You didn't complain that Biden's term passed twice the cost of tariffs onto Americans compared to Trump's first term. Why should anyone take you or that position seriously now? Is Kamala promising an end to Trump's old tariffs?
Good for you. Are you entertained enough to honor whatever your word is now worth and pay your debts or slither back into sadsack cheerleading?
If you don't understand the difference between targeted tariffs and across the board tariffs, then perhaps you shouldn't be commenting on the issue.
My overall framing is that if Harris represents communism, then Trump represents communism on steroids. I list five reasons why. Neither is communism. It's stupid to call them that, but that's how the right wants to portray Harris's economic plan, while completely ignoring that Trump's plan is worse.
Harris to unveil new wave of economic policies for small businesses, communities, in economic speech Wednesday https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/03/politics/kamala-harris-new-economic-policy/index.html Washington CNN — Vice President Kamala Harris is set to propose a handful of new benefits to entrepreneurs and small business owners to spur the creation of millions of new businesses, as part of a second wave of economic proposals set to be unveiled Wednesday. In an economic speech in New Hampshire on Wednesday, Harris plans to call for expanding a tax deduction for costs associated with starting a business and removing regulatory hurdles – like filing requirements and operational licenses – for businesses of a certain size, according to a Harris campaign official. It’s an attempt by the Harris campaign to appeal to a critical middle-class constituency that could help boost her chances in November. “This is one of my singular priorities, is to invest and grow our small business,” Harris told a small business owner in Savannah, Georgia, last week, alluding to the forthcoming tax credit she’d propose. Small businesses are currently granted a $5,000 deduction for expenses related to their first year of operation, according to the Congressional Research Service. Harris will propose raising that to $50,000, the official said, citing the average business’ outlays of $40,000 to get off the ground. Harris is also aiming to surpass the 19 million new businesses under the Biden administration with a new goal of 25 million. After releasing a first wave of more populist policies to increase government involvement in retail pricing and the housing market, Harris is crafting a pro-business, low-regulation platform aimed at taking the air out of Republican broadsides. And, advisers say Harris is expected to borrow another page from a playbook that’s traditionally been used by conservatives: Branding herself as fiscally disciplined. Harris is expected to argue on the campaign trail that the revenue gained by rolling back certain provisions in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, one of former President Donald Trump’s signature achievements in his first term, should be used to fund community-level investments and other programs that affect Americans in a more targeted way. One close adviser told CNN that Harris believes the federal government should “use those expiring tax cuts to get at issues that affect the bottom line for the average American.” Small business growth is at the top of a list that, as CNN has previously reported, also includes investing in underserved communities and assisting working families. Community-based lending Harris also plans to propose a new fund of undisclosed size to allow the country’s smallest banks to cover interest costs on loans to new business. As a senator and as vice president, Harris has worked to provide funding to these banks to invest in startups outside major cities. In particular, Harris promoted legislation that provided capital to Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs), which are dedicated to serving low-income people and communities that are missed by traditional lenders. While many small businesses struggled during the Covid-19 pandemic, those owned by people of color were hit hardest. On Wednesday, Harris will call for more funding for those banks. Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo, who has worked with Harris to increase access to this capital across the country, said CDFIs are critical because they have been able to step in to lend to new businesses with no financial history. “Some new businesses go to seven different banks to try to get a loan, but they can’t get one because they don’t have a three-year track record,” Adeyemo told CNN in an interview. Interest rates – which have risen for all businesses in recent years – are far higher for smaller companies, too, often making it cost-prohibitive for them to borrow even if they can get a loan. “Ultimately the cost of capital is going to be something that matters a lot,” Adeyemo said.
@Invisible Fan by not responding to my points about your parroted false narratives I think the sources from which you cut n paste mean tariffs, not economics most of the critics of Trump's ill-conceived pointed to the resulting inflationary pressure, with consumers ending up paying more i can only conclude that you agree that they're false narratives. you're providing another counter to Trump's false claim that trade wars are easy
It seems the thread hyperfocused into one of my Hot Takes and the naggy baggage that follows. America First and tariffs are more mercantilist than Communist. Our allies complained that IRA and Build Back Better stole their corporations and capital investment. American press isn't going to make that a big deal, but the principle is similar, at least to me. Neither represent what Republicans stood for one generation + ago, though my original point was that Dems have been trailing close behind that populism train. At the very least, it means voters want fresh or new ideas if trade with China is now a threat to us all.
