MALA and your money

[SAJ-99]

This was a prescient post.

Lots of info out there suggested many Republican legislators told Trump passing his bill would lead to their losing control of at least one and possibly both houses of Congress.

Trump didn't care of course.

Also Vance and others said right after it's passage that there would likely be changes to the bill within a few years. If it's really so beautiful and perfect you wouldn't think they would say that. Perhaps Vance sees a path for becoming President before Trump's 4 years are up?

The impacts are out there but many Trumpers are drunk on the Kool aid to accept them. Not just the huge increase in the deficit. Social security impacts. Rural hospitals closings, health care cost increases, seniors misled on the bill claiming it ends taxes on Social security by communications from the SSA (when it does nothing of the sort).

Talked to a small town hospitals board member yesterday...extremely worried. Medicaid cuts...their estimate is that it will cost them into the 7 figures, but that's just on lack of coverage estimates. Doesn't account for all the people who won't go to a doctor because they no longer have insurance until it's an emergency where the cost of care gets MUCH more expensive.

In the meantime, most measures of the health of the underlying economy are good. The US dollar a huge and worrisome exception.

How long will things go before it hits the fan?

I continue to be glad that as we approach the withdrawal years we can accept the returns of a much more conservative portfolio...with a boost from international increases...and then hang on until some sanity is restored.

It feels like Bessent is driving the bus now. He is widely regarded as the smartest guy in the administration, and the market likes him, so that is the positive. The US treasury has been treading water for months and the increase in the debt ceiling will give him some flexibility. Still, I'm not sure what he can do and the damage may be done. We have the highest interest rates in developed world and the dollar continues to fall (It's not supposed to work that way). Between threatening tariffs every couple of weeks and letting Stephen Miller do everything he can to push foreign students out of US, we seem to have made the rest of the world start looking seriously at alternatives for multitude of things. It starting to look more and more like we created our own "Brexit" situation.

The jobs report on the 3rd was strong, but half the jobs were in government and another 25% in medicine. The private market hiring seems to have really slowed. Just one report but it does seem like we are slowing down.

 

[JAG]

The impacts are out there but many Trumpers are drunk on the Kool aid to accept them. Not just the huge increase in the deficit. Social security impacts. Rural hospitals closings, health care cost increases, seniors misled on the bill claiming it ends taxes on Social security by communications from the SSA (when it does nothing of the sort).

Talked to a small town hospitals board member yesterday...extremely worried. Medicaid cuts...their estimate is that it will cost them into the 7 figures, but that's just on lack of coverage estimates. Doesn't account for all the people who won't go to a doctor because they no longer have insurance until it's an emergency where the cost of care gets MUCH more expensive.

When it comes to the Medicaid issue, history helps put things in perspective. The novel idea to compel able-bodied workers to pay for their own insurance and to remove illegal citizens from receiving free health care originated with Bill Clinton.

'Medicaid cuts' will remove:
-1.4 million illegal citizens from the rolls and
-up to 13.9 million able-bodied adults currently getting free healthcare.
-of this 13.9 million, 8.1 million worked 80 hours in the month of December 2022.

For hospitals who incur expenses to comply with legal obligations to treat all patients regardless of legal status or coverage, the OBBB contains a Rural Health Transformation Program with up to $50 billion over five years to offset those losses.

The average cost of healthcare is $14,500 per patient. Assuming those 1.4 million illegals have not returned or been deported and all of them obtain medical care, this would cost $21 Billion.

 

[JAG]

It feels like Bessent is driving the bus now. He is widely regarded as the smartest guy in the administration, and the market likes him, so that is the positive. The US treasury has been treading water for months and the increase in the debt ceiling will give him some flexibility. Still, I'm not sure what he can do and the damage may be done. We have the highest interest rates in developed world and the dollar continues to fall (It's not supposed to work that way). Between threatening tariffs every couple of weeks and letting Stephen Miller do everything he can to push foreign students out of US, we seem to have made the rest of the world start looking seriously at alternatives for multitude of things. It starting to look more and more like we created our own "Brexit" situation.

The jobs report on the 3rd was strong, but half the jobs were in government and another 25% in medicine. The private market hiring seems to have really slowed. Just one report but it does seem like we are slowing down.

How do you resolve current inflation within your economic picture?

Do you think Powell will lower interest rates since the tariff war didn't spike inflation as predicted?

 

[SAJ-99]

How do you resolve current inflation within your economic picture?

