Trump Team Floats Tariff Talk. Major Pushback From Republicans.

[Brainonska511]

Regardless of motive, the 20 week ban is popular. And more so among women than men.

The ultimate property right is to have ownership of one's person. I don't care that some people think that 20 weeks is the place to institute a ban - it's just not society's decision to make. Stop trying to inject yourself into people's personal medical decisions.

 

[superstition]

What does abortion have to do with tariffs?

 

[Blackjack200]

The ultimate property right is to have ownership of one's person. I don't care that some people think that 20 weeks is the place to institute a ban - it's just not society's decision to make. Stop trying to inject yourself into people's personal medical decisions.

All this stuff is rooted in controlling women. Heard a heartbreaking story of a woman that wanted to be a beautician growing up but her father wouldn't let her because he didn't want her to be around men (yeah, I know it doesn't make any sense) and she's been disappointed over it her whole life. She's 70 now. Never married.

 

[fskimospy]

By whom?

The courts.

About 1% or so. Roughly 6000 a year as of 2013. And that current 20 week ban that passed the House makes an exception if the mother's life is threatened, as do almost all attempted abortion restrictions.

Sure.

Condemning malformed infants to a short life. As opposed to preemptively killing them? That doesn't strike you as horrifically prejudiced? "We know your life is going to suck so we have to kill you to protect you from it"?

No, it strikes me as merciful. If you gave me the choice between condemning a fetus to death or a few days or weeks of horrific torment (EDIT: ending in death) I would choose death in a second. It's the decent thing to do.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is exactly right. Free trade is economically beneficial to both countries involved, but it creates dislocations, and winners and losers that need to be addressed with social policies. That contradicts the self-made bootstrapping bullshit narrative of the right, so they just ignored it until underemployed factory workers became a crisis and then blamed it on the Chinese and the Mexicans.

And the dirty rotten libruhls, too!

 

[superstition]

It's very important that we make sure we incrementally impoverish average Americans so that globalized financiers make their profits untroubled by pesky things like Chinese pollution.

Let's be real, eh?

1) Do you or do you not like having sweatshop products available in your country, competing with other products — without any tariff or other compensating factor for the fact that the products were produced via exploitation?

2) Same as above vis-à-vis high levels of pollution.

3) Do you or do you not like having lower-paying jobs as the wealth pool of ordinary people shrinks and moves overseas, thanks to these "cheap" products?

4) Do you or do you not like having lots of undocumented/illegal people in your country to do things like pick crops, cook in Chinese restaurants, and clean the homes of the wealthy?

5) Do you or do you not like it when the US government pressures a nation like Haiti to exempt US companies from small minimum wage increases?

6) Do you or do you not like huge quantities of pollution being dumped into the ocean in order to ship products rather than have them produced more locally?

 

[Atreus21]

The ultimate property right is to have ownership of one's person. I don't care that some people think that 20 weeks is the place to institute a ban - it's just not society's decision to make. Stop trying to inject yourself into people's personal medical decisions.

Of course it's society's decision to make. Just as it is society's decision to institute a draft, or outlaw murder. Complete bodily autonomy is impossible if you want to live in a society.

Killing one's children is not just a personal medical decision. Just as killing adults isn't.

 

[Atreus21]

No, it strikes me as merciful. If you gave me the choice between condemning a fetus to death or a few days or weeks of horrific torment (EDIT: ending in death) I would choose death in a second. It's the decent thing to do.

How do you know these children are going to die in a few weeks?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It's very important that we make sure we incrementally impoverish average Americans so that globalized financiers make their profits untroubled by pesky things like Chinese pollution.

Let's be real, eh?

1) Do you or do you not like having sweatshop products available in your country, competing with other products — without any tariff or other compensating factor for the fact that the products were produced via exploitation?

2) Same as above vis-à-vis high levels of pollution.

3) Do you or do you not like having lower-paying jobs as the wealth pool of ordinary people shrinks and moves overseas, thanks to these "cheap" products?

4) Do you or do you not like having lots of undocumented/illegal people in your country to do things like pick crops, cook in Chinese restaurants, and clean the homes of the wealthy?

5) Do you or do you not like it when the US government pressures a nation like Haiti to exempt US companies from small minimum wage increases?

