A lot of that has been facilitated by DFARS regulations to keep NATO supply chains intact. In very practical terms, that can be the difference between paying $0.50 per bolt and $8.00 per bolt. What benefit do we, the taxpayer, get out of that massive increase in cost?
A guaranteed supply of bolts, along with all of the jobs, taxes, etc that come out of making those DFARS compliant bolts. My cousin is an engineer at Rolls Royce where F-35 engines are made. He told me that there’s a $250,000 bolt in that assembly.
Yeah, outside of the ideal, we have the synthesis.
It’s funny though, when people who don’t even read the info straight from the horses mouth refer to fucking reddit memes as a real source, then proceed to misunderstand everything that is discussed.
In fact, a lot of people seem to be falling victim to their own ignorance with regard to tariffs. I mean, I like to run around like my hair is on fire spouting ignorance too (like, who doesnt?) But I save that for stuff like foreign born criminals that were shipped here to subvert the democratic process.
I mean, yeah, one could say “but that has always been happening too!” by pointing at the Irish, but I’d rather remain relatively contemporary in my blathering.
Not trying to justify that kind of crazy, but those supermetals and the processes to make stuff with them are freakin nuts. Like, for real. Then throw in 100% traceability and whatnot, and I can totally believe it.
I did some stuff in the energy sector for a while in a place like that. Holy shit. Paperwork (materials used documentation, etc.) alone cost an hour every day, and I’m not really in a paper work intensive trade.
Yeah it’s a titanium alloy bolt that isn’t manufactured in great numbers.
Regarding your immigration comment, a standard tactic of Maine Democratic Socialists is to conflate the taxpayer funded mass immigration to past migrations of humans. Lewiston experienced a huge wave of French-Canadian migration over 100 years ago. They came without any taxpayer funded incentives.
They also built Lewiston’s most stunning building, the only Basilica in New England. They did this without government assistance.
Nowadays you can usually see hookers waving down cars across the street, someone shooting up nearby, and gunfire is heard in the vicinity on a weekly basis.
A new mosque may be built at some point, but our Muslim immigrants won’t match this feat when so much of their income is sent abroad through remittances to their home countries. Much of that income is taxpayer derived in the form of benefits and taxpayer funded nonprofits.
Some nonprofit executives are even doing well enough to fund militias in Jubaland.
From 1861 to 1933, which Irwin characterizes as the “restriction period”, the average tariffs rose to 50 percent and remained at that level for several decades. From 1934 onwards, in the “reciprocity period”, the average tariff declined substantially until it leveled off at 5 percent.[1] Especially after 1942, the U.S. began to promote worldwide free trade.
I mean, it’s a measly 5% on trillions of dollars, amassed over decades, so sure, a pittance really.
Not to mention the protectionist motive that they were implemented for.
I mean, who needs industry and its derivatives. Its like comparing the world as it is now to the world as it existed then. Who would do something silly like that?
The tariffs will have an effect that in some ways is similar to passing a tax bill that moves the system towards a more regressive system. Lower income individuals will likely pay a higher percent of their income indirectly towards tariffs than higher income individuals. It is similar to a flat tax system.
Just my opinion, but I believe the administration understands how tariffs work. I believe they wanted to implement a regressive tax, and the tariffs have been a way to do so without the policy appearing to be blatantly regressive, and likely more unpopular than the tariffs.
Yeah, I suppose if somebody makes $50k, or even $100k, they would pay a higher percentage of their total income to tariffs than the higher earners. Especially with the virtually unlimited amount that people can make.
But that’s fun house mirror math used to present a deceptive and biased take on something that has existed in this country to varying degrees since it began.
Just because Trump has decided to use them to tool other countries doesn’t mean they’re a terrible thing.
Like, If I make 2 million dollars per year, and save most of it, like $1.5 million, and that is more than someone who makes $80k saves, by percentage, does that make saving money regressive and bad?
I don’t think the tariffs are inherently regressive, nor do they indicate a Republican desire to increase taxes on lower income people.
