'Liberation Day' tariff announcements

JimSharp wrote:

Taxation is Theft!

JimSharp wrote:

Taxation is Theft!

Last2Stroke wrote:

So Tariffs are Theft!

So Tariffs are Theft!

JimSharp wrote:

Taxation is Theft!

Last2Stroke wrote:

So Tariffs are Theft!

So Tariffs are Theft!

TeamGreen wrote:

So, are you guys gonna ship all that beef to China? Do you export anything-else to us?Do you make ANYTHING?Are there any Aussie automotive manufacturing plants…left…anymore?What “don’t”...

So, are you guys gonna ship all that beef to China? 

Do you export anything-else to us?

Do you make ANYTHING?

Are there any Aussie automotive manufacturing plants…left…anymore?

What “don’t” you import?

Do you guys make any of those Boeing parts that you’re soooooo worried about? (Tooling for ALL Boeing components exist here, in the USA…by the way & you won’t find that via one of your Google mantras 😂)

How long ‘til your a Chinese province? (Versus your current POME existence) 

Have you paid for that Submarine, yet?

Have you guys beat the Kiwis, yet? 

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

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...

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.

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

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...

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.

inflammable wrote:

Again, your example of roads only illustrates the point that you are making little effort to understand my points. I did not make one mention of...

Again, your example of roads only illustrates the point that you are making little effort to understand my points. I did not make one mention of not paying taxes. I was stating that welfare would be far better served as an effort of private citizens than a government program, and that eliminating that government program would reduce the tax burden on the citizens, and provide more discretionary income. 

That is a very good summary about Citizens United. Well done! However, rule of law, and equal rights under the rule of law, is hugely important in the Constitution. On one side you argue for a limit of political spending for citizens, but on the other side doesn't that indeed violate the rights of citizens who have freely assembled, even if it is under a PAC? I agree with the Supreme Court that where we spend our money, and whose money we accept, is a first amendment right. Also, businesses have an interest in the laws and regulations under which they must operate. Shouldn't they also be able to speak with their money with regard to how the country is run? Just as there are large companies that want less regulation for more profit, there are also large companies that want more regulation to make it difficult for smaller companies to compete. You pointed out Musk’s spending, but left off the other important point. The Democrat party spent $2 billion on the 2024 election, and still went into debt. 

I think it would be great to have a limit on political spending, and I would go even lower, to $250 per person, company or entity. The $250 would be the total amount, per calendar year, not a per donation limit. The problem there is, how would this not violate constitutional rights?

I am opposed to the thought of an ‘everybody gets a trophy’ mentality, but I am even more opposed to a mentality that punishes success. The only basis I see for most proposals to tax whip the wealthy is jealousy. Do they drive on better roads than the average citizen, which need more maintenance? They essentially utilize the same infrastructure other citizens use. Closing loopholes is a nice thought, but when Bill Gates has a well paid team of professionals managing his wealth, it could be a costly, continuous effort to try and keep closing them. The UK is an example of a government that has become more hostile to the wealthy. Many have left, to the ultimate affect of the UK losing the equivalent of over 500000 average taxpayers. An increasing tax burden is a main driving force. If the wealthy are overburdened with taxation, they will respond with a move toward a true oligarchy, or choose to take their wealth out of the country to one that is more favorable for them. 

You stated that it is insane to pay property taxes as it is already owned. Why doesn't that apply to wealth that is already owned? As per your comment, the only thing you would agree to is that tax be paid on the increase in wealth, right? From there even more loopholes begin.

The better answer, I believe, is to create a business environment favorable to creating more billionaires, but also results in reducing the number of mega billionaires. 

With regard to your response on the government implementation of welfare, I say there is only one measure of whether it is doing well or not - has the percentage of the population needing welfare increased or decreased? The percentage has steadily increased over time, while the bureaucracy has grown. Social Security is not welfare, but does include some elements of welfare. The cap on Social Security tax for 2025 is closer to $175,000.

