"Is it China doing these trans-shipments?
Or companies trying to import goods into the US and not having to pay the tariffs?
#1 | Posted by LampLighter"

Chinese companies using Malaysian fronts. Chinese companies are advertising all over now for their expertise in trans-shipment as the Chinese manufacturers are all facing bankruptcy after the US tariffs hit. But, Vietnam, Malaysia, and others are no longer allowing this practice. The actual shipments from China to the US directly and via transshipment is way, way larger than the number posted as the official trade deficit. Also, it artificially inflates the trade deficits Malaysia and Vietnam have with the US so they are desperate to stop the practice.

Here is a bit of 'on the ground' reporting for where the trade talks stand. In Vietnam, they are finalizing an agreement and the main sticking point is that the US is demanding that the US has the right to directly send US customs to factories in Vietnam producing exports for the US to ensure the goods are actually being made there and not trans-shipments. Vietnam is pushing back over sovereignty issues but will relent and agree.

"Is this just yet another case of American companies bypassing American laws for profit?
#5 | Posted by LampLighter"

Some of the importers are American companies knowingly importing products through illegal trans-shipments and they need to face the full consequences of the law. However, a majority have no clue the products are trans-shipments - the trusted the fraudulent documents provided by the manufacturer. Like illegal immigrants - illegal trans-shipments have always been illegal - the laws were simply not enforced. Now they are. It is a good thing and China is being crushed because of it.

"#8 | Posted by LampLighter"

I am the only one on this website that actually supplies links to back up my data. It is tiring so I will just use the same 'trust me bro' that you -------- use going forward.

"#10 | Posted by LampLighter"

Nope, and I don't intend to going forward. There seems to be no point in my doing so as your -------- don't read the links or ever admit that you were incorrect after being provided the link. You are a great example of that. So, I am increasing efficiency by not wasting my time posting the links and saving your time from no longer requesting a link in every other of your comments because you aren't going to get one. Just doing my part to combat global warming by lowering the compute power needed to run the internet.

"#12 | Posted by Danforth"

You are a perfect example of what I referred to above.

You made the claim that the .1% received over 50% of the Trump tax cuts and I asked your to support that with a link.

Of course you couldn't as the claim was ridiculous - but, you refuse to admit that you lied or retract your claim.

So, what is the point for me posting links verifying everything I claim when it is not the standard applied to others and no one ever is willing to admit that they were wrong? When I make false claims - I own up to it and amend it.

Case in point, when I linked to reports of the Texas school shooter a few weeks back and the reports turned out to be referencing a shooting at the same school but a few years earlier - I immediately posted that my prior link and reporting was incorrect. That is what adults do - you back your statement and must be willing to admit when you are wrong.

Liberals on this site are incapable of doing so and you are proof positive of that.

"#15 | Posted by LauraMohr"

Well there Laura (and I do hope your health is improving) as Danforth refuses to provide his link to back up his claim that the .1% received over 50% of the Trump tax cut when I ask him to provide it or admit that he lied - maybe you can ask him instead given your high view of him on money issues. I suspect you will get the same non-response that I get from him because he made a stupid statement that he is embarrassed to retract or risk losing his fawning admirers like you. Maybe if you tell him that you will still love him regardless, he can finally tell the truth on the matter.

"#17 | Posted by Danforth"

Then go ahead and COPY AND PASTE the part from any one of your links that states that the .1% got more than 50% of the Trump tax cut as you claimed. Should be simple for you.

"Foreign investors were left out, and they got over 15%. We know that, because American workers got 15%, and Foreign investors got MORE."

First, I linked to that article for you. Second, Foreign Investors does not equal ".1% Foreign Investors. Third, the top .1% of the US only own 25% of all equities so even applying that to the 15% you state above would mean 3.7% additional to the ~25% of the actual tax cut attributed to the top .1% by the US government's own calculation.

"only counts the Front End of the equation, the $1.8 Trillion borrowed. It completely left out the money earned as interest on that new debt, making the total closer to $2.3 Trillion."

What percentage of US debt is owned by the .1%? Assuming the top .1% own the same amount of US debt as they do of US equities (~25%), including interest MAKES THE NUMBER GO EVEN LOWER.

