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.
It is impressive just how much the US is fighting to make sure that no one else can ever try to investigate or prosecute their war crimes.
It's almost like the whole concept of a "Rule-based international order" was just a euphemism for US hegemony.
To be fair, it's normal to want your hegemony to be rules based and orderly
But obviously they've always cared more about the hegemony than the order part.
This is why the Romans still get idolized even though (ok sometimes also because) they were a very warlike culture, that for times considered the function of the state being to conduct and organise war. But they built roads, organised logistics and standardized laws across their empire.
Same thing with Qing Shi Huang, he was by all accounts, a bit of a tyrant. Yet Chinese history views him in a good light because he did standardise weights/measurements/currency etc.
I'm sure Pax Americana will be viewed back in the same light in the future, 'they sure bombed a lot of places, but at least there were no hot wars between major powers for a while and global trade flourished'.
It is impressive just how much the US is fighting to make sure that no one else can ever try to investigate or prosecute their war crimes.
It's almost like the whole concept of a "Rule-based international order" was just a euphemism for US hegemony.
To be fair, it's normal to want your hegemony to be rules based and orderly
But obviously they've always cared more about the hegemony than the order part.
This is why the Romans still get idolized even though (ok sometimes also because) they were a very warlike culture, that for times considered the function of the state being to conduct and organise war. But they built roads, organised logistics and standardized laws across their empire.
Same thing with Qing Shi Huang, he was by all accounts, a bit of a tyrant. Yet Chinese history views him in a good light because he did standardise weights/measurements/currency etc.
I'm sure Pax Americana will be viewed back in the same light in the future, 'they sure bombed a lot of places, but at least there were no hot wars between major powers for a while and global trade flourished'.
Trump's the one that asks how international norms and rules help the American interest and how much it's gonna cost. Past Republicans took it as given that free trade and international agreements would always help the US. The left fringe of Democrats ask how American laws can be subordinated to international bodies for the global interest. The moderate/center of the Democrats want increased foreign outlays and foreign agreements funded by the US, but are divided on state sovereignty.
On July 15 2026 02:38 Jankisa wrote: I thought you were against increased taxes for normal citizens?
Taxing consumers more is good now?
Companies simply priced in the tariffs and passed those increases to the end consumers, in vast majority of the cases, spiking inflation. Now these companies will get a $81 Billion refund that they will keep. And this is what you are defending? Is there nothing in the world that these guys can do that will not make you swallow whatever principles you pretended you had for years?
Also, if you just want to tax "shitty things" from China, why use a flat rate tariff on all imports? Isn't that just stupid and hurts everyone involved?
I understand. Companies when taxed pass it on to their customers, and this is a principled fixture of your entire carefully considered and consistent worldview and informs why you are against taxing companies in order to protect consumers.
You would tariff things from the whole world if you thought the fact that labor and goods are more expensive in your own world #1 country than almost anywhere else on the planet went too far in giving others a comparative advantage in manufacturing. Actually an extremely basic argument to understand.
On July 15 2026 02:38 Jankisa wrote: I thought you were against increased taxes for normal citizens?
Taxing consumers more is good now?
Companies simply priced in the tariffs and passed those increases to the end consumers, in vast majority of the cases, spiking inflation. Now these companies will get a $81 Billion refund that they will keep. And this is what you are defending? Is there nothing in the world that these guys can do that will not make you swallow whatever principles you pretended you had for years?
Also, if you just want to tax "shitty things" from China, why use a flat rate tariff on all imports? Isn't that just stupid and hurts everyone involved?
I understand. Companies when taxed pass it on to their customers, and this is a principled fixture of your entire carefully considered and consistent worldview and informs why you are against taxing companies in order to protect consumers.
You would tariff things from the whole world if you thought the fact that labor and goods are more expensive in your own world #1 country than almost anywhere else on the planet went too far in giving others a comparative advantage in manufacturing. Actually an extremely basic argument to understand.
