|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Absolutely heartbreaking. This family isn't trying to secretly sneak drugs into this country, or any other devious, dangerous, violent scheme; they had gone through the proper immigration checkpoints every time, with medical and legal documentation, to make sure their 10-year-old daughter *who is a U.S. citizen* can be treated for her brain cancer. Except now - under the Trump administration - the rules have changed, and the people who are ruining this country get to continue destroying the lives of their victims.
U.S. citizen child recovering from brain cancer removed to Mexico with undocumented parents
The Texas family was on their way to an emergency medical checkup, they said, when they were detained at an immigration checkpoint.
A family that was deported to Mexico hopes they can find a way to return to the U.S. and ensure their 10-year-old daughter, who is a U.S. citizen, can continue her brain cancer treatment.
Immigration authorities removed the girl and four of her American siblings from Texas on Feb. 4, when they deported their undocumented parents.
The family’s ordeal began last month, when they were rushing from Rio Grande City, where they lived, to Houston, where their daughter’s specialist doctors are based, for an emergency medical checkup.
The parents had done the trip at least five other times in the past, passing through an immigration checkpoint every time without any issues, according to attorney Danny Woodward from the Texas Civil Rights Project, a legal advocacy and litigation organization representing the family. In previous occasions, the parents showed letters from their doctors and lawyers to the officers at the checkpoint to get through.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/us-citizen-child-recovering-brain-cancer-deported-mexico-undocumented-rcna196049?fbclid=IwY2xjawJDoRdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHV1sAtz-1jZSaxlE0dNHrQBDHbRndivXWQRqyPtPN3dJ-5v7frXVlVIdQA_aem_mB2dQmy6v84-o93zkqg1EA
|
Norway28665 Posts
On March 16 2025 18:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2025 12:26 Introvert wrote:On March 16 2025 05:41 KwarK wrote:On March 16 2025 02:38 Introvert wrote:
American nukes aren't going anywhere. The umbrella is already gone. Can you really tell us with a straight face that if Russia invaded Estonia and Putin promised a nuclear exchange of America intervened then Trump wouldn’t be there on tv saying that Estonia had always been a part of Russia? It's hard to imagine any president of the past 30 years or more who would get into a nuclear exchange in that scenario. America isn't even the only NATO power with nukes and I don't see any of them doing it, either. People seem to believe that Trump wants the Russians out and about expanding. That's wrong. another late edit: this is in response to your particular hypothetical btw. The point is that I don't think America is less likely to use nukes than it was say, a decade ago. I'm interested in why you think Trump doesn't want Russia out and about when he doesn't appear to offer any real resistance to their aggressive war of expansion.
I mean not only is there no resistance, he did literally say 'I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want' (to countries that don't meet the spending requirements). I think Trump wants to weaken Europe through whatever means possible, because a weaker Europe is more likely to accept being bullied and that's what Trump wants to do. He doesn't consider us an ally - he doesn't even consider Canada an ally - and Trump being president of the US makes it abundantly clear to Europe that we can no longer rely on the US. The silver lining is that this seems obvious to almost the entire political spectrum - at least in Norway, even the progress party's leadership is appalled by Trump, and these are politicians that have had pictures of Reagan placed prominently within their government offices or cited Ayn Rand as a great political inspiration.
|
United States24678 Posts
On March 16 2025 13:09 Hat Trick of Today wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2025 19:13 micronesia wrote:On March 12 2025 16:37 Hat Trick of Today wrote:On March 12 2025 16:31 Silvanel wrote:EU imposes retaliatory measures in response to Trump tariffs: www.bbc.comI wonder what will happen next, will Brazil, Australia and other steel producing countries follow suit? Australia is not going to do anything, this is the country whose previous conservative Prime Minister got scammed by the American government for some submarines that will never be delivered. Whose current moderate Prime Minister is continuing the charade for reasons no one can comprehend.Getting scammed is one thing but Australia was previously in a deal with France for some more sensible submarines they would be able to maintain without America’s help and also be built by local shipbuilders iirc. In order for Australia to enter this scam for submarines that will never be delivered, they infamously told France to get fucked in the process and had to pay a breach of contract penalty if I’m not misremembering the situation. Can you state why you think the AUKUS agreement (submarines portion) is literally a scam? There definitely are concerns that the project won't complete, but that's different than it being a scam. I’ve gotten back from work so I’ll respond to your question. If we assume a scam to be a dishonest scheme or something designed to swindle one party, that is exactly the AUKUS arrangement for Australia. We don't really need to assume what a scam is... I think we're all okay there.