6) Do you or do you not like huge quantities of pollution being dumped into the ocean in order to ship products rather than have them produced more locally?

1) I don't like 2) I don't like 3)I don't like 4)I don't like 5)I like 6)I don't like.
That's why i support Fair trade and not free trade.

 

[Jhhnn]

over the next 4 years I think the people most sorry about Trump will be the people who nominated him.

Yep. Particularly those living in poorer states that get more from federal taxes than they put in. You know, where every dollar in tax cuts to their wealthiest result in several dollars of lost state revenue. Wealthier states can compensate pretty painlessly by raising their own taxes to make up for loss of federal revenue. In Mississippi, that's like trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip.

Cut, cut, cut! Smaller gubmint! Bigger military! Bootstraps! Jerb Creators! Wall! Drain the swamp! Values! Jesus!

That yuge woody Trump & the Repubs have been sporting? You thought it was for somebody else? So silly. If you're not at the top of the economic food chain already, it's for you & the rest of the plebes. Worship it.

 

[Zorba]

What if our values are self-determination for other countries and not trying to tell them how to run their economies (which they would ignore anyway)? Our environmental regulations greatly benefit us as a society, I see no reason to get rid of them.

I never said that we should make everyone else adopt our regulations. I said that if they don't have similar regulations and their companies are allowed to destroy the environment we should charge an import tariff on those good based on what the cost of regulation would add. If regulations are basically optional, why would any company choose to add that burden to themselves?

It would basically be like if Boeing decided they would follow FAA regulations when designing planes, but a different manufacturer decided to ignore all regulations. That other manufacturer would be able to undercut Boeing by 50% or more. Speaking of, we do force every country in the world to follow our FAA regulation before they can sell into the US, including regulations on their supply chains.

Do you honestly think that Democrats only support regulations as a way in which to harm their own country? That's ridiculous. They (or at least I) support regulations that we think will improve the lives of US citizens. In the same vein, I don't think a fruitless quest to impose our manufacturing regulations will improve the lives of US citizens, it will in fact make them much, much worse. In the end most of those countries couldn't comply with US regulations like that even if they wanted to, which basically means goodbye to trade, much higher prices for US citizens, etc.

I don't think democrats consciously support regulation just to harm their own country, but they are massive hypocrites about it, in that they want clean air, clean water, and protected workers but then also want the cheap goods that come from dirty air, dirty water and an abused workforce. I support clean air, clean water and protected workers, and I am willing to pay a little more for it. I also support not hamstringing our industries with regulations then forcing to compete in an open market against un-regulated, often state ran competition.

BTW: There was trade back in the day when tariffs were still in effect. As for a trade war, there has been an on going one for decades and we are loosing because we care more about cheap goods than supporting our own country and values. Other countries mandate labor share to buy our goods, other countries illegally dump goods and cartel, other countries directly and indirectly limit access to their markets, other countries manipulate their currency, other countries effective push people into servitude to make goods, other countries are willing to destroy the local, regional and global environment. But you are right, if we imposed small tariffs on select countries, we would start a trade war and end the world economy.

 

[fskimospy]

I never said that we should make everyone else adopt our regulations. I said that if they don't have similar regulations and their companies are allowed to destroy the environment we should charge an import tariff on those good based on what the cost of regulation would add. If regulations are basically optional, why would any company choose to add that burden to themselves?

So you're saying that you aren't forcing everyone else to adopt our regulations but if they don't we will charge them a fee equal to the cost of adopting our regulations. That's called forcing everyone else to adopt our regulations. As to your question of why companies would choose to add that burden, why do they choose that now? (and lots and lots do)

What you're suggesting would 1) be impossible for most developing countries and 2) would start a massive trade war that would badly harm the US. No thanks.

It would basically be like if Boeing decided they would follow FAA regulations when designing planes, but a different manufacturer decided to ignore all regulations. That other manufacturer would be able to undercut Boeing by 50% or more. Speaking of, we do force every country in the world to follow our FAA regulation before they can sell into the US, including regulations on their supply chains.

Without checking into it I bet this is wrong. More likely we have quality requirements on the components/airframes that are allowed to FLY in the United States. I sincerely doubt we have regulations on the emissions or work conditions of the places that make them.