Why are you arguing this as if Jankisa's criticism is about free trade absolutism? The point against tariffs isn't that they should never exist. It's that they were extremely stupid in the way Trump imposed them. And since SCOTUS overturned their blanket use and ordered them refunded the question is: where do those refunds go?
The people who paid those tariffs are American consumers. But the courts ordered the refunds to the companies. They will put those refunds in their shareholders' pockets rather than discounting their products. It's pretty much guaranteed to be a classic example of socialising the losses and privatising the profits. It'd be better for the American consumer if the government kept the tariffs and did something useful like spending it on those entitlement programs you hate so much, because the way this actually works it is a direct, government mediated extraction of wealth from the consumer class to the capitalist class.
It is impressive just how much the US is fighting to make sure that no one else can ever try to investigate or prosecute their war crimes.
It's almost like the whole concept of a "Rule-based international order" was just a euphemism for US hegemony.
To be fair, it's normal to want your hegemony to be rules based and orderly
But obviously they've always cared more about the hegemony than the order part.
This is why the Romans still get idolized even though (ok sometimes also because) they were a very warlike culture, that for times considered the function of the state being to conduct and organise war. But they built roads, organised logistics and standardized laws across their empire.
Same thing with Qing Shi Huang, he was by all accounts, a bit of a tyrant. Yet Chinese history views him in a good light because he did standardise weights/measurements/currency etc.
I'm sure Pax Americana will be viewed back in the same light in the future, 'they sure bombed a lot of places, but at least there were no hot wars between major powers for a while and global trade flourished'.
Trump's the one that asks how international norms and rules help the American interest and how much it's gonna cost. Past Republicans took it as given that free trade and international agreements would always help the US. The left fringe of Democrats ask how American laws can be subordinated to international bodies for the global interest. The moderate/center of the Democrats want increased foreign outlays and foreign agreements funded by the US, but are divided on state sovereignty.
I mean it did? It wasn't exactly free trade to being with it's a framework that set up to favour the US but that is "fair enough" so other countries don't struggle to hard against it. America owns disproportionately more assets abroad than the rest of the world through their companies, they export at lot of high margin products (today a lof of subscription based services and intellectual property) and of course the immense benefit of being the world reserve currency.
It's much easier to have international agreements and a "rules based order" to keep your junior allies in line. Otherwise they might get ideas about restricting national ownership or setting their own import restrictions or tariffs and you have to continually slap them down. It's like whack-a-mole on an international level. Thing is you also have to take the occasional L once in a while even though the system is set up to your advantage. But Trump refuses to take any L and would rather uproot the entire system.
On July 15 2026 02:38 Jankisa wrote: I thought you were against increased taxes for normal citizens?
Taxing consumers more is good now?
Companies simply priced in the tariffs and passed those increases to the end consumers, in vast majority of the cases, spiking inflation. Now these companies will get a $81 Billion refund that they will keep. And this is what you are defending? Is there nothing in the world that these guys can do that will not make you swallow whatever principles you pretended you had for years?
Also, if you just want to tax "shitty things" from China, why use a flat rate tariff on all imports? Isn't that just stupid and hurts everyone involved?
I understand. Companies when taxed pass it on to their customers, and this is a principled fixture of your entire carefully considered and consistent worldview and informs why you are against taxing companies in order to protect consumers.
You would tariff things from the whole world if you thought the fact that labor and goods are more expensive in your own world #1 country than almost anywhere else on the planet went too far in giving others a comparative advantage in manufacturing. Actually an extremely basic argument to understand.
Brave sir oBlade bravely charged at the straw man of his own construction.
I very obviously to anyone reading in good faith presented this as the criticism of pretend principles that "fiscally responsible right wingers" like to project and your big brain comeback is to try to pretend like that is my stance. Oh man, you are really getting lazy.