The whole main selling point of AUKUS is to provide a free, open and secure the Indo-Pacific. Pillar 1 of the arrangement involves Australia obtaining nuclear powered submarines and to be a rotating force of UK and US nuclear powered submarines in the region. Reading between the lines at the time of the treaty, you can safely assume it’s all about China. I see you are tracking the wikipedia article pretty reliably  In fairness, what you have written here is reasonable.
This is already a scam because just look at geographics. You can definitely put together a position that it's not a worthwhile deal, but it's a much bigger step to show it's a scam. Are you going to now argue that Australia is unfamiliar with geography? Did the USA show them a doctored globe or something?
A few nuclear powered submarines does not really deter an unlikely regional conflict between Indonesia and Australia any better than more than a few conventionally powered shallow water submarines would. I say Indonesia because that has long been seen a potential immediate threat to Australian sovereignty in the eyes of the ADF if I’m not mistaken. Is this something that the USA representatives misrepresented in their initial discussions with their Australian counterparts?
Such a conflict wouldn’t eventuate in the near future, as much as Australia has mismanaged their diplomatic responsibilities in the region, because there’s just no will to not attempt to smooth over relations diplomatically like it has been done in the past.
The nuclear powered submarines also do nothing to deter the region becoming more and more interlinked with China because China’s approach in the region is less through military might but through economic integration. I know about the man-made islands and 9 dotted line maritime dispute, it still does not change the fact that submarines do nothing against countries (eg the recent Solomon Islands diplomatic crisis) that are willingly accepting Chinese aid because of a vacuum produced by Australian inaction from mostly the Liberal National Party and the United States being what it is right now. Is there evidence that the USA (and UK) participants in the talk were not up-front about what the nuclear technology does and does not enable?
So what does Australia get out of these nuclear submarines they are purchasing? It solely exists to project American interests and doesn’t really improve Australian interests in the region. You could actually argue that it is actually antagonistic considering how the US approaches diplomacy in recent years. It’s not like Republicans and Democrats have gotten any less hawkish and self interested, in fact there’s an argument they are even more so and completely leaning into transactional diplomacy. The goal is to "teach a man to fish" rather than "give a man a fish," so I'm not sure I'm following. You can definitely make a case that the challenge of teaching the man to fish here was not fully bounded and understood, but that's different than a scam.
Then we’ve got to talk about the actual submarines in question. As a stop gap, the solution is for Australia to buy three Virginia class submarines. A product that Australia does not have the infrastructure to maintain, does not provide jobs to the domestic mob that built the fantastic Collins class submarines that are meant to be retired, does not have the manpower to properly operate, and was part of a class action lawsuit regarding materials fraud iirc. Australia is working together with allies to build up the infrastructure and train personnel. What you are describing is concerning, but not supporting your scam claim from what I can tell. I'm also not sure what your point is about a "class action lawsuit."
To make things worse, the actual product is not even coming any time soon because of shipbuilding delays and backlogs from American shipbuilders. Then we’ve got the SSN-AUKUS, which is almost never going to eventuate at this rate. All the while Australia has been making AUKUS payments (eg $500 million in February this year) that are effectively investments in US and UK shipbuilding capabilities while it gets pretty much nothing in return. I think the best case you are making is that the US (and maybe UK) oversold their current capacity for producing nuclear-powered subs, but there's still the hurdle to get over that this was with intention to mislead. I also wouldn't agree that Australia is getting nothing. They are receiving a ton of support getting themselves ready to both maintain and eventually construct nuclear-powered submarines. It's too soon to say if the effort will be successful, but it's not "pretty much nothing" at this point.
I can only assume this was done by Scott Morrison to further entrench American interest in Australia. Because to enter the AUKUS arrangement involved suddenly breaking a previously signed contract for conventionally powered submarines from France, involving Australia paying both monetarily and diplomatically. A complete debacle. I won't object to any accusations you have of the Australian government misleading its own people (and this wouldn't really be the thread to do so).
After all the dust has settled, what exactly does Australia get from AUKUS that they couldn’t get from buying submarines from France, Japan or from themselves (eg a newer, smaller Collins 2.0)? Right now Australia is just buying an insurance policy from the United States at a time where one half of the country was shown from 2016 onwards to have contempt for everyone not American.
They get some of the most game-changing naval technology in history... especially if you look beyond just the short term. The USA and UK do not share this stuff willy-nilly. That's not to say the AUKUS deal was fully thought out with all challenges understood from the get-go, but you don't seem to understand why a country not already in the US/UK nuclear-propulsion sharing arrangement would want to get in there. Australia really wants this tech, and the USA/UK are basically selling it "at cost" due to shared interests. The cost is indeed high, though.
