'Liberation Day' tariff announcements

4/17/2025 3:22pm
This is wild, Tokyo who is famous on these boards for building the absolute most epic tribute bike is being asked if he even rides, and...

This is wild, Tokyo who is famous on these boards for building the absolute most epic tribute bike is being asked if he even rides, and is getting grief as if he always posts politics in non moto

While I like TT's builds, bike knowledge and info on japan and it's mx nationals we have been down the road of he knows better/follow the narrative bs before. He flat out told me I had no clue wjat Iwas talking about during covid despite me being a industrial hygienist, working around hospitals, dealing with sanitization protocols, having a democrat alderman tell me flat out tjat his party was going to use the covid shut down and hold on to this as long as they could with an election coming up. I was standing next a shit head covid crazed doctor at universit of illinois hospita when JB fat ass pritzke and our head of the health department got on national tv and explained how thier following the leading protocols for from California and New York. An then explained how every death no matter how it happened if they tested positive within x amount of days or after death was positivefor covid, it was going in the books as a covid death. She litterall  said out loud if you die from cancer a gunshot or a car accident and had covid it could have complicated the possibility of saving a person and therfore needs to be included. Despite then admitting not properly testing deceased patients to make sure there was no false positive. We all know hospital  were making extra money off those tests and outcomes. Its well documented now. Hell I'm getting info directly from a person in the White house at that time. But I'm the crazy nut job trying to kill granny.

I have business partners who vietnamese and one who Philippino They each import  export around 6-8 million in products every year. They think this outrage against trump is hysterical. They look at it as a win win for them either better trade deals which ultimately means more money to be made or we go back to what has been going on the last 40 years and they continue to bussines and make money until we're bankrupt as a country which again they give zero fucks about because they made their money anyways. Literal conversation we've had. As one put it the world is milking the US for as long as they can. Why would they want to change and why would corps and politicians want to change it when they both make money off of it to. 

You have guys like TG who deals with the us government regularly, imports and exports as well as other that do daily. Yet were the crazy ones 

Titan hit the nail on the head something needed to be done. Some people just don't want it done by trump, bitch about how thats not how I would have done it. Even though they never would have done anything and those that profit off it being the way it is. 

 

4
4
lappedrider
Posts
1561
Joined
8/26/2006
Location
Tooele, UT, USA
4/17/2025 3:24pm

I am reasonably sure neither TG or TT take this place too seriously.  

TeamGreen wrote:
Shhhhhh...WTF, Dude? Next thing ya know, you'll be posting pic's of us all fishing down near Margaritaville!!! Besides, it's quite flattering when ya log in while drinking your...

Shhhhhh...

WTF, Dude? 

Next thing ya know, you'll be posting pic's of us all fishing down near Margaritaville!!! 

Besides, it's quite flattering when ya log in while drinking your morning Bulletproof and you're getting shit and shade thrown your way by a fellow screaming-smoker riding moto-bro...it kinda made my morning "fun and funny". 

Hope you're feeling great and sleepin' in....late!

Stay Stoked

Manny 

ps-I've got my surgery next Thursday. A week of true "stay off of it" and then I think I'm taking a run to the east coast in...probably the Bronco...or a Raptor...maybe order a pizza...I dunno...

Just a scope? Speedy recovery wishes sent your way! 

1
ThatOneMXGuy
Posts
1073
Joined
12/28/2023
Location
Somewhere, MO, USA
4/17/2025 3:34pm
Titan1 wrote:
Sane Americans:  The deficit is too high, there is way too much wasteful spending, there is way to much fraud.  We need to balance the Budget...Why...

Sane Americans:  The deficit is too high, there is way too much wasteful spending, there is way to much fraud.  We need to balance the Budget...Why does America do more to help people in other countries than in our own? I'm tired of war. 

Every other POTUS in the past 50 years:  Does Nothing

Sane Americans: Complains about the POTUS doing nothing for the past 50 years.

Trump: Actually starts to make changes. 

Sane Americans: Applaud him, say its about time, acknowledge it will be painful in the short term, but is necessary.  

The Left: How dare he...he's not doing it the way I want it done...they should be more surgical in how they do things...blanket this, blah blah blah that...and THEN they start defending deficit spending, literally defending fraud and wasteful spending (that fraud only represents .1% of the GDP, that waste is only .1% of GDP, what's the point? you can read it right here on this forum)...they are literally defending the status quo...the very status quo that is unsustainable and will BK the country, that will eventually destroy our country if it doesn't change...Just because Trump is the one making changes.  

The left is completely bonkers...I don't get it.  

Genuine question. 

It appears this administration plans to balloon the deficit again. They did the same in their first term. How are they any different at all, strictly from a standpoint of fiscal responsibility, than any other administration since Clinton? I assume you were a fan of Clinton since he was very moderate and balanced the budget? Something you seem to care deeply about. 

7
5
4/17/2025 3:34pm
Dudley wrote:

I was not aware of any major tarrifs by other countries. There are trade deficits for certain. 

 

JimSharp wrote:

Evidently you have an uniformed opinion.

Dudley wrote:
Could be, just basing my opinion off the tariff equation that I saw. Could be the news agency(s) are lying to me. Wouldn’t be the first...

Could be, just basing my opinion off the tariff equation that I saw. Could be the news agency(s) are lying to me. Wouldn’t be the first time 🙂

Maybe read thru the whole thread, many posts from the pro side and even some from the kooks on the "I hate all things President  Trump" side.

Thanks

Luke

9

The Shop

4/17/2025 3:38pm
Titan1 wrote:
Sane Americans:  The deficit is too high, there is way too much wasteful spending, there is way to much fraud.  We need to balance the Budget...Why...

Sane Americans:  The deficit is too high, there is way too much wasteful spending, there is way to much fraud.  We need to balance the Budget...Why does America do more to help people in other countries than in our own? I'm tired of war. 