I get it gets increasingly difficult to defend all this obvious stupidity, but this is just low effort "let me just ignore what they actually wrote" type of shit, I guess your passion is defending ICE murdering people much more then macro economics.
Another kind of fun and interesting illustration of "this is your brain on MAGA".
Your second sentence is also super revealing of how degraded your brain became by accepting the economic theory of the guy who made up quotes from Ron Vara, AKA a crude twist on his own name while writing his extremely stupid screeds.
He was found when Jared Kushner retroactively tried to find someone stupid enough to share Trump's moronic beliefs on world trade and tariffs in particular.
There are no economists in the world who thought that any kind of aggressive tariff regime would be beneficial for the USA, and that is without them being deemed illegal and having to refund all that money.
It is impressive just how much the US is fighting to make sure that no one else can ever try to investigate or prosecute their war crimes.
It's almost like the whole concept of a "Rule-based international order" was just a euphemism for US hegemony.
To be fair, it's normal to want your hegemony to be rules based and orderly
But obviously they've always cared more about the hegemony than the order part.
This is why the Romans still get idolized even though (ok sometimes also because) they were a very warlike culture, that for times considered the function of the state being to conduct and organise war. But they built roads, organised logistics and standardized laws across their empire.
Same thing with Qing Shi Huang, he was by all accounts, a bit of a tyrant. Yet Chinese history views him in a good light because he did standardise weights/measurements/currency etc.
I'm sure Pax Americana will be viewed back in the same light in the future, 'they sure bombed a lot of places, but at least there were no hot wars between major powers for a while and global trade flourished'.
Trump's the one that asks how international norms and rules help the American interest and how much it's gonna cost. Past Republicans took it as given that free trade and international agreements would always help the US. The left fringe of Democrats ask how American laws can be subordinated to international bodies for the global interest. The moderate/center of the Democrats want increased foreign outlays and foreign agreements funded by the US, but are divided on state sovereignty.
Trump sees every agreement, every treaty and every aspect of politics as purely transactional, and more importantly a zero sum game.
The idea that norms and rules are mutually beneficial doesn’t cross his mind because in order to win you need to make someone lose.
What it means is that Trump is totally oblivious to the notion of soft power, which has arguably been the US greatest asset since the end of the Cold War.
Trump had absolutely obliterated a world order that was incredibly beneficial to the US because he is too stupid to understand it. DOGE is a perfect example. Not only did it save millions of lives, it was amazingly well spent money when it comes to the US presence and image in some of the poorest places in the world.
But hey, your grand children tax money was spent saving black kids that don’t have anything to eat, and you can’t have that. At least, Trump’s unbelievably stupid policies keep the deplorables loyal to him so it does serve a purpose.
On July 15 2026 02:38 Jankisa wrote: I thought you were against increased taxes for normal citizens?
Taxing consumers more is good now?
Companies simply priced in the tariffs and passed those increases to the end consumers, in vast majority of the cases, spiking inflation. Now these companies will get a $81 Billion refund that they will keep. And this is what you are defending? Is there nothing in the world that these guys can do that will not make you swallow whatever principles you pretended you had for years?
Also, if you just want to tax "shitty things" from China, why use a flat rate tariff on all imports? Isn't that just stupid and hurts everyone involved?
I understand. Companies when taxed pass it on to their customers, and this is a principled fixture of your entire carefully considered and consistent worldview and informs why you are against taxing companies in order to protect consumers.
You would tariff things from the whole world if you thought the fact that labor and goods are more expensive in your own world #1 country than almost anywhere else on the planet went too far in giving others a comparative advantage in manufacturing. Actually an extremely basic argument to understand.
Why are you arguing this as if Jankisa's criticism is about free trade absolutism? The point against tariffs isn't that they should never exist. It's that they were extremely stupid in the way Trump imposed them. And since SCOTUS overturned their blanket use and ordered them refunded the question is: where do those refunds go?
