Tariffs and Trade Wars and Trump....

[Baptist Believer]

"At some point." That's the way all these predictions go. No accountability, beause they are meaningless predictions. Sometime in the next millennia we're really going to pay from Trump's tax cuts.

You seem to have trouble comprehending the idea that we are accruing debt to maintain current spending AND give tax cuts. Furthermore, President Trump wants to spend more money on infrastructure. Where's that money coming from?

That is an interesting analogy on tax cuts. So the government taking less from businesses and individuals is like getting a new credit cards. Hmmmm.

Taking less from businesses and individuals and instead BORROWING money is exactly like the careless use of a credit card.

Curious, did you know that tax cuts have always led to higher revenue collected, from Kennedy to Trump? But you think it leads to higher debt?

And you don't think increasing spending had anything to do with it?

Actually the opposite of what you claim I am saying. We have already been borrowing money. Now we are borrowing money at a higher pace. We should have kept most tax rates the same - except for lower income people - and reduced the corporate tax rate. Then we should use the increased revenue to both pay down the debt and invest in infrastructure.

What we have done is lower the rates for people who need tax relief less than most (the wealthier to the wealthiest members of society), and are borrowing money to make up for the shortfall.

I am not opposed to lowering taxes in general, but it needs to start at the bottom of the income scale and go to the top. And revenue needs to pay off debt (opening up credit for everyone) and invest in infrastructure.

 

[Calminian]

You seem to have trouble comprehending the idea that we are accruing debt to maintain current spending AND give tax cuts. Furthermore, President Trump wants to spend more money on infrastructure. Where's that money coming from?


Taking less from businesses and individuals and instead BORROWING money is exactly like the careless use of a credit card.


Actually the opposite of what you claim I am saying. We have already been borrowing money. Now we are borrowing money at a higher pace. We should have kept most tax rates the same - except for lower income people - and reduced the corporate tax rate. Then we should use the increased revenue to both pay down the debt and invest in infrastructure.

What we have done is lower the rates for people who need tax relief less than most (the wealthier to the wealthiest members of society), and are borrowing money to make up for the shortfall.

I am not opposed to lowering taxes in general, but it needs to start at the bottom of the income scale and go to the top. And revenue needs to pay off debt (opening up credit for everyone) and invest in infrastructure.

Well you dodged that question. So I'll ask a different way. Can you name a time in US history where tax cuts lead to lower revenue? Very simple question.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Well you dodged that question. So I'll ask a different way. Can you name a time in US history where tax cuts lead to lower revenue? Very simple question.

No, BUT:

(1) We have had a federal income tax for just over 100 years, so that's a short window for examination of cause and effect.

(2) All things are not equal through each stage of that 100+ years.

There is a level where the loss of government revenue from lowering taxes will no longer be replaced by the economic stimulus of the act of lowering taxes.

If you care to have a better explanation, look here and here.

 

[Calminian]

No, BUT:

Bingo. Tax cuts have never caused deficits. It's a myth, in fact high taxes can depress the economy and lower revenue.

....There is a level where the loss of government revenue from lowering taxes will no longer be replaced by the economic stimulus of the act of lowering taxes....

By all means, how low is too low? Explain your answer.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Tax cuts have never caused deficits.

As I pointed out, each point in history is unique. Conditions in one era are not the same in the other.

By all means, how low is too low? Explain your answer.

As I pointed out in the post you are responding to, if you care to have a better explanation, look here and here.

 

[Calminian]

As I pointed out, each point in history is unique. Conditions in one era are not the same in the other.


As I pointed out in the post you are responding to, if you care to have a better explanation, look here and here.

It's a pretty simple question. All you have to do is give a percentage number. How low is too low? Is 21% too low? Is 15% too l low. Why hide behind a link?

Seems to me you're afraid to go on record.

 

[Baptist Believer]

It's a pretty simple question.

Actually, it's not. If you really understood things you would know that.

All you have to do is give a percentage number. How low is too low? Is 21% too low? Is 15% too l low. Why hide behind a link?

I'm not hiding behind links. I'm simply pointing to the reality that the classic "cut taxes and increase revenues" mantra has limits. There's a point - and I don't know the exact point - where it doesn't work.

Seems to me you're afraid to go on record.

Seems to me that you are pestering me to speak beyond my knowledge. I am not the President. I don't get to speak in ignorance, change my mind, and then have you claim that it is the sign of immense genius.

 

[Calminian]

Actually, it's not. If you really understood things you would know that.....

then what are you arguing about?

 

[Baptist Believer]

then what are you arguing about?

I'm pointing out that there is a point where tax cuts will not increase revenues, and many think we are already there.

Moreover, your digression into tax policy was apparently designed to avoid discussing some really significant issues with the tariffs Trump enacted when I posted an article from the Dallas Business Journal.

