Undecided future voter - Please help?

[Dashinka 24,466]

On 6/21/2024 at 7:47 PM, Visitor User said:

What if congress votes differently than State results on public voting?

I don't fully understand the question.  If you are referring to the electoral college for President/VP, then the states have their rules as to how their electors are allocated and many states tie their electors to the popular vote in that specific state.  There is an ongoing push to get more states to tie their electors to the national popular vote which I think is wrong, but many "progressives" out there would like to get rid of the state governments and give all the power to the feds.

 

As to how Congress votes relative to legislation, that is up to them and theoretically how they feel they are best representing the voters of their district or state.  The way the legislation of the federal government was set up was that districts would be formed to directly represent the people at about 1 House member per 30k people, and each state would have 2 Senators regardless of population.  The House members were voted on by the people directly, but Senators were selected by the state legislation (so indirectly by the people).  The 17th Amendment changed the way Senators were selected, instead going to a state popular vote which means Senators now need to pander to campaign donors every six years or so, and the Senate is essentially just a more elite House.  The other, and I would opine bigger issue, is when the Congress capped the number of representatives in the House to 435, so now each House member directly represents an average of about 750,000 people which means it doesn't really matter how they vote in Congress as long as they keep their campaign donors and political party happy.  One House member per an average of 750k people is the second worst apportionment of any democracy based country (only India is worse), and in my opinion directly lead to the rise of the two primary political parties.  If they had apportioned the House to say 1 member per 200k, of course there would be many more members, and more than likely other political parties would have emerged.

 

 

[Dashinka 24,466]

On 6/22/2024 at 10:00 PM, Visitor User said:

What about it?

All tax brackets benefited. 

Democrats will never admit that all tax brackets benefitted because it doesn't fit their narrative of tax the rich.

[Dashinka 24,466]

On 6/22/2024 at 7:11 PM, D-R-J said:

If you think inflation is bad now, just wait and see what 10% across

the board tariffs, mass deportations, and more tax cuts do

I agree tariffs are not the way to go as just like the minimum wage hikes, or corporate taxes, it is the consumer that pays in the end.  Btw, I believe Biden is threatening major tariffs on low cost Chinese EVs.  That seems counter to their stated goal of getting everyone in an EV including those low income folks the Democrats tell us they support.

[Pooky 3,780]

On 6/22/2024 at 5:11 PM, D-R-J said:

If you think inflation is bad now, just wait and see what 10% across

the board tariffs, mass deportations, and more tax cuts do

if memory serves correctly, when DJT imposed tariffs against China during his presidency, the Chinese response was muted, amounting to barely 20% of the U.S. figure, signifying that it was a face-saving measure only. The reason for this is that the knew the tariffs were justified, to rebalance the years of currency and market manipulation they had managed to effect with prior consequences. And the tariffs worked.

 

Mass deportations of illegal aliens, on the other hand, are a logistical and administrative nightmare, due to the intentional and politically-driven overloading of the immigration system.

 

As for tax cuts, what the left will never admit is that the DJT tax cut package increased tax receipts. Long may they continue, as they make sound financial sense. They just don’t punish high earners in the way the far left would like.

 

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

I agree tariffs are not the way to go as just like the minimum wage hikes, or corporate taxes, it is the consumer that pays in the end.  Btw, I believe Biden is threatening major tariffs on low cost Chinese EVs.  That seems counter to their stated goal of getting everyone in an EV including those low income folks the Democrats tell us they support.

 

Preventing the wide-scale domination of Chinese EVs may not fit in with the green agenda, but it makes the unions happy, so it keeps their money flowing to the DNC, even if their members might be realigning with the GOP. It also makes sound business sense. The Chinese have a myriad of EV companies, who  could flood the world with their surplus production, sidelining the established manufacturers. It’s another case of China gaming the free market with extensive governmental support and subsidy. 

[D-R-J 192]

3 hours ago, Pooky said:

if memory serves correctly, when DJT imposed tariffs against China during his presidency, the Chinese response was muted, amounting to barely 20% of the U.S. figure, signifying that it was a face-saving measure only. The reason for this is that the knew the tariffs were justified, to rebalance the years of currency and market manipulation they had managed to effect with prior consequences. And the tariffs worked.

 

Mass deportations of illegal aliens, on the other hand, are a logistical and administrative nightmare, due to the intentional and politically-driven overloading of the immigration system.

 

As for tax cuts, what the left will never admit is that the DJT tax cut package increased tax receipts. Long may they continue, as they make sound financial sense. They just don’t punish high earners in the way the far left would like.

 

 

Preventing the wide-scale domination of Chinese EVs may not fit in with the green agenda, but it makes the unions happy, so it keeps their money flowing to the DNC, even if their members might be realigning with the GOP. It also makes sound business sense. The Chinese have a myriad of EV companies, who  could flood the world with their surplus production, sidelining the established manufacturers. It’s another case of China gaming the free market with extensive governmental support and subsidy. 