The people who paid those tariffs are American consumers. But the courts ordered the refunds to the companies. They will put those refunds in their shareholders' pockets rather than discounting their products. It's pretty much guaranteed to be a classic example of socialising the losses and privatising the profits. It'd be better for the American consumer if the government kept the tariffs and did something useful like spending it on those entitlement programs you hate so much, because the way this actually works it is a direct, government mediated extraction of wealth from the consumer class to the capitalist class.
Because a good faith arrangement for trumps policy and open corruption doesn’t exist.
On July 15 2026 02:38 Jankisa wrote: I thought you were against increased taxes for normal citizens?
Taxing consumers more is good now?
Companies simply priced in the tariffs and passed those increases to the end consumers, in vast majority of the cases, spiking inflation. Now these companies will get a $81 Billion refund that they will keep. And this is what you are defending? Is there nothing in the world that these guys can do that will not make you swallow whatever principles you pretended you had for years?
Also, if you just want to tax "shitty things" from China, why use a flat rate tariff on all imports? Isn't that just stupid and hurts everyone involved?
I understand. Companies when taxed pass it on to their customers, and this is a principled fixture of your entire carefully considered and consistent worldview and informs why you are against taxing companies in order to protect consumers.
You would tariff things from the whole world if you thought the fact that labor and goods are more expensive in your own world #1 country than almost anywhere else on the planet went too far in giving others a comparative advantage in manufacturing. Actually an extremely basic argument to understand.
Brave sir oBlade bravely charged at the straw man of his own construction.
I very obviously to anyone reading in good faith presented this as the criticism of pretend principles that "fiscally responsible right wingers" like to project and your big brain comeback is to try to pretend like that is my stance. Oh man, you are really getting lazy.
I get it gets increasingly difficult to defend all this obvious stupidity, but this is just low effort "let me just ignore what they actually wrote" type of shit, I guess your passion is defending ICE murdering people much more then macro economics.
Another kind of fun and interesting illustration of "this is your brain on MAGA".
Your second sentence is also super revealing of how degraded your brain became by accepting the economic theory of the guy who made up quotes from Ron Vara, AKA a crude twist on his own name while writing his extremely stupid screeds.
He was found when Jared Kushner retroactively tried to find someone stupid enough to share Trump's moronic beliefs on world trade and tariffs in particular.
There are no economists in the world who thought that any kind of aggressive tariff regime would be beneficial for the USA, and that is without them being deemed illegal and having to refund all that money.
That's gotta be satire, right? Trump's buddy creating an alter ego and naming it using an anagram of his own name? That's literally what Voldemort did.
On July 15 2026 02:38 Jankisa wrote: I thought you were against increased taxes for normal citizens?
Taxing consumers more is good now?
Companies simply priced in the tariffs and passed those increases to the end consumers, in vast majority of the cases, spiking inflation. Now these companies will get a $81 Billion refund that they will keep. And this is what you are defending? Is there nothing in the world that these guys can do that will not make you swallow whatever principles you pretended you had for years?
Also, if you just want to tax "shitty things" from China, why use a flat rate tariff on all imports? Isn't that just stupid and hurts everyone involved?
I understand. Companies when taxed pass it on to their customers, and this is a principled fixture of your entire carefully considered and consistent worldview and informs why you are against taxing companies in order to protect consumers.
You would tariff things from the whole world if you thought the fact that labor and goods are more expensive in your own world #1 country than almost anywhere else on the planet went too far in giving others a comparative advantage in manufacturing. Actually an extremely basic argument to understand.
Brave sir oBlade bravely charged at the straw man of his own construction.
I very obviously to anyone reading in good faith presented this as the criticism of pretend principles that "fiscally responsible right wingers" like to project and your big brain comeback is to try to pretend like that is my stance. Oh man, you are really getting lazy.
I get it gets increasingly difficult to defend all this obvious stupidity, but this is just low effort "let me just ignore what they actually wrote" type of shit, I guess your passion is defending ICE murdering people much more then macro economics.
