Trump Voters Are Sharing Their True Thoughts On Tariffs
I was pretty shocked the other day to read about actual price differences caused by tariffs, and I wanted to learn specifically about how Trump voters feel about the tariffs — whether they think they're a good idea or not.
So, I decided to ask Trump voters to tell me what they really think about the tariffs; and, for good measure, I turned to the answers to a post on the subreddit Ask Trump Supporters that asked, "Do Trump supporters see the new tariff policy as a smart negotiating tactic with allies, or is there concern it could backfire?" Here are some people's answers:
"I love the idea of Trump pushing the tariffs. It will teach the consumer what is really important to be spending their money on and learn how to be conservative. Plus bring back the businesses to the grand ol' USA."
—Anonymous, 72 years old, Kansas City, Missouri
"Not me, but my grandad. He has said that he regrets voting for Trump, even though he hates Harris. One, the tariffs are going to make his small business (golf balls) suffer, and he's worried about my business (cosmetics) suffering, too."
"Two, he thinks Trump has dementia, because of the way Trump has been talking and stuff. He also thinks Trump is really violent. Also, my grandad was absolutely horrified when Elon did the Nazi salute thing (why did everyone just forget about this?) because, even though my grandad is Catholic, he has multiple Jewish friends, and was actually the one who kickstarted my interest in the history of the Holocaust. When Trump made that 'joke' about wanting to be the new Pope, that was the breaking point for him."—Anonymous
"Good decision, time will prove it was a good one."
"Tariffs are not going to help small businesses or consumers. A tariff is a tax that is passed on to the consumer. The government will collect this tax. What they will do with it is anyone's guess."
"Trump lied to his voters. Tariffs increase prices of goods and services. Once prices go up they will never come down. Many small businesses will close as they will not be able to pay the insurmountable prices added to products which were already too high. Many people will lose their jobs, and things will just get worse. Meanwhile, Trump is making all types of deals in the Middle East for his business. God bless America."—Anonymous
"My boyfriend voted for him in 2016, 2020, and 2024, and he still argues that China (or whoever) pays the tariffs."
"Absolutely genius. Europe is already buckling. They want reciprocal free trade, but are not yet willing to remove VAT on imports and all the other shenanigans they pull to restrict trade. Trump is not falling for it."
"Well, I'm skeptical and on the fence. There are countries that totally deserve, like, a 300% tariff, like China. And I've always been very, VERY suspicious of a global economic system that seems to favor a country like China just too much. Let's see what happens."
"I hope it's just a negotiating tactic in order to get other countries to lower their tariffs against us, something everyone should support. But I think Trump might actually just love tariffs and hate deficits."
"It's a risky gambit, I won't deny that. But what we were doing was unsustainable and going to bankrupt us in time, most likely much sooner than we'd like, and I don't hear Democrats offering any better alternatives, just screaming, 'Trump Bad!'"
"This isn't about making life easier for investors. Sure, once a new business is established, it'll be more competitive with experience, and perhaps not need tariffs to be competitive in four years."
"I think it's more than a negotiating tactic, though he is obviously using them to that effect at times. But I think Trump is not a free trader at his core, and do not think his goal is just to get other countries to lower their trade barriers to zero (they won't do that anyway)."
"I don't have confidence that the tariff policy laid out last week will be successful. They were also calculated incorrectly, and Trump likely exceeded the legal authority he is using to levy the tariffs."
"Somehow, back in the 1950s-1980s, people managed to buy lots of American goods without even owning credit cards, generally. I wonder if local manufacturing jobs helped. The 1970s oil crisis created inflation twice as high as it's ever been in your life (unless you're over 50). And nobody even knows. By the Reagan '80s boom, it was forgotten. All it did was spur the invention of fuel-efficient cars."
"More competition for workers in USA means wages go up."
"We don't have enough thinking-type jobs to sustain young US workers. I don't know if the country will make more money, but the goal is better jobs than young workers currently can access."
"It's a risk. But Trump is not the habit of letting things age — he wants to make deals. Some countries he might want to keep tariffs on, if it's judged to be good for the US. Otherwise, tariffs should be lower a year from now."
