Trump vs Harris Policy Thread - $10,000 PER KID FOR HOMESCHOOL $7,000 COST OF LIVING REDUCTION

[shadrap 164]

6 minutes ago, HotRod said:

This sounds good but I don't know how it works.  How do you put a cap on this?  What if credit card companies simply stop giving out credit because it's not profitable anymore?

Unintended consequences.

a cap on credit card interest rates will have to tied to something.  not sure what but if you tie it to something like inflation or a T-bill rate you can come up with a formula.  So the credit card could be 8% or 18% depending on certain factors.

[HotRod 35]

7 minutes ago, JuneJuly said:

You pass legislation that makes it illegal to charge more than 10%.  There are lots of businesses that run on less than 10% margin, if they need to offset implementation costs I assume they'd just make it up elsewhere, for example less CC rewards.

Or annual fees, or higher transaction fees resulting in businesses passing that along.  Sounds like it will be people with good credit that pay their balances that will suffer.

[JuneJuly 192]

9 minutes ago, HotRod said:

Or annual fees, or higher transaction fees resulting in businesses passing that along.  Sounds like it will be people with good credit that pay their balances that will suffer.

You're right.  I'm against this particular policy, it doesn't help me at all.  Let those in debt continue to be the ones that suffer.  

[Horseman 1,987]

This is truly horrifying.  CNBC is even like, WTF?

 

 

[Strike 4,814]

3 minutes ago, Horseman said:

This is truly horrifying.  CNBC is even like, WTF?

 

 

And when the property tax increases became excessive in CA they enacted Proposition 13 which caps them to very small increases annually.  The other problem with this analogy is that just as quickly as it goes up the stock market can go down.  That's why you don't tax it until the investor sells it.  And while housing prices CAN go down, they rarely do, and they never STAY down.   Stocks do go down and stay down.  Just poor analogy all around.

[Alias Detective 1,313]

39 minutes ago, JuneJuly said:

You pass legislation that makes it illegal to charge more than 10%.  There are lots of businesses that run on less than 10% margin, if they need to offset implementation costs I assume they'd just make it up elsewhere, for example less CC rewards.

You must not watch Shark Tank.

[jerryskids 6,171]

33 minutes ago, shadrap said:

a cap on credit card interest rates will have to tied to something.  not sure what but if you tie it to something like inflation or a T-bill rate you can come up with a formula.  So the credit card could be 8% or 18% depending on certain factors.

I was going to post this.  

Also, one possible unintended consequence is that CC companies will be less inclined to extend credit to higher-risk people.  IMO, that would probably be good for those people, but they wouldn't like it.

[Alias Detective 1,313]

35 minutes ago, shadrap said:

a cap on credit card interest rates will have to tied to something.  not sure what but if you tie it to something like inflation or a T-bill rate you can come up with a formula.  So the credit card could be 8% or 18% depending on certain factors.

It’s called Prime lending rate plus pick the %.

[seafoam1 2,537]

3 minutes ago, Strike said:

And when the property tax increases became excessive in CA they enacted Proposition 13 which caps them to very small increases annually.  The other problem with this analogy is that just as quickly as it goes up the stock market can go down.  That's why you don't tax it until the investor sells it.  And while housing prices CAN go down, they rarely do, and they never STAY down.   Stocks do go down and stay down.  Just poor analogy all around.

This alone should alert the country to how absolutely flocking stupid liberals are. 

[Strike 4,814]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I was going to post this.  

Also, one possible unintended consequence is that CC companies will be less inclined to extend credit to higher-risk people.  IMO, that would probably be good for those people, but they wouldn't like it.

And kiss rewards away.  The one thing Libs never understand is that corporations ALWAYS make their money.  If you take away one revenue stream they find another. 

[Tree of Knowledge 1,438]

Annual Fees and Rewards eliminated would be the first response.  Also, forget about 12 months same as cash offers.  Banks aren’t taking the hits.  

[RLLD 3,928]

1 minute ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

Annual Fees and Rewards eliminated would be the first response.  Also, forget about 12 months same as cash offers.  Banks aren’t taking the hits.  

Correct.  The companies will find other ways to remain profitable and serve their shareholders.  Government interreference rarely results in anything positive, it usually hurts people;

[HotRod 35]

13 minutes ago, Strike said:

And kiss rewards away.  The one thing Libs never understand is that corporations ALWAYS make their money.  If you take away one revenue stream they find another. 

Isn't this Trump's policy?

[Strike 4,814]

Just now, HotRod said:

Isn't this Trump's policy?

I have no idea.  I wouldn't support it from anyone.  Is that all you care about?  Who proposes something? 

[HotRod 35]

Just now, Strike said:

I have no idea.  I wouldn't support it from anyone.  Is that all you care about?  Who proposes something? 