Do you think Powell will lower interest rates since the tariff war didn't spike inflation as predicted?

Inflation is tricky. Not sure what was "predicted". I think a lot is simply unknown. Powell and Co. could lower rates and it not have much impact other than it makes the US pay less in interest cost. And really, let's be honest, that is the point. Bessent knows it and Trump admitted it after it was explained it to him.

Back to original question. My prediction and others, tariffs won't "spike" inflation. If that is what you are looking for you will never see it. Any tariffs will be slowly absorbed and transferred through the economic chain. Slowly but surely companies will increase prices to make better margins. If this is accepted (ie. purchased remain steady) more increased and more increased until companies are paying for the entire tariffs as well as making a little extra for themselves. THIS is exactly what happened during the covid supply shock. This is what Powell and Co saw and why they are hesitant to drop rates. But, as I said, I don't think it matters. Any criticism of the Fed from me is probably that they should have never cut the sales of assets from the balance sheet. But this is a technical discussion not for HT.

Bessent bitched about Yellen not extending the term (issuing longer maturities at lower rates instead of the ST bills) yet he is doing the SAME THING. Most issuance is at the front end of the curve. And they create some "deregulation" on Stable fund/crypto which will result in another buyer of ST bonds/bills and the cycle continues.

Look for Bessent to be the next Chairman of the Fed. That is the job he really wants. Kevin Hasset is an idiot and Kevin Warsh won't last 6 months if he got the job because he doesn't really believe in the goal. Plenty of other clowns will apply though. It will be a fun time in the market.

 

[JAG]

Inflation is tricky. Not sure what was "predicted". I think a lot is simply unknown. Powell and Co. could lower rates and it not have much impact other than it makes the US pay less in interest cost. And really, let's be honest, that is the point. Bessent knows it and Trump admitted it after it was explained it to him.

I agree that's their point, but the reason I am interested is that, as a homeowner, I want to see interest rates decrease. With this, consumer capital and home values benefit.

Edit: Additionally, private equity markets will likely start refinancing and spark an increase in mergers and acquisitions. I'm employed by a company owned by a holding firm and have shares. A job change caused by this would be nice.

On predictions, there's the mainstream media voice that's been too shrill and impulsive for me to take seriously. As you may recall, they've loudly exclaimed their easy conclusion that tariffs will spike inflation; Powell has maintained this effect as well. Bessent has pointedly objected to their incorrect predictions.

However, Powell's tone in resisting Trump's badgering shows considerable wisdom on his part. He managed to ignore Trump's shrill spin and threats to fire him, but considered the pros of Trump's logic while reconciling with large 'announced' tariffs and potential impact on inflation forecasts. He repeatedly used this as justification to maintain the pause on rate adjustments.

 

[brymoore]

I agree that's their point, but the reason I am interested is that, as a homeowner, I want to see interest rates decrease. With this, consumer capital and home values benefit.

Edit: Additionally, private equity markets will likely start refinancing and spark an increase in mergers and acquisitions. I'm employed by a company owned by a holding firm and have shares. A job change cause by this would be nice.

On predictions, there's the mainstream media voice that's been too shrill and impulsive for me to take seriously. As you may recall, they've loudly exclaimed their easy conclusion that tariffs will spike inflation; Powell has maintained this effect as well. Bessent has pointedly objected to their incorrect predictions.

However, Powell's tone in resisting Trump's badgering shows considerable wisdom on his part. He managed to ignore Trump's shrill spin and threats to fire him, but considered the pros of Trump's logic while reconciling with large 'announced' tariffs and potential impact on inflation forecasts. He repeatedly used this as justification to maintain the pause on rate adjustments.

The mission of the Fed is to foster a stable and healthy economy for the US by promoting maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term rates.

National unemployment rate is 4.1%. 4.6% is full employment. The current unemployment rate caused wage inflation. Lowering unemployment further will cause more labor issues that will cause price increases to offset the costs.

Stable prices. The Fed rose rates to fight inflation previously. Tariffs will cause further inflation. The economist I read, not social media, expect the cost of the current set of tariffs to be pushed onto the consumers as older, cheaper inventory is sold. Quote “The tariff taxes must be paid.” The tariff free window closes soon with additional tariffs expected on August 1st, assuming no TACO action. Tariffs are still an unknown effect and can’t be ignored.

Why would the Fed cut rates now? Unemployment is very low, the economy seems stable and there’s a LARGE unknown factor swimming in the water that can shake up the whole economy.