As far as property taxes, to me those are one of the most sensible taxes we have. They pay for schools, as well as local services. I would rather pay more property taxes and less federal taxes. They are also scaled. The more valuable the property, the more taxes paid. 

Although poverty is a contributing factor in crime, the reality is far more complicated. Most victims of poverty crime are themselves in poverty, and poor neighborhoods often have high crime rates. The current welfare system offers little help beyond basic needs, and it could be argued even those needs aren't met well. Poor school districts are a problem, but there is also no other option available by school choice. Take Chicago as an example, where spending per student has been increasing while test scores are plummeting. More spending on schools would help, but it's not the complete answer.

I look forward to your comments 🙂

 

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

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...

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.

inflammable wrote:

Again, your example of roads only illustrates the point that you are making little effort to understand my points. I did not make one mention of...

Again, your example of roads only illustrates the point that you are making little effort to understand my points. I did not make one mention of not paying taxes. I was stating that welfare would be far better served as an effort of private citizens than a government program, and that eliminating that government program would reduce the tax burden on the citizens, and provide more discretionary income. 

That is a very good summary about Citizens United. Well done! However, rule of law, and equal rights under the rule of law, is hugely important in the Constitution. On one side you argue for a limit of political spending for citizens, but on the other side doesn't that indeed violate the rights of citizens who have freely assembled, even if it is under a PAC? I agree with the Supreme Court that where we spend our money, and whose money we accept, is a first amendment right. Also, businesses have an interest in the laws and regulations under which they must operate. Shouldn't they also be able to speak with their money with regard to how the country is run? Just as there are large companies that want less regulation for more profit, there are also large companies that want more regulation to make it difficult for smaller companies to compete. You pointed out Musk’s spending, but left off the other important point. The Democrat party spent $2 billion on the 2024 election, and still went into debt. 

I think it would be great to have a limit on political spending, and I would go even lower, to $250 per person, company or entity. The $250 would be the total amount, per calendar year, not a per donation limit. The problem there is, how would this not violate constitutional rights?

I am opposed to the thought of an ‘everybody gets a trophy’ mentality, but I am even more opposed to a mentality that punishes success. The only basis I see for most proposals to tax whip the wealthy is jealousy. Do they drive on better roads than the average citizen, which need more maintenance? They essentially utilize the same infrastructure other citizens use. Closing loopholes is a nice thought, but when Bill Gates has a well paid team of professionals managing his wealth, it could be a costly, continuous effort to try and keep closing them. The UK is an example of a government that has become more hostile to the wealthy. Many have left, to the ultimate affect of the UK losing the equivalent of over 500000 average taxpayers. An increasing tax burden is a main driving force. If the wealthy are overburdened with taxation, they will respond with a move toward a true oligarchy, or choose to take their wealth out of the country to one that is more favorable for them. 

You stated that it is insane to pay property taxes as it is already owned. Why doesn't that apply to wealth that is already owned? As per your comment, the only thing you would agree to is that tax be paid on the increase in wealth, right? From there even more loopholes begin.

The better answer, I believe, is to create a business environment favorable to creating more billionaires, but also results in reducing the number of mega billionaires. 

With regard to your response on the government implementation of welfare, I say there is only one measure of whether it is doing well or not - has the percentage of the population needing welfare increased or decreased? The percentage has steadily increased over time, while the bureaucracy has grown. Social Security is not welfare, but does include some elements of welfare. The cap on Social Security tax for 2025 is closer to $175,000.

As far as property taxes, to me those are one of the most sensible taxes we have. They pay for schools, as well as local services. I would rather pay more property taxes and less federal taxes. They are also scaled. The more valuable the property, the more taxes paid. 

Although poverty is a contributing factor in crime, the reality is far more complicated. Most victims of poverty crime are themselves in poverty, and poor neighborhoods often have high crime rates. The current welfare system offers little help beyond basic needs, and it could be argued even those needs aren't met well. Poor school districts are a problem, but there is also no other option available by school choice. Take Chicago as an example, where spending per student has been increasing while test scores are plummeting. More spending on schools would help, but it's not the complete answer.