I won't disagree it's a troubled program, but I'm really not seeing support of "it's a scam." I work with a lot of people involved, and from everything I've seen, the goal has been to make this work, not just obtain some benefit for the home country before it collapses.
|
|
|
On March 16 2025 19:00 KT_Elwood wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2025 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2025 02:52 WombaT wrote:On March 16 2025 02:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2025 01:34 WombaT wrote:On March 15 2025 06:21 Husyelt wrote:schumer you pig f*ck just voted against your own leverage and power. co equal branches of gov is woke now. www.wsj.com I’m genuinely unsure on how I feel about playing the shutdown card in the current epoch, for the record. Anyway However, having read a bunch of different perspectives on this, one bit of commonality does somewhat stick out, which is that Schumer kinda blindsided folks here. It’s one thing to crack the whip, it’s quite another to pull the rug out late doors. If you’re not gonna do it, let it be known, even if it’s just internally. Instead you end up with a bunch of Dems laying their cards on the table and just undermine that at the last. Baffling politics really MAGAHorizons: The adults had to pass bipartisan legislation to keep the government open and move Trump's agenda forward. Schumer did the right thing, even if he pretended he wouldn't. I think Magahorizons is too much even for me haha MAGAHorizons: Because I'm right and any MAGA supporter being right about anything is too much for libs to handle? This is really getting confusing.
Next step is multiple of them in same post talking to each other.
|
On March 16 2025 18:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2025 12:26 Introvert wrote:On March 16 2025 05:41 KwarK wrote:On March 16 2025 02:38 Introvert wrote:
American nukes aren't going anywhere. The umbrella is already gone. Can you really tell us with a straight face that if Russia invaded Estonia and Putin promised a nuclear exchange of America intervened then Trump wouldn’t be there on tv saying that Estonia had always been a part of Russia? It's hard to imagine any president of the past 30 years or more who would get into a nuclear exchange in that scenario. America isn't even the only NATO power with nukes and I don't see any of them doing it, either. People seem to believe that Trump wants the Russians out and about expanding. That's wrong. another late edit: this is in response to your particular hypothetical btw. The point is that I don't think America is less likely to use nukes than it was say, a decade ago. I'm interested in why you think Trump doesn't want Russia out and about when he doesn't appear to offer any real resistance to their aggressive war of expansion.
He literally told Putin to do whatever he wants with NATO allies who don't spend 2% of their GDP on defence.
|
i am met with fierce opposition when i say "Canada exists to sell stuff to Americans".
Well, Mississauga is a city of 815,000 and it is set to lose 600,000 jobs due to the trade war.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/article/mississauga-removes-us-flags-from-sports-arenas-pier/
Earlier this month, as the tariffs took effect, Parrish warned that her city, a manufacturing and trade hub, would be impacted and could potentially see the loss of 600,000 jobs.
You're never going to properly tax the wealth of the British Royal family or the 30 richest families on earth with a change in various tax systems. However, a proper tax system can fairly and proportionally tax everyone other than that extremely small group.
If you want to properly tax the group i mentioned you must start by guillotining Louis the 16th. Once you kill one of them.. they'll start to listen.
|
On March 16 2025 22:18 JimmyJRaynor wrote:You're never going to properly tax the wealth of the British Royal family or the 30 richest families on earth with a change in various tax systems. However, a proper tax system can fairly and proportionally tax everyone other than that extremely small group. If you want to properly tax the group i mentioned you must start by guillotining Louis the 16th. Once you kill one of them.. they'll start to listen.
Ya lets not try taxing them and just punish poor people with sales tax. Thatll show those billionares!
|
On March 16 2025 22:26 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2025 22:18 JimmyJRaynor wrote:You're never going to properly tax the wealth of the British Royal family or the 30 richest families on earth with a change in various tax systems. However, a proper tax system can fairly and proportionally tax everyone other than that extremely small group. If you want to properly tax the group i mentioned you must start by guillotining Louis the 16th. Once you kill one of them.. they'll start to listen. Ya lets not try taxing them and just punish poor people with sales tax. Thatll show those billionares!
i am not talking about billionaires. i'm talking about the people above the billionaires.
and, as i said, they won't listen to any proposed changes. you must kill at least one of them first.
