WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 2025
Shannon Bream takes a dive: President Trump's threats and proposals concerning tariffs have been in the news since basically forever by now.
Yesterday, it finally happened! An explainer piece about the way tariffs work finally appeared in the New York Times!
We'll be brutally honest—we were surprised by the timing. Headline included, here's the way the explainer begins:
Who Pays for U.S. Tariffs, and Where Does the Money Go?
Since his return to office, President Trump has set in motion a global trade war, wielding tariffs to try to achieve multiple goals at once: raising federal revenue, reducing or eliminating trade deficits with other nations and compelling manufacturers to make more of their goods in the United States.
But who actually pays those tariffs, and where does that money go?
Here’s how the process works...
Better late than never, you say? The timing did strike us as odd. But to its credit, the New York Times chose to simplify this topic all the way down.
Continuing directly from above, here's the way the report proceeds. The Times is explaining this very clearly. Will someone alert Shannon Bream?
What is a tariff, and who pays it?
A tariff is essentially a government surcharge on products imported from other countries.
Tariffs are paid by the companies that import the goods. The revenue from U.S. tariffs is paid by U.S. importers to the U.S. Treasury Department.
How does that work?
Here’s an example: If Walmart imports a $100 pair of shoes from Vietnam—which faces a 20 percent tariff under the terms of a preliminary trade deal—Walmart will owe $20 in tariffs to the U.S. government.
That's extremely basic explanation—which is exactly the way a topic like this should be explained.
You could even call it "Tariffs for Dummies!" But that's exactly the way a topic like this should be explained from the start.
As the Times report continues, it makes some accurate statements which might sound a bit heretical to some of us Over Here.
You'll have to check that out for yourself. We're going to move to what Shannon Bream did, or failed to do, when she interviewed Howard Lutnick on this past weekend's Fox News Sunday.
Bream is host of Fox News Sunday. Lutnick is the current Secretary of Commerce. At the start of their colloquy, Lutnick assured Bream that August 1 represents a hard and fast deadline concerning tariff deals.
The following exchange then occurred. At this point, Bream seemed to be playing it tough:
BREAM (7/27/25): Folks are nervous. We have brand new polling on that this week. And we asked in our Fox News polling how people are feeling about things.
The president is under water, by double digits, on the economy, on inflation and [on] tariffs. And they may be reacting to reports like this one from the Yale Budget Lab, estimating that Americans now face "the highest tariff rate since 1910, an average cost of $2,800 per household this year."
So you keep saying that Americans are going to love these deals. They're very skeptical and they're worried at this point.
Ouch! That seemed like a tough presentation. Lutnick responded with this:
LUTNICK (continuing directly): Well, I think you'll see, as they flow through the market, that what’s going to happen is very few products are actually going to move their price. And basically, 700, 800 billion dollars—maybe it’s possible to get it near trillion dollars of revenue—will come into the United States of America, reducing our deficit.
What do you think is paying for no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security, right?
The Secretary continued from there. “I think if you take a look at the whole thing, it’s going to be fannn-tastic.”
It’s going to be fannn-tastic, the gentleman sillily said. And then, when Lutnick had finished his bout of cheerleading, Bream simply moved ahead with a different apparent challenge.
Along the way, there they had gone again! For perhaps the ten millionth time, a member of the Trump administration had conveyed the impression that money somehow "comes into the United States" when tariff payments are made.
For perhaps the ten millionth time, he had conveyed the impression that foreign entities will be sending us big buckets of cash when those tariffs fully kick in.
That isn't the way it works, the Times has now explained. And no, that isn't the way it works—but could someone alert Shannon Bream?
Bream is much more fair-and-balanced than the bulk of the players at Fox. Also, she isn't a dope. Lutnick probably knows where the money comes from. We'll guess that Bream definitely does.
That said, the Trump admin has been selling that particular con ever since tariffs were born. When Lutnick stated the con once again, Bream chose to move right along.
This is the way our discourse works. On various fronts, in various ways, it has worked this way for a long time.
ReplyDelete"You'll have to check that out for yourself."