You mentioned "libs" but it's a Trump policy.  I'm voting for Trump but don't think this is good policy either.

[Strike 4,814]

2 minutes ago, HotRod said:

You mentioned "libs" but it's a Trump policy.  I'm voting for Trump but don't think this is good policy either.

Fair enough.  Would be surprised if this is a Trump policy.  It's usually Libs that try to tell businesses how much money they can make.  Trump should know better.

[thegeneral 2,496]

If a Dem proposed this it would be pants shitting city up in here

[seafoam1 2,537]

Agenda 2025 is the new "RUSSIA!! " movement by the libs. 

 

[JuneJuly 192]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

Fair enough.  Would be surprised if this is a Trump policy.  It's usually Libs that try to tell businesses how much money they can make.  Trump should know better.

It is Trump.  But to be fair, it's "temporary" to help the working class catch up to inflation.  I missed that the first time.  

 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,164]

Trump is gonna really piss of Jews with this move.  

[The Real timschochet 5,232]

4 minutes ago, Strike said:

 It's usually Libs that try to tell businesses how much money they can make.  

Your argument in the previous post is a good one. Your statement here is absurd, but it’s a typical example of how conservatives are brainwashed about economics. Of course the Republicans interfere just as much in the marketplace as Democrats do, perhaps even more so if we really examine it. Republicans are NOT libertarian, NOT for the free market, and in the age of Trump less so than ever. Yet you and others continue to make these insipid arguments attacking Democrats for being “leftist”. It’s laughable. Grow up and face reality. There are no truly pro-free market candidates running for office that can win. Your choices are only where we interfere and how much. On the whole, Kamala Harris will interfere less in the market than Trump will. Thats all you got. 

[JuneJuly 192]

8 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

If a Dem proposed this it would be pants shitting city up in here

Keep the low IQ hot takes to the other threads please.

[Strike 4,814]

4 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Your argument in the previous post is a good one. Your statement here is absurd, but it’s a typical example of how conservatives are brainwashed about economics. Of course the Republicans interfere just as much in the marketplace as Democrats do, perhaps even more so if we really examine it. Republicans are NOT libertarian, NOT for the free market, and in the age of Trump less so than ever. Yet you and others continue to make these insipid arguments attacking Democrats for being “leftist”. It’s laughable. Grow up and face reality. There are no truly pro-free market candidates running for office that can win. Your choices are only where we interfere and how much. On the whole, Kamala Harris will interfere less in the market than Trump will. Thats all you got. 

1)  WTF are you talking about GOP vs. Dems?  I hate them both.  Never been registered with either.  Can you say that????   I hate Trump.  His POLICIES align much more with mine than Kamalatoe's.  That's the ONLY reason I'm voting for him.  I've said it a million times in the last 8 years.  I HATE defending Trump.  He's a bigger d*ck than you, and that's saying a lot.

2)  Care to actually SUPPORT the bolded assertion?  Trump isn't the one who wants to go after grocery stores, with their ridiculous 1-3% profit margin, for GOUGING.

[JuneJuly 192]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

Your argument in the previous post is a good one. Your statement here is absurd, but it’s a typical example of how conservatives are brainwashed about economics. Of course the Republicans interfere just as much in the marketplace as Democrats do, perhaps even more so if we really examine it. Republicans are NOT libertarian, NOT for the free market, and in the age of Trump less so than ever. Yet you and others continue to make these insipid arguments attacking Democrats for being “leftist”. It’s laughable. Grow up and face reality. There are no truly pro-free market candidates running for office that can win. Your choices are only where we interfere and how much. On the whole, Kamala Harris will interfere less in the market than Trump will. Thats all you got. 

 If you're going to make assertions like this please back it up with facts.  No blanket painting with broad brushes because of your feelings, keep that to the other threads please.

[thegeneral 2,496]

5 minutes ago, JuneJuly said:

Keep the low IQ hot takes to the other threads please.

It’s alter ego Friday for Rodger. So weird

Anyways, this is one hundred percent accurate. If Kamala started promising this Foxnews would melt down.

[JuneJuly 192]

9 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

It’s alter ego Friday for Rodger. So weird

Anyways, this is one hundred percent accurate. If Kamala started promising this Foxnews would melt down.

Nothing on the policy, just SIDEZZZZ.  Grow up.

[thegeneral 2,496]

7 minutes ago, JuneJuly said:

Nothing on the policy, just SIDEZZZZ.  Grow up.

it’s hard to take you seriously with different alter egos each alias has. Is this one a non-psycho shithead

Anyways, fine give 10% credit card interest. Sounds pretty priceycontrolley to me, don’t see how this is remotely possible and there would need to be a lot of things hashed out with how this would play out. Who gets the 10% rate, is it on new purchases as well, would CC’s not take on people.

I believe AOC, Liz Warren and Bernie ran something like this out. How’d that go over.