Have fun banging your head against the wall until then.
|
Northern Ireland25273 Posts
On March 16 2025 21:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2025 18:51 Gorsameth wrote:On March 16 2025 12:26 Introvert wrote:On March 16 2025 05:41 KwarK wrote:On March 16 2025 02:38 Introvert wrote:
American nukes aren't going anywhere. The umbrella is already gone. Can you really tell us with a straight face that if Russia invaded Estonia and Putin promised a nuclear exchange of America intervened then Trump wouldn’t be there on tv saying that Estonia had always been a part of Russia? It's hard to imagine any president of the past 30 years or more who would get into a nuclear exchange in that scenario. America isn't even the only NATO power with nukes and I don't see any of them doing it, either. People seem to believe that Trump wants the Russians out and about expanding. That's wrong. another late edit: this is in response to your particular hypothetical btw. The point is that I don't think America is less likely to use nukes than it was say, a decade ago. I'm interested in why you think Trump doesn't want Russia out and about when he doesn't appear to offer any real resistance to their aggressive war of expansion. I mean not only is there no resistance, he did literally say 'I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want' (to countries that don't meet the spending requirements). I think Trump wants to weaken Europe through whatever means possible, because a weaker Europe is more likely to accept being bullied and that's what Trump wants to do. He doesn't consider us an ally - he doesn't even consider Canada an ally - and Trump being president of the US makes it abundantly clear to Europe that we can no longer rely on the US. The silver lining is that this seems obvious to almost the entire political spectrum - at least in Norway, even the progress party's leadership is appalled by Trump, and these are politicians that have had pictures of Reagan placed prominently within their government offices or cited Ayn Rand as a great political inspiration.
This is it.
Would people like it if the US were playing hardball to get various allies to pull their weight? Probably not, but there may be a ‘ok, fair enough’ component.
If the equation becomes ‘even if I do everything requested of me, will they be my friend?’ and there’s any reasonable doubt, an ally that ain’t.
|
Welp, it appears my theory about the USA using tariffs as a massive driver of new government revenue now has some proof behind it.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-global-tariffs-canada-1.7484790
The focus of the U.S. government is dealing with its yearly deficit in federal spending, Paterson said. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the federal government ran a $1.83 trillion US deficit in the 2024 fiscal year.
There are three things the U.S. government is doing that affect the deficit, Paterson added.
The first is a major budget resolution that calls for trillions of dollars in spending and tax cuts, which is "something that must not increase that deficit further while keeping tax levels and competitiveness low," Paterson said.
The other two are measures to help make the spending and tax cuts happen without growing the deficit, including slashing government spending through Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency and tariffs, which are meant to be a new revenue source and attract investment into the United States.
Paterson said the American plan is to impose tariffs by sector across countries all around the world on April 2. From there, the countries that get along with the U.S. the best will be "first in line" to adjust or mitigate the tariffs.
U.S. plans tariffs for April 2, and will then adjust for nations that play nice
I think Canada's best move is to become the USA's "best pal" again. That includes listening carefully to what Republicans prioritize. Should Canada try something else the standard of living in the country will drop precipitously. It is already declining pretty hard right now.
Canadians have been making bad decisions at the ballot box the last 10 years... so some of this is on them.
|
Northern Ireland25273 Posts
On March 16 2025 22:28 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2025 22:26 Sadist wrote:On March 16 2025 22:18 JimmyJRaynor wrote:You're never going to properly tax the wealth of the British Royal family or the 30 richest families on earth with a change in various tax systems. However, a proper tax system can fairly and proportionally tax everyone other than that extremely small group. If you want to properly tax the group i mentioned you must start by guillotining Louis the 16th. Once you kill one of them.. they'll start to listen. Ya lets not try taxing them and just punish poor people with sales tax. Thatll show those billionares! i am not talking about billionaires. i'm talking about the people above the billionaires. and, as i said, they won't listen to any proposed changes. you must kill at least one of them first. Have fun banging your head against the wall until then.
It’s not about them listening or otherwise. They’ve power, they don’t have absolute power.
All they need is people to buy into various narratives and there’s never the movement or impetus to do these things anyway. And people reliably do this.
|
On March 16 2025 22:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Welp, it appears my theory about the USA using tariffs as a massive driver of new government revenue now has some proof behind it. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-global-tariffs-canada-1.7484790Show nested quote +The focus of the U.S. government is dealing with its yearly deficit in federal spending, Paterson said. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the federal government ran a $1.83 trillion US deficit in the 2024 fiscal year.
There are three things the U.S. government is doing that affect the deficit, Paterson added.
The first is a major budget resolution that calls for trillions of dollars in spending and tax cuts, which is "something that must not increase that deficit further while keeping tax levels and competitiveness low," Paterson said.
The other two are measures to help make the spending and tax cuts happen without growing the deficit, including slashing government spending through Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency and tariffs, which are meant to be a new revenue source and attract investment into the United States.
Paterson said the American plan is to impose tariffs by sector across countries all around the world on April 2. From there, the countries that get along with the U.S. the best will be "first in line" to adjust or mitigate the tariffs. Show nested quote +U.S. plans tariffs for April 2, and will then adjust for nations that play nice I think Canada's best move is to become the USA's "best pal" again. That includes listening carefully to what Republicans prioritize. Should Canada try something else the standard of living in the country will drop precipitously. It is already declining pretty hard right now. Canadians have been making bad decisions at the ballot box the last 10 years... so some of this is on them.
