Tracking toy tariffs

I vote Dem to choose the foe I’d rather fight and feel I can fight more successfully, and that’s that.
And fuck yeah, Damien. I’ve definitely been censoring myself for decorum, which is kinda bullshit on my part. One of my clients once came in and described in detail how they absolutely laid out a Nazi selling “Let’s Go Brandon” merchandise and yelling at folks on a street corner, and I straight-up applauded them. This being a client whose parents tried to have them fucking exorcized for being trans.

Yeah. I’m never gonna be OK with these people. Or the people that enable them and prop them up with feckless inaction in service of the status quo.
 
I think the past ten to 15 years have really cemented in that there are a hell of a lot more me-first, me-only people in the world than a lot of people realized. One of those things I wish I'd been wrong about (I used to get so much grief for my pessimism when I'd say at least half of people don't care at all about other people, probably most). If anything, we can really say that the thought that the arc of history curves toward good isn't accurate.
Over the last few years, I came to the conclusion that the majority of people are good. But by majority, I mean like 50.1%. The last election seriously challenged that.

That MLK quote is unfortunate without the context of the rest of his beliefs. King always saw the good in people, but he also knew we were in a dogfight. On its own, it makes it seem like a just world is inevitable. It's not.
Honestly, I'm probably more of a left-wing extremist than anything I've seen anyone saying so far.
No, the rest of us live in the United States and know we'll find ourselves in an unmarked car headed for El Salvador if we get too candid.
The reality is that both sides have failed us, because both sides have the same boss.
I'm always cautious about this. I think the left can go overboard when criticizing Democrats. I'm not saying Chuck Schumer shouldn't be thrown out of leadership and replaced as soon as he can be primaried, but I don't like letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. I think demonizing all politicians leads to cynicism and defeatism, and that leads to reliable Democrats sitting out elections instead of voting.

I'm not saying Nancy "Insider Trading" Pelosi or Chuck "College Protesters Have Gone Too Far" Schumer are good enough, I just don't like equating them with Mitch McConnell, a man responsible for the death of the American republic.

I can't even begin to count the number of times I've seen someone say that Harris would be no different or only slightly better than Trump. I think everyone in this thread knows that's not true. It's exhausting.
 
I'm not saying Nancy "Insider Trading" Pelosi or Chuck "College Protesters Have Gone Too Far" Schumer are good enough, I just don't like equating them with Mitch McConnell, a man responsible for the death of the American republic.

I can't even begin to count the number of times I've seen someone say that Harris would be no different or only slightly better than Trump. I think everyone in this thread knows that's not true. It's exhausting.
Very true. I don't have to accept these folks as good options to know they're far from the worst we could (and now do) have. Like I said earlier, harm reduction. I know nobody in the current political landscape has the appetite for, as a random example, prison abolition, but there are still tangible benefits to some candidates over others, even if those benefits are simply "won't kill AS MANY people with their policies". And I understand the system itself has a forward momentum that any one candidate simply cannot stop. Assuming we don't do total collapse (and I do not want total collapse, nor should anyone else if they know how often that makes things worse), it would still be decades of unmaking the system we have. It would be a lifetime project for at least a full generation of public servants.
 
No, the rest of us live in the United States and know we'll find ourselves in an unmarked car headed for El Salvador if we get too candid.

I'd laugh, but it's not even funny.
But let me clarify -- I think we're saying kind of the same thing. I definitely didn't mean to come off 'I'm more lefty than anyone here.' That's why I specified more than I've seen -said- by anyone. I'm maybe a little tongue-in-cheek pointing out that I do think some, maybe not all, are holding back certain opinions. I'm with you guys, and I'm more comfortable saying it because I'm slightly safer.