You keep digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole. Just admit that you lied. Laura will still respect you in the morning.

"The only thing I'll ever admit is you're too stupid to understand the equation you're discussing.
#18 | Posted by Danforth"

Great, so please link to someone that does understand the whole equation stating "the top .1% received over 50% of the Trump tax cuts". Should be very easy for you....or, are you the only one that truly understands the whole equation because you ignore basic math in your calculation?

"#19 | Posted by LampLighter"

You need to look no further than this current exchange with Danforth

1.) Factually he is wrong
2.) I have provided all the links in the past that prove he is wrong
3.) HE even knows he is wrong

Yet, he will not admit to being wrong. So, what is the point for me providing you -------- with link after link? It changes nothing for you.

Grok Prompt: "are there any links to claims that the top .1% received more than 50% of the trump tax cuts?"

Grok Response:
"I couldn't find any credible claims from reputable sources stating that the top 0.1% received more than 50% of the Trump Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) benefits. Most analyses, such as those from the Tax Policy Center, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, estimate that the top 0.1% received around 10-15% of the total tax cuts, with the broader top 1% receiving roughly 20-25% in most years. Some sources, like a 2017 X post, claimed higher figures (e.g., the top 0.1% getting nearly 40%), but these are not substantiated by rigorous studies and appear exaggerated.

A common misconception arises from projections for 2027, where the Tax Policy Center noted that the top 1% could receive up to 82.8% of benefits if individual tax cuts expire, leaving corporate cuts that favor high earners. However, this applies to the top 1%, not the top 0.1%, and is a future scenario, not a current reality. No studies specifically claim over 50% for the top 0.1%. If you want me to dig deeper into primary data or specific claims, let me know"

So, again - THIS IS NOT EVEN DEBATABLE - Danforth just lied. The only question up for debate is: Why does Danforth continue to lie? Afraid his reputation with Laura will be sullied? Hates to lose? Or just plain out too stupid to know he lied?

Grok prompt (to give Danforth the benefit of the doubt): "are there any links, reputable and even disreputuable, to claims that the top .1% received more than 50% of the trump tax cuts?"

Grok Answer:
Disreputable or Unsubstantiated Claims
I searched for less reliable sources, including posts on X and fringe websites, to identify any claims that the top 0.1% received over 50% of the TCJA benefits. The closest I found was a 2017 X post claiming the top 0.1% received "nearly 40%" of the cuts, but this lacks supporting evidence and is not from a credible source. No posts or websites explicitly claimed a figure above 50% for the top 0.1%. Even partisan outlets critical of the TCJA, like some progressive blogs, tend to focus on the top 1% or corporate benefits rather than isolating the top 0.1% with such a high share.

Conclusion
No reputable or disreputable sources claim that the top 0.1% received more than 50% of the Trump tax cuts. Reputable estimates place their share at 10-15%, with the top 1% receiving 20-25% in most years. Even less reliable sources, like X posts, don't reach the 50% threshold, with the highest unsubstantiated claim being "nearly 40%." If you'd like me to explore specific outlets or dig deeper into raw tax data, let me know!

But Danforth knows better according to him. So, prove Grok and I wrong and post your link -------.

"#25 | Posted by LampLighter"

As I already explained, I am not playing your game for the exact reason I already stated. In the case of Danforth - it is the most clear cut case possible of someone lying and being called out for it with actual links and evidence. And yet, still no admission that he lied. So, why should I waste my time posting links? Learn to use Grok and answer your own questions.

"#28 | Posted by LampLighter"

Keep holding your breath waiting for it.

"#31 | Posted by LampLighter"

Cry more -------. Your next post that adds actual information to the discussion will be your first.

"#33 | Posted by LampLighter"

There has never been a more thorough takedown of a claim on this website than what I have demonstrated debunking Danforth's lie that the top .1% received more than 50% of the Trump tax cut. I supplied link after link, logic, basic math, and even AI. It is not up for debate that his statement was a lie - it has been proven as such. And yet, no admission from him that it was a lie. There is no point for me to repeat that process now - I have proven my credibility repeatedly on this site through both my links and admission and corrections to data that I posted that was not correct. So, cry more -------.