Maine Democrats have recently formed a “task force” to look at reducing taxes after raising more taxes than ever since 2018. Not included in the Grok list below are the municipal real estate taxes that have skyrocketed along with our school budget and municipal budget. Lewiston has an upcoming revaluation that’s going to absolutely crush senior citizens who’ve owned their homes since the 1990’s or earlier, many of whom are on fixed incomes.
Please list the tax increases passed by Maine Democrats since 2018.
Since 2018, Maine Democrats, who have controlled the state legislature since 2019, have passed several tax increases, often over Republican objections. Below is a list of notable tax increases based on available information, focusing on measures enacted under Democratic leadership:
Paid Family and Medical Leave Tax (2023, effective January 1, 2025)
Description: A 1% payroll tax on workers and businesses to fund a mandatory paid family and medical leave program, estimated to generate $448 million annually. The program allows up to three months of paid leave for various reasons, including caregiving for mental or emotional health issues.
Details: Passed as part of a supplemental budget bill, this tax has been criticized as the largest tax hike on Mainers in decades. Workers began paying the tax in January 2025, though benefits are not available until May 1, 2026.
Source: Maine House Republicans, The Maine Wire
Real Estate Transfer Tax Increase
Description: An increase in the real estate transfer tax, signed into law by Governor Janet Mills, a Democrat. Specific details on the rate or revenue impact are not fully outlined in the sources, but it was highlighted as one of several new taxes.
Source: The Maine Wire
Cannabis Tax Increase
Description: An increase in the tax on recreational cannabis, proposed by Governor Mills and enacted as part of her budget strategy to address a projected $450 million shortfall over the 2026-2027 biennium.
Source: Maine Public, The Maine Wire
Tobacco Tax Increase (Proposed and Enacted)
Description: A tax increase on tobacco products, including raising the cigarette tax from $2 to $3 per pack, proposed by Governor Mills and passed to generate additional revenue for the state budget.
Source: Maine Public
Streaming Services Tax
Description: A new tax on video streaming services, proposed by Governor Mills as part of her budget to address fiscal challenges. This tax targets services like Netflix and Hulu, applying a flat rate that has been criticized as regressive, disproportionately affecting lower-income households.
Source: Maine Public, Maine Morning Star
Corporate Income Tax Rate Increase (2025)
Description: The Maine Legislature passed LD 1879, which increases the tax rate on large corporations to support agricultural businesses. The bill faced opposition from the Mills administration due to concerns about making Maine’s corporate tax rate one of the highest in the country, but it was passed by Democratic majorities.
Source: Maine Morning Star
Income Tax Bracket Restructuring (2025)
Description: LD 229 was passed to restructure Maine’s income tax system, expanding from three to five brackets and adding higher rates of 7.75% and 8.95% for top earners (previously capped at 7.15%). This aims to provide relief for middle-income earners while increasing taxes on the highest earners.
Source: Maine Morning Star, Maine Beacon
Proposed (but Failed) Millionaire Tax (LD 1089)
Description: A proposal to add a 2% surtax on individual incomes over $1 million and household incomes over $2 million to fund public education failed in 2025 by narrow margins in both the House and Senate. While not enacted, it reflects Democratic efforts to target high earners, though opposition from some Democrats and Governor Mills’ veto threat prevented passage.
Source: Maine Beacon, Maine Morning Star
Notes:
Context: These tax increases were often justified by Democrats to address budget shortfalls, fund social programs like education and healthcare, or support progressive priorities. For instance, the paid leave tax and corporate tax increases aimed to fund specific programs, while the income tax restructuring sought to make the tax code more progressive. However, critics, including Republicans and some posts on X, argue these measures increase Maine’s already high tax burden (ranked 4th highest nationally) and disproportionately affect working-class or low-income Mainers, especially regressive taxes like those on tobacco and streaming services.
Governor Mills’ Role: While Mills, a Democrat, has opposed broad-based tax increases (e.g., income tax hikes) and vetoed a similar tax bracket restructuring in the past, she has signed off on targeted increases like those on cannabis, tobacco, and streaming services. Her administration has also expressed concerns about some progressive tax proposals.
