What's new
By:

Kamala Harris for Pres

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
Al-O-Meter said:
To me, the most interesting thing about the Bret Baier - Kamala Harris interview wasn't in the questions asked or answers given. It was in the stage managing. Kamala clearly only has limited number of memorized talking points, and if you are already a Kamala supporter, the answers are fine. Kamala showed up 30 minutes late and informed Fox News the interview had to be cut short, which forced Bret to trim the number of questions thereby cutting the chances Bret would ask her something out of left field she was unprepared to answer.

That weird room they are in with a hard back wall reflected sound which allowed you to hear the people standing behind the camera. When Bret would ask a pointed question and Kamala would start to get angry, you could hear the rustling of her handlers, and finally at the end they put a stop to the interview. The people who know Kamala best, her campaign staff, knows there isn't anything behind the false front and they worked hard to keep that hidden. Part of me believes the Fox crew knew exactly what they were doing when they set the venue up that way.

Now contrast that with Trump in the Bloomberg interview, the NABJ interview, or any of his hostile interviews. There were no handlers seeking to contain Trump, no limits set by Trump on the amount of time, and no limits on questions. Trump walks out and Trump handles it how he sees fit. Some may detest the substance and other revere the substance, but everyone can see there is substance there. That is clearly not the case with Kamala.
Click to expand...
lol
 
fishonjazz said:
Your post didn't do anything to alleviate the concern of what cutting taxing on everyone all over the place would do to tax revenue.
Click to expand...
It isn't on everyone all over the place, which is where the tariffs come in.

Aside from the genuine protectionism such as Chinese electric cars, and use to gain leverage in negations such as with Canada to negotiate NAFTA into USMCA, do you remember the conversation about tax avoidance by American megacorps using tax haven, and how it gave an unfair competitive advantage over Mom & Pop shops?

fishonjazz said:
Hopefully that's another thing that gets cracked down on. Go after megacorp for that ******** as well

As for Mom and pop shop going out of business because they can't pay the corporate tax rate... Easy fix. Don't hit mom and pop shop with the corporate tax rate.
Click to expand...

Tariffs are how you crack down on that and don't hit mom and pop shops. As it stands now, USA Megacorp can use an Irish subsidiary to avoid paying taxes to America. With the tariffs in place, a megacorp doing that will have to pay the tariff. If USA Megacorp manufactures and sells in the US then they'll pay taxes, and if they use a tax haven subsidiary then they'll pay tariffs, but either way they'll pay.

What Trump is proposing is to reduce the tax burden of Sarah the waitress, and making it up 50x over by finally getting Google, Apple, Microsoft, Intel, and every other Silicon Valley company who has been offshoring profits to start paying in to US tax revenue.
 
Tariffs are significantly passed onto the consumer (largely at the lower classes because that's the majority of people), you're living in lala land if you think Mega Caps are going to absorb the majority of the hit from any tariffs (unless you're also introducing price control on those mega caps at the same time).

Tips are stupid in every form, sure axe the tax and axe the social practice while we're at it.

Trumps Tariffs that I've seen proposed (10-20% on everything and 50%+ on China) are particularly dumb. Tariffs could be effective when focused on certain industries we're looking to mainting/return/build stateside (eg electric cars/semiconductors in recent years).
 
Al-O-Meter said:
It isn't on everyone all over the place, which is where the tariffs come in.

Aside from the genuine protectionism such as Chinese electric cars, and use to gain leverage in negations such as with Canada to negotiate NAFTA into USMCA, do you remember the conversation about tax avoidance by American megacorps using tax haven, and how it gave an unfair competitive advantage over Mom & Pop shops?



Tariffs are how you crack down on that and don't hit mom and pop shops. As it stands now, USA Megacorp can use an Irish subsidiary to avoid paying taxes to America. With the tariffs in place, a megacorp doing that will have to pay the tariff. If USA Megacorp manufactures and sells in the US then they'll pay taxes, and if they use a tax haven subsidiary then they'll pay tariffs, but either way they'll pay.

