Trump Team Floats Tariff Talk. Major Pushback From Republicans.

[FIVR]

There will be some hard lessons for Americans in the next 4 years. Luckily, as a Global Elite living on the west coast, I will not have to suffer from the massive increases in prices, wars, and pollution coming our way.

 

[dank69]

No, I don't think it's the "will of the voters" that every Trump idea be implemented. And even if it is, Republicans should push back against it.

Why? This is the GOP's dream come true. Hopefully we can get abortion outlawed though, amirite?

 

[fskimospy]

I still see nothing wrong with imposing tariffs that offset the cost of our additional regulations, especially our additional environmental regulations. But it should not be an across the board X percentage, it should be targeted. For example, I doubt environmental regs hurt off shore call center much, so basically no tariff on them, steel production and plated metals on the other hand would have pretty high tariffs. And of course items from places that adopt similar regulations wouldn't have any tariff.

Yeah we won't be able to buy as much cheap shit, but good for the world.

So we're going to impose tariffs on other countries if they don't adopt US labor and environmental regulations? Countries already try and do this all the time as backdoor tariffs, they would be slapped down by the WTO very quickly.

Also, that's a great recipe for a massive trade war, which would be pretty bad for the world.

 

[fskimospy]

I think what dank is saying is that The GOP could reinstate the filibuster in the lame duck session, and use the filibuster to prevent the Democrats from getting rid of it again. I think that's possible, but I still think it should be done.

No, that's not possible, the whole point of the 'nuclear option' is to eliminate the filibuster using a simple senate majority vote. It's also not possible to codify the filibuster into any legislation as no law can govern the internal workings of the house or senate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

The nuclear or constitutional option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the U.S. Senate to override a rule or precedent by a simple majority of 51 votes, instead of by a supermajority of 60 votes. The presiding officer of the United States Senate rules that the validity of a Senate rule or precedent is a constitutional question. They immediately put the issue to the full Senate, which decides by majority vote. The procedure thus allows the Senate to decide any issue by majority vote, even though the rules of the Senate specify that ending a filibuster requires the consent of 60 senators (out of 100) for legislation, 67 for amending a Senate rule. The name is an analogy to nuclear weapons being the most extreme option in warfare.

 

[Atreus21]

Why? This is the GOP's dream come true.

I really doubt that. Republicans are generally favorable to trade, more so than democrats. Trump is a notable exception.

Hopefully we can get abortion outlawed though, amirite?

Overturn Roe and return the issue to state legislatures. Hopefully.

If only one thing gets done on abortion restrictions, I hope it's the 20 week ban.

 

[fskimospy]

I really doubt that. Republicans are generally favorable to trade, more so than democrats. Trump is a notable exception.

Overturn Roe and return the issue to state legislatures. Hopefully.

Republicans WERE friendly to free trade when their elites were telling them that free market economics was what they were supposed to care about, although Democrats have generally been slightly more open to trade than Republicans. Then Trump happened and Republicans overwhelmingly oppose free trade.

 

[Blackjack200]

Haha, what complete fucking sheep. Gotta love the GOPers in here pretending that blocking one of Trump's central campaign promises wouldn't be contradicting the will of the people that voted him into power.

 

[repoman0]

Republicans WERE friendly to free trade when their elites were telling them that free market economics was what they were supposed to care about, although Democrats have generally been slightly more open to trade than Republicans. Then Trump happened and Republicans overwhelmingly oppose free trade.

How about that, evidence that conservatives can change their views ... (as soon as a strongman tells them what alternate view they should hold)

 

[Blackjack200]

No, that's not possible, the whole point of the 'nuclear option' is to eliminate the filibuster using a simple senate majority vote. It's also not possible to codify the filibuster into any legislation as no law can govern the internal workings of the house or senate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Okay, so it can be done. Unfortunately I think the Democrats in power are not courageous enough to do this. It would also require them giving up some of their power, but I think we should fight for it.

 

[fskimospy]

If only one thing gets done on abortion restrictions, I hope it's the 20 week ban.

Those have been found to violate the constitution repeatedly.

Regardless, abortions after 20 weeks are extremely, extremely rare and generally only involve cases where there is some late discovered catastrophic defect in the fetus or to preserve the life for the mother. Basically, even if 20 week abortion bans did take place it would be in service of condemning malformed infants to a short life of torment or threatening the health of women. Not exactly two high priorities.

 

[fskimospy]

How about that, evidence that conservatives can change their views ... (as soon as a strongman tells them what alternate view they should hold)

Haha, it is impressive to see just how malleable people's views are to elite opinion. Free trade is one of those rare cases of near-universal agreement among economists and until recently, agreement among the parties. Then again, one of the two parties always wanted the economic benefits of free trade without compensating for the costs. I guess that's how you get Trump.

 

[dank69]

Those have been found to violate the constitution repeatedly.

Regardless, abortions after 20 weeks are extremely, extremely rare and generally only involve cases where there is some late discovered catastrophic defect in the fetus or to preserve the life for the mother. Basically, even if 20 week abortion bans did take place it would be in service of condemning malformed infants to a short life of torment or threatening the health of women. Not exactly two high priorities.