Everyone is aware of the past, yet here we are with tariffs from both parties. With China openly supporting and backing Russia's war along with Iran and N. Korea, what's the over/under of more tariffs (possibly sanctions) for them in the next 4 years?
Unfortunately, not everyone knows history. The potential for increased tariffs under Harris seems minimal, but there’s a 100% likelihood of more aggressive measures under Trump. Trump has promised a 60% tariff on Chinese imports and a 10-20% tariff on all imports, which will likely escalate into a global trade war. While current tariffs on China have shifted some manufacturing to other countries like Vietnam, a blanket tariff on all imports wouldn’t allow for this adjustment. Under Harris, it’s likely to be more of the same as before, without the major escalation you will see with Trump.
Shocker: MAGA panic as Harris surges, and Wall Street’s Goldman Sees Biggest Boost to US Economy From A Harris https://www.usnews.com/news/world/a...s-biggest-boost-to-us-economy-from-harris-win U.S. economic growth would likely get the biggest boost in the coming two years from the Democrats, headed by Kamala Harris, winning the White House and Congress in this November's elections, according to Goldman Sachs Under a Republican sweep, or even with a divided government led by Donald Trump, economic output would take a hit next year, mostly from increased tariffs on imports and tighter immigration policies, Goldman said in a note late on Tuesday. Job growth under a Democrat government would also likely be stronger than under the Republicans, Goldman said. Under Harris, job growth would be 10,000 a month higher than if Trump wins with a divided government, and 30,000 higher than with a Republican sweep, Goldman estimates. A Trump win would likely led to increased tariffs on auto imports from China, Mexico and the European Union that would raise core inflation, Goldman says.
no one has claimed to be an economist, altho Invisible doesn't give credit to the sources from which he cut n paste. and the only thing that CircleTheDrain knows about economics is that he doesn't understand it.
Kamala sharpens her economic message towards an opportunity economy a vastly expanded $50,000 tax benefit for new small businesses and a lower long-term capital gains tax than that was proposed by President Joe Biden in his budget blueprint, “And while we ensure that the wealthy and big corporations pay their fair share, we will tax capital gains at a rate that rewards investment in America's innovators, founders, and small businesses,” Harris said before proposing a 28% long-term capital gains tax on people making $1 million a year or more. Harris' moderated approach toward capital gains taxes will balance with other measures she supports to crack down on billionaires and big corporations. Harris said that she supports a minimum tax rate on billionaires. The source said she also supports raising the corporate tax rate and quadrupling taxes on stock buybacks.
I'm so done with sanctions. Somehow, we've been through umpteen iterations of sanctioning Russia for their whatever actions and they never change their behavior. And you have to wonder how it is we can always find a new sanction we weren't already doing. And Russia is far from the only example. Now, maybe in some way invisible to the public sanctions are still effective somehow in meeting our objectives. I wouldn't know (though I'm starting to suspect they do us more harm than good). If we still want to do them, fine. But, you need to stop announcing them to get some political credit for "doing something" to stand up against whatever ne'er-do-well. That credit has been used up. It's more likely to elicit cynicism than trust.
Sanctions Russia and China will be harder to levy and enforce than other examples. Everyone looked the other way when Russia circumvented the oil price caps with their shadow fleets of old tankers and India refining their gas. Trump's 60% tariffs on Chinese goods is a hefty number. I can't imagine all the crap from Walmart, Target, and Amazon getting even more expensive. That move would be like Trump daring China to hit back harder, so I guess the difference between the two parties is whether who would hit first. Sanctions work in the sense that it cripples a country's progress from the rest of the world, but it punishes the people more than the tyrant. The other issue is how weapons tech and cost is starting to catch up. People are less likely to believe in the credibility of sanctions when peasant N. Korea can have nukes and Iran's rockets and drones are credible enough to export. If we're done taking down Saddams around the world then this is the grey zone we live in, much like the trade restrictions and splitting up the world into Cold War East Vs West boundaries.
