Liberal Forum

There’s been a lot of shouting lately about tariffs—mostly outrage, often sarcasm, and rarely substance. Like most issues in economics, the truth about tariffs isn’t as black-and-white as the loudest voices want it to be. They’re not inherently good or bad—they’re tools. And like any tool, their effect depends on how, when, and why they’re used.

Let’s talk pros and cons.The potential benefits:

• Strategic leverage: Tariffs can pressure other countries into fairer trade deals or compliance with labor, environmental, or IP standards.
• Protecting key industries: Temporarily shielding developing or strategic industries can give them breathing room to grow and compete globally.
• National security: In cases where supply chains rely heavily on foreign adversaries (think semiconductors or rare earths), tariffs can support domestic alternatives.
• Encouraging domestic investment: Higher import costs can incentivize companies to source or produce locally.

But there are clear downsides too:

• Consumer costs: Tariffs often lead to higher prices for goods, hurting lower- and middle-income households the most.
• Retaliation risk: Other countries may slap their own tariffs in return, damaging exports and sparking trade wars.
• Market uncertainty: Businesses hate unpredictability. Constant tariff threats can stall investments and hiring.
• Supply chain strain: In a globalized economy, many “American” products rely on foreign components—tariffs disrupt that balance.

The key is to ask: what’s the long game? Are the tariffs being used to force structural changes, or just to score political points?Unfortunately, a lot of people skip the research and go straight to the knee-jerk reaction—usually driven more by who proposed the policy than what it actually does. That’s how we end up with people defending or trashing the same tactic depending on whose name is on the signature.

Now, a note to @Blackvegetable ...aka Darth Evader:
You, more than anyone, should understand the importance of fairness. You’ve spent years belting out questions and demanding answers from everyone else while dodging your own at record-setting pace. You're currently owed 75 dodges, and that’s being generous. But I know you won’t tolerate that. Narcissists never do. You love dishing it out, but you melt the moment someone holds you to the same standard. So go ahead—deflect, insult, and post 16 questions in return. The forum’s seen it all before. And don’t worry, I’ll be skipping your questions at the exact rate you’ve skipped mine.

Fair’s fair, Veghead. Try it sometime.
 

Vegas » 49 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

49 minutes ago

There’s been a lot of shouting lately about tariffs—mostly outrage, often sarcasm, and rarely substance. Like most issues in economics, the truth about tariffs isn’t as black-and-white as the loudest voices want it to be. They’re not inherently good or bad—they’re tools. And like any tool, their effect depends on how, when, and why they’re used.

Let’s talk pros and cons.The potential benefits:

• Strategic leverage: Tariffs can pressure other countries into fairer trade deals or compliance with labor, environmental, or IP standards.
• Protecting key industries: Temporarily shielding developing or strategic industries can give them breathing room to grow and compete globally.
• National security: In cases where supply chains rely heavily on foreign adversaries (think semiconductors or rare earths), tariffs can support domestic alternatives.
• Encouraging domestic investment: Higher import costs can incentivize companies to source or produce locally.

But there are clear downsides too:

• Consumer costs: Tariffs often lead to higher prices for goods, hurting lower- and middle-income households the most.
• Retaliation risk: Other countries may slap their own tariffs in return, damaging exports and sparking trade wars.
• Market uncertainty: Businesses hate unpredictability. Constant tariff threats can stall investments and hiring.
• Supply chain strain: In a globalized economy, many “American” products rely on foreign components—tariffs disrupt that balance.

The key is to ask: what’s the long game? Are the tariffs being used to force structural changes, or just to score political points?Unfortunately, a lot of people skip the research and go straight to the knee-jerk reaction—usually driven more by who proposed the policy than what it actually does. That’s how we end up with people defending or trashing the same tactic depending on whose name is on the signature.