Every other POTUS in the past 50 years:  Does Nothing

Sane Americans: Complains about the POTUS doing nothing for the past 50 years.

Trump: Actually starts to make changes. 

Sane Americans: Applaud him, say its about time, acknowledge it will be painful in the short term, but is necessary.  

The Left: How dare he...he's not doing it the way I want it done...they should be more surgical in how they do things...blanket this, blah blah blah that...and THEN they start defending deficit spending, literally defending fraud and wasteful spending (that fraud only represents .1% of the GDP, that waste is only .1% of GDP, what's the point? you can read it right here on this forum)...they are literally defending the status quo...the very status quo that is unsustainable and will BK the country, that will eventually destroy our country if it doesn't change...Just because Trump is the one making changes.  

The left is completely bonkers...I don't get it.  

Genuine question. It appears this administration plans to balloon the deficit again. They did the same in their first term. How are they any different at all...

Genuine question. 

It appears this administration plans to balloon the deficit again. They did the same in their first term. How are they any different at all, strictly from a standpoint of fiscal responsibility, than any other administration since Clinton? I assume you were a fan of Clinton since he was very moderate and balanced the budget? Something you seem to care deeply about. 

So having DOGE go thru the spending is ballooning the budget?

 

9
ThatOneMXGuy
Posts
1073
Joined
12/28/2023
Location
Somewhere, MO, USA
4/17/2025 3:39pm
If the private sector actually could help those in need, cool. They can’t though. It’s not feasible. Food drives sure. But housing. Groceries. Transportation to school...

If the private sector actually could help those in need, cool. They can’t though. It’s not feasible. Food drives sure. But housing. Groceries. Transportation to school. Etc. That just isn’t sustainable to do through private charities. Nor should it be. Because it could dry up at any moment. Taxpayer funded systems in place to make sure lower income people have the means to improve their lives is essential to any society. And yes that means going beyond just local taxes.

Under 18 I think would be an amazing start. Let’s at least take care of the children and make sure parents don’t have to decide whether their child should go get medical care or not because they can’t afford it.

He unfortunately does not bring strength. He gives childish nick names to every Republican who tried to primary him and every Democrat he’s faced in the general. He did the same for many of our allies and their leaders. But never has done so for Putin or Orban. Strange. Wonder why. He claimed he could end the war with one phone call but now is supposedly powerless to bring back a wrongfully deported person from one of the worst prisons in the world. He’s not a good leader in any way. That has nothing to do with any political policy. 

In your opinion, is the current government implementation of welfare going well? If not, how many decades will it take to get there, and how many...

In your opinion, is the current government implementation of welfare going well? If not, how many decades will it take to get there, and how many taxpayer dollars? 

Let's take Habitat for Humanity as an example. Only ¼ of their funding comes from the government. The rest is private sector. The average American has to work 90 days just to pay their taxes. Reduce that tax burden by ⅓ and the average American gets 30 days of their pay added to discretionary income. That could go a long way in benefiting the economy, charity, etc. Local organizations could far better serve the local needs than a large government entity. The percentage of people on welfare has increased over time, which goes against the inherent promise that welfare would improve the lives of those on it. It seems instead all it does is keep them at a certain level. Local organizations also provide more models that would help forge a better understanding of what elements of those models work well and can be implemented by others. This is not an option for the megalithic structure currently in place. Government welfare also dilutes the local economic impact of haphazard, irresponsible politics. Take Seattle for example, where possession of drugs was largely decriminalized. This led to a big homeless problem, and accompanying rises in crime. If the local citizens were responsible for the welfare of those people, how long would they have tolerated a huge increase in local taxes? That did not happen, because the money came from all taxpayers. To your point about funding drying up, that is a danger of all types of funding. I prefer we move from “someone should do something” to “I (or we) should do something”. 

There is also the matter of the Democrat party continually using welfare as the carrot to keep those votes coming to their party, but hopefully we have begun to see that change.

I prefer your limitation of taxpayer funded healthcare for children under 18 better than what I stated, which was 18 and under. However, adults (18 and over) should be responsible for their health and healthcare. 

I'll hold off on responding to your third paragraph for now due to the length of my response for the first. In Wankernomics speak - “Let's put a pin in that and circle back to it at a later time” 🙂

 

Habitat for Humanity is great! But they can’t serve everyone. It’s impossible. They do the best they can with what they have. But it’s not feasible for them to take the reins so to speak and do it all.

You know what’s funny? We could lower everyone’s tax rate. Just close all the loopholes and make sure billionaires don’t pay an effective tax rate less than middle class people. Some don’t pay any at all! Just close those, lower the tax burden of EVERYONE, and then we can look at what we need to do to be fiscally responsible. Our overall revenue would increase, so it wouldn’t be as difficult to do as some may think. The difficult part would be closing the loopholes. Trump was 100% correct in the debate with Clinton when he said he takes advantage of the same loopholes her donors do, so she will never do anything about it.

1
bonseff
Posts
2113
Joined
3/29/2011
Location
Frisco, TX, USA
4/17/2025 3:50pm

Hey Luke, why do you sign your posts like my mom signs her texts?

1
4/17/2025 3:52pm
Titan1 wrote:
Sane Americans:  The deficit is too high, there is way too much wasteful spending, there is way to much fraud.  We need to balance the Budget...Why...

Sane Americans:  The deficit is too high, there is way too much wasteful spending, there is way to much fraud.  We need to balance the Budget...Why does America do more to help people in other countries than in our own? I'm tired of war. 

Every other POTUS in the past 50 years:  Does Nothing

Sane Americans: Complains about the POTUS doing nothing for the past 50 years.

Trump: Actually starts to make changes. 