"a legend in your own mind, and nowhere else.
#35 | Posted by Alexandrite"

Let's test this - you have seen all the debate on the Danforth's comment that ' the .1% received over 50% of Trump's tax cuts' - he still stands by that comment today.

After this - do you acknowledge that Danforth is lying?

A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

"Of all the hills to die on, what makes this one so irresistible?
#37 | Posted by snoofy"

Because rarely do we ever have an issue so irrefutable. When Grok says "No reputable or disreputable sources claim that the top 0.1% received more than 50% of the Trump tax cuts." - it becomes non-debatable. It is an established fact.

So, now we get to see if you liberals can think rationally and admit the truth, or continue to lie simply because the lie was stated by someone on your team.

So, you are up - did Danforth lie?

Yes or No will suffice.

"#39 | Posted by REDIAL"

Well, well - the Canuck Cuck chimes in. How about you answer the question:

Because rarely do we ever have an issue so irrefutable. When Grok says "No reputable or disreputable sources claim that the top 0.1% received more than 50% of the Trump tax cuts." - it becomes non-debatable. It is an established fact.

if you doubt that here is more from Grok:
"Yes, if someone has seen my answer and read the data (e.g., from the Tax Policy Center or Joint Committee on Taxation) that clearly shows the top 0.1% received ~10-15% of the Trump tax cuts, not over 50%, and they continue to state the false claim, they are lying. This is because they are knowingly and intentionally spreading a falsehood despite having direct evidence of the truth. Such behavior indicates deliberate deception, fitting the definition of a lie."

So, now we get to see if you liberals can think rationally and admit the truth, or continue to lie simply because the lie was stated by someone on your team.

So, you are up - did Danforth lie?

Yes or No will suffice.

""So, you are up - did Danforth lie?"
Sure, why not?
Tell us.
What hinges on Danforth lying.
#41 | Posted by snoofy"

Accountability - it matters otherwise what is the point of debating?

"#42 | Posted by Danforth"

Dude, you are lying. Grok called you a liar - hell, even Snoofy called you a liar. It is okay to just let this go. You were wrong - no shame in that. But, you perpetually lying after being informed is what makes this so sad for you.

""A common misconception arises from projections for 2027, where the Tax Policy Center noted that the top 1% could receive up to 82.8% of benefits..."
That's certainly where I got the 83% for the top 1% I've claimed. "At fruition" is the phrase I've always used.

1.) "That's certainly where I got the 83% for the top 1% I've claimed." - which is WRONG
2.) No - you never used the world 'at fruition' - link to your original comment where you stated this because you didn't. Lying is really becoming a habit for you. So, now you owe 2 links.
2.) The projections for 2027 ARE FOR ------- 2027 AND 2027 ONLY NOT IN TOTAL -------.

"...if individual tax cuts expire, leaving corporate cuts that favor high earners."
That's exactly what happened."

They would expire on Dec 31, 2025 -------. Aren't you supposed to be preparing taxes? One would think you would know something so basic for someone preparing taxes.

"However, this applies to the top 1%, not the top 0.1%, and is a future scenario, not a current reality"
That must be an old publication. The tax cuts for workers expired. The tax cuts for corporations were made permanent. EXACTLY what was warned."

It is already Dec 31, 2025? What, are you living in the future now -------? Again, you prepare taxes for a living - how can you not know this?

"No studies specifically claim over 50% for the top 0.1."
Okay, let's do the math. 83% for the top 1%."

Blah, blah, blah - maybe you need to tell Grok, ChatGPT and all the CBO staffers how to do math because you are the only ------- claiming these numbers.

"Here's a question for all to ponder: If you're running a deficit budget, and you either write new, or renew expiring tax cuts, does 100% of that represent newly borrowed money?
And since it does, is the total cost the upfront cost only, or the cost of the loan AND the interest to pay it back?"

This argument does not help your cause at the top .1% only own 25% of the total federal debt - thus, by including interest payments, THE NUMBER GOES DOWN. Taking any addition savings in which the top .1% owns less than 50% bring their percentage overall DOWN. But, with someone so math challenged, I should not surprised you don't get this.

"I stand by my math.
#42 | Posted by Danforth"

Of course you do - you have no issue lying even having been completely debunked. I think you owe Laura an apology - she is going to be heartbroken.