I look forward to your comments 🙂

 

cheesehead420 wrote:

You guys are talking about wood or vinyl siding, what kind of windows, carpet or wood flooring, 2 or 3 bathrooms…. but your not addressing the...

You guys are talking about wood or vinyl siding, what kind of windows, carpet or wood flooring, 2 or 3 bathrooms…. but your not addressing the fact that the foundation is crumbling. And if you’re not going to fix the foundation, there’s no point in fixing the floor. 

You guys are making very good points and but common sense does not prevail in our system because our system is not set up to benefit the common man. 

These logical and rational ideas you have are just that, logical and rational. Problem is, is that those solutions are diametrically opposed to the values of the ruling elite. 

The fact is is that our society is run in a top down manner. It’s a pyramid scheme that is based on authoritarian concepts held in place through coercion and violence if coercion fails. After all the police and military hold a monopoly on violence, as only they are allowed to use violence legally. 


The very few hold a monopoly on power in our world and on our planet. We will not legislate our way out of this because it is impossible for righteousness to be born from a system of tyranny. We will not reform our society because we cannot reform what is deformed. 

At the risk of sounding a bit like Tim507 😂😂😂 we will need to tear down the structure in place and start fresh. It’s truly our only hope and if there is to be any hope for the future it must happen. We cannot deny our way of life is unsustainable and built upon the use of finite resources. 

A new paradigm is possible, and will be actually easier to implement then the fucked up deformed monster we prop up now. The way we operate now is going against almost every law of nature. The way we operate now is swimming against the current. 

The ruling elite operate from a glass house. They hold very little actual power over us. It is mostly a facade. We hold the power if we’re willing to take it back and take responsibility for our own lives and actions. These are just basic libertarian concepts. 

cheesehead420 wrote:

You guys are talking about wood or vinyl siding, what kind of windows, carpet or wood flooring, 2 or 3 bathrooms…. but your not addressing the...

You guys are talking about wood or vinyl siding, what kind of windows, carpet or wood flooring, 2 or 3 bathrooms…. but your not addressing the fact that the foundation is crumbling. And if you’re not going to fix the foundation, there’s no point in fixing the floor. 

You guys are making very good points and but common sense does not prevail in our system because our system is not set up to benefit the common man. 

These logical and rational ideas you have are just that, logical and rational. Problem is, is that those solutions are diametrically opposed to the values of the ruling elite. 

The fact is is that our society is run in a top down manner. It’s a pyramid scheme that is based on authoritarian concepts held in place through coercion and violence if coercion fails. After all the police and military hold a monopoly on violence, as only they are allowed to use violence legally. 


The very few hold a monopoly on power in our world and on our planet. We will not legislate our way out of this because it is impossible for righteousness to be born from a system of tyranny. We will not reform our society because we cannot reform what is deformed. 

At the risk of sounding a bit like Tim507 😂😂😂 we will need to tear down the structure in place and start fresh. It’s truly our only hope and if there is to be any hope for the future it must happen. We cannot deny our way of life is unsustainable and built upon the use of finite resources. 

A new paradigm is possible, and will be actually easier to implement then the fucked up deformed monster we prop up now. The way we operate now is going against almost every law of nature. The way we operate now is swimming against the current. 

The ruling elite operate from a glass house. They hold very little actual power over us. It is mostly a facade. We hold the power if we’re willing to take it back and take responsibility for our own lives and actions. These are just basic libertarian concepts. 

indy rider wrote:

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/18oujUdh2J/

cheesehead420 wrote:

You guys are talking about wood or vinyl siding, what kind of windows, carpet or wood flooring, 2 or 3 bathrooms…. but your not addressing the...