I don't think democrats consciously support regulation just to harm their own country, but they are massive hypocrites about it, in that they want clean air, clean water, and protected workers but then also want the cheap goods that come from dirty air, dirty water and an abused workforce. I support clean air, clean water and protected workers, and I am willing to pay a little more for it. I also support not hamstringing our industries with regulations then forcing to compete in an open market against un-regulated, often state ran competition.

Right, so you support forcing other countries to adopt our labor and environmental standards.

BTW: There was trade back in the day when tariffs were still in effect. As for a trade war, there has been an on going one for decades and we are loosing because we care more about cheap goods than supporting our own country and values. Other countries mandate labor share to buy our goods, other countries illegally dump goods and cartel, other countries directly and indirectly limit access to their markets, other countries manipulate their currency, other countries effective push people into servitude to make goods, other countries are willing to destroy the local, regional and global environment.

The US does all sorts of things like this too, in fact trade agreements the US enters into often result in far larger reductions in tariffs for the other countries we are entering into them with than it does for us. Furthermore our membership in the WTO is exactly the sort of organization that serves to end those sort of things, and coincidentally is the exact organization that would strike down your proposed tariff.

But you are right, if we imposed small tariffs on select countries, we would start a trade war and end the world economy.

Hyperbole like this is the sign of a losing argument.

 

[fskimospy]

How do you know these children are going to die in a few weeks?

In general the decisions to abort children that late in a pregnancy are due to a doctor's determination that the fetus has severe abnormalities. These types of abnormalities show up around that time because that's when a lot of testing is done. They are things like a severely malformed (or sometimes almost entirely missing) brain, massive heart defects, etc. If you carried a fetus for almost five months you aren't terminating your pregnancy lightly in almost all circumstances.

This isn't really relevant to the thread, but I find that many people's opposition to abortion at 20 weeks would change if they saw the types of lives they were bringing into the world and the pain and suffering that comes with it.

 

[Mai72]

It's funny.

In Thailand, foreigners aren't allowed to take a job that could go to a Thai citizen. The only job that I was allowed to pursue was teacher. Pretty much every other job was unavailable to me.

A developing country protects its citizens better than we do and we're the wealthiest country in the world.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

A developing country protects its citizens better than we do and were the wealthiest country in the world.

Nope. Top ten yes but barely.

 

[fskimospy]

It's funny.

In Thailand, foreigners aren't allowed to take a job that could go to a Thai citizen. The only job that I was allowed to pursue was teacher. Pretty much every other job was unavailable to me.

A developing country protects its citizens better than we do and were the wealthiest country in the world.

Have you thought about the possibility that those restrictions and ones like it are some of the reasons Thailand is so far behind the US?

 

[Sonikku]

It's true. Much of American prosperity throughout the ages was built on the backs of cheap foreigners. You get only so far by having your own people do it for a living wage and benefits.

 

[superstition]

1) All presidential candidates from our "two" parties are plutocrats.

2) Wages as percent of the economy has plummeted even though productivity has risen.

3) Corporate profits hit record highs

4) Golden parachutes didn't exist prior to the opening of the big gap between wages and productivity. CEOs "made" much less.

5) Banks/finance are bigger scammers than general corporations. Coining money. Borrowing for basically nothing and making profit via the government.

6) Regular people "own" almost all of the debt while the richest own all the financial wealth.

 

[Sonikku]

2) Wages as percent of the economy has plummeted even though productivity has risen.

This can be roughly translated as "Work more, eat less."

 

[Zorba]

So you're saying that you aren't forcing everyone else to adopt our regulations but if they don't we will charge them a fee equal to the cost of adopting our regulations. That's called forcing everyone else to adopt our regulations. As to your question of why companies would choose to add that burden, why do they choose that now? (and lots and lots do)

What you're suggesting would 1) be impossible for most developing countries and 2) would start a massive trade war that would badly harm the US. No thanks.



Without checking into it I bet this is wrong. More likely we have quality requirements on the components/airframes that are allowed to FLY in the United States. I sincerely doubt we have regulations on the emissions or work conditions of the places that make them.