"Trump is really going to do the thing that everyone tells him is stupid" is not the winning argument you think it is.
|
On March 16 2025 22:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2025 22:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Welp, it appears my theory about the USA using tariffs as a massive driver of new government revenue now has some proof behind it. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-global-tariffs-canada-1.7484790The focus of the U.S. government is dealing with its yearly deficit in federal spending, Paterson said. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the federal government ran a $1.83 trillion US deficit in the 2024 fiscal year.
There are three things the U.S. government is doing that affect the deficit, Paterson added.
The first is a major budget resolution that calls for trillions of dollars in spending and tax cuts, which is "something that must not increase that deficit further while keeping tax levels and competitiveness low," Paterson said.
The other two are measures to help make the spending and tax cuts happen without growing the deficit, including slashing government spending through Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency and tariffs, which are meant to be a new revenue source and attract investment into the United States.
Paterson said the American plan is to impose tariffs by sector across countries all around the world on April 2. From there, the countries that get along with the U.S. the best will be "first in line" to adjust or mitigate the tariffs. U.S. plans tariffs for April 2, and will then adjust for nations that play nice I think Canada's best move is to become the USA's "best pal" again. That includes listening carefully to what Republicans prioritize. Should Canada try something else the standard of living in the country will drop precipitously. It is already declining pretty hard right now. Canadians have been making bad decisions at the ballot box the last 10 years... so some of this is on them. "Trump is really going to do the thing that everyone tells him is stupid" is not the winning argument you think it is.
I also like the take of "If someone bullies you, give in. If they still bully you, try to anticipate what they might want, and give it to them preemptively."
|
United States42673 Posts
On March 16 2025 22:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Welp, it appears my theory about the USA using tariffs as a massive driver of new government revenue now has some proof behind it. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-global-tariffs-canada-1.7484790Show nested quote +The focus of the U.S. government is dealing with its yearly deficit in federal spending, Paterson said. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the federal government ran a $1.83 trillion US deficit in the 2024 fiscal year.
There are three things the U.S. government is doing that affect the deficit, Paterson added.
The first is a major budget resolution that calls for trillions of dollars in spending and tax cuts, which is "something that must not increase that deficit further while keeping tax levels and competitiveness low," Paterson said.
The other two are measures to help make the spending and tax cuts happen without growing the deficit, including slashing government spending through Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency and tariffs, which are meant to be a new revenue source and attract investment into the United States.
Paterson said the American plan is to impose tariffs by sector across countries all around the world on April 2. From there, the countries that get along with the U.S. the best will be "first in line" to adjust or mitigate the tariffs. Show nested quote +U.S. plans tariffs for April 2, and will then adjust for nations that play nice I think Canada's best move is to become the USA's "best pal" again. That includes listening carefully to what Republicans prioritize. Should Canada try something else the standard of living in the country will drop precipitously. It is already declining pretty hard right now. Canadians have been making bad decisions at the ballot box the last 10 years... so some of this is on them.
It literally doesn’t say what you’re saying it says. It says they want to do tax cuts without increasing the deficit which means cutting spending or increasing revenues through things such as tariffs. It does not say that tariffs are a massive new driver of government revenues.
|
On March 17 2025 00:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2025 22:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Welp, it appears my theory about the USA using tariffs as a massive driver of new government revenue now has some proof behind it. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-global-tariffs-canada-1.7484790The focus of the U.S. government is dealing with its yearly deficit in federal spending, Paterson said. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the federal government ran a $1.83 trillion US deficit in the 2024 fiscal year.
There are three things the U.S. government is doing that affect the deficit, Paterson added.
The first is a major budget resolution that calls for trillions of dollars in spending and tax cuts, which is "something that must not increase that deficit further while keeping tax levels and competitiveness low," Paterson said.
The other two are measures to help make the spending and tax cuts happen without growing the deficit, including slashing government spending through Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency and tariffs, which are meant to be a new revenue source and attract investment into the United States.
Paterson said the American plan is to impose tariffs by sector across countries all around the world on April 2. From there, the countries that get along with the U.S. the best will be "first in line" to adjust or mitigate the tariffs. U.S. plans tariffs for April 2, and will then adjust for nations that play nice I think Canada's best move is to become the USA's "best pal" again. That includes listening carefully to what Republicans prioritize. Should Canada try something else the standard of living in the country will drop precipitously. It is already declining pretty hard right now. Canadians have been making bad decisions at the ballot box the last 10 years... so some of this is on them. It literally doesn’t say what you’re saying it says. It says they want to do tax cuts without increasing the deficit which means cutting spending or increasing revenues through things such as tariffs. It does not say that tariffs are a massive new driver of government revenues.