This is very much pandering from a desperate Trump.

[purdygood 306]

16 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

it’s hard to take you seriously with different alter egos each alias has. Is this one a non-psycho shithead

Anyways, fine give 10% credit card interest. Sounds pretty priceycontrolley to me, don’t see how this is remotely possible and there would need to be a lot of things hashed out with how this would play out. Who gets the 10% rate, is it on new purchases as well, would CC’s not take on people.

I believe AOC, Liz Warren and Bernie ran something like this out. How’d that go over.

This is very much pandering from a desperate Trump.

I think the CC companies are gouging at current rates.  But a 10% max interest overnight would lead to more people (mostly poor MAGAs) who don't have the money. Maxing out their CC's.(Gotta buy that fishin line!)  Filing for Bankruptcy years later (not being able to pay their bills) and Inflation increasing because companies profits go down when "their" rates have to go up to account for them not being able to pay their bills. Another policy idea spiral that Donald Trump will be dead before the Bill comes. So why does he care. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,164]

How about limiting the amount of credit losers are given? 

[Fnord 1,664]

16 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

How about limiting the amount of credit losers are given? 

COMMIE!

[The Real timschochet 5,232]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

 

2)  Care to actually SUPPORT the bolded assertion?  Trump isn't the one who wants to go after grocery stores, with their ridiculous 1-3% profit margin, for GOUGING.

Of course. Trump proposes the following: 

1. A 20% tariff on ALL imports from every other country on Earth with no exceptions. 

2. A 100% tariff on all Chinese imports. 

3. A 200% tariff on all foreign made automobiles. 
 

Most importantly: Trump can enact all of these tariffs by himself alone as President without any consent from Congress. So this isn’t just talk or conjecture. Against this you can take all of Kamala’s price control proposals and tax hikes and whatever else she proposes and it’s almost irrelevant, even if she were to somehow get it all through Congress. 
 

Given these facts, if you’re still supporting Trump over Kamala then by definition you care nothing about the marketplace and you’re essentially anti-capitalism. If you disagree with this assertion feel free to make your case. 

[purdygood 306]

54 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

How about limiting the amount of credit losers are given? 

If we limit the amount of credit losers are given, who would be left to vote for Trump?

[JuneJuly 192]

37 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Of course. Trump proposes the following: 

1. A 20% tariff on ALL imports from every other country on Earth with no exceptions. 

2. A 100% tariff on all Chinese imports. 

3. A 200% tariff on all foreign made automobiles. 
 

Most importantly: Trump can enact all of these tariffs by himself alone as President without any consent from Congress. So this isn’t just talk or conjecture. Against this you can take all of Kamala’s price control proposals and tax hikes and whatever else she proposes and it’s almost irrelevant, even if she were to somehow get it all through Congress. 
 

Given these facts, if you’re still supporting Trump over Kamala then by definition you care nothing about the marketplace and you’re essentially anti-capitalism. If you disagree with this assertion feel free to make your case. 

First you need to provide accurate numbers and then explain why the tariffs would be bad to US businesses because Kamala's statement that a 20% tariff is the same thing as a 20% sales tax has already been debunked in this thread.    Your post comes with the assumption that all tariffs are bad, that can't be true since the Harris-Biden administration left alone the largely successful tariffs Trump put in place.  

The real numbers Trump has been suggesting:

1 - 10-20% on all imports

2 - 60% on China

3 - 200% on cars from Mexico

[TrailGuy 204]

6 minutes ago, JuneJuly said:

First you need to provide accurate numbers and then explain why the tariffs would be bad to US businesses because Kamala's statement that a 20% tariff is the same thing as a 20% sales tax has already been debunked in this thread.    Your post comes with the assumption that all tariffs are bad, that can't be true since the Harris-Biden administration left alone the largely successful tariffs Trump put in place.  

The real numbers Trump has been suggesting:

1 - 10-20% on all imports

2 - 60% on China

3 - 200% on cars from Mexico

1 and 2 would kill the economy.  US Consumers will pay most if not all of that tariff.  It gets passed down to the consumer.  All economists know this.

Furthermore china will retaliate with tariffs killing our exports as well.  This is what happened with soybeans and we had to pay farmers who couldn't sell their soybeans anymore.  Madness.

Credit Card idea is bad too.

[purdygood 306]

7 minutes ago, TrailGuy said:

1 and 2 would kill the economy.  US Consumers will pay most if not all of that tariff.  It gets passed down to the consumer.  All economists know this.

Furthermore china will retaliate with tariffs killing our exports as well.  This is what happened with soybeans and we had to pay farmers who couldn't sell their soybeans anymore.  Madness.

Credit Card idea is bad too.