Sane Americans: Applaud him, say its about time, acknowledge it will be painful in the short term, but is necessary.  

The Left: How dare he...he's not doing it the way I want it done...they should be more surgical in how they do things...blanket this, blah blah blah that...and THEN they start defending deficit spending, literally defending fraud and wasteful spending (that fraud only represents .1% of the GDP, that waste is only .1% of GDP, what's the point? you can read it right here on this forum)...they are literally defending the status quo...the very status quo that is unsustainable and will BK the country, that will eventually destroy our country if it doesn't change...Just because Trump is the one making changes.  

The left is completely bonkers...I don't get it.  

Genuine question. It appears this administration plans to balloon the deficit again. They did the same in their first term. How are they any different at all...

Genuine question. 

It appears this administration plans to balloon the deficit again. They did the same in their first term. How are they any different at all, strictly from a standpoint of fiscal responsibility, than any other administration since Clinton? I assume you were a fan of Clinton since he was very moderate and balanced the budget? Something you seem to care deeply about. 

Mentioning Clinton and a balanced budget is funny considering he helped bring the very issues we delt with in 08 and are dealing with now. 

10
inflammable
Posts
2219
Joined
10/2/2009
Location
Abilene, TX, USA
4/17/2025 4:24pm
Habitat for Humanity is great! But they can’t serve everyone. It’s impossible. They do the best they can with what they have. But it’s not feasible...

Habitat for Humanity is great! But they can’t serve everyone. It’s impossible. They do the best they can with what they have. But it’s not feasible for them to take the reins so to speak and do it all.

You know what’s funny? We could lower everyone’s tax rate. Just close all the loopholes and make sure billionaires don’t pay an effective tax rate less than middle class people. Some don’t pay any at all! Just close those, lower the tax burden of EVERYONE, and then we can look at what we need to do to be fiscally responsible. Our overall revenue would increase, so it wouldn’t be as difficult to do as some may think. The difficult part would be closing the loopholes. Trump was 100% correct in the debate with Clinton when he said he takes advantage of the same loopholes her donors do, so she will never do anything about it.

So are we going to have a civil discussion or not? If you are going to participate fairly then you must start understanding my arguments and responding to them, not going off on tangents that are unrelated. 

At no point did I state Habitat for Humanity would be the only organization used to help with welfare. I stated organizations in plural, as that should be the approach locally. Habitat for Humanity was presented as an example of private funding vs government funding, clearly and plainly. 

As to your misunderstanding of my comments about reducing taxes, let me ask you - are you in favor of the Citizens United decision? 

There are less than 1,000 billionaires in the USA. Want to tax them all as much as possible, and cut taxes for others to the bare minimum? Then you will just kick in the hyperdrive for a real move to an oligarchy. That, or say goodbye to most of them, as they will find tax havens somewhere else in the world and start moving wealth out of the US. Should we all pay our fair share? Yes. Above a minimum yearly income, shouldn't we all pay the same percentage? Ideally yes. The wealthy understand something far better than the average citizen though. If they pay a bigger share, they expect a bigger voice. Asking the wealthy to pay as much as possible is also a distraction from the fact the US government is far too large and overly wasteful and corrupt. Getting the government right-sized and efficient should be the first priority of all of our elected officials.

You also neglected my opening questions, so you need to respond to those:

In your opinion, is the current government implementation of welfare going well? If not, how many decades will it take to get there, and how many taxpayer dollars? 

 

2
3
JimSharp
Posts
160
Joined
4/9/2025
Location
Stephenville, TX, USA
4/17/2025 4:59pm

Evidently, building cool bikes should give you a free pass. Kind of like Carmichael can be an ass and everybody thinks he’s cool. 

11
4/17/2025 5:41pm
Yes, my takeaway is that a normally very solid poster chimes into non moto and the usual suspects repeat their same bullshit about narrative followingI don’t...

Yes, my takeaway is that a normally very solid poster chimes into non moto and the usual suspects repeat their same bullshit about narrative following



I don’t recall Tokyo going all in on vaccinations, maybe he did, but I find it extremely odd that he’s getting treated like AKW, or Last2stroke, or I’m not you, when I never see him in non moto

EVH4Ever wrote:
Fair enough, but did you see his diatribe and vitriol regarding Manny? That’s triggered behavior. I agree he damn sure knows how to build a bike...

Fair enough, but did you see his diatribe and vitriol regarding Manny? That’s triggered behavior. I agree he damn sure knows how to build a bike but I wouldn’t want to have him go off the deep end while building a bike for someone of an opposing political view. 

I saw him make a well thought out post, then I saw TG reply with a bullshit answer about being a narrative follower. I didn’t see...

I saw him make a well thought out post, then I saw TG reply with a bullshit answer about being a narrative follower. I didn’t see TG make an actual response to his post in any meaningful manner. Then I saw Tokyo go off on him.


I have a hard time thinking tokyos response was triggered, and thinking mannys post wasnt



*edit, went back and looked at the original post as it has been a few hours since I last saw it. Tokyo did in fact call out TG first, but it was pretty minor IMO. I still stick by my opinion that TGs response was a throw-away post that did nothing to respond to tokyos points


 

So you are the arbiter of all things non moto standards of posts and said replies to posts?

You must be the smartest dude in here.......good for you.

7
4/17/2025 5:46pm
bonseff wrote:

Hey Luke, why do you sign your posts like my mom signs her texts?

Forum etiquette......trying to have some decorum with the Vitards. ;o)

8
zookrider62!
Posts
6825
Joined
12/22/2008
Location
Plano, TX, USA
4/17/2025 6:00pm
EVH4Ever wrote:
Fair enough, but did you see his diatribe and vitriol regarding Manny? That’s triggered behavior. I agree he damn sure knows how to build a bike...

