this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2025
252 points (98.8% liked)

politics

22633 readers
5445 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Yesterday, the Trump administration announced a series of tariffs it characterized as “reciprocal,” ranging from 10 percent to 50 percent and calculated for every country on Earth. The country-specific rates were made public at the press conference announcing the tariffs, as well as on White House social media.

However, despite the characterization of the tariffs as “reciprocal,” and despite the accompanying graphics referring to foreign “tariffs charged to the USA including currency manipulation and trade barriers,” the White House did not actually measure tariffs, currency manipulation, or trade barrier policies employed by other countries. Instead, it drew its estimates from something else entirely: bilateral trade deficits in goods.

Specifically, the White House documents appear to allege the “tariffs charged to the USA” are the greater of two different quantities: (a) 10 percent, and (b) the 2024 US trade deficit in goods with a given country, divided by the total quantity of US imports from that country.

Set aside, for now, the damage to economic growth these tariffs will cause, or the distributional impact of one of the largest tax hikes in US history. Other Tax Foundation work will cover that. (We currently estimate the cumulative amount of Trump tariffs at $3.1 trillion over 10 years, amounting to a roughly $2,100 tax increase per household in 2025 alone.)

The method for calculating other countries’ so-called “tariffs” for reciprocal purposes is nonsense. Bilateral deficits are not tariffs, nor are they meaningful anyway; trade in services is relevant; and tariffs cannot be used to target overall trade deficits. The overall result is an extraordinary policy error that will severely damage the economy while failing to reduce the US trade deficit.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 41 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Fuck everyone who voted for him. This is on you.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

One should expect conservatives to vote for whomever is leading their party, regardless of how insane or hypocritical it would seem. They are united in this combination of a sunken-cost fallacy, stubborn pride and willful ignorance.

The non-voters are the ones who should draw the most ire. Apathy and defeatism had no place in the last election. There was a clear choice to be made to keep this country, as we knew it, afloat, and the non-voters did less than nothing to assist. Fuck them, ever so much.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 20 hours ago

I am just going to say that the republicans/conservatives that continue to vote for the same party because its a tradition in their family is just as stupid as the non-voters. In no way shape or form should this style of “sports team” voting be a thing, instead vote on the party because of their policies and not the person because they wear red. In saying that the non-voters are just as idiotic, and yet all they want to blame rather then themselves is the Dems and their messaging. Jfc your telling me you did not vote because option “b” which was blatant in their authoritarian, mysognistic and racist messaging was not enough to vote for Kamala because they did not find her compelling. My god the idiocracy is alive and well over their.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 18 hours ago

This isn’t sports, or even a parliamentary system. You don’t have to just accept whoever “your” party nominates.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Too soon to say that, wait until Americans start starving.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 20 hours ago

It’s never too soon, or too often.