Now, a note to @Blackvegetable ...aka Darth Evader:
You, more than anyone, should understand the importance of fairness. You’ve spent years belting out questions and demanding answers from everyone else while dodging your own at record-setting pace. You're currently owed 75 dodges, and that’s being generous. But I know you won’t tolerate that. Narcissists never do. You love dishing it out, but you melt the moment someone holds you to the same standard. So go ahead—deflect, insult, and post 16 questions in return. The forum’s seen it all before. And don’t worry, I’ll be skipping your questions at the exact rate you’ve skipped mine.

Fair’s fair, Veghead. Try it sometime.

So transparently AI generated...


What a douche.
 

Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

So transparently AI generated...

What a douche.

I own up to it. Yes, it was. I also believe it is relevant. Unlike you, I am ready to defend it from people who are not owed dodges. Guess whom I am talking about.
 

Vegas » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

18 minutes ago

I own up to it. Yes, it was. I also believe it is relevant. Unlike you, I am ready to defend it from people who are not owed dodges. Guess who I am talking about.

Thoughts...

:die:  

 

Blackvegetable » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

Thoughts...

Yes. You should try it. 

Same response over and over. 

Vegas » Today, 10:49 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 10:49 am

There’s been a lot of shouting lately about tariffs—mostly outrage, often sarcasm, and rarely substance. Like most issues in economics, the truth about tariffs isn’t as black-and-white as the loudest voices want it to be. They’re not inherently good or bad—they’re tools. And like any tool, their effect depends on how, when, and why they’re used.

Let’s talk pros and cons.The potential benefits:

• Strategic leverage: Tariffs can pressure other countries into fairer trade deals or compliance with labor, environmental, or IP standards.
• Protecting key industries: Temporarily shielding developing or strategic industries can give them breathing room to grow and compete globally.
• National security: In cases where supply chains rely heavily on foreign adversaries (think semiconductors or rare earths), tariffs can support domestic alternatives.
• Encouraging domestic investment: Higher import costs can incentivize companies to source or produce locally.

But there are clear downsides too:

• Consumer costs: Tariffs often lead to higher prices for goods, hurting lower- and middle-income households the most.
• Retaliation risk: Other countries may slap their own tariffs in return, damaging exports and sparking trade wars.
• Market uncertainty: Businesses hate unpredictability. Constant tariff threats can stall investments and hiring.
• Supply chain strain: In a globalized economy, many “American” products rely on foreign components—tariffs disrupt that balance.

The key is to ask: what’s the long game? Are the tariffs being used to force structural changes, or just to score political points?Unfortunately, a lot of people skip the research and go straight to the knee-jerk reaction—usually driven more by who proposed the policy than what it actually does. That’s how we end up with people defending or trashing the same tactic depending on whose name is on the signature.

Now, a note to @Blackvegetable ...aka Darth Evader:
You, more than anyone, should understand the importance of fairness. You’ve spent years belting out questions and demanding answers from everyone else while dodging your own at record-setting pace. You're currently owed 75 dodges, and that’s being generous. But I know you won’t tolerate that. Narcissists never do. You love dishing it out, but you melt the moment someone holds you to the same standard. So go ahead—deflect, insult, and post 16 questions in return. The forum’s seen it all before. And don’t worry, I’ll be skipping your questions at the exact rate you’ve skipped mine.

Fair’s fair, Veghead. Try it sometime.

Trump is "playing the long game" in part for young people who aren't old enough to vote yet.

\This is why he says no other President would be willing to stick his neck out for a noble cause that of course has no guarantees and wont begin to pay dividends until late into a president's first term...[if that].
The "Chicken Littles" who began  condemning this enormous project from Day One are in many cases those who could not care less about America's  self sufficiency.
Self sufficiency is actually a matter of national security.
 

*GHETTOBLASTER » 15 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

15 minutes ago

Trump is "playing the long game" in part for young people who aren't old enough to vote yet.

\This is why he says no other President would be willing to stick his neck out for a noble cause that of course has no guarantees and wont begin to pay dividends until late into a president's first term...[if that].
The "Chicken Littles" who began  condemning this enormous project from Day One are in many cases those who could not care less about America's  self sufficiency.
Self sufficiency is actually a matter of national security.