 

[SAJ-99]

I agree that's their point, but the reason I am interested is that, as a homeowner, I want to see interest rates decrease. With this, consumer capital and home values benefit.

People think home prices are too high. Lower rates don't fix that. Might make the payment better, but we need further progress on inventory. Good news for your hope is a couple of voting members have gone public that a rate cut might be ok. Market is pricing in September.

On predictions, there's the mainstream media voice that's been too shrill and impulsive for me to take seriously. As you may recall, they've loudly exclaimed their easy conclusion that tariffs will spike inflation; Powell has maintained this effect as well. Bessent has pointedly objected to their incorrect predictions.

Incorrect. Bessent was the one selling the idea that tariffs cause a one-time spike in inflation. A simple Google search will show that. Only lately he has said "tariffs aren't a tax" and "tariffs aren't inflationary". Hard to trust anything from him. In reality, he doesn't know. My expectation is larger companies will absorb it at first, but smaller business simply can't. Powell has maintained that there is considerable uncertainty and the Fed is trying to be prudent. This is probably the best approach because every week we get different tariff announcements and then retractions. It's like wack-a-mole. Regardless of what the Fed does or doesn't do, they are going to get criticism. It's just part of the job.

Additionally, private equity markets will likely start refinancing and spark an increase in mergers and acquisitions.

Maybe. That is certainly a group helped by lower interest rates.

 

[JAG]

Incorrect. Bessent was the one selling the idea that tariffs cause a one-time spike in inflation. A simple Google search will show that. Only lately he has said "tariffs aren't a tax" and "tariffs aren't inflationary".

Incorrect, he never said "one-time spike in inflation". He said, "One-time price adjustment". What did Bessent mean when he said a "one-time price adjustment"?

Agreed, his claim that 'tariffs aren't a tax' makes him look dumb, but we all know he isn't dumb, so why did he say that? If you hate the current administration, it's easy to conclude he's untrustworthy. If you are like me and agnostic about the current administration, it is safe to explore what he intended to mean when he said it.

Bessent is a specialist adept at explaining nuances about his trade. His trade isn't politics, so he isn't immune to making terrible sound bites, but trying to use terms that the masses will understand. Trump's trade is business and entertainment, so I have a different filter for his comments.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has repeatedly expressed his disagreement with predictions that tariffs will cause significant or broad inflation. Any price changes would be a "one-time price adjustment" rather than generalized economic inflation.
Key instances and arguments against inflationary predictions:

• March 2025: Bessent disagreed with studies predicting that tariffs would increase inflation. He described groups like the Peterson Institute as "a bit alarmist" and suggested their views were driven by anti-tariff stances. Bessent stated his experience from the Trump administration's first term showed tariffs did not significantly impact prices.
• March 6, 2025: Speaking to the Economic Club of New York, Bessent characterized tariffs as a potential "one-time price adjustment" and insisted he was "not worried about inflation".
• April 6, 2025: During an interview on NBC News's "Meet the Press," Bessent was challenged on his previous statements about tariffs and inflation. He clarified that tariffs are a "one-time price adjustment," distinct from generalized inflation.
• June 1, 2025: During an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," Bessent reminded the anchor, Margaret Brennan, that she had previously predicted "big inflation" due to tariffs in March, but "there hasn't been any inflation". He pointed to recent inflation numbers as being "the best in four years".
• July 3, 2025: Bessent said to CNBC that thus far, "we haven't seen any inflation from tariffs." He reiterated that tariffs are a "one-time price bump," not generalized economic inflation.
• July 6, 2025: Bessent told Fox News Sunday that concerns about tariffs causing inflation are "misinformation" and "tariff derangement syndrome." He maintained that any price changes would be "one-time price adjustments" and that "inflation is a generalized monetary phenomenon. We're not going to see that".

• In summary, Scott Bessent has consistently dismissed concerns that tariffs will lead to broad or lasting inflation, characterizing them instead as a one-time price adjustment and citing a lack of evidence for inflationary impacts thus far.

 

[brymoore]

Bessent is responding in a manner to keep his job. If he’s not a Yes man, he gets fired. Trump 2.0 has made it clear he will not tolerate any dissent in his staff similar to what occurred in Trump 1.0. It doesn’t mean Bessent is necessarily wrong in his opinions, but anything Bessent says must be taken with a grain of salt.

There’s a deep economic topic of whether tariffs are a one time inflation event or longer term. From a technical standpoint, a tariff is a one time event for inflation calculations even though the resulting price increase remains in place.