No it would solve all our problems because God would lift his curse on America.

 

[Brainonska511]

Regardless, abortions after 20 weeks are extremely, extremely rare and generally only involve cases where there is some late discovered catastrophic defect in the fetus or to preserve the life for the mother. Basically, even if 20 week abortion bans did take place it would be in service of condemning malformed infants to a short life of torment or threatening the health of women. Not exactly two high priorities.

The reason why they keep pushing tighter and tighter timelines for abortions is not because abortions at > 20 weeks are rare, but because it's part of the continuum fallacy. In their mind, if you can draw a line at 20 weeks, why not 19? Why not 18? Why not at conception?

 

[fskimospy]

The reason why they keep pushing tighter and tighter timelines for abortions is not because abortions at > 20 weeks are rare, but because it's part of the continuum fallacy. In their mind, if you can draw a line at 20 weeks, why not 19? Why not 18? Why not at conception?

Yep.

 

[Blackjack200]

Haha, it is impressive to see just how malleable people's views are to elite opinion. Free trade is one of those rare cases of near-universal agreement among economists and until recently, agreement among the parties. Then again, one of the two parties always wanted the economic benefits of free trade without compensating for the costs. I guess that's how you get Trump.

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.

 

[Atreus21]

Republicans WERE friendly to free trade when their elites were telling them that free market economics was what they were supposed to care about, although Democrats have generally been slightly more open to trade than Republicans. Then Trump happened and Republicans overwhelmingly oppose free trade.

While I'll concede the point (republicans being more pro-trade than democrats), I'd be curious to see a wider date range than just 7 years.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

Yep.

 

[Zorba]

So we're going to impose tariffs on other countries if they don't adopt US labor and environmental regulations? Countries already try and do this all the time as backdoor tariffs, they would be slapped down by the WTO very quickly.

Also, that's a great recipe for a massive trade war, which would be pretty bad for the world.

It makes no sense as a country to say these are our values, these are the lines we will not cross. Then ignore it when other countries cross them just to buy cheap crap. Either impossible fair trade tariffs or get rid of our regulations.

I am pro regulation, so I support fair trade. I also actually support the goals of that regulation, like a cleaner environment and no child labor. It appears most Democrats in this thread only support regulations to hurt the US, if they are completely fine buying goods from places that are do the complete opposite of our regulations.

 

[fskimospy]

It makes no sense as a country to say these are our values, these are the lines we will not cross. Then ignore it when other countries cross them just to buy cheap crap. Either impossible fair trade tariffs or get rid of our regulations.

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 am pro regulation, so I support fair trade. I also actually support the goals of that regulation, like a cleaner environment and no child labor. It appears most Democrats in this thread only support regulations to hurt the US, if they are completely fine buying goods from places that are do the complete opposite of our regulations.

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.

 

[Jhhnn]

Many US companies rely on the margins they maintain buying cheap Chinese products. Any Tariff, even 5%, will cause many of these companies to become immediately unprofitable. They will either have to lower wages and fire workers or go out of business.


A perfect example of this: Many US electrical conduit manufacturers buy steel directly from china and maintain 60-70% gross margin selling conduit in the US. To buy and use US steel instantly cuts their margin by 40-50%, making them barely profitable. Imagine if you were one of these companies and suddenly lost this supply source... what do you do? There are thousands of people in this industry alone, and it is a mirror of many other steel-based industries and their situations with China.

I don't really think this is about shifting the tax burden at all. Wealthy people already have a minuscule tax burden in comparison to even the very poor. This is about consolidating and placating his anti-immigrant and anti-trade base. Bread and circuses will be soon to follow.

Meh. What would the tariff need to be so that they'd use American steel over Chinese steel? 5% obviously won't do it. What would the price increase be to the end consumer & what will that do to demand?

It also ignores what other govts will do wrt tariffs on American goods imported to their countries. We can all have a dandy race to the bottom w/ tariffs.

 

[Atreus21]

Those have been found to violate the constitution repeatedly.

By whom?

Regardless, abortions after 20 weeks are extremely, extremely rare and generally only involve cases where there is some late discovered catastrophic defect in the fetus or to preserve the life for the mother.

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.

Basically, even if 20 week abortion bans did take place it would be in service of condemning malformed infants to a short life of torment or threatening the health of women.

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"?

 

[hal2kilo]

Those have been found to violate the constitution repeatedly.

Regardless, abortions after 20 weeks are extremely, extremely rare and generally only involve cases where there is some late discovered catastrophic defect in the fetus or to preserve the life for the mother. Basically, even if 20 week abortion bans did take place it would be in service of condemning malformed infants to a short life of torment or threatening the health of women. Not exactly two high priorities.

Oh no, the never seeing conscious existence entities, are way more important than actual living conscious beings.

 

[Atreus21]

The reason why they keep pushing tighter and tighter timelines for abortions is not because abortions at > 20 weeks are rare, but because it's part of the continuum fallacy. In their mind, if you can draw a line at 20 weeks, why not 19? Why not 18? Why not at conception?

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

 

[Atreus21]

Oh no, the never seeing conscious existence entities, are way more important than actual living conscious beings.

No, just as important.

 

[shortylickens]

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