Trump stated the new revenues from tariffs will be massive. If there are tax cuts and big deficit reductions then huge revenues from tariffs are necessary. It does not say word for word exactly what I stated. It is pretty easy to see it though.
again, what do you think this means?
The focus of the U.S. government is dealing with its yearly deficit in federal spending, Paterson said. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the federal government ran a $1.83 trillion US deficit in the 2024 fiscal year.
when you combine it with tax cuts and a reduction in government deficits? How do you get deficits down while at the same time offering massive tax cuts?
There are three things the U.S. government is doing that affect the deficit, Paterson added.
One of those 3 things are tariffs.
|
On March 17 2025 02:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2025 00:52 KwarK wrote:On March 16 2025 22:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Welp, it appears my theory about the USA using tariffs as a massive driver of new government revenue now has some proof behind it. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-global-tariffs-canada-1.7484790The focus of the U.S. government is dealing with its yearly deficit in federal spending, Paterson said. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the federal government ran a $1.83 trillion US deficit in the 2024 fiscal year.
There are three things the U.S. government is doing that affect the deficit, Paterson added.
The first is a major budget resolution that calls for trillions of dollars in spending and tax cuts, which is "something that must not increase that deficit further while keeping tax levels and competitiveness low," Paterson said.
The other two are measures to help make the spending and tax cuts happen without growing the deficit, including slashing government spending through Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency and tariffs, which are meant to be a new revenue source and attract investment into the United States.
Paterson said the American plan is to impose tariffs by sector across countries all around the world on April 2. From there, the countries that get along with the U.S. the best will be "first in line" to adjust or mitigate the tariffs. U.S. plans tariffs for April 2, and will then adjust for nations that play nice I think Canada's best move is to become the USA's "best pal" again. That includes listening carefully to what Republicans prioritize. Should Canada try something else the standard of living in the country will drop precipitously. It is already declining pretty hard right now. Canadians have been making bad decisions at the ballot box the last 10 years... so some of this is on them. It literally doesn’t say what you’re saying it says. It says they want to do tax cuts without increasing the deficit which means cutting spending or increasing revenues through things such as tariffs. It does not say that tariffs are a massive new driver of government revenues. Trump stated the new revenues from tariffs will be massive.
So that means that all we know for sure is that the tariffs will not be massive enough to offset his deficit spending and tax cuts for the rich.
|
On March 17 2025 02:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2025 02:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 17 2025 00:52 KwarK wrote:On March 16 2025 22:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Welp, it appears my theory about the USA using tariffs as a massive driver of new government revenue now has some proof behind it. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-global-tariffs-canada-1.7484790The focus of the U.S. government is dealing with its yearly deficit in federal spending, Paterson said. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the federal government ran a $1.83 trillion US deficit in the 2024 fiscal year.
There are three things the U.S. government is doing that affect the deficit, Paterson added.
The first is a major budget resolution that calls for trillions of dollars in spending and tax cuts, which is "something that must not increase that deficit further while keeping tax levels and competitiveness low," Paterson said.
The other two are measures to help make the spending and tax cuts happen without growing the deficit, including slashing government spending through Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency and tariffs, which are meant to be a new revenue source and attract investment into the United States.
Paterson said the American plan is to impose tariffs by sector across countries all around the world on April 2. From there, the countries that get along with the U.S. the best will be "first in line" to adjust or mitigate the tariffs. U.S. plans tariffs for April 2, and will then adjust for nations that play nice I think Canada's best move is to become the USA's "best pal" again. That includes listening carefully to what Republicans prioritize. Should Canada try something else the standard of living in the country will drop precipitously. It is already declining pretty hard right now. Canadians have been making bad decisions at the ballot box the last 10 years... so some of this is on them. It literally doesn’t say what you’re saying it says. It says they want to do tax cuts without increasing the deficit which means cutting spending or increasing revenues through things such as tariffs. It does not say that tariffs are a massive new driver of government revenues. Trump stated the new revenues from tariffs will be massive. So that means that all we know for sure is that the tariffs will not be massive enough to offset his deficit spending and tax cuts for the rich.
i am not talking about that though. i am talking about what their plan is.
On March 16 2025 23:24 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2025 22:56 Gorsameth wrote:On March 16 2025 22:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Welp, it appears my theory about the USA using tariffs as a massive driver of new government revenue now has some proof behind it. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-global-tariffs-canada-1.7484790The focus of the U.S. government is dealing with its yearly deficit in federal spending, Paterson said. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the federal government ran a $1.83 trillion US deficit in the 2024 fiscal year.
