US companies could take a hit from "buy Canadian" boycott
Canadians are steering clear of American-made products and changing their vacation plans in response to Trump's tariff threats.
www.newsweek.com
President Trump doesn't have the power to implement these tariffs and he's making a massive mistake with them...
- Thread starter Willence
- Start date
www.newsweek.com
In principal I agree with you. I do have major issues with Musk, or anyone who has such a vested financial interest being so closely involved with the government and oversight of his businesses.
One thing I've seen be absolutely true, is that publicly traded businesses are focused on profit and sales growth. Full Stop. They don't care about safety, employee welfare,etc unless they are forced to buy government oversight. I've seen it, and been complicit in it if I'm honest to myself, since they pay me to do it. I've had to really do some soul searching, and it led to me changing careers and companies.
That's not exactly true in my experience. Publicly traded companies have to be safe, care about employees, etc. because they must compete for the top people and produce a great product. If they don't then they won't be as profitable and they will be sued for substandard practices and next thing you know the stock plummets and they are out of business. It's only when the government gets involved that we end up with chronic abusers of people who are considered too big to fail. It's a horrible thing for everyone involved.
There are absolutely bad actors everywhere out there. My view is lets feed them to the wolves and then it will get sorted out in the long run. If we value the right things then those values will ultimately triumph. It's always been my view that any system absent of Christ centered morality is ultimately doomed to failure because He gave us everything we need to be who we have it in us to be.
As long as we don't talk about public education... LOL
I would push back some that the reason they care about it is that they are forced by regulations to care about it.
I would also state that while I am a Christian and value my faith, I don't believe that Christianity is required to be a moral person who cares about others. I've seen professing Christians treat people terribly, and Ove seen atheists be great people who truly cared about people.
Totally agree. We should probably just fully agree to disagree when it comes to Education lol. I do appreciate that you care about it and want to do the best for kids as do I.
That may be true but the morality that causes them to be that way comes from Him. He gave us the path. There's tons of people who claim to follow it that couldn't find the path if they wanted too. When a society has no values, it's hard for it to value anything that is of value.
We are actually home schooling our youngest now. It is so much fun and very rewarding. He's learning like crazy now and I am so thankful for the ability to do that.
And I am glad you have that right, I'm sure you guys are doing a great job. I mean that truly, not being snarky, since I think you've said she was a certified teacher.
You definitely aren't the norm unfortunately when it comes to Home Schooling.
When a company is sued for substandard practices, is that not evidence of and support for government involvement?
It’s like clockwork. Why every time taxes are mentioned, do Democrats bring up billionaires? Your proposal during the presidential campaign was to raise taxes on everyone making over $400,000 per year. There are a shit load more people that are nowhere close to billionaires in that group.
You just believe in big government and want somebody else to pay for it.
That was thanks to Obama and Holder but trust me, the cartels can get guns and ammo from many more sources than the US gun manufacturers.
I must have missed where York was the author of Biden’s tax plan? Everyone on here agrees $400k/year is too low. Also, the hope, at least my hope, was for that rate to change once it went through the house for critiquing.
Last edited:
Whether it’s $400k, $1m or $2m, the point still stands. Someone making $1m per year has nothing in common financially with a billionaire. A billionaire makes $100m per year just with 10% gains (investments, business valuation, etc). They own private jets. They have staff. Totally, totally, totally different level of wealth.
It is intellectually dishonest to associate tax increases anywhere close to those income levels with billionaires.
I support some government regulation. It is necessary.
Well, yeah, billionaires are in their own little world - which I think was his point. There just so happens to be like 3k of them on the planet and taxing them is damn near impossible. You can think billionaires need to be taxed more, but also think the Harris $400k tax plan bracket was too low - as I expect damn near everyone on this forum would agree.
I’m not completely opposed to them conceptually, but not supportive of the current approach.
Exactly. So why bring them up every time the concept of higher taxes is raised? It’s not just York. It’s a core democrat talking point to associate higher taxes with billionaires instead of the hard-working families they really intend to tax. It’s dishonest and intended to mislead people.
Last edited:
It's a talking point that must work with the base. Personally, I would be open to higher rates for the ultra rich, but it needs to be a much higher number than $400k.
I think there's a difference between what a couple of guys on a forum are talking about, and Democratic strategy writ large. 98% of the country makes less than $400k/year - I'm sure some dipshit consultant came up with that magic number after talking with focus groups.
And a similar dipshit consultant told democrats to talk about billionaires to generate bitterness and mislead their constituents.
Will you tell us how you would measure his success? What yardstick would be a FAIR measuring tool?
Do you think it would be beneficial to change financial reports to a semi-annual or annual reporting as opposed to quarterly reporting to discourage focusing to much on the short term?
I’m not sure who proposed that idea, but I’m thinking Buffet?
I'm not opposed to it. What's hard about the reporting is that it's parsed so heavily for political hit points, particularly by people who have no idea how business and financial reporting works.
Thats a good question. I would like to see a reduction in the deficit. That would be a welcome improvement. But I just don't see how you actually do that without reductions or changes to Medicare or SS. I am not opposed to an audit for government expenses, but I hate how it's currently being done with Musk tweeting every single item for the most effect, oftentimes wrong or slanted for political points.
What Is really like to see I just don't think he is capable of, which is to be Presidential. We can disagree on what happened in the Oval Office, but if you are being honest, it's not how the leader of the most powerful country on the planet should act. I hate the pettiness he has and his need to constantly belittle people
Still... Why do it to hurt our closest ally? It's not fentanyl and that's very disingenuous to claim. I just don't understand what the gain is?
Canada has been screwing the US on tariffs and other stuff. It's going to be stopped going forward. MAGA!!!
And Mexico's new Marxist president has already been screwing it's population with policies that have continued from AMLO so these tariffs will only affect them more and soon will be begging Trump to ease the tariffs. The local TI left genius economists don't understand basic economics so they'll never understand how this will hurt Canada and Mexico far worse than the US.
Canadian citizens already are taxed at a 50% clip regardless of their income level and Shienbaum is implementing taxes and wealth transfer from the rich to the poor now which has already led to many wealthy Mexicans to start transferring money out of the country.
It’s just as bad in private companies that have taken institutional investment… maybe worse. I’ve worked in PE backed companies and those don’t report anything externally, but PE would frequently say we had to cut people in order to hit the monthly or quarterly number.
Granted, a lot of that is based on bank covenants because PE firms leverage good companies to death.