And finally: "I honestly don't know; at this point, I'm waiting to see what happens."
What do you think? I'm interested in hearing all your opinions down in the comments below. Or, if you have something to say but prefer to stay anonymous, you're more than welcome to write in to the anonymous form below.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
An Aggressive Social Security Garnishment Is Underway for Over 1,000,000 Beneficiaries -- Here's How You Can Legally Avoid It
Between 80% and 90% of retirees count on their Social Security income, in some capacity, to cover their expenses. The Trump administration has ended the Joe Biden-era overpayment and recovery rate of 10% and implemented a monthly clawback rate of 50% on Social Security overpayments. Beneficiaries who've received an overpayment letter from the Social Security Administration have multiple options available that can waive or reduce the amount they'll need to repay. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › In May, nearly 53 million retired workers brought home a Social Security check, with the average payout making history by cresting $2,000 for the first time ever. Though this is a relatively modest amount of monthly income, it's imperative to the financial well-being of most aging Americans. For more than 20 years, national survey-taker Gallup has polled retirees annually to gauge their reliance on Social Security income. Without fail, 80% to 90% of retirees have consistently responded that their monthly check was a necessity, in some capacity, to make ends meet. For beneficiaries, nothing is more important than knowing how much they're going to receive each month and having their payout keep pace with the inflationary pressures they're contending with on a year-to-year basis. But based on a new policy recently implemented under President Donald Trump, more than 1 million beneficiaries can expect their Social Security checks to shrink by up to 50%. With so many beneficiaries reliant on Social Security income to cover their expenses, this is income some can't afford to lose. Since Trump took office for his nonconsecutive second term, he's overseen a number of critical changes to America's leading retirement program. This includes beefing up personal identification methods, signing an executive order to eliminate paper Social Security checks, and creating the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which encouraged the Social Security Administration (SSA) to slash 7,000 jobs and shutter some of its locations to reduce its administrative expenses. But what's making headlines above all else are the two Social Security garnishments that the Trump administration has improved. For instance, by "sometime this summer," a 15% monthly garnishment is expected to be reinstated for the roughly 452,000 delinquent federal student loan borrowers who are currently receiving a Social Security benefit. Federal student loan payments ceased in March 2020 during the height of the pandemic and haven't recommenced. Between 2017 and 2023, the number of federal student loan borrowers aged 62 and above surged by 59% to roughly 2.7 million, based on data from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But a 15% monthly garnishment is peanuts compared to the 50% garnishment rate that's currently underway for beneficiaries who were overpaid. Keep in mind that "beneficiaries" encompass retired workers, survivors of deceased workers, and workers with disabilities. Under the Joe Biden administration, Social Security clawbacks for overpayments were reduced to 10% per check, which is down from the 100% clawback rate that existed when President Barack Obama was in office, as well as during Donald Trump's first term. Based on statements from then-acting SSA Commissioner Kilolo Kijakazi in 2023, the agency overpaid more than 1 million beneficiaries in fiscal 2022 (the federal government's fiscal year ends on Sept. 30) and over 980,000 recipients in fiscal 2023. With the garnishment rate slashed to just 10% under President Biden and having no new overpayment data published since fiscal 2023, it's likely safe to assume that more than 1,000,000 beneficiaries are still making good on their overpayments. Social Security overpayments can occur for a number of reasons. Sometimes, these errors are entirely the fault of the SSA and result in beneficiaries receiving too much per month. But they can also be caused by a recipient not updating their income. For example, non-blind workers with disabilities can earn up to $1,620 per month in wages and salary without having their long-term Social Security disability benefit stopped in 2025. If a worker with disabilities began collecting $3,000 in monthly income and didn't report this income change to the SSA, their federal tax filing would show they received Social Security disability benefits they weren't due, thusly resulting in an eventual clawback from the SSA. For the more than 1,000,000 beneficiaries who've received a letter from the SSA informing them they've been overpaid, there are