You guys are talking about wood or vinyl siding, what kind of windows, carpet or wood flooring, 2 or 3 bathrooms…. but your not addressing the fact that the foundation is crumbling. And if you’re not going to fix the foundation, there’s no point in fixing the floor. 

You guys are making very good points and but common sense does not prevail in our system because our system is not set up to benefit the common man. 

These logical and rational ideas you have are just that, logical and rational. Problem is, is that those solutions are diametrically opposed to the values of the ruling elite. 

The fact is is that our society is run in a top down manner. It’s a pyramid scheme that is based on authoritarian concepts held in place through coercion and violence if coercion fails. After all the police and military hold a monopoly on violence, as only they are allowed to use violence legally. 


The very few hold a monopoly on power in our world and on our planet. We will not legislate our way out of this because it is impossible for righteousness to be born from a system of tyranny. We will not reform our society because we cannot reform what is deformed. 

At the risk of sounding a bit like Tim507 😂😂😂 we will need to tear down the structure in place and start fresh. It’s truly our only hope and if there is to be any hope for the future it must happen. We cannot deny our way of life is unsustainable and built upon the use of finite resources. 

A new paradigm is possible, and will be actually easier to implement then the fucked up deformed monster we prop up now. The way we operate now is going against almost every law of nature. The way we operate now is swimming against the current. 

The ruling elite operate from a glass house. They hold very little actual power over us. It is mostly a facade. We hold the power if we’re willing to take it back and take responsibility for our own lives and actions. These are just basic libertarian concepts. 

JimSharp wrote:

Thought I was a Libertarian, until they went full blown whack job.

profeshenal125 wrote:

To make ends meet . Majority of women white collar included . Sell pics of feet, hands, & there  nude bodies.  Erotic hot with a degree...

To make ends meet . Majority of women white collar included . Sell pics of feet, hands, & there  nude bodies.  Erotic hot with a degree say they sell pics on numerous sites . And make a lot more than working in a office being abused.  Totally crazy world now.  Even the ones working in the office hv a side kick job selling pics.  Haha 

indy rider wrote:

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/18oujUdh2J/

profeshenal125 wrote:

Our government is soo goofy . I bet they never thought of other countries finding ways around the tariffs. Like a separate currency.  Meanwhile not a...

Our government is soo goofy . I bet they never thought of other countries finding ways around the tariffs. Like a separate currency.  Meanwhile not a single load with a 300 miles radius of Indy or Chicago.  Manufacturing has nearly come to a stop here .  There not hiring & those employed will be loosing there jobs.  Co.s r terminating white collar workers & bringing in Eastern European & Indian people that will work for 70% less.  Loads of weapons disappearing at a alarming rate.  Identity theft co.s hack each other then go get the freight & then sell it.  Wildest stuff ever happening rt now.  

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.

byke wrote:

You will never hear someone asking for someone else to stop offering an opinion or create a bunch of nonsense criteria if it's an opinion they...

You will never hear someone asking for someone else to stop offering an opinion or create a bunch of nonsense criteria if it's an opinion they like, regardless of where that opinion comes from, which means the whole request is disingenuous. It just means they don't like your opinion lol. 

JimSharp wrote:

Taxation is Theft!

Last2Stroke wrote:

So Tariffs are Theft!

So Tariffs are Theft!

TeamGreen wrote:

So, are you guys gonna ship all that beef to China? Do you export anything-else to us?Do you make ANYTHING?Are there any Aussie automotive manufacturing plants…left…anymore?What “don’t”...

So, are you guys gonna ship all that beef to China? 

Do you export anything-else to us?

Do you make ANYTHING?

Are there any Aussie automotive manufacturing plants…left…anymore?

What “don’t” you import?

Do you guys make any of those Boeing parts that you’re soooooo worried about? (Tooling for ALL Boeing components exist here, in the USA…by the way & you won’t find that via one of your Google mantras 😂)

How long ‘til your a Chinese province? (Versus your current POME existence) 

Have you paid for that Submarine, yet?