Fair enough, but did you see his diatribe and vitriol regarding Manny? That’s triggered behavior. I agree he damn sure knows how to build a bike but I wouldn’t want to have him go off the deep end while building a bike for someone of an opposing political view. 

I saw him make a well thought out post, then I saw TG reply with a bullshit answer about being a narrative follower. I didn’t see...

I saw him make a well thought out post, then I saw TG reply with a bullshit answer about being a narrative follower. I didn’t see TG make an actual response to his post in any meaningful manner. Then I saw Tokyo go off on him.


I have a hard time thinking tokyos response was triggered, and thinking mannys post wasnt



*edit, went back and looked at the original post as it has been a few hours since I last saw it. Tokyo did in fact call out TG first, but it was pretty minor IMO. I still stick by my opinion that TGs response was a throw-away post that did nothing to respond to tokyos points


 

So you are the arbiter of all things non moto standards of posts and said replies to posts?You must be the smartest dude in here.......good for...

So you are the arbiter of all things non moto standards of posts and said replies to posts?

You must be the smartest dude in here.......good for you.

What was that? Couldn’t hear you over your alter egos


-curmudgeon 

1
2
4/17/2025 6:13pm
Who's getting rich on tariffs?

Who's getting rich on tariffs?

image 1526
FastEddy wrote:

Come on ,Mate!  

Come to America and get rich and get a spray tan!  

You missing out.  Smile

Who needs a fake tan, it's sunny in Australia, and I don't need to leave the country to get richer!

2
1
LOOnatic
Posts
731
Joined
5/20/2019
Location
New Orleans, LA, USA
4/17/2025 6:27pm Edited Date/Time 4/17/2025 6:29pm
Yes, my takeaway is that a normally very solid poster chimes into non moto and the usual suspects repeat their same bullshit about narrative followingI don’t...

Yes, my takeaway is that a normally very solid poster chimes into non moto and the usual suspects repeat their same bullshit about narrative following



I don’t recall Tokyo going all in on vaccinations, maybe he did, but I find it extremely odd that he’s getting treated like AKW, or Last2stroke, or I’m not you, when I never see him in non moto

I tread carefully with TT because of his bike build pedigree but it's 100% true he went all in on covid bullsh1t .

 

He was very active in non moto then and you can search old threads. 

He has been active here selectively so please don't act like we are "attacking " saint Tiddler.

 

Again I respect the man even if his political compass is off 180 degrees 

4
6
zookrider62!
Posts
6825
Joined
12/22/2008
Location
Plano, TX, USA
4/17/2025 7:09pm
Yes, my takeaway is that a normally very solid poster chimes into non moto and the usual suspects repeat their same bullshit about narrative followingI don’t...

Yes, my takeaway is that a normally very solid poster chimes into non moto and the usual suspects repeat their same bullshit about narrative following



I don’t recall Tokyo going all in on vaccinations, maybe he did, but I find it extremely odd that he’s getting treated like AKW, or Last2stroke, or I’m not you, when I never see him in non moto

LOOnatic wrote:
I tread carefully with TT because of his bike build pedigree but it's 100% true he went all in on covid bullsh1t . He was very active...

I tread carefully with TT because of his bike build pedigree but it's 100% true he went all in on covid bullsh1t .

 

He was very active in non moto then and you can search old threads. 

He has been active here selectively so please don't act like we are "attacking " saint Tiddler.

 

Again I respect the man even if his political compass is off 180 degrees 

Guess I missed them

2
olds cool
Posts
4275
Joined
1/17/2010
Location
Claremont, NC, USA
4/17/2025 7:10pm

Obama famously coined a phrase to “describe” a certain part (more or less 1/2) of the country that has strong religious beliefs and refused to give up their 2nd amendment rights.  That same phrase perfectly describes the narrative following status quo loving crowd that wants to keep doing economics and global trade the same way it has been done for decades, thinking things will get better if we just leave it alone.  This is the real definition of BITTER CLINGERS…

1
7
4/17/2025 7:48pm
I saw him make a well thought out post, then I saw TG reply with a bullshit answer about being a narrative follower. I didn’t see...

I saw him make a well thought out post, then I saw TG reply with a bullshit answer about being a narrative follower. I didn’t see TG make an actual response to his post in any meaningful manner. Then I saw Tokyo go off on him.


I have a hard time thinking tokyos response was triggered, and thinking mannys post wasnt



*edit, went back and looked at the original post as it has been a few hours since I last saw it. Tokyo did in fact call out TG first, but it was pretty minor IMO. I still stick by my opinion that TGs response was a throw-away post that did nothing to respond to tokyos points


 

So you are the arbiter of all things non moto standards of posts and said replies to posts?You must be the smartest dude in here.......good for...

So you are the arbiter of all things non moto standards of posts and said replies to posts?

You must be the smartest dude in here.......good for you.

What was that? Couldn’t hear you over your alter egos


-curmudgeon 

Yep, what I thought.....LOL

4
eins4eins
Posts
227
Joined
10/2/2012
Location
DE
4/18/2025 6:16am
olds cool wrote:
Obama famously coined a phrase to “describe” a certain part (more or less 1/2) of the country that has strong religious beliefs and refused to give...

Obama famously coined a phrase to “describe” a certain part (more or less 1/2) of the country that has strong religious beliefs and refused to give up their 2nd amendment rights.  That same phrase perfectly describes the narrative following status quo loving crowd that wants to keep doing economics and global trade the same way it has been done for decades, thinking things will get better if we just leave it alone.  This is the real definition of BITTER CLINGERS…

Show me one post were somebody stated he wants to keep status quo. You probably can't, because nobody is saying that. Criticsm focusses one the way things are done and not that somethings done.

Just because one thinks these tariffs are stupid, doesn't mean tariffs shouldn't be adjusted.