Honestly, sometimes I wonder right now how the Canadian government would react if an arrest warrant was issued for me based on some of the shit I've said publicly. I know it's not going to happen and I'm 100% not that important. But it's wild that it's even become a thought that would cross my mind. I've openly advocated, for example on Old Fwoosh, in actual public settings, on Facebok, etc, for the jailing and even execution of traitorous scumbag right-wingers that have actively harmed the country and its citizens with evil policies. I think the entire Republican side of the aisle needs their own Nuremberg trials -- with a more satisfactory conclusion than the original ones. No re-integration; hang them all.

I also openly advocate for the execution of billionaires. Their empires are built on suffering and they have proven, time and again, that they do not care and will continue to cause suffering in order to remain the most wealthy people on earth.

But how long am I going to get away with saying this stuff as an American citizen. Even living abroad. It's not like Canada is a bastion of free speech and anarcho-communist thought either. Trudeau stepped down (and he sucked, to be clear), and now the PM position is being fought over by someone that would spend his entire life licking the underside of Trump's balls, or a full on right-wing banker masquerading as 'liberal.' Because, just like in the US, very few people on the 'Left' politically are actually leftists. They're all corporate centrists.



That MLK quote is unfortunate without the context of the rest of his beliefs. King always saw the good in people, but he also knew we were in a dogfight. On its own, it makes it seem like a just world is inevitable. It's not.

King believed in non-violent revolution.
And they shot him. And black people are still second-class citizens.
Nonviolence doesn't work and it never has.


I'm always cautious about this. I think the left can go overboard when criticizing Democrats. I'm not saying Chuck Schumer shouldn't be thrown out of leadership and replaced as soon as he can be primaried, but I don't like letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. I think demonizing all politicians leads to cynicism and defeatism, and that leads to reliable Democrats sitting out elections instead of voting.

I'm not saying Nancy "Insider Trading" Pelosi or Chuck "College Protesters Have Gone Too Far" Schumer are good enough, I just don't like equating them with Mitch McConnell, a man responsible for the death of the American republic.

I can't even begin to count the number of times I've seen someone say that Harris would be no different or only slightly better than Trump. I think everyone in this thread knows that's not true. It's exhausting.

Yeah, I think there's an overreaction by some. Or maybe some high level hyperbole. Harris obviously would have been FAR better than Trump. The question is - would Harris have changed things, or would Harris have just maintained the status quo to the point where we could still end up with Trump or someone exactly like him? That's the problem.

Biden was one of the best presidents of my lifetime, in terms of policy. That's not only fucking sad as fucking fuck - because he kind of sucked - but it literally ended with another Trump term and now the US is in worst shape than it has been in over 100 years. These non-Republican presidents and representatives spend years and years doing absolutely nothing. Yes, that's better than the massive harm caused by their Republican buddies. But it's still nothing. It still sets us up to fail later. They're stop-gap measures and nothing more. Points of peace between the years of suffering Republicans cause every time they have power.

And that's not enough. And I think that's what some people mean when they say Harris is no better than Trump. Because a Harris presidency doesn't protect us from a Trump presidency. It simply pushes it back by 4, or maybe 8 years. The fact that your George Ws and your Trumps can even come along and inflict the abject horror and misery that they have is proof positive that a Harris or a Biden presidency is functionally worthless. And, on some level, that does make it just as bad. Because it's not even LASTING harm reduction. It's false security and it allows people to remain complacent because they keep believing that if we just stick it out the system will 'rescue us,' without realizing that rescue is not a rescue - it's a temporary respite. It's a boat showing up to throw you a life preserver in the middle of the ocean and then motoring away. Great. I'm not going to die today. Thanks, boat.


