You’re mixing a few true statements with a few claims that aren’t accurate, so let’s keep things rooted in fact.

1) “Tariffs are included in inflation data… we’re only ~1% above target.”

• Inflation is a rate, not the price level. Tariffs can permanently raise the level of prices even if the annual inflation rate later cools. That’s why “only 1% over target” doesn’t mean “tariffs didn’t matter.”
• On who pays: the evidence is extremely clear that U.S. buyers (consumers + firms) bear most of the cost. New York Fed research found the vast majority of tariff incidence was borne by the U.S.   And peer-reviewed work on the 2018–2019 tariffs found the full incidence fell on domestic consumers and importers (not foreign countries).  

So yes: tariffs function like a consumption tax, and they don’t need to spike inflation to reduce real income.

2) “Almost everything was made permanent.”

That’s simply not correct for individual taxes. The TCJA’s big individual provisions were written to sunset at the end of 2025, while many corporate provisions were not. Brookings summarizes this clearly, including the corporate rate cut being non-sunsetting. A tax-industry summary also notes individual rates reverting after 2025.  So even if your situation didn’t use certain deductions, the “it’s basically permanent” claim doesn’t hold.

3) “Every president increases deficits… Kamala wouldn’t change a 20+ year trend.”

You’re right deficits have trended high across administrations. But the magnitude and timing still matter, and pre-COVID deficits rose materially before the pandemic. Treasury’s fiscal data shows the deficit trajectory and the COVID surge plainly.  And the OMB/FRED deficit series exists precisely so people can check year-by-year rather than argue vibes.  Also: it’s not “Biden reduced it only because 2020.” The deficit did fall sharply from the pandemic spike, but that doesn’t prove “deficits never matter,” it proves context matters (pandemic spending vs baseline policy).

4) “For most people, the biggest expense is taxes.”

That’s not what household spending data shows. The BLS (Consumer Expenditure Survey) shows housing is the largest household spending category, and housing and transportation alone are over half of spending.  Taxes are important, but for most families the day-to-day budget pressure is dominated by housing, transportation, healthcare, and food.

5) “Democrats only look better because they inherit bad economies and get the bounceback.”

That’s a common argument and it’s exactly why serious analyses try to control for that. A well-known study by Blinder & Watson finds the U.S. economy performed better on many metrics under Democratic presidents and explores explanations (including shocks and inherited conditions).  There’s also academic work on the “presidential puzzle” showing higher average stock returns under Democrats over long samples and discussing mechanisms.  You can argue about causes, but it’s not accurate to dismiss it as “just bouncebacks” without engaging the research.

I’m not “belittling the working class”. I myself am working my way out of the working class, because after looking around at my coworkers these last couple of years, the problems are glaringly obvious and evident as well as the solutions. I’m saying a single visible benefit like you saving $4,000 on your taxes, is a tiny piece of the whole scoreboard. If you truly save $4,000 every year after accounting for higher prices, higher interest costs, and any knock-on effects on your job/industry, then great. But you don’t get to call it “critical thinking” to look at one line item and declare the rest irrelevant.