There are three things the U.S. government is doing that affect the deficit, Paterson added.
The first is a major budget resolution that calls for trillions of dollars in spending and tax cuts, which is "something that must not increase that deficit further while keeping tax levels and competitiveness low," Paterson said.
The other two are measures to help make the spending and tax cuts happen without growing the deficit, including slashing government spending through Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency and tariffs, which are meant to be a new revenue source and attract investment into the United States.
Paterson said the American plan is to impose tariffs by sector across countries all around the world on April 2. From there, the countries that get along with the U.S. the best will be "first in line" to adjust or mitigate the tariffs. U.S. plans tariffs for April 2, and will then adjust for nations that play nice I think Canada's best move is to become the USA's "best pal" again. That includes listening carefully to what Republicans prioritize. Should Canada try something else the standard of living in the country will drop precipitously. It is already declining pretty hard right now. Canadians have been making bad decisions at the ballot box the last 10 years... so some of this is on them. "Trump is really going to do the thing that everyone tells him is stupid" is not the winning argument you think it is. I also like the take of "If someone bullies you, give in. If they still bully you, try to anticipate what they might want, and give it to them preemptively."
i don't think you understand Canada/US relations very much. You're vastly oversimplifying.
Carney made a brilliant comment during his initial speech.
"we will not remove those tariffs until the Americans show us some respect".
So Carney isn't asking for the USA to eliminate the tariffs in exchange for Canada to stop retaliation. Carney did not say we will drop our counter tariffs only if you remove your tariffs. Canada is already in conciliation mode. Nice moves by Doug Ford and by Mark Carney.
What was really cool was.. the crowd roared when Carney said it. Slick move by PM Carney. He is pivoting away from nitty gritty details and getting into emotional arguments... and Canadians are reacting very emotionally at this point. I think we need to change his name to Mark "Smooth" Carney.
|
On March 16 2025 18:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2025 12:26 Introvert wrote:On March 16 2025 05:41 KwarK wrote:On March 16 2025 02:38 Introvert wrote:
American nukes aren't going anywhere. The umbrella is already gone. Can you really tell us with a straight face that if Russia invaded Estonia and Putin promised a nuclear exchange of America intervened then Trump wouldn’t be there on tv saying that Estonia had always been a part of Russia? It's hard to imagine any president of the past 30 years or more who would get into a nuclear exchange in that scenario. America isn't even the only NATO power with nukes and I don't see any of them doing it, either. People seem to believe that Trump wants the Russians out and about expanding. That's wrong. another late edit: this is in response to your particular hypothetical btw. The point is that I don't think America is less likely to use nukes than it was say, a decade ago. I'm interested in why you think Trump doesn't want Russia out and about when he doesn't appear to offer any real resistance to their aggressive war of expansion.
On March 16 2025 20:48 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2025 12:26 Introvert wrote:On March 16 2025 05:41 KwarK wrote:On March 16 2025 02:38 Introvert wrote:
American nukes aren't going anywhere. The umbrella is already gone. Can you really tell us with a straight face that if Russia invaded Estonia and Putin promised a nuclear exchange of America intervened then Trump wouldn’t be there on tv saying that Estonia had always been a part of Russia? It's hard to imagine any president of the past 30 years or more who would get into a nuclear exchange in that scenario. America isn't even the only NATO power with nukes and I don't see any of them doing it, either. People seem to believe that Trump wants the Russians out and about expanding. That's wrong. another late edit: this is in response to your particular hypothetical btw. The point is that I don't think America is less likely to use nukes than it was say, a decade ago. If Trump didn't want Russians out and about expanding, then why did he withdraw support from Ukraine and conceded to all of Putin's demands on the runup to the peace negotiations? He has severely weakened Ukraine's hand and strengthened Putin's. Trump has already rolled over and conceded all of the land occupied by Putin's forces will now be Russia and even some bits he doesn't yet control. In what way is this 'not wanting' Russia to expand?
First, I think the forest being missed here is that the administration is asking, and had been asking since his first term, for the Europeans to spend more on their own defense. How can that be seen as being pro-Russian? I contend the only way that myopic view could make sense is that the Europeans think they don't have to do anything (and won't). Indeed, their relative inaction but constant whining might back up this view. But make no mistake, if they had taken this seriously there would less of a problem.