But it's also absolutely not wrong to say that Democrats, even the bad ones, inflict less harm than Republicans, even the good ones. I'm also not prepared to say there are NO truly good Democrats. Of course not. That would be ridiculous. In the system we have, anyone that actually truly wants to do good would need to register as a Dem. You'll never gain any political power as an independent and therefore will never affect any lasting change.
AOC is great. I love her. The entire 'girl squad' is great. Bernie is great. There's a few others. But these are pebbles on a beach. It's not enough. And many of their colleagues are fully in collusion with the Right. Hell, some of them ARE Republicans that ran as Democrats for any number of reasons (Sinema, Manchin both come to mind). And we have no systems in place to protect ourselves from the slow slide to the Right that the Democrats have fallen into. The system is rigged. And it's rigged because they all serve the same master. Hell, that's why we're seeing the Democratic leadership literally rigging the system against their OWN members to avoid people like AOC having any significant sway.

Anyway... fucking term limits, at least. Come on. The fact that it's been decades of asking for it and it still hasn't happened has proven that Democrats aren't interested in anything but their own power - as a group at least.
 
Last edited:
I get the desire to project some strategy onto Trump. It gives hope to a hopeless situation.
That's not it, and he's not playing 4D chess. I'm not looking for hope, I'm just assuming that when he's gung-ho about anything like he has been about tariffs it's because someone turned him onto the idea that thing will benefit him in some way. Does he really think immigration is the huge problem that he essentially invented on a scale not seen during any of our lifetimes? No, someone--maybe Bannon, maybe Cohn, who knows really--taught him that's what politicians throughout history have done to move public opinion in their direction.

The more I think about this the simpler it gets--tariffs are essentially a tax on the poor, and he's got until the end of this year to renew the 2017 tax cuts. My current hypothesis is he wants to maximize tariffs to whatever extent he can so he can turbo-charge his tax cuts for the rich when the current tax cuts expire. I'm sure he'd love to just eliminate federal income tax entirely, but given that the math I can find is that tariffs generate roughly $80 billion per year before 2025 and the IRS brings in a bit under $4 trillion per year he can't get rid of it entirely. I mean, he probably could if he eliminated Medicare and all defense spending, but there's no indication that DOGE is doing either of those things, so it looks like he's just trying to maximize tax cuts in a way his base won't notice. They're certainly going to notice higher prices, but he will likely cut a measly amount of taxes for 90% of us and probably send out some "Liberation Day" checks to everyone to make the people not paying much attention feel better about the taxes they're paying on every foreign good they're buying.

The annual estimates I'm seeing for how much the new tariffs will generate in total with old tariffs included is around $400 to $600 billion per year. That's a lot of money to play with transferring from the poor to the rich.
 
e more I think about this the simpler it gets--tariffs are essentially a tax on the poor, and he's got until the end of this year to renew the 2017 tax cuts. My current hypothesis is he wants to maximize tariffs to whatever extent he can so he can turbo-charge his tax cuts for the rich when the current tax cuts expire. I'm sure he'd love to just eliminate federal income tax entirely, but given that the math I can find is that tariffs generate roughly $80 billion per year before 2025 and the IRS brings in a bit under $4 trillion per year he can't get rid of it entirely. I mean, he probably could if he eliminated Medicare and all defense spending, but there's no indication that DOGE is doing either of those t
It's even simpler. One of Trump's former officials di some tell-all thing, I think a book? and actually talked about why Trump is obsessed with tariffs. It's literally as simple as 'because it's personal power.' He can just do it. No one is stopping him. Same thing with ICE raids and 'deportations' (we have to stop calling them that, since these are actually not deportations). It's ways in which King Trump can wield completely unchecked power and force everyone to come grovelling to him for relief. That's it. He just wants to be the King and he loves doing anything where he doesn't even have to pretend to ask for permission.
And that's coming from a former Trump official and sounds fairly legit.
 
Harris obviously would have been FAR better than Trump. The question is - would Harris have changed things, or would Harris have just maintained the status quo to the point where we could still end up with Trump or someone exactly like him? That's the problem.

Biden was one of the best presidents of my lifetime, in terms of policy. That's not only fucking sad as fucking fuck - because he kind of sucked - but it literally ended with another Trump term and now the US is in worst shape than it has been in over 100 years. These non-Republican presidents and representatives spend years and years doing absolutely nothing. Yes, that's better than the massive harm caused by their Republican buddies. But it's still nothing. It still sets us up to fail later. They're stop-gap measures and nothing more. Points of peace between the years of suffering Republicans cause every time they have power.