Another kind of fun and interesting illustration of "this is your brain on MAGA".
Your second sentence is also super revealing of how degraded your brain became by accepting the economic theory of the guy who made up quotes from Ron Vara, AKA a crude twist on his own name while writing his extremely stupid screeds.
He was found when Jared Kushner retroactively tried to find someone stupid enough to share Trump's moronic beliefs on world trade and tariffs in particular.
There are no economists in the world who thought that any kind of aggressive tariff regime would be beneficial for the USA, and that is without them being deemed illegal and having to refund all that money.
That's gotta be satire, right? Trump's buddy creating an alter ego and naming it using an anagram of his own name? That's literally what Voldemort did.
Except Tom Riddle wasn't going around quoting Voldemort as an enlightened wizard.
Oblade: "extremely basic argument to understand" the world : does nothing trump: goes back and forth on it on a whim.
yep very basic arguments that surely trump understands and thats why they get turned on and off and dialed up and down, when the rest of the world's sollution is not appeasing the US (or the rules/changes they claim want made), but appeasing trump. Who is surely protecting US manufacturing interests. Right.
On July 15 2026 02:38 Jankisa wrote: I thought you were against increased taxes for normal citizens?
Taxing consumers more is good now?
Companies simply priced in the tariffs and passed those increases to the end consumers, in vast majority of the cases, spiking inflation. Now these companies will get a $81 Billion refund that they will keep. And this is what you are defending? Is there nothing in the world that these guys can do that will not make you swallow whatever principles you pretended you had for years?
Also, if you just want to tax "shitty things" from China, why use a flat rate tariff on all imports? Isn't that just stupid and hurts everyone involved?
I understand. Companies when taxed pass it on to their customers, and this is a principled fixture of your entire carefully considered and consistent worldview and informs why you are against taxing companies in order to protect consumers.
You would tariff things from the whole world if you thought the fact that labor and goods are more expensive in your own world #1 country than almost anywhere else on the planet went too far in giving others a comparative advantage in manufacturing. Actually an extremely basic argument to understand.
Brave sir oBlade bravely charged at the straw man of his own construction.
I very obviously to anyone reading in good faith presented this as the criticism of pretend principles that "fiscally responsible right wingers" like to project and your big brain comeback is to try to pretend like that is my stance. Oh man, you are really getting lazy.
I get it gets increasingly difficult to defend all this obvious stupidity, but this is just low effort "let me just ignore what they actually wrote" type of shit, I guess your passion is defending ICE murdering people much more then macro economics.
Another kind of fun and interesting illustration of "this is your brain on MAGA".
Your second sentence is also super revealing of how degraded your brain became by accepting the economic theory of the guy who made up quotes from Ron Vara, AKA a crude twist on his own name while writing his extremely stupid screeds.
He was found when Jared Kushner retroactively tried to find someone stupid enough to share Trump's moronic beliefs on world trade and tariffs in particular.
There are no economists in the world who thought that any kind of aggressive tariff regime would be beneficial for the USA, and that is without them being deemed illegal and having to refund all that money.
That's gotta be satire, right? Trump's buddy creating an alter ego and naming it using an anagram of his own name? That's literally what Voldemort did.
This 7 year old clip goes into how Kushner found this guy and how amazingly fringe and stupid he and his analysis are:
It's funny how all of this was very funny and stupid in 2019 and now it's just mainstream MAGA thought as evidenced by our resident pretend centrists parroting these talking points.
Way ahead on the idiocracy timeline you guys, good job!
Just to be clear how a tariff refund basically should/could work:
1: Tax-Refund to US-Taxpayers - flat amount by default or/and if someone got the reciepes the actual amount (if higher than the flat). Everyone gets some, people that can prove more get what they actually spent (healthcare cost refunds basically work like that in Switzerland).
2: Damages for companies that had to deal with the administrative/buerocratic ordeal. Damages because you need to prove them.