I don't care for anything nyt publishes, but if they
1. assert that the customer will be paying $120 for a pair of junky Vietnamese shoes with real price of 10 bucks, and
2. ignore the fact that tariffs' main purpose is to protect domestic industries
then they are lying. And I am pretty sure they are lying, as that's what they do. Oh well.
$120?
DeleteI'd pay $180 for a pair of $100 shoes, as long as they were made in a country that didn't have a self-admitted sexual predator as their President.
What kind of piece of shit, wouldn't?
Also: $100 shoes at Wal-Mart?
ReplyDeleteThe east coast elitism overpowers!
"It's one banana! What could it cost? Ten dollars?"
DeleteAnother week, another Democrat self own. Now you can't criticize ads with beautiful sexy blonde white women for being objectifying because everyone in America of both sexes who isn't mentally ill would rather see those than ads pushing obesity or trannies.
ReplyDeleteSqueal louder, darling.
DeleteYes, the cost of tariffs is passed on to the American consumer. Other costs that get passed on to the American consumer include federal corporate income tax, state corporate income tax, the employer's portion of FICA and the cost of regulation. These are a lot more than the costs of tariffs.
ReplyDeleteJesus, please go shoot yourself so we won't have to read your dribble no more.
DeleteDavid in Cal,
DeleteWhy is it that the Right always forgets to mention the cost of the fines levied by the government, in lieu of prison time for white collar criminals--when businesses break the law, in their list of things the American consumer has to pay?
David In Cal,
DeleteIn your opinion, why does the American consumer not have to pay for the police, ICE, or our military?
How much more David? The cost of what tariffs? What tariffs have been finalized? Should all forms of Government revenue be abolished? Quit pulling shit out your ass in defense of a scumbag who rapes children. Why do you defend a child rapist David in Cal? You must think raping children is a good thing you sick perv. Hope you are on the neighborhood child perv watch list for the safety of the children. You sick monster you.
DeleteSo much winning David,
Delete"Ford Motor paid out more than $800 million in tariffs last quarter, despite manufacturing most of its vehicles in the U.S.
The tariff bill came from parts imported from outside of the country as well as from fees on steel and aluminum. The hit helped wipe out the company’s net profit, leading to its first quarterly loss since 2023."
Clueless dumb ass says tariffs will grow US manufacturing, then said asshole tilts the fucking tariffs to kill domestic production. Fucking jagoff idiots.
@10:28 - I was thinking about inflation. Tariffs add to inflation. So do the other things I listed. It's conceivable that Trump's regulatory reform might more than offset the impact of tariffs on inflation.
DeleteThe dollar has lost 11% of its value since January, the largest 6 month decline in over 50 years, directly attributable to the Trump presidency. That is not conceivable, it is fact, and predicted to continue. Policymakers in the Trump administration have advocated for it. So tell us, DiC, what effects will both the tariffs and the decline in the dollar have on inflation that your "conceivable" scenario more than compensates for? The shit you pull out of your ass to post on this blog is ludicrous.
DeleteAre you sure tariffs must add to inflation, David? As opposed to consumers switching to domestic brands, for example. Or foreign producers and importers absorbing the cost of tariffs?
DeleteIn general, inflation is a monetary phenomenon, produced by increased money supply, where increased prices lead to accelerated wage increases lead to accelerated price increases again etc., in a vicious circle. Tariffs are something completely different.
1:53 No, monetary policy and increased money supply is only one of several causes of inflation. Tariff costs passed in part or whole to the consumer is one example of "cost-push" inflation driven by the increased cost of goods. The likelihood that tariffs of 15-25% would not increase the cost of goods? Very unlikely. Buying a Buick instead of BMW? Foreign parts will be part of the tariffed production costs of a Buick.
Delete@4:05
DeleteEven if part of the tariffs cost is "pushed" (rather: "attempted to be pushed") to the consumer, I still wouldn't call it "inflation", because
1. the money supply remains the same, and
2. not all prices go up, but only prices of imported goods. And not even of all imported goods, but only of some imported goods, because not all imported goods are subject to tariffs .
