet Nam or Germany can still sell cheaply to a hundred and fifty countries, and together that adds up to more than even the US can offer.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
37. Pleasu+1R1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-04 12:03:33
>>spacem+BL
Congress would need a vet-proof majority to take the toys away now, which is essentially impossible in modern times. The only way this can be resolved in is if SCOTUS rules that the executive does not have the power to tariff like this, and Trump actually stops rather than just ignoring the court order.
[go to top]