Trump wants to raise tarriffs on.... basically everything.

[sandorski]

270 percent is low?

in terms of goods there is a deficit of 17.5 billion.

so a surplus it ain't

also trumps tariffs aren't nearly as damaging as the trudeau ones.

he (justin) is literally fleecing canadians while protecting the dairy cartel.

Get informed. The US has similarly high Tariffs on certain Products, like Peanuts, Tobacco, and Sugar. Quit merely echoing Trumps' half truths.

 

[fskimospy]

Get informed. The US has similarly high Tariffs on certain Products, like Peanuts, Tobacco, and Sugar. Quit merely echoing Trumps' half truths.

You can always tell when someone got something on tariffs from conservative media because they always talk about US-Canada balance of trade and specify that we have a deficit in goods specifically while leaving out services. There’s no logical reason to do that - the only reason would be if you’re trying to pretend the US has a deficit when it does not.

 

[Jhhnn]

Shooting for the foot-

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/us-considers-tariffs-on-uranium-imports/

 

[zinfamous]

You oust trump and you still have the VP to deal with. You go from an economic fucking to a religious fucking.

Hey, at least with the second guy, we are forced to pray to an invisible space lizard, rather than being forced to worship an orange toad with a fat Russian cock in its mouth.

 

[K1052]

Shooting for the foot-

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/us-considers-tariffs-on-uranium-imports/

I would be kind of bemused to watch Trump strangle the domestic nuclear power industry. The aging commercial reactor fleet is increasingly uneconomical and already headed for retirement in a lot of places. Upping fuel cost will just accelerate that. There is an environmental case to be made for keeping the fleet running in large part at lest well into the next decade however this move along with crashing farm revenue (again thanks tariffs) will would probably propel a huge wind & storage rush.

 

[brycejones]

I would be kind of bemused to watch Trump strangle the domestic nuclear power industry. The aging commercial reactor fleet is increasingly uneconomical and already headed for retirement in a lot of places. Upping fuel cost will just accelerate that. There is an environmental case to be made for keeping the fleet running in large part at lest well into the next decade however this move along with crashing farm revenue (again thanks tariffs) will would probably propel a huge wind & storage rush.

You mean this won't bring back the coal jobs?

 

[Engineer]

You mean this won't bring back the coal jobs?

No, but that's the first thing I thought of when seeing this. IMO, this is aimed squarely at the coal industry and areas, where the vast majority of people are his supporters (still).

 

[brycejones]

No, but that's the first thing I thought of when seeing this. IMO, this is aimed squarely at the coal industry and areas, where the vast majority of people are his supporters (still).

Trump held out false hope those jobs would come back (the simple answer)

Hilary wanted to push programs to train those workers for jobs that are actually needed (coal country said fuck that just tell us those jobs are coming back).

 

[Engineer]

Trump held out false hope those jobs would come back (the simple answer)

Hilary wanted to push programs to train those workers for jobs that are actually needed (coal country said fuck that just tell us those jobs are coming back).

Question that nobody asks is how many jobs were lost in coal?

Considering that there is around 50,000 coal jobs in the US, how many could it be? I post the table below so illustrate how few jobs there are, but living in this area and listening to people here, you would think it's millions of jobs lost and coming back. One hell of a snow job on cheeto's part.

Alabama 18,620 3,077 1,135 4,212 4.4
Alaska 1,632 - 125 125 13.1
Arizona 7,603 - 405 405 18.8
Arkansas 59 52 2 54 1.1
Colorado 24,236 1,705 470 2,175 11.1
Illinois 52,147 3,660 504 4,164 12.5
Indiana 39,102 1,986 1,626 3,612 10.8
Kansas 22 - 7 7 3.1
Kentucky 80,380 8,938 3,967 12,905 6.2
Louisiana 2,810 - 280 280 10.0
Maryland 1,925 184 221 405 4.8
Mississippi 3,575 - 309 309 11.6
Missouri 414 - 24 24 17.3
Montana 42,231 333 914 1,247 33.9
New Mexico 21,969 492 794 1,286 17.1
North Dakota 27,639 - 1,242 1,242 22.3
Ohio 25,113 2,063 1,080 3,143 8.0
Oklahoma 1,136 79 125 204 5.6
Pennsylvania 50,870 5,988 2,394 8,382 6.1
Tennessee 1,098 162 135 297 3.7
Texas 42,851 - 2,819 2,819 15.2
Utah 16,977 1,385 52 1,437 11.8
Virginia 16,619 3,428 1,093 4,521 3.7
West Virginia 115,925 15,694 4,587 20,281 5.7
Wyoming 387,924 278 6,395 6,673 58.1