Just because one thinks there should be due process before people are deported, doesn't mean criminals shouldn't be deported. 

Its you whose brain is fogged by the narratives trump propaganda team is setting. Otherwise you would be able to make these distinctions. 

 

8
4
olds cool
Posts
4275
Joined
1/17/2010
Location
Claremont, NC, USA
4/18/2025 7:29am

I have an idea.  All of the non US citizens here that are experts on US economic policy should submit your foreign perspective based plan to tell us how the US should operate.  Don’t forget to include which country you are from and also a brief synopsis of your economic training and education credentials.  We’ll forward your plan to our economic advisors for consideration.  If your plan is chosen, you’ll get a prize.  Don’t call us, we’ll call you.

4
15
LungButter
Posts
8684
Joined
1/9/2016
Location
Yellow Pine, ID, USA
4/18/2025 7:56am
This is wild, Tokyo who is famous on these boards for building the absolute most epic tribute bike is being asked if he even rides, and...

This is wild, Tokyo who is famous on these boards for building the absolute most epic tribute bike is being asked if he even rides, and is getting grief as if he always posts politics in non moto

What's hilarious is, for the most part, the snowflakes crying about him are all on there 2nd or 3rd or 4th username in the last 12 months.

9
10
ThatOneMXGuy
Posts
1073
Joined
12/28/2023
Location
Somewhere, MO, USA
4/18/2025 8:34am
Habitat for Humanity is great! But they can’t serve everyone. It’s impossible. They do the best they can with what they have. But it’s not feasible...

Habitat for Humanity is great! But they can’t serve everyone. It’s impossible. They do the best they can with what they have. But it’s not feasible for them to take the reins so to speak and do it all.

You know what’s funny? We could lower everyone’s tax rate. Just close all the loopholes and make sure billionaires don’t pay an effective tax rate less than middle class people. Some don’t pay any at all! Just close those, lower the tax burden of EVERYONE, and then we can look at what we need to do to be fiscally responsible. Our overall revenue would increase, so it wouldn’t be as difficult to do as some may think. The difficult part would be closing the loopholes. Trump was 100% correct in the debate with Clinton when he said he takes advantage of the same loopholes her donors do, so she will never do anything about it.

So are we going to have a civil discussion or not? If you are going to participate fairly then you must start understanding my arguments and...

So are we going to have a civil discussion or not? If you are going to participate fairly then you must start understanding my arguments and responding to them, not going off on tangents that are unrelated. 

At no point did I state Habitat for Humanity would be the only organization used to help with welfare. I stated organizations in plural, as that should be the approach locally. Habitat for Humanity was presented as an example of private funding vs government funding, clearly and plainly. 

As to your misunderstanding of my comments about reducing taxes, let me ask you - are you in favor of the Citizens United decision? 

There are less than 1,000 billionaires in the USA. Want to tax them all as much as possible, and cut taxes for others to the bare minimum? Then you will just kick in the hyperdrive for a real move to an oligarchy. That, or say goodbye to most of them, as they will find tax havens somewhere else in the world and start moving wealth out of the US. Should we all pay our fair share? Yes. Above a minimum yearly income, shouldn't we all pay the same percentage? Ideally yes. The wealthy understand something far better than the average citizen though. If they pay a bigger share, they expect a bigger voice. Asking the wealthy to pay as much as possible is also a distraction from the fact the US government is far too large and overly wasteful and corrupt. Getting the government right-sized and efficient should be the first priority of all of our elected officials.

You also neglected my opening questions, so you need to respond to those:

In your opinion, is the current government implementation of welfare going well? If not, how many decades will it take to get there, and how many taxpayer dollars? 

 

Yes we are. Just being concise because 90% of users see a long post and just scroll.

I know Habitat is not the only one. It’s still not feasible though which is my point. Charitable donations will never alone be able to tackle the issues we face. If roads relied on voluntary donations they’d all be terrible.

Citizens United was a terrible SCOTUS decision.

See a flat tax doesn’t work like you think it does. 20% of someone making 20K is a lot. 20% to someone making 5 million they still live the same lifestyle. I think we should have more tax brackets and we should close the loopholes substantially. Wanting them to have a bigger voice because they’re wealthy is wild in my opinion.

The implementation of “entitlement” systems isn’t terrible but it could always be better. Millions of seniors would be in poverty if not for social security. Millions of children would starve if not for food stamps. Etc. Etc. 

4
3
dsc131
Posts
491
Joined
8/4/2021
Location
Temecula, WY, USA
Fantasy
4/18/2025 9:52am
olds cool wrote:
I have an idea.  All of the non US citizens here that are experts on US economic policy should submit your foreign perspective based plan to...

I have an idea.  All of the non US citizens here that are experts on US economic policy should submit your foreign perspective based plan to tell us how the US should operate.  Don’t forget to include which country you are from and also a brief synopsis of your economic training and education credentials.  We’ll forward your plan to our economic advisors for consideration.  If your plan is chosen, you’ll get a prize.  Don’t call us, we’ll call you.

As an American, I care very much what the world economic view of the US is because we operate in a global economy. As a stockholder and business person, as well as conservative Republican, I remain pragmatic enough to know that isolationism is neither feasible or strategic.  

15
1
inflammable
Posts
2219
Joined
10/2/2009
Location
Abilene, TX, USA
4/18/2025 9:53am Edited Date/Time 4/18/2025 10:02am
Yes we are. Just being concise because 90% of users see a long post and just scroll.I know Habitat is not the only one. It’s still...

Yes we are. Just being concise because 90% of users see a long post and just scroll.

I know Habitat is not the only one. It’s still not feasible though which is my point. Charitable donations will never alone be able to tackle the issues we face. If roads relied on voluntary donations they’d all be terrible.

Citizens United was a terrible SCOTUS decision.