Agreed. Dims are looking at instant consequences. They can only see what is going on today, then they turn around and start their Orange Man Bad routine. This stuff takes time to unfold. Positive results are not going to be immediate. 
 

Vegas » 21 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

21 minutes ago

Agreed. Dims are looking at instant consequences. They can only see what is going on today, then they turn around and start their Orange Man Bad routine. This stuff takes time to unfold. Positive results are not going to be immediate.

---------------------------

Indeed, soybean farmers were one of the biggest victims of Trump’s costly trade policies in his first term. Following retaliatory Chinese tariffs on American soybeans, exports to the soybean farmers’ largest foreign market dropped by 77 percent, according to the US Department of Agriculture. Of the $27 billion in total reduced US agriculture exports from mid-2018 to the end of 2019, soybeansFarmers getting squeezed on both ends of a renewed and potentially uglier trade war likely means taxpayers will get squeezed to help cover the consequences.

The first Trump administration took $23 billion from taxpayers and gave it to farmers to compensate for their losses. In her January Senate confirmation hearing, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins referenced the bailout, noting, “We are prepared to execute something similar … we can’t reinvent the wheel.”While the administration is happy to provide farmers with another bailout following another self-inflicted gunshot to the economy, it’s already started handing out taxpayer money. Last week, Rollins used National Agriculture Day to announce the administration is issuing $10 billion in direct payments to farmers authorized by Congress in December. This is all occurring while the Trump administration is supposedly trying to downsize the federal government. However, eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse” in government programs while simultaneously offering multi-billion dollar bailouts—all in the pursuit of economic autarky—will accomplish no such thing.Looking for a good example of government waste, fraud, and abuse?The time the Trump administration is spending upending global trade is a waste, the rationale for it is a fraud, and forcing taxpayers to cover the damage is downright abuse.Related Tags
Economics, Tax and Budget Policy, Trade Policy
 

Vegas » Today, 10:49 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 10:49 am

There’s been a lot of shouting lately about tariffs—mostly outrage, often sarcasm, and rarely substance. Like most issues in economics, the truth about tariffs isn’t as black-and-white as the loudest voices want it to be. They’re not inherently good or bad—they’re tools. And like any tool, their effect depends on how, when, and why they’re used.

Let’s talk pros and cons.The potential benefits:

• Strategic leverage: Tariffs can pressure other countries into fairer trade deals or compliance with labor, environmental, or IP standards.
• Protecting key industries: Temporarily shielding developing or strategic industries can give them breathing room to grow and compete globally.
• National security: In cases where supply chains rely heavily on foreign adversaries (think semiconductors or rare earths), tariffs can support domestic alternatives.
• Encouraging domestic investment: Higher import costs can incentivize companies to source or produce locally.

But there are clear downsides too:

• Consumer costs: Tariffs often lead to higher prices for goods, hurting lower- and middle-income households the most.
• Retaliation risk: Other countries may slap their own tariffs in return, damaging exports and sparking trade wars.
• Market uncertainty: Businesses hate unpredictability. Constant tariff threats can stall investments and hiring.
• Supply chain strain: In a globalized economy, many “American” products rely on foreign components—tariffs disrupt that balance.

The key is to ask: what’s the long game? Are the tariffs being used to force structural changes, or just to score political points?Unfortunately, a lot of people skip the research and go straight to the knee-jerk reaction—usually driven more by who proposed the policy than what it actually does. That’s how we end up with people defending or trashing the same tactic depending on whose name is on the signature.

Now, a note to @Blackvegetable ...aka Darth Evader:
You, more than anyone, should understand the importance of fairness. You’ve spent years belting out questions and demanding answers from everyone else while dodging your own at record-setting pace. You're currently owed 75 dodges, and that’s being generous. But I know you won’t tolerate that. Narcissists never do. You love dishing it out, but you melt the moment someone holds you to the same standard. So go ahead—deflect, insult, and post 16 questions in return. The forum’s seen it all before. And don’t worry, I’ll be skipping your questions at the exact rate you’ve skipped mine.

