PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I didn't even know they gave a Nobel prize for Comedy.....
Nobel economic experts say Harris' plan 'vastly superior' to Trump's
- Thread starter The Harris Administration
- Start date
serendipity
Verified User
If you cannot understand those few paragraphs then there's truly no hope for you.
And of course the alt right posters come forward with the theory that they know more than any economist, because they spent 15 minutes studying economics.
15 minutes seems to be a magic number to them. Gladwell put the number at 10,000 hours to become an expert in something. Others say it is more like 20,000 or 25,000 hours. But the alt right posters seem to think the number is 15 minutes.
15 minutes seems to be a magic number to them. Gladwell put the number at 10,000 hours to become an expert in something. Others say it is more like 20,000 or 25,000 hours. But the alt right posters seem to think the number is 15 minutes.
So you say, dummy.
You aren’t an expert with the law, Walter.
You are calling Trump a rapist.
The jury did not convict Trump of rape.
He said he had never seen the woman and the jury did not convict him of rape.
Poor Walter.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
They did.
Obama got the peace prize for not being GWB.
Paul Krugman got one for economics because he's a far left commentator for the NYTimes despite the fact that he's been proven to be wrong on everything concerning economics.
The new Republican qualification to become president is anyone who has not been convicted of rape beyond a reasonable doubt. As long as there is a reasonable doubt that trump committed rape, even if there is no reasonable doubt that he committed other crimes, Republicans have decided he should be president.
The Harris Administration
Official
Delusional prattle from a non-credible European source. Of course, in idiot land where you wallow, you don't realize that our trading partners are definitely against the same tariffs they place on our goods.Donald Trump’s public statements on tariffs have ranged from merely alarming to evidently impossible.
Trump’s specific proposals include both a 10% across-the-board tariff on all trading partners as well as 60% or higher tariffs on goods from China.
These tariff proposals occur alongside calls for tax cuts that would cost as much $5 trillion over ten years.
Trump has even floated the idea of completely replacing income taxes with tariffs.
This policy would antagonize US allies and partners, provoking worldwide trade wars, damaging global economic growth and i t would also destabilize the global financial system.
Can Trump’s tariffs replace the income tax?
Simply put, no.
Tariffs would be levied on a tax base comprised of US imported goods, which totaled $3.1 trillion in 2023.
The income tax is levied on a tax base that consists of incomes, which exceed $20 trillion.
The US government raises about $2 trillion in individual and corporate income taxes at present.
It is impossible for tariffs to fully replace income taxes. Tariff rates would have to be implausibly high on such a small base of imports to replace the income tax, but as tax rates rise, the base itself would shrink as imports fall.
Trump’s 2025 Tariff Threats
Former US President Donald Trump’s public statements on tariffs have ranged from merely alarming to evidently impossible, but one thing is clear: these tariff threats should be taken seriously. Both the candidate and his advisers have been relentlessly consistent in their repeated emphasis on...www.intereconomics.eu
Dunce.
Once again, an idiot economist with zero experience in the real world argues about free markets. But that is not what this debate is about. This is about our trading partners who place limits and tariffs on our trade, yet we don't reciprocate while watching our manufacturing and jobs go overseas.
What part of the OBVIOUS are you uneducated leftist dumbasses not comprehending? The only reason we are having this debate is because Trump is arguing the OBVIOUS.
If we actually had free and fair trade, we wouldn't be seeing many of our jobs being eliminated and supplanted with low paying service sector jobs.
Really? How much did he inherit? Provide your sources.
So creating a massive asset rich real estate empire and millions of jobs is not any better than investing in WallStreet?
You really are a dumb fuck aren't you?
He OWNS one you illiterate, uneducated halfwit.
There you go with the grade school nonsense. I should know not to take low IQ leftist halfwits seriously in debates.
Bullshit. The laughable nonsense that erupts from your keyboard suggests a dotard who can only parrot MSNBC nonsense.
Moron doesn't know the difference between owning and being a customer. 
Trump says immigrants are ‘poisoning the blood of our country.’ Biden campaign likens comments to Hitler.
Trump went on to say his criticism is of immigrants from all over the world, including Asia and Africa.www.nbcnews.com
No surprise, stupid people usually do.