See a flat tax doesn’t work like you think it does. 20% of someone making 20K is a lot. 20% to someone making 5 million they still live the same lifestyle. I think we should have more tax brackets and we should close the loopholes substantially. Wanting them to have a bigger voice because they’re wealthy is wild in my opinion.

The implementation of “entitlement” systems isn’t terrible but it could always be better. Millions of seniors would be in poverty if not for social security. Millions of children would starve if not for food stamps. Etc. Etc. 

Being concise for other users is an excuse. You and I are having the discussion. If you are worried about any possible audience then you are not having a discussion, you are simply trying to impress others with your statements. 

You have stated you want a civil discussion. Therefore, you should be engaging in said civil discussion without worry of any possible audience. If others wish to read any long posts or not, that is their decision. You are focusing on only the civil part, and ignoring the discussion part. 

You completely missed my point regarding welfare. None of my argument implied that only the existing organizations would remain. Again, you need to read and understand the points before responding, as that is how a civil discussion works. Also, roads are not welfare, they are infrastructure and a completely different topic. 

Agreed on Citizens United, but you do understand why the decision was made, correct? I'll let you comment regarding the reasoning behind the decision. 

Do not pick and choose from the arguments being made. If you do not believe a flat tax works, then fine, but provide something to base that on besides your feelings. However, don't ignore the rest of my argument. I did not even approach saying I wanted billionaires to have a bigger voice. I instead stated that as the reality that would exist if they did. 

Also, there were two questions, and you really haven't answered either. I did not ask about any entitlements:

In your opinion, is the current government implementation of welfare going well? If not, how many decades will it take to get there, and how many taxpayer dollars? 

2
5
4/18/2025 3:27pm
olds cool wrote:
I have an idea.  All of the non US citizens here that are experts on US economic policy should submit your foreign perspective based plan to...

I have an idea.  All of the non US citizens here that are experts on US economic policy should submit your foreign perspective based plan to tell us how the US should operate.  Don’t forget to include which country you are from and also a brief synopsis of your economic training and education credentials.  We’ll forward your plan to our economic advisors for consideration.  If your plan is chosen, you’ll get a prize.  Don’t call us, we’ll call you.

The US government has economic advisors?

What are their economic training and education credentials?

3
2
borg
Posts
7014
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA, USA
4/18/2025 4:11pm
olds cool wrote:
I have an idea.  All of the non US citizens here that are experts on US economic policy should submit your foreign perspective based plan to...

I have an idea.  All of the non US citizens here that are experts on US economic policy should submit your foreign perspective based plan to tell us how the US should operate.  Don’t forget to include which country you are from and also a brief synopsis of your economic training and education credentials.  We’ll forward your plan to our economic advisors for consideration.  If your plan is chosen, you’ll get a prize.  Don’t call us, we’ll call you.

The US government has economic advisors?

What are their economic training and education credentials?

Actually you don't need any qualifications to be an advisor in the executive branch. Except a willingness to get your nose covered in  shit. He needs people because he fired anybody who knew anything. 

10
5
APLMAN99
Posts
12799
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR, USA
Fantasy
4/18/2025 4:15pm
If the private sector actually could help those in need, cool. They can’t though. It’s not feasible. Food drives sure. But housing. Groceries. Transportation to school...

If the private sector actually could help those in need, cool. They can’t though. It’s not feasible. Food drives sure. But housing. Groceries. Transportation to school. Etc. That just isn’t sustainable to do through private charities. Nor should it be. Because it could dry up at any moment. Taxpayer funded systems in place to make sure lower income people have the means to improve their lives is essential to any society. And yes that means going beyond just local taxes.

Under 18 I think would be an amazing start. Let’s at least take care of the children and make sure parents don’t have to decide whether their child should go get medical care or not because they can’t afford it.

He unfortunately does not bring strength. He gives childish nick names to every Republican who tried to primary him and every Democrat he’s faced in the general. He did the same for many of our allies and their leaders. But never has done so for Putin or Orban. Strange. Wonder why. He claimed he could end the war with one phone call but now is supposedly powerless to bring back a wrongfully deported person from one of the worst prisons in the world. He’s not a good leader in any way. That has nothing to do with any political policy. 

In your opinion, is the current government implementation of welfare going well? If not, how many decades will it take to get there, and how many...

In your opinion, is the current government implementation of welfare going well? If not, how many decades will it take to get there, and how many taxpayer dollars? 

Let's take Habitat for Humanity as an example. Only ¼ of their funding comes from the government. The rest is private sector. The average American has to work 90 days just to pay their taxes. Reduce that tax burden by ⅓ and the average American gets 30 days of their pay added to discretionary income. That could go a long way in benefiting the economy, charity, etc. Local organizations could far better serve the local needs than a large government entity. The percentage of people on welfare has increased over time, which goes against the inherent promise that welfare would improve the lives of those on it. It seems instead all it does is keep them at a certain level. Local organizations also provide more models that would help forge a better understanding of what elements of those models work well and can be implemented by others. This is not an option for the megalithic structure currently in place. Government welfare also dilutes the local economic impact of haphazard, irresponsible politics. Take Seattle for example, where possession of drugs was largely decriminalized. This led to a big homeless problem, and accompanying rises in crime. If the local citizens were responsible for the welfare of those people, how long would they have tolerated a huge increase in local taxes? That did not happen, because the money came from all taxpayers. To your point about funding drying up, that is a danger of all types of funding. I prefer we move from “someone should do something” to “I (or we) should do something”. 

There is also the matter of the Democrat party continually using welfare as the carrot to keep those votes coming to their party, but hopefully we have begun to see that change.

I prefer your limitation of taxpayer funded healthcare for children under 18 better than what I stated, which was 18 and under. However, adults (18 and over) should be responsible for their health and healthcare. 