Total 982,877 49,504 30,705 80,209 12.3

 

[Jhhnn]

Question that nobody asks is how many jobs were lost in coal?

Considering that there is around 50,000 coal jobs in the US, how many could it be? I post the table below so illustrate how few jobs there are, but living in this area and listening to people here, you would think it's millions of jobs lost and coming back. One hell of a snow job on cheeto's part.

Alabama 18,620 3,077 1,135 4,212 4.4
Alaska 1,632 - 125 125 13.1
Arizona 7,603 - 405 405 18.8
Arkansas 59 52 2 54 1.1
Colorado 24,236 1,705 470 2,175 11.1
Illinois 52,147 3,660 504 4,164 12.5
Indiana 39,102 1,986 1,626 3,612 10.8
Kansas 22 - 7 7 3.1
Kentucky 80,380 8,938 3,967 12,905 6.2
Louisiana 2,810 - 280 280 10.0
Maryland 1,925 184 221 405 4.8
Mississippi 3,575 - 309 309 11.6
Missouri 414 - 24 24 17.3
Montana 42,231 333 914 1,247 33.9
New Mexico 21,969 492 794 1,286 17.1
North Dakota 27,639 - 1,242 1,242 22.3
Ohio 25,113 2,063 1,080 3,143 8.0
Oklahoma 1,136 79 125 204 5.6
Pennsylvania 50,870 5,988 2,394 8,382 6.1
Tennessee 1,098 162 135 297 3.7
Texas 42,851 - 2,819 2,819 15.2
Utah 16,977 1,385 52 1,437 11.8
Virginia 16,619 3,428 1,093 4,521 3.7
West Virginia 115,925 15,694 4,587 20,281 5.7
Wyoming 387,924 278 6,395 6,673 58.1


Total 982,877 49,504 30,705 80,209 12.3

I think that the abject poverty of Appalachia captured white America's sympathy. Their economy has been going downhill a lot longer than most posters have been alive

 

[Maxima1]

It doesn't show that Trump voters are poorer than the rest of us. They're generally better off income-wise. OTOH, that newfangled 401K doesn't really offer the same kind of income security down the road that a pension probably would. Makes 'em nervous, rightfully so. Work 'til you die or settle for a helluva lot less in retirement. Being poor scares the shit out of middle earners.

The downtrodden and young generally don't vote, so it's expected that each demographic group should be tilted higher in household income for either Hillary or Trump.

The median teacher salary is roughly ~$60k, yet people consider them poor things all the time, despite working significantly less hours in the year than typical and also having a pension and subsidized healthcare. A lot of these Trump voters will only have what comes from FICA. Your comment on 401K is silly. Of course not. The 401K would need much more than a lousy 4% match. You also carry the risks associated with it (I know some who got wiped out bad from 2008 crisis) and many are corralled into actively managed setups.

 

[Jhhnn]

The downtrodden and young generally don't vote, so it's expected that each demographic group should be tilted higher in household income for either Hillary or Trump.

The median teacher salary is roughly ~$60k, yet people consider them poor things all the time, despite working significantly less hours in the year than typical and also having a pension and subsidized healthcare. A lot of these Trump voters will only have what comes from FICA. Your comment on 401K is silly. Of course not. The 401K would need much more than a lousy 4% match. You also carry the risks associated with it (I know some who got wiped out bad from 2008 crisis) and many are corralled into actively managed setups.

If my comment was silly the fact that the GOP could sell 401k's over union pensions was even sillier.

 

[sactoking]

At another $200 billion to the tally, allegedly.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/31/politics/trump-tariffs-china/index.html