Which leads to the second problem. Trump's rhetoric, which let's be real is mostly the problem at the moment. This administration has already resumed arms shipments and intel sharing, threatened more sanctions on Russia, not fewer (though those seem less and less effective), and is proposing a deal where America will have a very keen interest in continued Ukrainian security. You could say that's "giving stuff away" but at least for my part I have read almost no one saying Ukraine will get all its territory back. Again, I'd have given them everything from the beginning. But as previously discussed, asking America to take European security more seriously than the Europeans is not actually serious.
|
Northern Ireland25273 Posts
On March 17 2025 02:22 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2025 02:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 17 2025 02:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 17 2025 00:52 KwarK wrote:On March 16 2025 22:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Welp, it appears my theory about the USA using tariffs as a massive driver of new government revenue now has some proof behind it. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-global-tariffs-canada-1.7484790The focus of the U.S. government is dealing with its yearly deficit in federal spending, Paterson said. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the federal government ran a $1.83 trillion US deficit in the 2024 fiscal year.
There are three things the U.S. government is doing that affect the deficit, Paterson added.
The first is a major budget resolution that calls for trillions of dollars in spending and tax cuts, which is "something that must not increase that deficit further while keeping tax levels and competitiveness low," Paterson said.
The other two are measures to help make the spending and tax cuts happen without growing the deficit, including slashing government spending through Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency and tariffs, which are meant to be a new revenue source and attract investment into the United States.
Paterson said the American plan is to impose tariffs by sector across countries all around the world on April 2. From there, the countries that get along with the U.S. the best will be "first in line" to adjust or mitigate the tariffs. U.S. plans tariffs for April 2, and will then adjust for nations that play nice I think Canada's best move is to become the USA's "best pal" again. That includes listening carefully to what Republicans prioritize. Should Canada try something else the standard of living in the country will drop precipitously. It is already declining pretty hard right now. Canadians have been making bad decisions at the ballot box the last 10 years... so some of this is on them. It literally doesn’t say what you’re saying it says. It says they want to do tax cuts without increasing the deficit which means cutting spending or increasing revenues through things such as tariffs. It does not say that tariffs are a massive new driver of government revenues. Trump stated the new revenues from tariffs will be massive. So that means that all we know for sure is that the tariffs will not be massive enough to offset his deficit spending and tax cuts for the rich. i am not talking about that though. i am talking about what their plan is. Show nested quote +On March 16 2025 23:24 Simberto wrote:On March 16 2025 22:56 Gorsameth wrote:On March 16 2025 22:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Welp, it appears my theory about the USA using tariffs as a massive driver of new government revenue now has some proof behind it. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-global-tariffs-canada-1.7484790The focus of the U.S. government is dealing with its yearly deficit in federal spending, Paterson said. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the federal government ran a $1.83 trillion US deficit in the 2024 fiscal year.
There are three things the U.S. government is doing that affect the deficit, Paterson added.
The first is a major budget resolution that calls for trillions of dollars in spending and tax cuts, which is "something that must not increase that deficit further while keeping tax levels and competitiveness low," Paterson said.
The other two are measures to help make the spending and tax cuts happen without growing the deficit, including slashing government spending through Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency and tariffs, which are meant to be a new revenue source and attract investment into the United States.
Paterson said the American plan is to impose tariffs by sector across countries all around the world on April 2. From there, the countries that get along with the U.S. the best will be "first in line" to adjust or mitigate the tariffs. U.S. plans tariffs for April 2, and will then adjust for nations that play nice I think Canada's best move is to become the USA's "best pal" again. That includes listening carefully to what Republicans prioritize. Should Canada try something else the standard of living in the country will drop precipitously. It is already declining pretty hard right now. Canadians have been making bad decisions at the ballot box the last 10 years... so some of this is on them. "Trump is really going to do the thing that everyone tells him is stupid" is not the winning argument you think it is. I also like the take of "If someone bullies you, give in. If they still bully you, try to anticipate what they might want, and give it to them preemptively." i don't think you understand Canada/US relations very much. You're vastly oversimplifying. Carney made a brilliant comment during his initial speech. "we will not remove those tariffs until the Americans show us some respect". So Carney isn't asking for the USA to eliminate the tariffs in exchange for Canada to stop retaliation. Carney did not say we will drop our counter tariffs only if you remove your tariffs. Canada is already in conciliation mode. Nice moves by Doug Ford and by Mark Carney. What was really cool was.. the crowd roared when Carney said it. Slick move by PM Carney. He is pivoting away from nitty gritty details and getting into emotional arguments... and Canadians are reacting very emotionally at this point. I think we need to change his name to Mark "Smooth" Carney.
Jimmy I swear you end up just making some the same arguments some of us made weeks ago.
Trump in behaving in the manner he does, pisses everyone off and making emotionally invested. Because he is a genius and likes handing free political wins to the people in power while he’s trying to squeeze them.
It is not political brilliance to open the gift-wrapped box you’ve just been presented.
If ‘show some respect’ isn’t taken to mean ‘stop this tariff nonsense and stop fucking around’, I’d be massively surprised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
