- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Leftists, in your opposition to Tariffs…
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:47 am to CleverUserName
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:47 am to CleverUserName
quote:
Does it generate revenue or not. Enough of the faux intellectual drivel.
You need to address that to Scott Bessent
2
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:50 am to SlowFlowPro
The winds shifted very quickly on gloating about revenue when oral arguments started at SCOTUS. Had Bessent sending out late night clarification tweets and everything about how tariffs totally aren't meant to generate revenue
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:51 am to Ingeniero
quote:
What a retarded premise. You must want a 100% income tax, right? It would increase revenue. What are you, some kind of leftist cuck?
Who said anything about increasing any more taxes? Not me. I want spending cut drastically.
I’m simply posing the reality at hand.
The left, as a group, wants the tariffs eliminated. Ok. Fair enough.
I’m wanting them on record to then say the decrease in that revenue needs to be offset by the elimination of the trillions in spending they want by holding the government hostage.
And bonus points given if they can explain why they want more debt.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:53 am to Ingeniero
quote:
The winds shifted very quickly on gloating about revenue when oral arguments started at SCOTUS. Had Bessent sending out late night clarification tweets and everything about how tariffs totally aren't meant to generate revenue
Technically, they low key abandoned the "negotiating for better trade deal" argument, too.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You need to address that to Scott Bessent
I don’t need to address it with Scott Bessent, Warren Buffet, Milton Friedman, Karl Marx, or Doctor Pepper.
Is the end result revenue or not? Should the Dems surrender their spending demands to offset the loss?
I can’t make this any more simpler.
This post was edited on 11/6/25 at 9:55 am
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:57 am to CleverUserName
quote:
Is the end result revenue or not? Should the Dems surrender their spending demands to offset the loss?
Scott Bessent, the literal Secretary of the Treasury, said any amounts earned were insignificant and the tariffs were not a policy of revenue generation.
If you have issues with that, you have to address it to him.
And then explain how he's a leftist, I reckon.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 10:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Scott Bessent, the literal Secretary of the Treasury, said any amounts earned were insignificant and the tariffs were not a policy of revenue generation.
I don’t care if Scott Bessent said that he can fart the national anthem.
The money received from tariffs… it is… in the end… revenue to the US government.
Yes or no?
I find this sudden need to believe every word of the Trump administration from you extremely interesting in contrast to your other stances.
This post was edited on 11/6/25 at 10:05 am
Posted on 11/6/25 at 10:29 am to CleverUserName
quote:
The money received from tariffs… it is… in the end… revenue to the US government.
Revenue as a tax… you understand that’s the premise being argued huh
Posted on 11/6/25 at 10:30 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Bernie Sanders.
I love this stupid logic. It reveals people's true intellect. So-and-so agrees agrees with you on one point but disagrees on a hundred others so that means you're just like him.
Bernie also thinks smoking is unhealthy, so go ahead and light up. You wouldn't want to share a single thought with Bernie, right? If you think smoking is unhealthy, then you are just a progressive like Bernie.
We need IQ tests for this board.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 10:31 am to SDVTiger
quote:I suppose you want to label Obama a "conservative"?
Of course you start at 2016
quote:One of us is delusional. It's not me. But I realize why you want to make it about me, and not the history of who has run up the most debt in history.
Holy shite the tds
This post was edited on 11/6/25 at 10:33 am
Posted on 11/6/25 at 10:32 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
I love this stupid logic. It reveals people's true intellect. So-and-so agrees agrees with you on one point but disagrees on a hundred others so that means you're just like him.
You mean like "Massie votes with Democrats grrrrr..?"
quote:
We need IQ tests for this board.
Absolutely. Did you know MAGA and Antifa have the same anti globalist stance? They had it long before MAGA, y'all adopted it from them.
This post was edited on 11/6/25 at 10:35 am
Posted on 11/6/25 at 10:42 am to lepdagod
quote:
Revenue as a tax… you understand that’s the premise being argued huh
There is no “premise” being argued. There is an attempt to muddy up the definition and application of what the tariffs are when it has absolutely nothing to do with the overall question at hand. Nothing. Zilch.
Im not sitting here arguing for or against them. Not in this thread, not anywhere. I’m not trying to get into a discussion about the application or intention.
Im asking a very simple question. That even the most bloviating board “independents” somehow are going above and beyond to keep from getting on record.
1) The simple thing, Argument for or against tariffs be damned, is it revenue to the US government? Simple. Concise. Easy.
And then…
2) should the democrats surrender their monstrous spending demand, holding the government hostage to get passed in an undemocratic way, and vote to end the filibuster and pass the CR that they have voted for 13 times prior under Biden. So that will not be more debt in loss of rhe tariffs.
Simple. No argument for or agains tariffs. No argument over the definition of them. No argument over the application of them. Just what is the end result and if spending should be curtailed.
Everything other than the two questions is deflective noise.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 10:45 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Give it 24 hours. It'll change.
Wasn't too long ago when tariffs would allow us to "refinance" our debt...
That was a gooder...
Posted on 11/6/25 at 10:48 am to CleverUserName
quote:
The left, as a group, wants the tariffs eliminated.
Biden expanded trumps tariffs. You are lost here dude.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 11:11 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Biden expanded trumps tariffs. You are lost here dude.
More deflective noise that adds zero value to the thread.
What is the democrat message, currently, about Trump’s tariff policy? Now with that obvious answer……….
What’s your stance on the question at hand. No deflective noise. No red herrings. No dodging, ducking, shucking, or jiving. It’s fine for you to say you are for tariffs, like you allude to your response above, and are for the democrats to remain steadfast in their spending demands. That is a viable answer. Or any combination of the two therof.
Again…. This is not a discussion on the viability, legality, definition, process, etc. just is if it’s revenue in the end. That’s it! That simple.
Now. With that said…….
This post was edited on 11/6/25 at 11:15 am
Posted on 11/6/25 at 11:13 am to CleverUserName
quote:
More deflective noise that adds zero value to the thread.
No, its not.
Read what you said and how I replied again.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 11:14 am to CleverUserName
quote:
What is the democrat message, currently, about Trump’s tariff policy? Now with that obvious answer
The collective left supports the tariffs, but hate the rollout which everyone realizes was a fraud.
See Bernie Sanders response for clarity.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 11:17 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
The collective left supports the tariffs, but hate the rollout which everyone realizes was a fraud. See Bernie Sanders response for clarity.
Excellent!!! So yes tariffs are revenue. I’m going to make that stretch in your response. That’s is a correct answer to the question at hand. If I’m not correct on my assumption.. you can correct it.
Now. The rest…….
quote:
should the democrats surrender their monstrous spending demand, holding the government hostage to get passed in an undemocratic way, and vote to end the filibuster and pass the CR that they have voted for 13 times prior under Biden. So that will not be more debt in loss of rhe tariffs.
I guess with your answer… we can change the last sentence to “so that it will not be more debt in a partial loss of the tariffs”.
This post was edited on 11/6/25 at 11:23 am
Posted on 11/6/25 at 11:27 am to CleverUserName
quote:
What’s your stance on the question at hand.
Question has been asked and answered… what’s the point you trying to make??
Posted on 11/6/25 at 11:41 am to lepdagod
quote:
Question has been asked and answered… what’s the point you trying to make??
Your answers have been already tallied.
You feel the revenue of tariffs should be decreased, but the Dems should dig in and get their huge spending.
The fact you want to accelerate spending with less revenue has been shared. To accelerate the deficit further, have to print more money to cover, and to help increase inflation. And you then want to blame it all on the current executive.
You are good in this thread. All done.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News