options. The most desirable of these options is to request and be approved for an overpayment waiver (Form SSA-632BK, "Request for Waiver of Overpayment Recovery"). If the overpayment wasn't your fault and repaying the added benefits you received would lead to financial hardship -- you'll often need to supply documentation of your income and qualified expenses -- there's the possibility that the SSA will grant your request and waive your need to refund the overpayment. Along these same lines, beneficiaries can also file Form SSA-561, which is officially known as a "Request for Reconsideration." This route is taken by beneficiaries who don't agree with the SSA's decision that they've been overpaid and essentially want to appeal, as well as those who admit they've been overpaid but don't agree with the amount presented by the SSA. If your appeal is granted, you won't have to refund a dime to America's leading retirement program. Your appeal may also reduce how much you'll have to repay. The third option available to beneficiaries who've received a notice informing them of eventual clawbacks due to overpayment is to negotiate a different payment rate. Going this route is an admission that you've been overpaid but that removing 50% from your check on a monthly basis would create a financial hardship. Filing Form SSA-634 ("Request for Change in Overpayment Recovery Rate") with the SSA requires you to explain your financial situation, which includes documentation of your income and qualified expenses. Though the SSA typically aims to recover an overpayment within 12 months, some payment plans extend payments up to 60 months (five years) out. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. An Aggressive Social Security Garnishment Is Underway for Over 1,000,000 Beneficiaries -- Here's How You Can Legally Avoid It was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Business Insider
31 minutes ago
- Business Insider
I tried 2 ways of investing in bitcoin. One thrived and one failed miserably, teaching me a valuable lesson.
Back in December of 2024, I decided to hop aboard the bitcoin train and add some crypto exposure to my portfolio. Markets were flush off of the recent Trump victory, there were whispers of a national bitcoin reserve, and bitcoin had recently broken the $100,000 threshold for the first time. The cryptocurrency had gone mainstream enough for late adopters like myself to deem it investable. For my first foray into bitcoin, I purchased a share of Blackrock 's iShares Bitcoin Trust Trust (IBIT). I later added a share of Semler Scientific (SMLR), a healthcare technology company that holds bitcoin on its balance sheet. I wanted to try multiple methods of investing in bitcoin. In hindsight, I realize I committed the classic retail investor impulse: buying in because of FOMO. Sure, positive investor sentiment led to gains in bitcoin, as well as the ETF I bought that was designed to track the crypto. But my stock purchase proved ill-timed. Almost six months later, bitcoin has crossed new all-time-highs, and I have mixed feelings on my investment. Bitcoin ETFs are a beginner-friendly way to get exposure I opted to buy IBIT instead of actual spot bitcoin because it was a more accessible way to get exposure. I didn't want the hassle of setting up a Coinbase account. Plus, buying a single share in an ETF was more psychologically appealing than buying a tiny fraction of a bitcoin (I did not have a spare $100,000 or the risk tolerance to buy an entire bitcoin). The performance has been encouraging. Year-to-date, IBIT is up about 14%, outpacing a 12% gain for bitcoin itself. It's done its job of tracking the crypto, and even added a little extra. And it's far outperformed the S&P 500, which is up just 2% in 2025. ETFs can experience slight tracking differences due to management fees, operational costs, and the timing of inflows and outflows. But if you want a rough proxy of bitcoin performance without actually owning the underlying asset, IBIT gets the job done. A year and a half over its launch, IBIT has gained incredible popularity, growing to over $70 billion in assets under management. Robert Cannon, a financial advisor at Experity Wealth with a specialization in alternative assets, recommends his bitcoin-curious clients to start with the ETF. "It's the easiest, cleanest representation of bitcoin, compared to some of the other strategies that are a bit esoteric," Cannon told me. The ETF wrapper has really helped bitcoin adoption take off in the last year, Rahul Sen Sharma, president and co-CEO at the custom index provider Indxx, told me. Sharma's seeing a surge in interest for bitcoin and digital asset ETFs, and he believes Trump's continued support for crypto will pave the way for more mainstream adoption. Be careful with bitcoin treasury companies Getting bitcoin exposure through other methods was indeed more esoteric — and much less profitable. I added Semler Scientific to my portfolio on January 8, 2025, and it's down more than 40% since then. There's a growing trend among companies