US tariffs on Chinese goods are primarily paid by US consumers. If China had imposed retaliatory tariffs on US goods, those would have been paid primarily by Chinese consumers. My point is that tariffs are inflationary when we are trying to bring inflation down.
 

Re: DJT tax cuts, You are comparing a previous year’s tax receipts to a following year’s receipts. That is an apples to oranges comparison. You should be comparing a year’s receipts to those same year’s receipts without the tax cut. We added 1-2 trillion dollars to the national debt due to the tax cuts.

 

I think the EV tariffs are tricky. It would definitely speed adoption to import cheaper Chinese EVs, but I do understand wanting to protect domestic manufacturing. Especially when we’ve seen what China has done in areas like solar panel manufacturing. I don’t have a strong sense which is better for our long term interests.

Edited June 24 by D-R-J

[Pooky 3,780]

7 minutes ago, D-R-J said:

US tariffs on Chinese goods are primarily paid by US consumers. If China had imposed retaliatory tariffs on US goods, those would have been paid primarily by Chinese consumers. My point is that tariffs are inflationary when we are trying to bring inflation down.

The tariffs were not about who pays for them. China had systematically gamed the currency markets for over 20 years. What the tariffs achieved was a reduction in Chinese economic growth from 8.5% per annum to around 5% per annum, which was a significant blow to the CCP’s economic aspirations.

 

Plus, the major benefit the tariffs achieved was to repatriate manufacturing from China to companies’ native countries and/or other, less economically hostile countries, to avoid the tariffs. This had a global benefit that the U.S. never saw reported. Japan alone had upward of 550 manufacturing centers repatriated from China as a result of those tariffs.

 

It cannot be overstated that China needed to face the consequences of its gaming of the world’s financial markets. The muted response was to save face, because the Chinese understood that anything other than a token response would be met with more severe action that would cripple the CCP’s economic growth aspirations. The tariffs were having the desired effect.

[Pooky 3,780]

30 minutes ago, D-R-J said:

We added 1-2 trillion dollars to the national debt due to the tax cuts.

Apparently, the CBO disagrees with you.

 

https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/the-numbers-are-trumps-tax-cuts-paid

[D-R-J 192]

22 minutes ago, Pooky said:

The tariffs were not about who pays for them. China had systematically gamed the currency markets for over 20 years. What the tariffs achieved was a reduction in Chinese economic growth from 8.5% per annum to around 5% per annum, which was a significant blow to the CCP’s economic aspirations.

 

Plus, the major benefit the tariffs achieved was to repatriate manufacturing from China to companies’ native countries and/or other, less economically hostile countries, to avoid the tariffs. This had a global benefit that the U.S. never saw reported. Japan alone had upward of 550 manufacturing centers repatriated from China as a result of those tariffs.

 

It cannot be overstated that China needed to face the consequences of its gaming of the world’s financial markets. The muted response was to save face, because the Chinese understood that anything other than a token response would be met with more severe action that would cripple the CCP’s economic growth aspirations. The tariffs were having the desired effect.

You’re not wrong about Chinese misbehavior or that supply chains are moving away from China. But Trumps proposal is for 10% across the board tariffs on all imported products, not just China. This is a recipe for disastrous inflation.

 

I think you are also overstating the case of tariffs on China’s economy. Tariffs are not responsible for all or even most of the deceleration from 8.5% to 5%.

[D-R-J 192]

58 minutes ago, Pooky said:

Apparently, the CBO disagrees with you.

 

https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/the-numbers-are-trumps-tax-cuts-paid

Not so sure about that.

 

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/2017-tax-cuts-continue-lose-revenue#:~:text=The Congressional Budget Office (CBO,effects of faster economic growth.

 

[Dashinka 24,466]

1 hour ago, D-R-J said:

US tariffs on Chinese goods are primarily paid by US consumers. If China had imposed retaliatory tariffs on US goods, those would have been paid primarily by Chinese consumers. My point is that tariffs are inflationary when we are trying to bring inflation down.
 

Re: DJT tax cuts, You are comparing a previous year’s tax receipts to a following year’s receipts. That is an apples to oranges comparison. You should be comparing a year’s receipts to those same year’s receipts without the tax cut. We added 1-2 trillion dollars to the national debt due to the tax cuts.

 

I think the EV tariffs are tricky. It would definitely speed adoption to import cheaper Chinese EVs, but I do understand wanting to protect domestic manufacturing. Especially when we’ve seen what China has done in areas like solar panel manufacturing. I don’t have a strong sense which is better for our long term interests.