What Trump is proposing is to reduce the tax burden of Sarah the waitress, and making it up 50x over by finally getting Google, Apple, Microsoft, Intel, and every other Silicon Valley company who has been offshoring profits to start paying in to US tax revenue.
Click to expand...
You said the tariffs are already in plus. PLUS we haven't got rid of taxes on tips, or the rich, or social security, or overtime, etc. So the deficit is certainly dropping like crazy right now. Thats nice at least.
Also, you seem to be putting words in trumps mouth. I have yet to hear trump propose to get the rich (google, apple, microsoft, intel, etc) to start paying in to US tax revenue. That would be such an easy response for him to provide when asked these questions about how his tariffs will not hurt the economy. Interesting...
But ya, im sure that google, apple, microsoft, intel, etc will simply start paying into the tax revenue without trying to offset that loss of profit in some way............... Sure.
 
fishonjazz said:
You said the tariffs are already in plus.
Click to expand...
I said the tariff on Chinese electric cars is already in place. Trump put it in place before he left office and the Biden administration has kept it while at the same time complaining about Trump wanting tariffs.

There are no broad tariffs on tax haven countries currently in place. Those would be a game changer.
 
Eminence said:
Tariffs are significantly passed onto the consumer
Click to expand...
So are taxes.

What I object to is the ability of megacorps to corner the market via the cost advantage of not having to price in taxes due to offshoring profits while mom and pop shops do have to price in the cost of paying taxes. I fully acknowledge that such a move to make the products of megacorps price in taxes the same as mom and pop shops do will lead to higher prices from megacorps, prices that will be in line with the products from mom and pop shops. I am all for closing this loophole to make a more completive market where start-ups aren't being shut out by structural tax laws intended to ensure the dominance of trillion dollar multinationals.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
So are taxes.

What I object to is the ability of megacorps to corner the market via the cost advantage of not having to price in taxes due to offshoring profits while mom and pop shops do have to price in the cost of paying taxes. I fully acknowledge that such a move to make the products of megacorps price in taxes the same as mom and pop shops do will lead to higher prices from megacorps, prices that will be in line with the products from mom and pop shops. I am all for closing this loophole to make a more completive market where start-ups aren't being shut out by structural tax laws intended to ensure the dominance of trillion dollar multinationals.
Click to expand...

Mega Caps corner the market through scale, not tax evasion through tax havens. Go after those Mega Caps that are. Go after those havens enabling it, don't kneecap global trade and the American working class while you're at it.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
I said the tariff on Chinese electric cars is already in place. Trump put it in place before he left office and the Biden administration has kept it while at the same time complaining about Trump wanting tariffs.

There are no broad tariffs on tax haven countries currently in place. Those would be a game changer.
Click to expand...

Also, you seem to be putting words in trumps mouth. I have yet to hear trump propose to get the rich (google, apple, microsoft, intel, etc) to start paying in to US tax revenue. That would be such an easy response for him to provide when asked these questions about how his tariffs will not hurt the economy.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
So are taxes.

What I object to is the ability of megacorps to corner the market via the cost advantage of not having to price in taxes due to offshoring profits while mom and pop shops do have to price in the cost of paying taxes. I fully acknowledge that such a move to make the products of megacorps price in taxes the same as mom and pop shops do will lead to higher prices from megacorps, prices that will be in line with the products from mom and pop shops. I am all for closing this loophole to make a more completive market where start-ups aren't being shut out by structural tax laws intended to ensure the dominance of trillion dollar multinationals.
Click to expand...
Why doesn't trump say, like you did, that these tariffs will lead to higher prices? I mean all the economic experts tell him that and he disagrees with them (and you). Is he just super dumb or something?
 
fishonjazz said:
Why doesn't trump say, like you did, that these tariffs will lead to higher prices? I mean all the economic experts tell him that and he disagrees with them (and you). Is he just super dumb or something?
Click to expand...
Sorta. He is not a super genius. Many of the things he talks about he understand at a surface level, and sometimes not even that. A few weeks ago he addressed as issue in California that is a real issue, but it is three different issues all working in tandem to each create part of the problem having to do with California's water supply. I can tell that someone explained the issue to him, and he got the prescription correct, but in his telling the three issues were put in a mental blender that made no sense and sounded like he thought there was a secret canal from Canada. He is not the Trump of 2016, and definitely not the Trump of the 1990's.