 

[SAJ-99]

Incorrect, he never said "one-time spike in inflation". He said, "One-time price adjustment". What did Bessent mean when he said a "one-time price adjustment"?

Semantics. Inflation is an upward price adjustment. Trying to say he meant something different is just nonsense.

it's easy to conclude he's untrustworthy.

It's like dealing with a kid that gets in trouble and the story keeps changing. You know it's BS, so yeah, he's untrustworthy, as is most everyone in this Administration. They all spend an inordinate amount of time and energy to convince us of things that are obviously not true.

Bessent is a specialist adept at explaining nuances about his trade.

He's also not good at his specialty, which is why he is in the job and no longer doing his specialty. But yes, explaining macro economics to the masses is a waste of time.

Key instances and arguments against inflationary predictions:

I won't even try to wrap my mind around everything else that follows the comment. The bottom line is the tariffs have been either been removed or set at a much lower level than forecasted. This means they are more manageable for businesses and individuals and less impactful. The administration has essentially instituted a sales tax. Maybe that was the point?

 

[Bonasababy]

When it comes to the Medicaid issue, history helps put things in perspective. The novel idea to compel able-bodied workers to pay for their own insurance and to remove illegal citizens from receiving free health care originated with Bill Clinton.

'Medicaid cuts' will remove:
-1.4 million illegal citizens from the rolls and
-up to 13.9 million able-bodied adults currently getting free healthcare.
-of this 13.9 million, 8.1 million worked 80 hours in the month of December 2022.

For hospitals who incur expenses to comply with legal obligations to treat all patients regardless of legal status or coverage, the OBBB contains a Rural Health Transformation Program with up to $50 billion over five years to offset those losses.

The average cost of healthcare is $14,500 per patient. Assuming those 1.4 million illegals have not returned or been deported and all of them obtain medical care, this would cost $21 Billion.

Thanks Donald!

But the reality is sure different as can be easily seen all over the country--as just about every newspaper has covered the impacts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/06/us/north-carolina-medicaid-cuts.html

https://azmirror.com/2025/07/07/states-scramble-to-shield-hospitals-from-gop-medicaid-cuts/

If you know anything about medical issues you know about the nonpartisan Kaiser group.

Check out their take, and the hit your state will take:

https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-...across-the-states-senate-reconciliation-bill/

I trust the board person I talked to for whom it is a life or death (of his hospital) issue after this bill was passed. He said the hit to his small hospital would be well over a million dollars a year.

Obamacare represented a huge change, and a boon--to rural hospitals whose states decided to expand the system--which did two things: 1) it helped rural hospitals immensely, as providing care with the prior too low medicaid reimbursement was killing them, and it expanded health insurance to many more people--so rather than wait until it was an expensive emergency they could seek care with insurance before it became a much more costly emergency.

An aside--YES, INSURING ALIENS SAVES MONEY! And saves YOU money on your health insurance. One of two things have to happen--either they charge you more for the care they still have to provide (which again is now more likely to be costly emergency care) or they have to raise your costs.

Many of those are personally able to work can't because of caregiving to disabled children or other reasonable explanations, but lets not focus on that, right?

And the prior medicaid with state expansion abilities kept some hospitals from going under. Heck some hospitals that had to close due to too low medicaid reimbursements were able to open up again when Obamacare came along. The BBB will have them closing again.

Another aside--did you know Obamacare was really initially derived from a REPUBLICAN idea? And implemented by Romney when he was the REPUBLICAN governor of Massachusetts?

The board member told me the rural health transformation program was not set up yet, would not be for some time, and all the hospitals who could benefit from it were not and could not count on getting any money from it, let alone be assured they would get enough to cover their losses.

Of course states could cover the gap. IF they raise YOUR STATE taxes. Winner winner deal for republicans right?

Sure am glad we can count on Donalds often repeated promises to not cut medicare/Medicaid and social security, right?

 

[JAG]

I won't even try to wrap my mind around everything else that follows the comment. The bottom line is the tariffs have been either been removed or set at a much lower level than forecasted. This means they are more manageable for businesses and individuals and less impactful. The administration has essentially instituted a sales tax. Maybe that was the point?

Everything that followed was a robot's reply to your question, not my commentary. I believe the objective is and remains a better trade balance and fair trade. Along the way, they cite byproduct benefits of income earned from tariffs, but that isn't their objective.