Fair’s fair, Veghead. Try it sometime.

Well He just..  Backed..  Down... 

Afriggingain...

There ain't no easy way out Baby.
President Donald Trump exempted smartphones, computers, and other tech devices and components from his reciprocal tariffs, new guidance from U.S. Customs and Border Protection shows.The guidance, issued late Friday evening, comes after Trump earlier this month imposed 145% tariffs on products from China, a move that threatened to take a toll on tech giants like Apple, which makes iPhones and most of its other products in China.

jerrab » Today, 12:41 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:41 pm

---------------------------

Indeed, soybean farmers were one of the biggest victims of Trump’s costly trade policies in his first term. Following retaliatory Chinese tariffs on American soybeans, exports to the soybean farmers’ largest foreign market dropped by 77 percent, according to the US Department of Agriculture. Of the $27 billion in total reduced US agriculture exports from mid-2018 to the end of 2019, soybeansFarmers getting squeezed on both ends of a renewed and potentially uglier trade war likely means taxpayers will get squeezed to help cover the consequences.

The first Trump administration took $23 billion from taxpayers and gave it to farmers to compensate for their losses. In her January Senate confirmation hearing, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins referenced the bailout, noting, “We are prepared to execute something similar … we can’t reinvent the wheel.”While the administration is happy to provide farmers with another bailout following another self-inflicted gunshot to the economy, it’s already started handing out taxpayer money. Last week, Rollins used National Agriculture Day to announce the administration is issuing $10 billion in direct payments to farmers authorized by Congress in December. This is all occurring while the Trump administration is supposedly trying to downsize the federal government. However, eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse” in government programs while simultaneously offering multi-billion dollar bailouts—all in the pursuit of economic autarky—will accomplish no such thing.Looking for a good example of government waste, fraud, and abuse?The time the Trump administration is spending upending global trade is a waste, the rationale for it is a fraud, and forcing taxpayers to cover the damage is downright abuse.Related Tags
Economics, Tax and Budget Policy, Trade Policy

Jeez....constant bitching and crying...grow up already

nefarious101 » Yesterday, 6:29 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 6:29 pm

Jeez....constant bitching and crying...grow up already

you are guilty of everything you accuse me of.

jerrab » Today, 2:50 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 2:50 am

you are guilty of everything you accuse me of.

You're a Pedo-Prog....you all don't deal in reality and truth

nefarious101 » Today, 5:10 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 5:10 am

You're a Pedo-Prog....you all don't deal in reality and truth

Can you see any insider trading that happened?  Could you imagine Trump phooked with the stock market just to make phoolks rich?

Have you faced the reality your orange nut job backed down yesterday and everyone is going to get their MTV's and Microwave Ovens at zero tariff?  What was the design intent of the Mango Maniacal Madman Last Week?  Enlighten Us. Splain to Loosey in the Golden Diaper super pooper genius troomper.

I am super grateful that our controls aren't gonna get hit with jacked up tax for Trumpocalypse.  We are back in the global competitive arena.  Now all we need is refrigeration valves and plumbing and compressors and shyt.   I am sure our CEO will work something out with Splutinik the Slut Money Monster...

Vegas » Yesterday, 10:49 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 10:49 am

There’s been a lot of shouting lately about tariffs—mostly outrage, often sarcasm, and rarely substance. Like most issues in economics, the truth about tariffs isn’t as black-and-white as the loudest voices want it to be. They’re not inherently good or bad—they’re tools. And like any tool, their effect depends on how, when, and why they’re used.