I only wish you could.
But of course it has. Because you say so.
Trump Rants About ‘SCUM’ and ‘COCKROACHES’ After Durham Report
He spent the evening sharing Newsmax and Fox News coverage of the report.www.thedailybeast.com
The Daily Beast? No wonder you're such an ignorant halfwit.
Projection. It is quite common with low IQ halfwits like you that lack any self-awareness.
I don't think you should insult yourself. I'll do it for you. Think of it as merely an accurate description of what you are.
When I call you an idiot, it isn't because I want to call you a name, it's because you actually are a fucking idiot.
Joe
Well-known member
If they're so fucking smart why are they so broke?
Show me the "economists" on the worlds top 500 wealthiest people list.
They are almost as much of a joke as a "meteorologist"
The Harris Administration
Official
Federal budget experts, however, have poured cold water on Trump's notion that tariffs could replace income taxes.
“It’s an absurd idea for many reasons, the biggest being that it is mathematically impossible to replace the income tax with tariffs,” Erica York, senior economist and research director at the right-leaning Tax Foundation, told CNN.
“Imports are a much smaller tax base than taxable income, and there’s no way to squeeze enough revenue from taxing imports to fully replace taxing income. A swap like this would hike taxes on working-class taxpayers and invite harmful retaliation against US exports.”
Increasing tariffs would likely prompt Americans to purchase fewer imported goods, canceling out at least part of the hoped-for revenues, Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute, told CNN.
“At first blush, fully replacing $2.4 trillion in income taxes would require a 75% tariff on America’s $3.2 trillion in annual imports,” he said. “However, even that unrealistically assumes that Americans continue purchasing the same imports at nearly double the price.”
What’s more, Trump had to spend part of the revenue raised from the tariffs he imposed in his first term bailing out industries, including agriculture, that were hurt by other nations’ retaliatory actions, Riedl said.
“So even the new revenues from Trump’s next round of tariffs may not provide much net budget savings,” he continued.
Even without eliminating the federal income tax, Trump’s economic package would increase the national debt by $7.5 trillion over a decade, according to a recent analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
The nonpartisan watchdog group estimates that his tariffs proposal would bring in $2.7 trillion over 10 years.
“It’s an absurd idea for many reasons, the biggest being that it is mathematically impossible to replace the income tax with tariffs,” Erica York, senior economist and research director at the right-leaning Tax Foundation, told CNN.
“Imports are a much smaller tax base than taxable income, and there’s no way to squeeze enough revenue from taxing imports to fully replace taxing income. A swap like this would hike taxes on working-class taxpayers and invite harmful retaliation against US exports.”
Increasing tariffs would likely prompt Americans to purchase fewer imported goods, canceling out at least part of the hoped-for revenues, Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute, told CNN.
“At first blush, fully replacing $2.4 trillion in income taxes would require a 75% tariff on America’s $3.2 trillion in annual imports,” he said. “However, even that unrealistically assumes that Americans continue purchasing the same imports at nearly double the price.”
What’s more, Trump had to spend part of the revenue raised from the tariffs he imposed in his first term bailing out industries, including agriculture, that were hurt by other nations’ retaliatory actions, Riedl said.
“So even the new revenues from Trump’s next round of tariffs may not provide much net budget savings,” he continued.
Even without eliminating the federal income tax, Trump’s economic package would increase the national debt by $7.5 trillion over a decade, according to a recent analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
The nonpartisan watchdog group estimates that his tariffs proposal would bring in $2.7 trillion over 10 years.
Warren Buffet sticks out as a wealthy economist. George Soros is another economist. There are a few dozen more that started out with nothing but a degree in economics, and then made a fortune. I do not include Alice Walton, and the others that inherited their money. While they did study economics, they inherited their money.
It is hard to find a billionaire who has not either intensely studied economics, or at least hiring people who have.
Even trump has a bachelors degree in economics, as do half of his children who have degrees.
The economists who stayed in academia tend to have less money, but often have more money than you would expect. Keynes made a small fortune, but got bored with the stock market and handed over management of his money to others. When they lost much of it during the Great Depression, he took a few months to make it back again. He literally found making money too easy.
Meteorologists have been very successful in predicting the weather. I am not sure what you have against them.