We added this to the national debt due to runaway government spending.  Also, most Democrats and even the majority of Republicans in DC really do not care about the national debt, so does it really matter?  I know the Democrat narrative is the Trump tax cuts only benefitted the wealthy, but of course people with some level of understanding know that is not the case.  I am certainly no where near the top, and I benefitted.  How does that square with the Democrat narrative?  Also, a great many of the folks in the first two quintiles of the chart you shared pay little or no taxes, so why would they get a lot more back?

 

Targeted tariffs are a tool that can be used effectively, and they should only be used when necessary.  China is a good example, and sometimes even the EU has practiced in unfriendly trade protections.  Yes, initially it would lead to higher inflation as it takes time to relocate manufacturing facilities to get out of the tariffs.  However, I think more and more federal spending has a much bigger impact on inflation than tariffs as I can choose not to buy a lot of stuff the tariffs would impact.

[D-R-J 192]

6 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

We added this to the national debt due to runaway government spending.  Also, most Democrats and even the majority of Republicans in DC really do not care about the national debt, so does it really matter?  I know the Democrat narrative is the Trump tax cuts only benefitted the wealthy, but of course people with some level of understanding know that is not the case.  I am certainly no where near the top, and I benefitted.  How does that square with the Democrat narrative?  Also, a great many of the folks in the first two quintiles of the chart you shared pay little or no taxes, so why would they get a lot more back?

 

Targeted tariffs are a tool that can be used effectively, and they should only be used when necessary.  China is a good example, and sometimes even the EU has practiced in unfriendly trade protections.  Yes, initially it would lead to higher inflation as it takes time to relocate manufacturing facilities to get out of the tariffs.  However, I think more and more federal spending has a much bigger impact on inflation than tariffs as I can choose not to buy a lot of stuff the tariffs would impact.

Trump’s tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy, but it’s also true that they pay the majority of taxes. They can also afford to pay taxes and still live comfortably.

 

Nondefense discretionary spending is only 14% of the budget. I’m not sure there is a much low hanging fruit as you’d assume.

[Dashinka 24,466]

3 minutes ago, D-R-J said:

Trump’s tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy, but it’s also true that they pay the majority of taxes. They can also afford to pay taxes and still live comfortably.

 

Nondefense discretionary spending is only 14% of the budget. I’m not sure there is a much low hanging fruit as you’d assume.

Interest on the debt has now surpassed military spending under Joe Biden.  Much of that is because of the runaway spending by the establishment class in DC.  It is unsustainable, but of course there is no end in sight.  I know the Democrat plan, income confiscation, but that will just lead to more and more spending.  

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-debt-interest-payments-defense-medicare-children/

[D-R-J 192]

19 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Interest on the debt has now surpassed military spending under Joe Biden.  Much of that is because of the runaway spending by the establishment class in DC.  It is unsustainable, but of course there is no end in sight.  I know the Democrat plan, income confiscation, but that will just lead to more and more spending.  

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-debt-interest-payments-defense-medicare-children/

I think it would be hard to stabilize the debt with only spending cuts. It would seem to necessitate cuts to Social Security and Medicare. I’m not sure there is the political will for that.

[Visitor User 253]

11 hours ago, Dashinka said:

I don't fully understand the question.  If you are referring to the electoral college for President/VP, then the states have their rules as to how their electors are allocated and many states tie their electors to the popular vote in that specific state.  There is an ongoing push to get more states to tie their electors to the national popular vote which I think is wrong, but many "progressives" out there would like to get rid of the state governments and give all the power to the feds.

 

As to how Congress votes relative to legislation, that is up to them and theoretically how they feel they are best representing the voters of their district or state.  The way the legislation of the federal government was set up was that districts would be formed to directly represent the people at about 1 House member per 30k people, and each state would have 2 Senators regardless of population.  The House members were voted on by the people directly, but Senators were selected by the state legislation (so indirectly by the people).  The 17th Amendment changed the way Senators were selected, instead going to a state popular vote which means Senators now need to pander to campaign donors every six years or so, and the Senate is essentially just a more elite House.  The other, and I would opine bigger issue, is when the Congress capped the number of representatives in the House to 435, so now each House member directly represents an average of about 750,000 people which means it doesn't really matter how they vote in Congress as long as they keep their campaign donors and political party happy.  One House member per an average of 750k people is the second worst apportionment of any democracy based country (only India is worse), and in my opinion directly lead to the rise of the two primary political parties.  If they had apportioned the House to say 1 member per 200k, of course there would be many more members, and more than likely other political parties would have emerged.

 

 

What if public votes favor a president but decides not to vote for the winner?

[Visitor User 253]

11 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Democrats will never admit that all tax brackets benefitted because it doesn't fit their narrative of tax the rich.

It doesn’t matter. I am focused on my benefit.