And that's not enough. And I think that's what some people mean when they say Harris is no better than Trump. Because a Harris presidency doesn't protect us from a Trump presidency. It simply pushes it back by 4, or maybe 8 years. The fact that your George Ws and your Trumps can even come along and inflict the abject horror and misery that they have is proof positive that a Harris or a Biden presidency is functionally worthless. And, on some level, that does make it just as bad. Because it's not even LASTING harm reduction. It's false security and it allows people to remain complacent because they keep believing that if we just stick it out the system will 'rescue us,' without realizing that rescue is not a rescue - it's a temporary respite. It's a boat showing up to throw you a life preserver in the middle of the ocean and then motoring away. Great. I'm not going to die today. Thanks, boat.
If I could communicate one thing to normies, it's that we're in the middle of a Constitutional crisis now. We have been since the Supreme Court stole the 2000 election. The right has been ratcheting up authoritarianism in this country since... Nixon? And all Democrats do is tread water for a few years before handing power back to the arsonists. There are several inexact metaphors in there, but you get the point.
And many of their colleagues are fully in collusion with the Right. Hell, some of them ARE Republicans that ran as Democrats for any number of reasons (Sinema, Manchin both come to mind). And we have no systems in place to protect ourselves from the slow slide to the Right that the Democrats have fallen into. The system is rigged. And it's rigged because they all serve the same master. Hell, that's why we're seeing the Democratic leadership literally rigging the system against their OWN members to avoid people like AOC having any significant sway.
This is the only thing that raises my hackles. Manchin may well have cost Democrats the last election by killing the child tax credit and dooming thousands of kids to poverty. No matter what the Democratic majority is, though, there always seems to be enough bad apples to kill the good thing. Want to raise minimum wage? Sinema (hand-picked by D leadership if I'm not mistaken) says no. Want public health care in the United States? Joe Lieberman (rest in piss) says no in favor of Obamacare. Now it's Fetterman, who ran as a progressive. We always manage to settle for half a good thing. Is it that there are just enough power-hungry, evil people running for election as Democrats to derail things? Probably. But it does bring out the conspiracy theorist in me.
 
It's even simpler. One of Trump's former officials di some tell-all thing, I think a book? and actually talked about why Trump is obsessed with tariffs. It's literally as simple as 'because it's personal power.' He can just do it. No one is stopping him. Same thing with ICE raids and 'deportations' (we have to stop calling them that, since these are actually not deportations). It's ways in which King Trump can wield completely unchecked power and force everyone to come grovelling to him for relief. That's it. He just wants to be the King and he loves doing anything where he doesn't even have to pretend to ask for permission.
And that's coming from a former Trump official and sounds fairly legit.

I could see that back when I watched the first season of the Apprentice in whatever year that was. He loves firing people because it fills that hole his dad left in his soul however that happened, and as you describe wielding power gives him a rush.

But whenever he's consistently lied for as long as he has now about tariffs (they're paid by foreign countries, which they aren't) it's because he's executing a grift. The grift is simple--tax the poor in a way they don't realize is a tax, and use that money to reduce his own taxes. He hates when his decisions tank the stock market because a certain percentage of his own investments get affected by that, so my guess is he's had whatever scumbag economists he's found work out some math for how much he stands to gain from a new giant tax cut. As long as his own investments aren't affected by that much he doesn't care how much the market tanks until it gets past the point where he's costing himself money, at which point he'll back off of the tariffs.

If this is the game we'll know it once we see whatever bill gets introduced later this year. If it's a simple renewal of the current cuts then either the turbo-charged tax cuts hypothesis is wrong, or the tariffs backfired and couldn't generate enough income due to recession. But he'll back off of them long before that bill is due if the market gets too badly impacted. If the market doesn't tank too bad, we don't go into a recession, and we see a new round of bigger tax cuts then his game worked.

