Cajun Cricket

Define ‘fiscally conservative’.

Because Clinton raised income taxes across the board (30% in his retroactive ‘93 tax hike bs) and increased federal spending (50% in 8 years).

He essentially redistributed wealth from top earners and corporations to government / social programs.

When the government raises taxes and increases spending, I don’t call that fiscally conservative, I call it lazy.

Tennessee isn’t Alabama.

Depends on Trim. $18k for 2wd up to $25k for 4WD/TRD. Just my guess with a quick look.

The reality is that your graph shows a racial change in the makeup of a growing student body.

But schools should be about academics and not demographics …. So any standardized testing data over this same period?

iPad was definitely not on BK’s prior admin staff, he knows much about what was going on.

He’s actually from the 70’s … he just bounces to 2025 to deal because he makes more money

Buy ‘70’s, sell ‘25, profit.

Back in the early 80’s our frat would get our betting sheets on wednesday from the local bookie. One weekend I put $10 on a 10 game parlay. I was 9 for 9 going into the late Hawaii game. If they cover, I was going to win something like $500-$600. Hedging was not an option. So, we went out to Murphys and celebrated like the rainbows could do no wrong. Woke up the next morning pretty hungover, checked the scores, and let’s just say …. I celebrated too early.

Yeah, Cajun steamer has some good food too.
I read his post more as showing a kid how effective TD is with helping posters. I was just tossing out recs so he could show 3 replies to that kid within 10 minutes. If he really wanted to find some good family sports bars near him he could just use yelp. They should all have the game in at least one tv.

I’m not familiar with north of the airport. However Gumbo Bros in the gulch or White alligator in the Franklin factory. These are more grab a bite to eat and watch rather than watch the entire game.

The Double Standard on Trade: Tariffs vs. VATs

TLDR: don’t read it if it’s not important to you.

A fierce debate rages in economic circles over tariffs—taxes imposed on imported goods that are frequently criticized for raising consumer prices and causing inflation.
Free trade advocates often argue that tariffs are inherently harmful, increasing costs for consumers while failing to protect domestic industries in a meaningful way.
However, a curious contradiction emerges when the conversation shifts to Value-Added Taxes (VATs)—a form of taxation used by many of America’s top trading partners, including the European Union and China.
Unlike tariffs, VATs are not just accepted by free traders—they are often praised as an effective and efficient tax system. But in reality, VATs disadvantage American exports far more than tariffs do and play a significant role in distorting global trade.
So why do global economists and policymakers rush to condemn tariffs but remain silent on VATs? The answer lies in the way VATs are structured, creating an uneven playing field that punishes American manufacturers while favoring export-driven economies abroad.
How VATs Put the U.S. at a Disadvantage
A VAT is a consumption tax imposed on goods at each stage of the supply chain, from raw materials to the final retail sale. Unlike sales taxes in the U.S., which are charged only at the final point of sale, VATs embed additional costs throughout the entire production process—a cost that ultimately gets passed on to consumers.
For American businesses selling goods overseas, VATs function as an import tax, raising the final retail price of U.S. products in foreign markets. For example:
•In the European Union (EU), VAT rates vary, with Hungary imposing the highest at 27%, while Germany’s standard VAT rate is 19%.
•China applies a tiered VAT system, with a standard rate of 13%, while certain industries such as transportation and financial services enjoy reduced rates of 9% and 6%.
•When an American product enters these markets, these VATs are added on top of the sales price, making U.S. goods more expensive compared to locally produced alternatives.
The real kicker? Many countries that use VATs exempt their own exporters by rebating the VAT when products are sold abroad. This means foreign competitors receive a tax break when selling internationally, while U.S. goods are taxed upon entry into their markets.
VATs Are More Harmful Than Tariffs—So Why the Hypocrisy?
Despite their clear disadvantages for American exports, VATs rarely receive the same level of scrutiny as tariffs. In fact, global trade organizations and free-market economists often praise VATs, arguing that they are a fair and efficient way to collect government revenue.
However, their real effect is the opposite of free trade—they distort global markets and encourage countries to prioritize exports over domestic consumption.
Unlike tariffs, which target specific imports, VATs apply to nearly all goods and services, creating a far broader inflationary impact. This means that while a tariff may raise prices on select items, a VAT increases costs across the entire economy—from basic necessities like food and clothing to high-end manufactured goods like cars and appliances.
Trump’s Tariff Strategy: A Response to Unfair Trade Practices
During his presidency, Donald Trump championed tariffs as a way to counterbalance foreign economic policies that harm American industries. Critics claimed his approach would spark a trade war, but Trump argued that tariffs were necessary to level the playing field against countries that manipulate trade policies to their advantage.
In contrast, current free-trade advocates argue that tariffs create inflationary pressures and hurt American consumers. Yet they ignore the fact that VATs do the same thing on a much larger scale—only in a way that benefits foreign exporters at America’s expense.
If tariffs are to be criticized as harmful because they raise consumer prices, then VATs deserve the same level of condemnation. Yet, the mainstream economic consensus remains silent, choosing instead to promote a system that protects foreign industries while leaving U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage.
The Bottom Line: America Must Fight Fire with Fire
The current global trade system is not a model of true free-market competition—it is a system rigged in favor of export-driven economies that use VATs as a form of hidden protectionism.
If the U.S. hopes to compete on equal footing, it must be willing to use tariffs strategically to counterbalance the effects of VATs.
Rather than blindly accepting economic dogma that dismisses tariffs as harmful, policymakers must recognize the reality that VATs have already turned global trade into a one-sided battle.
Until the playing field is leveled, the United States must be prepared to respond in kind.
Source Breitbart