Imagine that prices of all the Bordeaux wines in you local liquor store tripled overnight, while all other prices remained the same. You call it "inflation"? I call it: "no one is buying crappy sour French wine no more, except a few rich fools". I think 99% of the population will see it my way. Sure, you can keep screaming "inflation!", but it won't work; people aren't stupid.
As for Buick, if its price goes up by 50 bucks, no one cares. And if its price increases significantly, then Buick is not a domestic product. And then, if it wants to sell more cars, it needs to use domestic parts and materials instead of imported ones. That's the whole point. What's so complicated here?
You know, tariffs are not a new invention. If you really are interested, read something. This, for example:
https://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/abraham-lincoln-in-depth/abraham-lincoln-and-the-tariff/index.html
"Protective tariffs did not unfairly burden ‘the poor farmer,’ Lancaster [probably a Lincoln pseudonym] argued, because all ‘manufactured articles were sold as low and many lower after [the enactment of the 1842 tariff] than they were before.’ Prices stayed down because manufacturers ‘were encouraged to start their factories believing they could find a sale for their goods,’ and the increased number of firms heightened competition, thus preventing ‘any extortion in prices.’ Lancaster insisted that ‘These facts prove that our revenue is paid entirely by the foreign manufacturers; except perhaps occasionally..."
"In March 1843, Lincoln helped author a set of Whig resolutions which began: “Resolved, That a Tariff of duties on imported goods, producing sufficient Revenue, for the payment of the necessary expenditures of the National Government, and so adjusted as to protect American Industry, is indispensably necessary to the prosperity of the American people."
But of course Lincoln was a Republican, so you probably hate him...
Where in the Constitution does it say the people are entitled to border security?
DeleteYou can go to prison if you mention woke Lincoln, who freed the slaves, in a Florida classroom.
DeleteLast time I checked, tariffs were on the table for the large majority of countries (Russia, of course, being one exception) and included a tract inhabited by penguins. So your Bordeaux analogy is woefully inadequate here. When Wal-Mart is publicly warning about price increases, it's not referring to seventy dollar bottles of vino. Now, maybe at some point in the next couple of days the administration will take a scalpel to this strategy as they should have in the first place and your analogy will be more appropriate. But until then, your definition of inflation in this context is purposely narrower than the reality of the situation. But if you insist on it, then we can say that, with very little doubt, prices are going to be up on a very large number of products including groceries in this country, whatever you want to call it (except don't use the word inflation for God's sake). I will take the Waltons' word for it. And many if not most economists. There are plenty of good domestic box wines you can savor while ruminating on the halcyon days when the Republican party was led by Lincoln, or even Nixon, for that matter.
DeleteThere's nothing in the constitution limiting Walmart's business to shitty imports from Asia. Why don't they look for some made-in-America shit for a change? And if they refuse, well, bye-bye Walmart, we hardly knew ye.
DeleteAnd yes, there's still plenty of shit produced in America. Plenty of unused production capacity. So, yes, prices perhaps may go up on a number of products, but then I'm sure prices are NOT going up on a larger number of products. Buy American, and you'll be fine.
Oh, and furthermore, if you think only box wines are produced in America, you're up for huge surprises.
I'll add that when the 2021-24 administration lead by who-knows-whom DIDN'T repeal tariffs introduced by Trump-I, not a single one of you and your fancy "economists" acted upset or disappointed. Which (plus the "Russia" quip) makes me think that you don't care about tariffs at all, and your musings here are just a symptom of your TDS sickness.
TDS >>>> TVD.
Delete8:59: Good point, is there anything else we should have Prince Orange Chickenshit in charge of now? With his brilliant business sense I am sure he could help the Walton family someday be a success. Life will be so simple with King Orange Jackass making all the calls from now on. I understand he is in charge of all universities now also.
Deleterepeal tariffs introduced by Trump-I
DeleteWhich Trump-II decided were signed by an idiot. LOL
Anyone who isn't a child rapist, or isn't perfectly fine with child rape, left the Republican Party over a decade ago.
ReplyDelete