to add bitcoin to their balance sheets, with Strategy, Tesla, and GameStop being one of the most prominent examples. The president's own Trump Media and Technology Group has recently raised $2.5 billion to buy bitcoin. Semler Scientific started adding bitcoin to its balance sheet in May of last year and now holds over 4,000 bitcoins. It sounds like a good idea in theory: holding bitcoin as a reserve asset could be a hedge against inflation and dollar weakness, and could also lead to capital appreciation as bitcoin takes off. Some companies like Strategy have had tremendous success. The firm has accumulated over half a million bitcoins, and the stock has outperformed the underlying crypto year-to-date. However, it's hard to replicate the scale and expertise of Strategy. While many of Cannon's clients often inquire about bitcoin treasury companies like Strategy, he usually recommends they stick to the basics with an ETF. There were also company-specific headwinds for Semler Scientific. The company had been under investigation from the Department of Justice for allegedly misleading claims about one of its medical devices. My takeaway from the experience is that buying a single stocks as a bitcoin proxy is probably not a good idea. When you buy into a bitcoin treasury company, you're also inheriting all of its company-specific risks. That includes everything from management decisions and financial health to legal exposure, product performance, and market sentiment around the core business. As a result, the benefits of diversification with bitcoin are watered down. If you're looking for bitcoin exposure, either buying the real thing or a spot ETF is your best bet. Maybe the strategy from here on out is to close out of my position in SMLR and do some tax-loss harvesting this year.
35 minutes ago
First direct flight from US to Greenland since 2008 lands on Trump's birthday
NUUK, Greenland -- The first direct flight from the U.S. to Greenland by an American airline landed in the capital city of Nuuk on Saturday. The United Airlines-operated Boeing 737 Max 8 departed from Newark International Airport in New Jersey at 11:31 a.m. EDT (1531 GMT) and arrived a little over 4 hours later, at 6:39 p.m. local time (1939 GMT), according to the flight-tracking website FlightAware. A seat cost roughly $1,200. Saturday's flight marks the first direct passage between the U.S. and the Arctic Island for nearly 20 years. In 2007, Air Greenland launched a route between Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport and Kangerlussuaq Airport, some 315 kilometers (196 miles) north of Nuuk. It was scrapped the following year due to cost. The United Airlines flight took place on U.S. President Donald Trump's 79th birthday, which was being celebrated in Washington with a controversial military parade that's part of the Army's long-planned 250th anniversary celebration. Trump has repeatedly said he seeks control of Greenland, a strategic Arctic island that's a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark, and has not ruled out military force. The governments of Denmark, a NATO ally, and Greenland have said it is not for sale and condemned reports of the U.S. stepping up intelligence gathering on the mineral-rich island. United announced the flight in October, before Trump was re-elected. It was scheduled for 2025 to take advantage of the new Nuuk airport, which opened in late November and features a larger runway for bigger jets. 'United will be the only carrier to connect the U.S. directly to Nuuk — the northernmost capital in the world, providing a gateway to world-class hiking and fascinating wildlife under the summer's midnight sun,' the company said in a statement at the time. Saturday's flight kicked off the airline's twice weekly seasonal service, from June to September, between Newark and Nuuk. The plane has around 165 seats. Previously, travelers had to take a layover in Iceland or Copenhagen, Denmark, before flying to Greenland. The new flight is beneficial for the island's business and residents, according to Greenland government minister Naaja Nathanielsen. Tourists will spend money at local businesses, and Greenlanders themselves will now be able to travel to the U.S. more easily, Nathanielsen, the minister for business, mineral resources, energy, justice and gender equality, told Danish broadcaster DR. The route is also an important part of diversifying the island's economy, she said. Fishing produces about 90% of Greenland's exports. Tourism is increasingly important. More than 96,000 international passengers traveled through the country's airports in 2023, up 28% from 2015. Visit Greenland echoed Nathanielsen's comments. The government's tourism agency did not have projections on how much money the new flights would bring to the island. 'We do know that flights can bring in much more than just dollars, and we expect it to have a positive impact -- both for the society and travellers,' Tanny Por, Visit Greenland's head of international relations, told The Associated Press in an email.