Right, so you support forcing other countries to adopt our labor and environmental standards.



The US does all sorts of things like this too, in fact trade agreements the US enters into often result in far larger reductions in tariffs for the other countries we are entering into them with than it does for us. Furthermore our membership in the WTO is exactly the sort of organization that serves to end those sort of things, and coincidentally is the exact organization that would strike down your proposed tariff.



Hyperbole like this is the sign of a losing argument.

Continuously mischaracterized my argument is a sign you are losing. Unless you think the US is their only customer, how is charging a tariff forcing them to apobt our regulations? It does give them an option to get out of the tarrif, but they can do whatever they want. Nice of you to completely skip over the hypocrisy of your position.

Also FAA regulations don't deal with environment or labor regulations (well they do somewhat on the operation side) and I never said they did. I said no one would choose to follow them if they had an option. Then I used as an example of how we did use it as a barrier to entry into our market.

But I know arguing with you is about as worthless as arguing with jammerix. Speaking of, how is it hyperbole on my part when you've said massive trade war multiple times?

 

[fskimospy]

Continuously mischaracterized my argument is a sign you are losing. Unless you think the US is their only customer, how is charging a tariff forcing them to apobt our regulations? It does give them an option to get out of the tarrif, but they can do whatever they want. Nice of you to completely skip over the hypocrisy of your position.

Surely you understood that I meant forcing them to adopt our regulations in order to do business with us so if anyone is mischaracterizing the other's argument it is you. I mean what did you think I meant instead, invading them?

Also FAA regulations don't deal with environment or labor regulations (well they do somewhat on the operation side) and I never said they did. I said no one would choose to follow them if they had an option. Then I used as an example of how we did use it as a barrier to entry into our market.

'Quality' restrictions like this are indeed a way that countries try to engage in protectionist trade policies. In fact they are one of the most frequent restrictions struck down by the WTO. The fact that so very many companies choose to follow these regulations should tell you that they are only one small part of the picture.

But I know arguing with you is about as worthless as arguing with jammerix.

So sorry to hear that you think my style of argument isn't up to your standard, which apparently includes you claiming that Democrats want to make regulations to hurt the US and attempting to straw man other people by saying 'small tariffs' (lol) would end the world economy. Might want to attend to that beam in your eye, brotha.

 

[dank69]

What does abortion have to do with tariffs?

Nothing. I just find it funny that Atreus is talking about economic issues when he has made it quite clear he is a single issue voter. He'd vote for Hitler if he promised to outlaw abortion.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Quit importing goods from communist nations.

Have you emptied out your home yet?

 

[senseamp]

Robots or China, Trump Trash is going to be screwed one way or another.

 

[MrSquished]

I never said that we should make everyone else adopt our regulations. I said that if they don't have similar regulations and their companies are allowed to destroy the environment we should charge an import tariff on those good based on what the cost of regulation would add. If regulations are basically optional, why would any company choose to add that burden to themselves?

It would basically be like if Boeing decided they would follow FAA regulations when designing planes, but a different manufacturer decided to ignore all regulations. That other manufacturer would be able to undercut Boeing by 50% or more. Speaking of, we do force every country in the world to follow our FAA regulation before they can sell into the US, including regulations on their supply chains.



I don't think democrats consciously support regulation just to harm their own country, but they are massive hypocrites about it, in that they want clean air, clean water, and protected workers but then also want the cheap goods that come from dirty air, dirty water and an abused workforce. I support clean air, clean water and protected workers, and I am willing to pay a little more for it. I also support not hamstringing our industries with regulations then forcing to compete in an open market against un-regulated, often state ran competition.

BTW: There was trade back in the day when tariffs were still in effect. As for a trade war, there has been an on going one for decades and we are loosing because we care more about cheap goods than supporting our own country and values. Other countries mandate labor share to buy our goods, other countries illegally dump goods and cartel, other countries directly and indirectly limit access to their markets, other countries manipulate their currency, other countries effective push people into servitude to make goods, other countries are willing to destroy the local, regional and global environment. But you are right, if we imposed small tariffs on select countries, we would start a trade war and end the world economy.

the TPP had provisions in it that would have mandated the other nations that were party to it would have to increase labor standards as well as some environmental standards.