I'll hold off on responding to your third paragraph for now due to the length of my response for the first. In Wankernomics speak - “Let's put a pin in that and circle back to it at a later time” 🙂

 

Couple quick points:

HfH gets about 25% of their funding from federal income, that doesn’t count any state or local funding. It also doesn’t take into account the underwriting of housing loans by governmental entities. 

And the ‘average’ American pays about 14% of their income in taxes, which is a bit over half the claim of 90 days. 

1
1
cheesehead420
Posts
662
Joined
11/3/2020
Location
Manchester, CT, USA
4/18/2025 4:20pm
Yes we are. Just being concise because 90% of users see a long post and just scroll.I know Habitat is not the only one. It’s still...

Yes we are. Just being concise because 90% of users see a long post and just scroll.

I know Habitat is not the only one. It’s still not feasible though which is my point. Charitable donations will never alone be able to tackle the issues we face. If roads relied on voluntary donations they’d all be terrible.

Citizens United was a terrible SCOTUS decision.

See a flat tax doesn’t work like you think it does. 20% of someone making 20K is a lot. 20% to someone making 5 million they still live the same lifestyle. I think we should have more tax brackets and we should close the loopholes substantially. Wanting them to have a bigger voice because they’re wealthy is wild in my opinion.

The implementation of “entitlement” systems isn’t terrible but it could always be better. Millions of seniors would be in poverty if not for social security. Millions of children would starve if not for food stamps. Etc. Etc. 

Being concise for other users is an excuse. You and I are having the discussion. If you are worried about any possible audience then you are...

Being concise for other users is an excuse. You and I are having the discussion. If you are worried about any possible audience then you are not having a discussion, you are simply trying to impress others with your statements. 

You have stated you want a civil discussion. Therefore, you should be engaging in said civil discussion without worry of any possible audience. If others wish to read any long posts or not, that is their decision. You are focusing on only the civil part, and ignoring the discussion part. 

You completely missed my point regarding welfare. None of my argument implied that only the existing organizations would remain. Again, you need to read and understand the points before responding, as that is how a civil discussion works. Also, roads are not welfare, they are infrastructure and a completely different topic. 

Agreed on Citizens United, but you do understand why the decision was made, correct? I'll let you comment regarding the reasoning behind the decision. 

Do not pick and choose from the arguments being made. If you do not believe a flat tax works, then fine, but provide something to base that on besides your feelings. However, don't ignore the rest of my argument. I did not even approach saying I wanted billionaires to have a bigger voice. I instead stated that as the reality that would exist if they did. 

Also, there were two questions, and you really haven't answered either. I did not ask about any entitlements:

In your opinion, is the current government implementation of welfare going well? If not, how many decades will it take to get there, and how many taxpayer dollars? 

There seems to be a decent amount of rational and logical conversation that’s being approached from both sides of the ideological spectrum going on here. Both sides making valid and rational arguments but no one is recognizing the fundamental issues that inform all of these issues you guys are chatting about. 

1
1
4/18/2025 4:43pm
If the private sector actually could help those in need, cool. They can’t though. It’s not feasible. Food drives sure. But housing. Groceries. Transportation to school...

If the private sector actually could help those in need, cool. They can’t though. It’s not feasible. Food drives sure. But housing. Groceries. Transportation to school. Etc. That just isn’t sustainable to do through private charities. Nor should it be. Because it could dry up at any moment. Taxpayer funded systems in place to make sure lower income people have the means to improve their lives is essential to any society. And yes that means going beyond just local taxes.

Under 18 I think would be an amazing start. Let’s at least take care of the children and make sure parents don’t have to decide whether their child should go get medical care or not because they can’t afford it.

He unfortunately does not bring strength. He gives childish nick names to every Republican who tried to primary him and every Democrat he’s faced in the general. He did the same for many of our allies and their leaders. But never has done so for Putin or Orban. Strange. Wonder why. He claimed he could end the war with one phone call but now is supposedly powerless to bring back a wrongfully deported person from one of the worst prisons in the world. He’s not a good leader in any way. That has nothing to do with any political policy. 

In your opinion, is the current government implementation of welfare going well? If not, how many decades will it take to get there, and how many...

In your opinion, is the current government implementation of welfare going well? If not, how many decades will it take to get there, and how many taxpayer dollars? 

Let's take Habitat for Humanity as an example. Only ¼ of their funding comes from the government. The rest is private sector. The average American has to work 90 days just to pay their taxes. Reduce that tax burden by ⅓ and the average American gets 30 days of their pay added to discretionary income. That could go a long way in benefiting the economy, charity, etc. Local organizations could far better serve the local needs than a large government entity. The percentage of people on welfare has increased over time, which goes against the inherent promise that welfare would improve the lives of those on it. It seems instead all it does is keep them at a certain level. Local organizations also provide more models that would help forge a better understanding of what elements of those models work well and can be implemented by others. This is not an option for the megalithic structure currently in place. Government welfare also dilutes the local economic impact of haphazard, irresponsible politics. Take Seattle for example, where possession of drugs was largely decriminalized. This led to a big homeless problem, and accompanying rises in crime. If the local citizens were responsible for the welfare of those people, how long would they have tolerated a huge increase in local taxes? That did not happen, because the money came from all taxpayers. To your point about funding drying up, that is a danger of all types of funding. I prefer we move from “someone should do something” to “I (or we) should do something”. 

There is also the matter of the Democrat party continually using welfare as the carrot to keep those votes coming to their party, but hopefully we have begun to see that change.

I prefer your limitation of taxpayer funded healthcare for children under 18 better than what I stated, which was 18 and under. However, adults (18 and over) should be responsible for their health and healthcare. 