3. Tar and feathers for Trump and his cronies. To alleviate psychological damage that whole shitshow caused to everybody.
Does Mr. oBlade see something wrong with point 1 and 2? I guess 3 isn't really on the table anyway.
On July 15 2026 02:38 Jankisa wrote: I thought you were against increased taxes for normal citizens?
Taxing consumers more is good now?
Companies simply priced in the tariffs and passed those increases to the end consumers, in vast majority of the cases, spiking inflation. Now these companies will get a $81 Billion refund that they will keep. And this is what you are defending? Is there nothing in the world that these guys can do that will not make you swallow whatever principles you pretended you had for years?
Also, if you just want to tax "shitty things" from China, why use a flat rate tariff on all imports? Isn't that just stupid and hurts everyone involved?
I understand. Companies when taxed pass it on to their customers, and this is a principled fixture of your entire carefully considered and consistent worldview and informs why you are against taxing companies in order to protect consumers.
You would tariff things from the whole world if you thought the fact that labor and goods are more expensive in your own world #1 country than almost anywhere else on the planet went too far in giving others a comparative advantage in manufacturing. Actually an extremely basic argument to understand.
Brave sir oBlade bravely charged at the straw man of his own construction.
I very obviously to anyone reading in good faith presented this as the criticism of pretend principles that "fiscally responsible right wingers" like to project and your big brain comeback is to try to pretend like that is my stance. Oh man, you are really getting lazy.
I get it gets increasingly difficult to defend all this obvious stupidity, but this is just low effort "let me just ignore what they actually wrote" type of shit, I guess your passion is defending ICE murdering people much more then macro economics.
Another kind of fun and interesting illustration of "this is your brain on MAGA".
Your second sentence is also super revealing of how degraded your brain became by accepting the economic theory of the guy who made up quotes from Ron Vara, AKA a crude twist on his own name while writing his extremely stupid screeds.
He was found when Jared Kushner retroactively tried to find someone stupid enough to share Trump's moronic beliefs on world trade and tariffs in particular.
There are no economists in the world who thought that any kind of aggressive tariff regime would be beneficial for the USA, and that is without them being deemed illegal and having to refund all that money.
You have a stance? What is it? You said companies passed through to consumers in the vast majority of cases. Did I strawman you or just reveal you haven't thought this through? What's your stance? Companies happily pay every tax out of their own pockets with a smile EXCEPT Drumpf tariffs which magically have almost 100% passthrough? That sounds less consistent than the other way.
On July 15 2026 02:38 Jankisa wrote: I thought you were against increased taxes for normal citizens?
Taxing consumers more is good now?
Companies simply priced in the tariffs and passed those increases to the end consumers, in vast majority of the cases, spiking inflation. Now these companies will get a $81 Billion refund that they will keep. And this is what you are defending? Is there nothing in the world that these guys can do that will not make you swallow whatever principles you pretended you had for years?
Also, if you just want to tax "shitty things" from China, why use a flat rate tariff on all imports? Isn't that just stupid and hurts everyone involved?
I understand. Companies when taxed pass it on to their customers, and this is a principled fixture of your entire carefully considered and consistent worldview and informs why you are against taxing companies in order to protect consumers.
You would tariff things from the whole world if you thought the fact that labor and goods are more expensive in your own world #1 country than almost anywhere else on the planet went too far in giving others a comparative advantage in manufacturing. Actually an extremely basic argument to understand.
Why are you arguing this as if Jankisa's criticism is about free trade absolutism? The point against tariffs isn't that they should never exist. It's that they were extremely stupid in the way Trump imposed them. And since SCOTUS overturned their blanket use and ordered them refunded the question is: where do those refunds go?
SCOTUS didn't "overturn their blanket use," they only ruled against the authority of the IEEPA to enact tariffs.
Nor did SCOTUS order them refunded. This was one of the key points of Kavanaugh's dissent: Why are we ruling against this while completely ignoring the issues it raises of what to do about tax already collected under this. This is old so you should have known that already.