They think tariffs will just instantly build manufacturing plants overnight (paid for by China) and the huge corporations will be like "cool. Lets lose money in the short term.  Even though our share holder call is next week and start manufacturing in Amerca because of these Tariffs! Our stock price will totally go up! Like DJT stock!" 

[JuneJuly 192]

20 minutes ago, TrailGuy said:

1 and 2 would kill the economy.  US Consumers will pay most if not all of that tariff.  It gets passed down to the consumer.  All economists know this.

Furthermore china will retaliate with tariffs killing our exports as well.  This is what happened with soybeans and we had to pay farmers who couldn't sell their soybeans anymore.  Madness.

Credit Card idea is bad too.

Please read the entire thread, there is a whole page on tariffs, and educate yourself before making dumb statements like, "it gets passed down to the consumer, all economists know this".  That's no proof at all.  It's just saying things. 

[JuneJuly 192]

15 minutes ago, purdygood said:

They think tariffs will just instantly build manufacturing plants overnight (paid for by China) and the huge corporations will be like "cool. Lets lose money in the short term.  Even though our share holder call is next week and start manufacturing in Amerca because of these Tariffs! Our stock price will totally go up! Like DJT stock!" 

Save your child-level thoughts for the other threads.  Just facts in here please.  

[TrailGuy 204]

7 minutes ago, JuneJuly said:

Please read the entire thread, there is a whole page on tariffs, and educate yourself before making dumb statements like, "it gets passed down to the consumer, all economists know this".  That's no proof at all.  It's just saying things. 

I read through the whole thread.  You previously denied that Trump wanted an across the board tariff and even called it dumb.

 

On 9/12/2024 at 3:04 PM, JuneJuly said:

Trump says all kinds of stuff.  There isn't a percentage in Agenda 47.  It may or may not get passed down to the consumer, or offset by reduction in other taxes.  Our conversation that past couple hours illustrates that.

20% tariff across the board is dumb. 

Now you're saying he's proposing a 10-20% across the board tariff

46 minutes ago, JuneJuly said:

First you need to provide accurate numbers and then explain why the tariffs would be bad to US businesses because Kamala's statement that a 20% tariff is the same thing as a 20% sales tax has already been debunked in this thread.    Your post comes with the assumption that all tariffs are bad, that can't be true since the Harris-Biden administration left alone the largely successful tariffs Trump put in place.  

The real numbers Trump has been suggesting:

1 - 10-20% on all imports

2 - 60% on China

3 - 200% on cars from Mexico

So is it still dumb?  If you still feel that way then we agree.

And here is the best proof we have that shows that consumers have paid for the trump tariffs already:

https://www.cato.org/blog/americans-paid-trump-tariffs-would-do-so-again

[The Real timschochet 5,232]

52 minutes ago, JuneJuly said:

First you need to provide accurate numbers and then explain why the tariffs would be bad to US businesses because Kamala's statement that a 20% tariff is the same thing as a 20% sales tax has already been debunked in this thread.    Your post comes with the assumption that all tariffs are bad, that can't be true since the Harris-Biden administration left alone the largely successful tariffs Trump put in place.  

The real numbers Trump has been suggesting:

1 - 10-20% on all imports

2 - 60% on China

3 - 200% on cars from Mexico

First off your information is incorrect. He started with 10% then went to 20%. It’s not between 10 and 20%. However even 10% would be catastrophic. So would 60% on China (that could also threaten a war with China BTW) but I have heard him say 100%. Yesterday he said 200% on all foreign cars not just Mexico, but again even on Mexico would lead to terrible results. 
 

Next I’m not going to get into some silly game of whether or not tariffs are actually sales tax. The point is they would be devastating to our economy, far far worse than anything Kamala is proposing. 
 

Finally while personally I believe that all tariffs are bad and strongly disapprove of what Biden has done regarding this issue, it’s irrelevant, because the new tariffs proposed by Trump would be so much worse than anything we’ve ever done in our history (even including Smoot-Hawley which caused the Great Depression) that you can’t really compare. 

[JuneJuly 192]

17 minutes ago, TrailGuy said:

I read through the whole thread.  You previously denied that Trump wanted an across the board tariff and even called it dumb.

 

Now you're saying he's proposing a 10-20% across the board tariff

So is it still dumb?  If you still feel that way then we agree.

And here is the best proof we have that shows that consumers have paid for the trump tariffs already:

https://www.cato.org/blog/americans-paid-trump-tariffs-would-do-so-again

Why would I deny it and call it dumb at the same time?  

There is no doubt he's claiming an across the board tariff, he says it at every event.  But there is no published number in the written plan nor commitment to across the board, that's what this thread was primarily based on.  And I think that would be dumb.  It should be done strategically like he did last time.

A libertarian think tank pushing for free market, that's hardly a revelation.  Instead of spending a bunch of time showing CATO's bias to their interests I'll just counter with why didn't Harris-Biden get rid of them then?