The issues of offshoring profits is an issue that is difficult to combat due to limits on jurisdiction, the boatloads of cash being dumped into politics by those taking advantage of the loopholes, and the friendly relationships we have with some of the countries involved. Bombing Ireland because their corporate tax rates are too low isn't reality. Generally speaking, I am in staunch opposition to protectionism. I have always opposed tariffs, but I can see how if tailored correctly they could be used to stop the issue of offshoring profits.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Sorta. He is not a super genius. Many of the things he talks about he understand at a surface level, and sometimes not even that. A few weeks ago he addressed as issue in California that is a real issue, but it is three different issues all working in tandem to each create part of the problem having to do with California's water supply. I can tell that someone explained the issue to him, and he got the prescription correct, but in his telling the three issues were put in a mental blender that made no sense and sounded like he thought there was a secret canal from Canada. He is not the Trump of 2016, and definitely not the Trump of the 1990's.

The issues of offshoring profits is an issue that is difficult to combat due to limits on jurisdiction, the boatloads of cash being dumped into politics by those taking advantage of the loopholes, and the friendly relationships we have with some of the countries involved. Bombing Ireland because their corporate tax rates are too low isn't reality. Generally speaking, I am in staunch opposition to protectionism. I have always opposed tariffs, but I can see how if tailored correctly they could be used to stop the issue of offshoring profits.
Click to expand...
trump disagrees with you regarding tariffs

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
Eminence said:
Go after those Mega Caps that are. Go after those havens enabling it
Click to expand...
Let's hear a realistic proposal on how you think it should be addressed if not via tailored tariffs. How would you stop Google, who is the biggest lobbyist there is, from offshoring profits to Ireland?
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Doesn't bother me at all. I don't vote for or against Trump because of what he says. I vote for him because of the policies he puts in place.
Click to expand...
But in the past you seemed to not like policies that cause inflation. In this instance you do.
I think you vote for trump because R
You love your party more than your country. Nothing more

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
fishonjazz said:
But in the past you seemed to not like policies that cause inflation. In this instance you do.
I think you vote for trump because R
You love your party more than your country. Nothing more
Click to expand...
My party is Libertarian. That is undoubtedly a major contributor to what makes me so insufferable.
 
fishonjazz said:
Also, you seem to be putting words in trumps mouth. I have yet to hear trump propose to get the rich (google, apple, microsoft, intel, etc) to start paying in to US tax revenue. That would be such an easy response for him to provide when asked these questions about how his tariffs will not hurt the economy.
Click to expand...
He talked about this today on PBD's broadcast. Trump mentioned that when he was president he imposed tariffs on apple and provided them a 1 year waiver on the tariffs for building phones in China. Trump spoke with Cook and they had concerns about Apples ability to compete with Samsung because Samsung phones were being built in Korea and didn't have the same tariffs. Trump provided the waiver with the understanding that Apple would start to manufacture phones in America. Apple built a facility in Texas, but they haven't moved much else because there's been a change in management within the USA.
 
fishonjazz said:
But in the past you seemed to not like policies that cause inflation. In this instance you do.
I think you vote for trump because R
You love your party more than your country. Nothing more

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I honestly don't think that what it is, or at least not all of what it is.

AI has expressed a lot of the ideas that are circulating in the manosphere. It's a phenomenon amongst young men right now, where they are dividing themselves into Alphas, betas, sigmas, incels, cucks, chads, etc. Young men are largely not okay. They are lonelier then ever. They are struggling to connect with women. They don't know what their place in society is, as they feel that many of their traditional roles are being taken away from them. I don't know what the attraction is for AI but it is most likely his ideological position as a conservative and his strongly held religious views that have clearly defined gender roles and also place pretty much any man above any woman. That's what the alpha brigade is all about.

Long video but I find the person in it attractive so it made it easy for me to watch it all (at 1.5x).

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top