I certainly agree it would have been better had SCOTUS explicitly ruled on the issue against refunds. You'd need more Justice Thomases probably.
On July 15 2026 16:22 Acrofales wrote: The people who paid those tariffs are American consumers. But the courts ordered the refunds to the companies. They will put those refunds in their shareholders' pockets rather than discounting their products. It's pretty much guaranteed to be a classic example of socialising the losses and privatising the profits. It'd be better for the American consumer if the government kept the tariffs and did something useful like spending it on those entitlement programs you hate so much, because the way this actually works it is a direct, government mediated extraction of wealth from the consumer class to the capitalist class.
If you refund an import tax it would go to the importer who paid the import tax, otherwise it wouldn't be a "refund." Keeping the money and paying for 7 days of entitlements would be a noble cause, sure. I am waiting with bated breath for Democrats and Republicans to come together and codify the tariffs into law to achieve just such an end.
On July 15 2026 23:26 oBlade wrote: I certainly agree it would have been better had SCOTUS explicitly ruled on the issue against refunds. You'd need more Justice Thomases probably.
Well what are you waiting for? Start crowdfunding the campers needed to bribe the other justices to have the same shit opinion as Thomas.
Nor did SCOTUS order them refunded. This was one of the key points of Kavanaugh's dissent: Why are we ruling against this while completely ignoring the issues it raises of what to do about tax already collected under this. This is old so you should have known that already.
I certainly agree it would have been better had SCOTUS explicitly ruled on the issue against refunds. You'd need more Justice Thomases probably.
This really is a gem.
First the notion that you should rule in favor of something simply because ruling against would be troublesome. No regard for interpreting the rule of law, which is their job, no SCOTUS should judge based on how annoying it would be to fix.
And secondly the US government illegally garnered taxes, the notion that they should get to keep it once ruled illegal is 'interesting'. If this was the IRS overcharging your personal taxes and going 'woops, oh well guess we will keep all this sucker' would have you shouting that others should charge the building with guns in your name. But because the government didn't personally steal from you its ok for them to keep it?
On July 15 2026 23:26 oBlade wrote: You have a stance? What is it? You said companies passed through to consumers in the vast majority of cases. Did I strawman you or just reveal you haven't thought this through? What's your stance? Companies happily pay every tax out of their own pockets with a smile EXCEPT Drumpf tariffs which magically have almost 100% passthrough? That sounds less consistent than the other way.
My stance is pretty consistent throughout this thread for years, from before the elections where I said that if Trump enacted these tariffs it's going to be bad for the USA, to laughing along with everyone else with half a brain when he put flat rates because that defeats the whole stated propose etc.
I know you are lazy and this is yet another bad faith argument, but I am not so I'll reply to you like the slow child that you are.
I said that yours, and general right wing explanation on why taxing companies more is a bad idea is that they'll just pass that on to consumers so there is no point, if you paid attention to what I wrote you would have caught that, but that would require a level of reading comprehension you don't seem to be able to reach.
Companies, as reported previously, some of these reports I posted in this thread while you were linking random "brown people bad" twitter posts, have passed the price increases on to US Consumers.
This inflation, over the course of more than a year, is adding up: A Tax Foundation report from February projected tariffs to cost Americans $700 per household in 2026, following an estimation that the levies led to an average tax increase of $1,000 per household in 2025.
So my stance is pretty consistent. Tariffs in general are a stupid idea in the globalized, interconnected economy of the 21st century.
Flat tariffs and tariff wars are incredibly stupid idea to the point that only cooks like Navarro believe otherwise, well, cooks like him and obviously the brainwashed and uneducated masses such as yourself.
Finally, these tariffs have cost regular Americans hundreds of billions while the companies who paid these tariffs and then passed the burden on to the consumers will get (some of) the money back, regular Americans who you obviously hate won't.
EPT