Coy and persistent reference to the administration's back-and-forth to prompt 'TACO trades' is cute. However, doing so ignores long-term reality and buries one into a false mirage that leads to prolonged frustration and disappointment. Does Trump chicken out, or is he negotiating?

The most recent example is Canada who thought it had the cards. The article below says Trump 'threatened to walk away', but the articles own link shows he did walk away and Hillman and Carney knew it too. They did this with a 400% tariff on digital services tax:

Ms. Hillman expressed confidence despite a contretemps in which Mr. Trump on Friday threatened to walk away from the bargaining table and impose more tariffs if Canada went ahead with a digital services tax. Mr. Carney agreed to cancel the DST on Sunday, and negotiations resumed.​

​

The White House said afterward that Mr. Carney had “caved” to Mr. Trump on the tax demand. The ambassador on Tuesday declined to comment on the matter.​

 

[brymoore]

Everything that followed was a robot's reply to your question, not my commentary. I believe the objective is and remains a better trade balance and fair trade. Along the way, they cite byproduct benefits of income earned from tariffs, but that isn't their objective.

Are your replies ChatGPT?

The objective should be Free Trade without US tariffs. Why should I have to pay taxes because certain American businesses aren’t competitive on the world market?

 

[SAJ-99]

The White House said afterward that Mr. Carney had “caved” to Mr. Trump on the tax demand. The ambassador on Tuesday declined to comment on the matter.

If Trump announces a tariff and pulls it, he is negotiating. If Carney announces a tariff and pulls it, he caved. See how the White House messaging is a bit suspect.

 

[JAG]

But the reality is sure different as can be easily seen all over the country--as just about every newspaper has covered the impacts.

If the impacts haven't happened, then it isn't real or "reality" as you state. Yes, the part you are correct about is that nearly every newspaper has the same story- an incomplete narrative that fantasizes what the impacts might be. One reason the narrative is incomplete is that none of them discuss the metrics of the bill's $50 billion safety net.

You say he is concerned it won't work because it hasn't been set up yet. Dude, the bill was signed three (3) days ago. Plus, it's a bill, not an ATM machine. The effectiveness of this provision will be largely dependent on the states that administer these funds.

The safety net is there because Republicans recognize, as you pointed out, the benefit of insuring illegal immigrants, but in light of a successfully closed border, continued deportations, and continued success in sanctuary cities, the timing is fitting to stop illegal immigrants from obtaining free coverage and care. If they show up in the hospital, I suspect ICE will give them a discharge party.

Many of those are personally able to work can't because of caregiving to disabled children or other reasonable explanations, but lets not focus on that, right?

Not focus on that? Glad you mentioned that, let's do.

Every single state receives Federal tax dollars to help disabled parents work, help parents care for their disabled children, provide services for disabled children, scholarships for disabled children, etc.- all without Medicaid. I was born disabled, rode a short bus, am a disabled parent, have disabled biological children, hosted foster children for over ten years, and have three domestically adopted children.

Medicaid is there, but if you can work, several programs with numerous facets of assistance exist in every state that fill this gap. Just last week, our government thanked me for staying employed and generating taxable income by providing me with costly assistance for my disability. I've witnessed the benefits of multi-faceted government assistance without becoming dependent on it to the level of a degenerate grifter. There are plenty of them out there who need to stop making excuses and choose a 'can-do' approach to life.

I'm not arguing about Obamacare, not only do I think this socialist idea was good and effective, but I even voted for Obama.

By removing illegal citizens and grifters from the rolls, Medicaid coverage remains the same (not cut), will be strengthened, and will provide better coverage for those who need it. The ACA (Obamacare) created a substantial reduction in uninsured patients by making healthcare coverage and treatment more affordable for low-income families.

Despite this achievement that prompted Biden to remark, "this is a big fng deal", do you still think we should pay for grifters and illegal immigrants to receive free coverage?

Despite these landmark changes by the ACA, uninsured losses remain a problem. This bill flips a $50 billion dollar to eliminate these losses. Outside of the bill, executive actions are strategically implemented to offset net costs. Here's how: Government subsidy and expenses to return home or stay and get deported. Then, one day, you can return legally, earn taxable income, contribute to the system, and earn a mutual system benefit.

I'm not afraid of facts and resolving truth and reality. I've been on the wrong side of the truth, accepted it, apologized, and moved on. Furthermore, the two-party system is so flawed. I'm not going to die on a Republican hill or a Democrat one. I get the gist of the political game and abhor the pervasive dishonesty of politics and the media.

