Favorite team:Georgia 
Location:
Biography:
Interests:
Occupation:
Number of Posts:5926
Registered on:8/30/2017
Online Status:Not Online

Recent Posts

Message

re: Tariffs cost states $200 billion

Posted by frogtown on 2/13/26 at 4:16 am to
quote:

You have changed the talking point 3 times. Feom inflation to prices to carve outs and now you are changing it to import prices.




:lol: The topic is tariffs. So naturally those things will be discussed.

re: Tariffs cost states $200 billion

Posted by frogtown on 2/12/26 at 6:53 pm to
quote:

I really wish folks could back off the "I'm right -- everyone else is wrong BS,"


I will say this again in regards to tariffs.

You can take all the great "right wing" economists from the last fifty years. They are all in 100% agreement that tariffs will harm the economy.

I am on their side. You are not. That is fine. You can have your opinion.

re: Tariffs cost states $200 billion

Posted by frogtown on 2/12/26 at 6:40 pm to
quote:

That's your second self-own in two posts.


You come up with crazy stuff. What can I say.

re: Tariffs cost states $200 billion

Posted by frogtown on 2/12/26 at 6:38 pm to
quote:

Point(s) in CPI.
You just self-owned.


Well I quit paying attention to you since the time you tried to prove China was paying for the tariffs imposed by Trump. Those were good times. I just laughed and laughed.

re: Tariffs cost states $200 billion

Posted by frogtown on 2/12/26 at 6:12 pm to
quote:

What's your measure?


You have to look at certain data points in CPI. You cannot use CPI as a whole because the majority of it is domestic goods and services.

re: Tariffs cost states $200 billion

Posted by frogtown on 2/12/26 at 6:10 pm to
quote:

GDP/debt. GDP only insofar as debt is going to increase regardless.


So you are measuring the effects of tariffs on import prices with debt to GDP. Wow.

re: Tariffs cost states $200 billion

Posted by frogtown on 2/12/26 at 5:25 pm to
quote:

Now then, what is the beef with tariff revenue under these circumstances?


What is the downside of doing this?

re: Tariffs cost states $200 billion

Posted by frogtown on 2/12/26 at 5:16 pm to
quote:

No sir!
We are talking about general economics!


I will ask again. What is your measure?

re: Tariffs cost states $200 billion

Posted by frogtown on 2/12/26 at 5:09 pm to
quote:

Seems pretty straightforward. Have prices went up" as much as "prices had went up" prior to Liberation Day?


What is your measure? We are talking about import prices BTW.

re: Tariffs cost states $200 billion

Posted by frogtown on 2/12/26 at 5:03 pm to
quote:

Have prices went up" as much as "prices had went up" prior to Liberation Day?


WTF are you talking about?

re: Tariffs cost states $200 billion

Posted by frogtown on 2/12/26 at 4:02 pm to
quote:

And as pointed out, prices have not gone up more than normal.

You have lost the argument Frog


We are talking about "carves out".

re: Tariffs cost states $200 billion

Posted by frogtown on 2/12/26 at 3:01 pm to
quote:

Nobody expects prices to go DOWN. Just like they don't expect to earn the same amount of money next year as they earn this year. What people want is for the rate of inflation to go down. That is happening. They also want wages to go up more than inflation does. That is also happening. It did not under the Biden administration.

Inflation is lower. You can take some things, like gas, and see that they are lower than they were a year ago. Other things may be much higher, like beef. Overall, things are slightly higher, as to be expected. Nobody wants negative inflation.


An increase in price and inflation are different things. I am talking about a price increase, not inflation. So you can forget about the inflation argument.

quote:

There are always carveouts. Nothing new here


The effective tariff rate was 2% to 3% in 2024. Now it is around 15% I believe.

Carve outs didn't matter much before because the rate was so low. Now they do.

If you don't think these "carve outs" won't be used to enrich those in Government, well, I don't know what to tell you.



re: Tariff revenue up 300%

Posted by frogtown on 2/12/26 at 7:31 am to
quote:

holy frick we are fricked as that snowballs


Yep and our leaders have no plan going forward except to spend more.
quote:

Man….that’s crazy because I saw another that showed he was the only one that voted no….which is true?


You obviously didn't read the fine print and got taken advantage of by one of the many MAGA influencers.

re: Re: Massie and the SAVE Act

Posted by frogtown on 2/11/26 at 2:57 pm to
quote:

All of them minus Jugbow?


It is a good thing Jugbow wasn't here today. He would have completely lost it.

re: Tariffs cost states $200 billion

Posted by frogtown on 2/11/26 at 12:45 pm to
quote:

I don't understand why Trump is catching shite on this. Prices have NOT skyrocketed, as people have said, and all Trump is doing is looking at inequalities built into the system and trying to level the playing field.


You have failed to read the room.

Prices have went up. This comes just after the hit American consumers took from COVID inflation. Consumers are tired of it. They want it to stop.

quote:

People who benefited from the old system don't like it.


Who is benefitting the Trump system of personally being involved in every deal and doing special carve outs? I don't need to tell you it will be those in government. Use your head here.

re: Tariffs cost states $200 billion

Posted by frogtown on 2/11/26 at 9:05 am to
quote:

True. But he has said he would like ZERO tariffs if other countries would not tariff US goods or put other barriers to trade on US goods.


There are zero tariffs with many products in the USMCA. Trump is looking to blow that up that agreement. There is a review on July 1, 2026 which allows Trump to terminate it. We will see what happens.

Vietnam thought they had a "zero tariff" agreement with the US. They were surprised to see it announced at 18%.

Bottom line. Trump wants the revenue created by the tariffs. He doesn't want "zero for zero".

quote:

Tariffs have not been the drain on our economy that people have warned us of, and it helps us balance our trade deficits.


They are a tax. They take money out of the hands of American consumers with which they would have been able to purchase more goods and services. They reduce your standard of living. Just like a tax increase does.

These are not my words. These are the words of every decent right wing economist who has studied tariffs over the last 50 years. I am talking about Friedman, Rothbard and Hoppe.

re: Tariffs cost states $200 billion

Posted by frogtown on 2/11/26 at 8:04 am to
quote:

A lot of that is tariffs on products that should be manufactured in the US for national security reasons, like medicines and computer chips.



OK. We will give you that.

Tariff industry with a national security interest.

That is not what Trump wants to do nor is it what he is doing. Trump wants universal baseline tariffs. He wants tariffs on all imports whether they are a national security interest or not.
quote:

He is a parrot that repeats lies from politicians.


They don't have to be lies from politicians. SDVtiger just flat out makes stuff up.
quote:

Frogtard said alls well in GA and Orange bad lost fair and sqaure cause no one likes him there


STFU liar. All you know how to do is lie.

I was one of the first on this board to question the insane vote totals coming out of Fulton County and said it was due to fraud. Hit the link.

Fulton County

Where were you at this time? I believe you where having your identity crisis. You went through five or six names. Didn't know if you were a boy or girl. If I recall you where having a really difficult time.

re: Trumps message to Canada

Posted by frogtown on 2/9/26 at 6:57 pm to
quote:

He’s been saying we’ve been screwed in our deals with various countries for decades now.


Trump negotiated the USMCA during his first term. This is what he said about it.

"The USMCA is the fairest, most balanced, and beneficial trade agreement we have ever signed into law. It’s the best agreement we’ve ever made, and we have others coming."

Does not sound like he thinks "we've been getting screwed."