Your Pollyanna confidence that Trump is somehow a financial and trade genius is not shared by everyone. The man has had many failed businesses and seems to be financially afloat only because of massive loans from Russian and Russian-influenced banks. His "product" is his name and image, not legitimate business acumen. A financial wizard doesn't build two casinos in Atlantic City that effectively compete with each other. Of course, they both failed.

Having a person like that picking winners and losers in the economy is a disaster waiting to happen. I would like to be wrong, but I don't think I am. Historically tariffs and trade wars have ended badly for everyone.

 

[Calminian]

I'm pointing out that there is a point where tax cuts will not increase revenues, and many think we are already there.

Do you think we're making less revenue? Can you cite any evidence?

Having a person like that picking winners and losers in the economy is a disaster waiting to happen. I would like to be wrong, but I don't think I am. Historically tariffs and trade wars have ended badly for everyone.

But what I don't understand is why you're okay with foreign governments picking winners and losers? Trump is now negotiating with the EU to drop some of the long term tariffs they've had on us. He's using our tariffs as a negotiating point. Isn't that a good thing?

Seems liberals are only against American tariffs, but they're totally cool with other countries doing it. As a result, we're on the short end of most trade deals. Seems really dumb of us.

 

[Baptist Believer]

But what I don't understand is why you're okay with foreign governments picking winners and losers?

I'm not okay with it.

Trump is now negotiating with the EU to drop some of the long term tariffs they've had on us. He's using our tariffs as a negotiating point. Isn't that a good thing?

If I had any confidence in Trump's financial acumen and people skills, I could possibly be optimistic. But I have seen no evidence of financial acumen and his people skills are abysmal.

Seems liberals are only against American tariffs, but they're totally cool with other countries doing i.

I don't know who you are talking about.

As a result, we're on the short end of most trade deals. Seems really dumb of us.

Many of the trade deals we have been in have purposes greater than simply trade.

For instance, the Trans-Pacific Partnership was designed to keep China from completely dominating all of the other countries along the Pacific Rim. Our pull-out of the TPP has pretty much ensured that China will have its way - unhindered - over all of the other Pacific Rim countries.

NAFTA was envisioned as a way for the US to strengthen ties with Canada and Mexico to raise the level of quality of life for all on the North American continent - especially Mexico. Having a 3rd World country on our doorstep is a liability for us in terms of national security, immigration pressures, and the environment. NAFTA was designed to open markets across the borders and stabilize the Mexican economy. It has had some modest success.

 

[Calminian]

...If I had any confidence in Trump's financial acumen and people skills, I could possibly be optimistic. But I have seen no evidence of financial acumen and his people skills are abysmal.

I get it you hate Trump. But his negotiation record is indisputable. He's the only President to even take on this issues and try to reduce other countries tariffs.

And you say you're not okay with other countries having tariffs, but what do you propose we do about it?

For instance, the Trans-Pacific Partnership was designed to keep China from completely dominating all of the other countries along the Pacific Rim. Our pull-out of the TPP has pretty much ensured that China will have its way - unhindered - over all of the other Pacific Rim countries.

NAFTA was envisioned as a way for the US to strengthen ties with Canada and Mexico to raise the level of quality of life for all on the North American continent - especially Mexico. Having a 3rd World country on our doorstep is a liability for us in terms of national security, immigration pressures, and the environment. NAFTA was designed to open markets across the borders and stabilize the Mexican economy. It has had some modest success.

Now you sound like Trump. It's amazing how he's transformed the conversation.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I get it you hate Trump.

[Edit]

A person can strongly disagree with a person -- and even think that person is a criminal -- without hating him.

But his negotiation record is indisputable.

That's simply not true. For instance, he didn't get the Trump Tower Moscow deal done, even though he was negotiating it during the campaign -- all while claiming he had no business ties or deals with Russians.

He's the only President to even take on this issues and try to reduce other countries tariffs

That's simply not true. Just looking back at the last President, Obama went after China's subsidies for their aluminum industry, filing a trade enforcement action at the WTO. The Obama administration filed challenges against China at least 25 times during the eight years of their administration.

And Presidents before Obama also fought against tariffs.

And you say you're not okay with other countries having tariffs, but what do you propose we do about it

Negotiate.

Now you sound like Trump.

Don't insult me. If you think that sounds like Trump, you are deluded.

Trump campaigned against the TPP and NAFTA. He has effectively ceded trade in the Pacific Rim to the Chinese, and he wants to build a wall in a vain attempt to separate from Mexico instead of improving conditions there that will improve our interests as well.

 

[Calminian]

Don't talk like an idiot......

Ever notice those who criticize Trump the most, have even worse temperaments than he does?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Ever notice those who criticize Trump the most, have even worse temperaments than he does?