Republican Opposition: Republicans have consistently opposed these tax increases, arguing they exacerbate Maine’s budget issues and burden taxpayers. They highlight Democratic control since 2019 as the cause of fiscal challenges, citing “reckless spending” and a reliance on majority budgets without bipartisan support.
Limitations: The sources do not provide an exhaustive list of every tax increase since 2018, and some measures (e.g., specific fee increases or minor taxes) may not be fully documented here. Additionally, proposed taxes that failed, like the millionaire tax, are included for context but not as enacted policy.
If you need more details on any specific tax or want me to search for additional measures, let me know!
This is fair. We have various forms of taxes in this country. Some taxes like income tax are progressive. Some taxes like sales tax are regressive. According to google:
A regressive tax is a type of tax where the tax rate decreases as the taxpayer’s income increases. This means that individuals with lower incomes end up paying a larger percentage of their income in taxes compared to those with higher incomes.
Examples: Sales Tax, Excise Tax (tax on gas is an example here), User Fees (fees for things like driver’s license, SS tax (because of the cap).
A progressive tax is a tax system where the tax rate increases as the taxpayer’s income or ability to pay increases.
Our income tax system is an example here. We have income taxed higher as it grows.
I was not saying that we don’t have any regressive taxes. I am saying that the tariffs are an addition to the existing regressive taxes, or a move towards a more regressive system.
It may not be the intent, as I don’t know motivation (only suspect it). It will likely have that impact, regardless of intent though.
I’m not into tariffs as a tool to generate revenue, for all the reasons we’ve discussed.
But I do recognize what an effective Threat they represent. Fentnyl overdoses and rounding up and sorting out illegal border crossers had Real, significant costs and negative effects on our country.
Both are Down since Pres Trump has been using the threat of tariffs to influence Mexico and Canada.
And for way less cost to tax payers than military intervention (just for example).
I haven’t read the Protocols, but I have read Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics, which is a great explanation of the subject for most practical purposes. Hitler’s Beneficiaries by Gotz Aly was an outstanding explanation of the economics of Nazi Germany, as was Tooze’s Wages of Destruction and Reinman’s The Vampire Economy. The latter two still like to pretend that National Socialism was still capitalist, which I guess it was if you consider nominal property rights “right wing”.
I’m still new to the idea that Jewish bankers run the world, but not to the idea that bankers run the world. X has introduced me to the idea that an ancient cabal of Satan-worshippers run the banks, posing as devout Jews, while gathering spiritually ascendant powers from the sacrifice of infants and retaining youth through adrenochrome extracted in the ritualistic sacrifices.
All made possible by Jeffery Epstein and his enablers in the government.
Hey, Alex Jones predicted 9/11 in detail and was right about the gay frogs. Maybe he’s onto something with this, too.
It’s actually pretty damn spot-on with the comparisons, especially considering the last chapter of the LOTR that didn’t make it on-screen. Tolkien wrote LOTR as Anglo-Saxon mythology, and The Shire was obviously English in culture.
And there is an alleged $9 trillion worth of corporate/foriegn investment in US metal extraction and industry headed our way. For the cost of the $100 billion the tariffs have collected from US consumers.
Under Pres Biden, it took $800 billion tax payer dollars to get $1 trillion total invested in US manufacturing.
That will always be the case though. As long as my apple and your apple both cost the same, and you make more than I do, you will pay less of a percentage for the same apple. That doesn’t make apples regressive. It’s simply a product of mathematical convention.
Comparison of X based on income isn’t a valid argument for or against anything.
The cost of a thing in relation to income often defines how affordable that thing is. You could argue the cost of many things in relation to your income excludes those things from being reasonable purchases.
It doesn’t make apples regressive, but if the government wanted to increase income, and applied a new tax to apples, the US tax system would then be more regressive than it was before implementing a tax to apples. I am not trying to make a judgement call on if this is good or bad. Just what it is.
.