Have you guys beat the Kiwis, yet? 

Last2Stroke wrote:

So Tariffs are Theft!

So Tariffs are Theft!

TeamGreen wrote:

So, are you guys gonna ship all that beef to China? Do you export anything-else to us?Do you make ANYTHING?Are there any Aussie automotive manufacturing plants…left…anymore?What “don’t”...

So, are you guys gonna ship all that beef to China? 

Do you export anything-else to us?

Do you make ANYTHING?

Are there any Aussie automotive manufacturing plants…left…anymore?

What “don’t” you import?

Do you guys make any of those Boeing parts that you’re soooooo worried about? (Tooling for ALL Boeing components exist here, in the USA…by the way & you won’t find that via one of your Google mantras 😂)

How long ‘til your a Chinese province? (Versus your current POME existence) 

Have you paid for that Submarine, yet?

Have you guys beat the Kiwis, yet? 

JimSharp wrote:

I wouldn’t eat that Aussie Crap Beef, nor the Brazilian Crap Beef. Bring back COOL (Country of Origin Labeling)!

Last2Stroke wrote:

So Tariffs are Theft!

So Tariffs are Theft!

TeamGreen wrote:

So, are you guys gonna ship all that beef to China? Do you export anything-else to us?Do you make ANYTHING?Are there any Aussie automotive manufacturing plants…left…anymore?What “don’t”...

So, are you guys gonna ship all that beef to China? 

Do you export anything-else to us?

Do you make ANYTHING?

Are there any Aussie automotive manufacturing plants…left…anymore?

What “don’t” you import?

Do you guys make any of those Boeing parts that you’re soooooo worried about? (Tooling for ALL Boeing components exist here, in the USA…by the way & you won’t find that via one of your Google mantras 😂)

How long ‘til your a Chinese province? (Versus your current POME existence) 

Have you paid for that Submarine, yet?

Have you guys beat the Kiwis, yet? 

JimSharp wrote:

I wouldn’t eat that Aussie Crap Beef, nor the Brazilian Crap Beef. Bring back COOL (Country of Origin Labeling)!

TeamGreen wrote:

So, are you guys gonna ship all that beef to China? Do you export anything-else to us?Do you make ANYTHING?Are there any Aussie automotive manufacturing plants…left…anymore?What “don’t”...

So, are you guys gonna ship all that beef to China? 

Do you export anything-else to us?

Do you make ANYTHING?

Are there any Aussie automotive manufacturing plants…left…anymore?

What “don’t” you import?

Do you guys make any of those Boeing parts that you’re soooooo worried about? (Tooling for ALL Boeing components exist here, in the USA…by the way & you won’t find that via one of your Google mantras 😂)

How long ‘til your a Chinese province? (Versus your current POME existence) 

Have you paid for that Submarine, yet?

Have you guys beat the Kiwis, yet? 

JimSharp wrote:

I wouldn’t eat that Aussie Crap Beef, nor the Brazilian Crap Beef. Bring back COOL (Country of Origin Labeling)!

Last2Stroke wrote:

Have you ever had a McDonald's burger?

McDonald's USA imported 96 million pounds of Australian beef last year!

JimSharp wrote:

I wouldn’t eat that Aussie Crap Beef, nor the Brazilian Crap Beef. Bring back COOL (Country of Origin Labeling)!

Last2Stroke wrote:

Have you ever had a McDonald's burger?

McDonald's USA imported 96 million pounds of Australian beef last year!

JimSharp wrote:

Yes, when I was a kid. Nobody would come close to calling  McDonalds a quality burger. Probably because it’s made with Crap Australian Beef. 

EVH4Ever wrote:

EVH4Ever wrote:

scott_nz wrote:

I struggling to figure out who will be more upset about that meme , the British , the Texans or the Australians  

EVH4Ever wrote:

scott_nz wrote:

I struggling to figure out who will be more upset about that meme , the British , the Texans or the Australians