It is because you are making an idiotic statement. You accuse me of "hating" Trump when I don't. You and other Trump sycophants do that to make it appear as if opposition to Trump is irrational. So when you accuse me of "hating Trump," you are saying I am both disobedient to Christ (we are supposed to love our enemies) and irrational.

 

[Calminian]

It is because you are making an idiotic statement. You accuse me of "hating" Trump when I don't. .....

I thought we were having a semi-civil disagreement. And do you really think hate is not an appropriate word? If you said the things to me you say about Trump, I'd certainly feel hated. The media hates him, and they say virtually the same things you say. Is it really such an idiotic inference?

 

[Baptist Believer]

I thought we were having a semi-civil disagreement.

To some degree. You keep twisting away from real issues regarding tariffs.

And do you really think hate is not an appropriate word?

I strongly dislike Trump, and I think he is a liar and a criminal, but I do not wish that he be destroyed. I hope for his confession and redemption. I also hope that justice is done, along with mercy.

If you said the things to me you say about Trump, I'd certainly feel hated.

I guess you really don't understand how someone can be quite candid and honest about another person's failures and faults without hating them. As a person who manages a team of people and conducts reviews, I can be quite candid about failures and issues without "hating" my team members. When I do have to mention unpleasant truths, they know that I do so for the sake of giving honest feedback that will help everyone.

In the context of this conversation, you are hanging the hopes of the American economy on one who has clearly demonstrated that he does not have financial acumen, self-discipline, knowledge of history and nations, and a track record of success in business. Moreover, we know that he lies constantly about things both trivial and extremely important. And we know he has lied repeatedly about his connections to Russians, the Russian government, Russian banks, his business dealings, and many other matters.

And that's not "hate," that is all based on facts.

The media hates him, and they say virtually the same things you say.

I'm sure some in the media do hate him. Many of them are just doing their jobs and get relentlessly attacked by President Trump and his supporters.

The reason that they say these things is because they can prove them, or they have reliable sources that vouch for these things being true. And, more often than not, the main thrust of the reporting from sources is often revealed to be established with solid evidence just a few months later.

Is it really such an idiotic inference?

Yes it is.

 

[Calminian]

...I strongly dislike Trump, and I think he is a liar and a criminal, but I do not wish that he be destroyed. I hope for his confession and redemption. I also hope that justice is done, along with mercy.....

I think you need to be honest and admit you hate him. Maxine Waters at least admitted it, and your unproven accusations are the same are hers. You have no evidence of a crime, yet you accuse. You're no different than her or anyone else making false accusations. That's hateful, and it's clouding every post you make. Your'e consumed.

Christianity is not about false accusations. In fact, bearing false witness made the top ten.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I think you need to be honest and admit you hate him.

If I were to say that, I would be lying. By your statement, "you need to be honest and admit...", you are calling me a liar.

Maxine Waters at least admitted it, and your unproven accusations are the same are hers.

I am not Maxine Waters. The reality that we are both dealing in similar facts does not mean that I share her views about anything else, including hatred.

You have no evidence of a crime, yet you accuse.

I have plenty of evidence that he is lying about a lot of things, including criminal matters. So your assertion "evidence of a crime" might get parsed in a weird way if I present evidence without pointing that out.

Let's just pick one objective thing to start. Candidate Trump repeatedly claimed he had no business dealings in Russia, yet he drafted a letter of intent for "Trump World Tower Moscow."

You're no different than her or anyone else making false accusations. That's hateful, and it's clouding every post you make. Your'e consumed.

False. You are the one who has been consumed by your devotion to a deceiving President.

Christianity is not about false accusations. In fact, bearing false witness made the top ten.

True. So if you are a Christian, why don't you hold President Trump accountable for his lies instead of defending them? I can understand why people voted for him - a lot of my friends and family did - but I don't understand why Christians support the continuous lies. That's quite telling.

 

[Calminian]

If I were to say that, I would be lying. By your statement, "you need to be honest and admit...", you are calling me a liar.

Liar is your word. It's the one you use for Trump.

I have plenty of evidence that he is lying about a lot of things, including criminal matters. So your assertion "evidence of a crime" might get parsed in a weird way if I present evidence without pointing that out.

Yes, I'm sure you have a load of evidence.

Let's just pick one objective thing to start. Candidate Trump repeatedly claimed he had no business dealings in Russia, yet he drafted a letter of intent for "Trump World Tower Moscow."

Wow! I mean wow! Yes, then all your hate is justified. I'm sorry, this is just hate. It's the only way to describe it. You are consumed.

True. So if you are a Christian, why don't you hold President Trump accountable....

I do hold him accountable, and I hold his critics accountable also. Right now I'm holding you accountable. Trump is actually a really good guy. Not perfect by any means, but humanly speaking he seems a good charitable patient guy, especially with the morons he has to deal with in the press. And I don't hear him making the type of false allegations you're making. If I just compared you and him, I don't think you'd like my findings.