I'll hold off on responding to your third paragraph for now due to the length of my response for the first. In Wankernomics speak - “Let's put a pin in that and circle back to it at a later time” 🙂

 

APLMAN99 wrote:
Couple quick points:HfH gets about 25% of their funding from federal income, that doesn’t count any state or local funding. It also doesn’t take into account...

Couple quick points:

HfH gets about 25% of their funding from federal income, that doesn’t count any state or local funding. It also doesn’t take into account the underwriting of housing loans by governmental entities. 

And the ‘average’ American pays about 14% of their income in taxes, which is a bit over half the claim of 90 days. 

14% look up tax brackets .  A buisness owner or a ic also pays 15% to ss & Medicare .  I delivered at 11.00 yesterday s of Indy . No loads within 250 mi radius . Same with Chicago 250 mi radius & that covers 4 states.  No jobs posted for manufacturing because everyone has cut production.  Not many construction jobs & wages dropped also to 20-25 per hr.  Non stop flights from EU coming here for white collar jobs .   It’s a disaster IMG 3028 0.png?VersionId=D5lNLRdy5

6
ThatOneMXGuy
Posts
1073
Joined
12/28/2023
Location
Somewhere, MO, USA
4/18/2025 5:54pm
Yes we are. Just being concise because 90% of users see a long post and just scroll.I know Habitat is not the only one. It’s still...

Yes we are. Just being concise because 90% of users see a long post and just scroll.

I know Habitat is not the only one. It’s still not feasible though which is my point. Charitable donations will never alone be able to tackle the issues we face. If roads relied on voluntary donations they’d all be terrible.

Citizens United was a terrible SCOTUS decision.

See a flat tax doesn’t work like you think it does. 20% of someone making 20K is a lot. 20% to someone making 5 million they still live the same lifestyle. I think we should have more tax brackets and we should close the loopholes substantially. Wanting them to have a bigger voice because they’re wealthy is wild in my opinion.

The implementation of “entitlement” systems isn’t terrible but it could always be better. Millions of seniors would be in poverty if not for social security. Millions of children would starve if not for food stamps. Etc. Etc. 

Being concise for other users is an excuse. You and I are having the discussion. If you are worried about any possible audience then you are...

Being concise for other users is an excuse. You and I are having the discussion. If you are worried about any possible audience then you are not having a discussion, you are simply trying to impress others with your statements. 

You have stated you want a civil discussion. Therefore, you should be engaging in said civil discussion without worry of any possible audience. If others wish to read any long posts or not, that is their decision. You are focusing on only the civil part, and ignoring the discussion part. 

You completely missed my point regarding welfare. None of my argument implied that only the existing organizations would remain. Again, you need to read and understand the points before responding, as that is how a civil discussion works. Also, roads are not welfare, they are infrastructure and a completely different topic. 

Agreed on Citizens United, but you do understand why the decision was made, correct? I'll let you comment regarding the reasoning behind the decision. 

Do not pick and choose from the arguments being made. If you do not believe a flat tax works, then fine, but provide something to base that on besides your feelings. However, don't ignore the rest of my argument. I did not even approach saying I wanted billionaires to have a bigger voice. I instead stated that as the reality that would exist if they did. 

Also, there were two questions, and you really haven't answered either. I did not ask about any entitlements:

In your opinion, is the current government implementation of welfare going well? If not, how many decades will it take to get there, and how many taxpayer dollars? 

The roads was just another example. Showing that IF we relied on private donations for those, they would be terrible. Just showing an additional example of why taxes are needed is all.

The quick summary is that essentially the SCOTUS ruled that restricting a corporation’s contributions to a political candidate violates their first amendment. This also applies to unions and PACs, the latter of which has become the staple of political donations. It has completely ruined our system of government. Both sides get millions in donations. Elon for instance donated 250 million to the Trump Campaign. Something he can’t do as an individual. But he can do when he donates it to a PAC. Absolutely insane. My opinion for campaign finance is that only individuals can donate to a candidate. They can only donate to someone who directly represents them. So for instance a New York Democratic millionaire can’t donate to a close Senate race in Wisconsin in my system. Anyone anywhere can donate to a Presidential Campaign. I’d also cap the limit at 500 dollars per person.

Well a flat tax doesn’t work because of the reasons I stated. 20% means an entirely different thing depending on your income bracket. I’d favor a more progressive tax system like we have now. I’d just add more tax brackets. Someone making 500Kish is in the top tax bracket. They’re obviously doing really well for themselves. But there’s a massive difference between them and someone making 50 million. I’d just have probably 20ish tax brackets. The details would have to be worked out. Close all the loopholes (which will never happen because both sides depend on donations from people exploiting them, which ties into the previous paragraph), and I’d say have the top tax rate max out at maybe 30ish%. Right now I believe it’s 37% but the left and right wing millionaires pay an effective tax rate under 5% most times through said loopholes.

I think the government implementation is going better than many admit honestly. Would I say well? I don’t think so. But I’d say good. Tens of millions of seniors would be in poverty if not for Social Security and tens of millions of children would starve without food stamps. I’d say programs to prevent that from happening are great. Many don’t know the Social Security cap for getting taxed is 130Kish. So for most Americans that means they pay Social Security tax on 100% of their income. For millionaires and billionaires it’s a fraction of their income they pay Social Security taxes on. Just one example of a way to help the system without really changing a whole lot. It could all be better of course. Property taxes in my opinion shouldn’t even be a thing. Pay taxes on something you already own is insane. But the fact that schools are funded primarily through them makes it even worse. The higher income areas have great schools, tons of extra curriculars, numerous resources to help them, higher paid teachers, etc. The lower income areas have less of all and are in run down schools. Funding them through a combination of other taxes would be much better and set up our nation’s youth to be on a much better path, increasing their odds of success and reducing crime overall. The number one indicator of crime is poverty.

3
3

Post a reply to: 'Liberation Day' tariff announcements

The Latest