He's been dodging taxes his entire adult life, and I'm sure he learned a lot of that from his dad. A new tax dodge isn't 4D chess, it's just more of what he's been doing for decades.
 
That's not it, and he's not playing 4D chess. I'm not looking for hope, I'm just assuming that when he's gung-ho about anything like he has been about tariffs it's because someone turned him onto the idea that thing will benefit him in some way. Does he really think immigration is the huge problem that he essentially invented on a scale not seen during any of our lifetimes? No, someone--maybe Bannon, maybe Cohn, who knows really--taught him that's what politicians throughout history have done to move public opinion in their direction.
I don't think Donald Trump is a political wizard. I think he got incredibly lucky running on racial animosity at the end of our first Black president's term. If any person in a position of power held him to account, we wouldn't be in this boat. I can point to at least five people in the last four years who passed the buck yet again.

He doesn't do it because it moves public opinion. Sending a 75-year-old grandmother to Gitmo isn't popular. It's cruel. He does it because he's a racist.
The more I think about this the simpler it gets--tariffs are essentially a tax on the poor
Yes. Workers got too much power during the Biden years. They want to send us back to indentured servitude.
My current hypothesis is he wants to maximize tariffs to whatever extent he can so he can turbo-charge his tax cuts for the rich when the current tax cuts expire.
This assumes that he cares about the deficit, which he doesn't. No Republican does. It's just a way to bully the press into asking Democrats how they'll pay for things. They'll pass the tax cuts no matter how much they cost. It's the last remaining certainty of this presidency.
I'm sure he'd love to just eliminate federal income tax entirely, but given that the math I can find is that tariffs generate roughly $80 billion per year before 2025 and the IRS brings in a bit under $4 trillion per year he can't get rid of it entirely.
This is not so much conjecture as what Trump has already said.
 
If that manages to work out we can never call them adult collectibles again. We will have to accept toys or even dolls just to make sure our collectibles don't get reclassified back into a tariffed category.
 
I was making similar points to my (thankful leftists but more centrist than me) parents. Billionaires can’t really make any more money. It’s borderline meaningless. They only way left for them to have more power is for all of us to have less.
 
So many of our nation’s problem trace from us not hanging 5 or 6 dozen Confederate leaders at the end of the Civil War instead of allowing them to become University Presidents, mayors and sheriffs. Occupation of the South should have been similar to the occupation of Japan in the 40s and 50s
 
This assumes that he cares about the deficit, which he doesn't. No Republican does

A bunch of them do, but certainly the vast majority don't. I said on Friday I had seen no evidence he cares about the deficit, but I forgot that the Freedom Caucus mostly does. He's not going after the military or Medicare because he knows he couldn't get that through Congress, so he's cutting as much as he can that benefit poor and middle class people to get the votes he needs on bigger tax cuts. That's essentially what Musk's real goal is--cut as much as you can this year, and we'll use those savings for bigger tax cuts at the end of this year. What happens after that doesn't matter--maybe we start some programs back up, maybe we don't. Whatever it takes to create more money for us to get the new tax bill through. I bet the tariffs don't even last that long. They only have to last until he gets a new tax bill passed.

The plan fails if the economy tanks too much, or if Congress sees through what he's doing and realizes that he's going to explode the deficit over the last few years of his term and the beginning of the next president's term. I'm expecting the latter--that enough people in Congress loathe what he's doing so much that he can't get his bill passed. We'll see whether the Freedom Caucus cares about the deficit as much as they say they do, because everything he and Musk are doing seem EXTRAORDINARILY expensive over the moderate short-term, i.e. the next 1 to 10 years. Every dollar Musk is "saving" to get tax cuts will result in $2 to $50 in civil suit costs, inefficiency costs, damage control costs, etc etc.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top