Let's discuss this without spin and stick to the facts. If the official is lying, call it out objectively. If you think they are wrong or lying because their political color doesn't match yours, perhaps it's time to evaluate the validity of your belief system, not so much your political party.

Question for your hospital board member friend: Does the elimination of uninsured losses bother him because the Republicans improved the ACA or because his party's voter base is getting deported?

 

[JAG]

Are your replies ChatGPT?

The objective should be Free Trade without US tariffs. Why should I have to pay taxes because certain American businesses aren’t competitive on the world market?

No, just the pretty-looking bulleted section of that post. I got tired of researching all the articles where Bessent said the same thing over and over for months, then I saw the AI button that bulleted them neatly for me.

Dang, that's a good question and point; it is wide-ranging and has wiggles across a tsunami-size matrix of economic implications.

I think we should have free trade without US tariffs, but other countries steal our product, punish us with their tariffs, steal our technology, and demonize us for wanting to bring some of these good jobs back that we gave them in the first place.

The status quo with the trade arrangements in this era started out pretty good, but a gradual drift occurred when countries started stealing more, material sources changed, technology improved, and human and robot capacities changed. The US has a president who is indifferent about making enemies in the process of improving national security and making it richer.

I agree, we shouldn't have tariffs and should have free trade. It would work if we didn't have to worry about theft (by China) of intellectual property and labor abuses (US through China's permission), and the resolution of customized deals catered to the subjective morality of various countries.

 

[JAG]

If Trump announces a tariff and pulls it, he is negotiating. If Carney announces a tariff and pulls it, he caved. See how the White House messaging is a bit suspect.

spin spin spin spin! Almost time for another political break, lol

 

[brymoore]

I think we should have free trade without US tariffs, but other countries steal our product, punish us with their tariffs, steal our technology, and demonize us for wanting to bring some of these good jobs back that we gave them in the first place.

The status quo with the trade arrangements in this era started out pretty good, but a gradual drift occurred when countries started stealing more, material sources changed, technology improved, and human and robot capacities changed. The US has a president who is indifferent about making enemies in the process of improving national security and making it richer.

I agree, we shouldn't have tariffs and should have free trade. It would work if we didn't have to worry about theft (by China) of intellectual property and labor abuses (US through China's permission), and the resolution of customized deals catered to the subjective morality of various countries.

You’re too worried about the actions of other countries and “stealing”. The tariffs other countries impose are taxes on its citizens to support weak businesses or other reasons to protect domestic business. The only theft is making it’s citizens pay for the tariffs.

Trade isn’t a football game that the U.S. needs to win with trade surpluses. There are certain products other countries make better than the U.S. Plus, the whole trade deficit montage is ignoring the US Service surplus with other countries and the financial investments in the US by those countries. The US has a lot of bonds it needs to sell to someone.

The only stealing I see in this trade war is the estimated $2k each family will have to pay in tariff taxes annually. My life won’t improve, at all, with the tariffs.

 

[Bonasababy]

You’re too worried about the actions of other countries and “stealing”. The tariffs other countries impose are taxes on its citizens to support weak businesses or other reasons to protect domestic business. The only theft is making it’s citizens pay for the tariffs.

Trade isn’t a football game that the U.S. needs to win with trade surpluses. There are certain products other countries make better than the U.S. Plus, the whole trade deficit montage is ignoring the US Service surplus with other countries and the financial investments in the US by those countries. The US has a lot of bonds it needs to sell to someone.

The only stealing I see in this trade war is the estimated $2k each family will have to pay in tariff taxes annually. My life won’t improve, at all, with the tariffs.

Not to mention the fact that those we need to buy our products are looking more than ever at others for sourcing, and those who have bought our bonds are looking for other options as well.

 

[JAG]

You’re too worried about the actions of other countries and “stealing”. The tariffs other countries impose are taxes on its citizens to support weak businesses or other reasons to protect domestic business. The only theft is making it’s citizens pay for the tariffs.

Trade isn’t a football game that the U.S. needs to win with trade surpluses. There are certain products other countries make better than the U.S. Plus, the whole trade deficit montage is ignoring the US Service surplus with other countries and the financial investments in the US by those countries. The US has a lot of bonds it needs to sell to someone.

The only stealing I see in this trade war is the estimated $2k each family will have to pay in tariff taxes annually. My life won’t improve, at all, with the tariffs.

Good points. You’re the kind of guy I like to listen to at cigar smokes.