Let’s talk pros and cons.The potential benefits:

• Strategic leverage: Tariffs can pressure other countries into fairer trade deals or compliance with labor, environmental, or IP standards.
• Protecting key industries: Temporarily shielding developing or strategic industries can give them breathing room to grow and compete globally.
• National security: In cases where supply chains rely heavily on foreign adversaries (think semiconductors or rare earths), tariffs can support domestic alternatives.
• Encouraging domestic investment: Higher import costs can incentivize companies to source or produce locally.

But there are clear downsides too:

• Consumer costs: Tariffs often lead to higher prices for goods, hurting lower- and middle-income households the most.
• Retaliation risk: Other countries may slap their own tariffs in return, damaging exports and sparking trade wars.
• Market uncertainty: Businesses hate unpredictability. Constant tariff threats can stall investments and hiring.
• Supply chain strain: In a globalized economy, many “American” products rely on foreign components—tariffs disrupt that balance.

The key is to ask: what’s the long game? Are the tariffs being used to force structural changes, or just to score political points?Unfortunately, a lot of people skip the research and go straight to the knee-jerk reaction—usually driven more by who proposed the policy than what it actually does. That’s how we end up with people defending or trashing the same tactic depending on whose name is on the signature.

Now, a note to @Blackvegetable ...aka Darth Evader:
You, more than anyone, should understand the importance of fairness. You’ve spent years belting out questions and demanding answers from everyone else while dodging your own at record-setting pace. You're currently owed 75 dodges, and that’s being generous. But I know you won’t tolerate that. Narcissists never do. You love dishing it out, but you melt the moment someone holds you to the same standard. So go ahead—deflect, insult, and post 16 questions in return. The forum’s seen it all before. And don’t worry, I’ll be skipping your questions at the exact rate you’ve skipped mine.

Fair’s fair, Veghead. Try it sometime.

AI generated.

Pinned.


It STILL sucks...

Ask me why..
 

nefarious101 » Today, 5:10 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 5:10 am

You're a Pedo-Prog....you all don't deal in reality and truth

No...YOU'RE a Pedo...


 

Blackvegetable » 36 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

36 minutes ago

No...YOU'RE a Pedo...

Hey Dickhead...

You are the one supporting Pedo=Progressives.

Someone should be keeping an eye on you

JohnnyYou » Today, 6:37 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 6:37 am

Can you see any insider trading that happened?  Could you imagine Trump phooked with the stock market through tariff just to make phoolks rich?  And that the EU will start buying BYD cars from China?

Have you faced the reality your orange nut job backed down yesterday and everyone is going to get their MTV's and Microwave Ovens at zero tariff?  What was the design intent of the Mango Maniacal Madman Last Week?  Enlighten Us. Splain to Loosey in the Golden Diaper super pooper genius troomper. I heard nothing from China.  It just bing bang boom happened with no Xi  Jinpin Licking Ping Pong Balls Brain.  Back and Forth.. Back and Forth,,   FORE!!   He is on the GOOF COURSE!

I am super grateful that our controls aren't gonna get hit with jacked up tax for Trumpocalypse.  We are back in the global competitive arena.  Now all we need is refrigeration valves and plumbing and compressors and shyt.   I am sure our CEO will work something out with Splutinik the Slut Money Monster...

You all just push fake news and one TDS hoax after another....you are powerless and there is nothing you can do about it

nefarious101 » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

Hey Dickhead...

You are the one supporting Pedo=Progressives.

Someone should be keeping an eye on you

You have no credibility because you are a pedo.

Blackvegetable » 40 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

40 minutes ago

You have no credibility because you are a pedo.

Hey Dickhead...

You're projecting again Dickhead.

You should take a good look at yourself and your life.

You've never had a real live girlfriend

You spent the last decade here raging at Trump using other people's words...none of your own

You can't define what a woman is

Really dickhead....if you can't understand yourself...maybe you need professional help

 

Blackvegetable » Today, 7:09 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:09 am

AI generated.

Pinned.

It STILL sucks...

Ask me why..

Actually, I am curious. I think I will ask you why. Wow me with your intellectual prowess. 

Why?