Trump Foreign Policy

[Moiraine]

54 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Why should Mexico "protect" it's own borders from migrants? If Mexico is ok with the migrants, then they don't need to "protect" from them.

 

 

I was wondering the same thing. If Mexico does a cost benefit analysis and decides adding more border security costs more than they get from it, then why do it?

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I was wondering the same thing. If Mexico does a cost benefit analysis and decides adding more border security costs more than they get from it, then why do it?

5% or higher tariffs now became a part to the cost/benefit analysis.

[Moiraine]

43 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

5% or higher tariffs now became a part to the cost/benefit analysis.

 

 

Yes. As will the other options such as waiting out his presidency, finding as many other trade partners as they can, etc. 

[TGHusker]

2 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Yes. As will the other options such as waiting out his presidency, finding as many other trade partners as they can, etc. 

You got that right and then the American manufacturer and citizen will really suffer.    Like I said, tariffs are like daring someone to hit you in the face.  Our industries aren't prepared to find new suppliers as soon as Trump emotionally makes a decision like this.  Example: My wife and I are looking for a sofa. We went to a furniture store here in Tulsa and the sales guy was pointing out while the sofa was made in the USA the fabric comes from China. Guess what - the manufacturer of said sofa just sent out notices of price increases due to the tariff on the fabric.    On the other side of the coin, our farmers cannot find instant markets for the soybeans that China is placing retaliatory tariffs on. 

 

[BigRedBuster]

2 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Yes. As will the other options such as waiting out his presidency, finding as many other trade partners as they can, etc. 

This is a nuance of this that Captain dumb dumb doesn't get.  His approval rating is around 40% with a majority of Americans saying they will NOT vote for him.

 

All countries like China and Mexico have to do is wait out about 17 months and their's a decent chance they won't have to deal with him.  And....the longer this goes, the less of a chance he wins.

[TGHusker]

I would like the Trump kool aid drinkers to dispute this.  If this doesn't rile up the middle class voter, they aren't paying attention. 

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-tariffs-wiped-most-families-080000425.html

 

Quote

 

President Donald Trump’s trade wars have already wiped out all but $100 of the average American household’s windfall from Trump’s 2017 tax law. And that’s just the beginning.

That last $100 in tax-cut gains also could soon disappear -- and then some -- because of additional tariffs Trump has announced or is considering. If the president makes good on his threats to impose levies on virtually all imports from China and Mexico, those middle-earning households could pay nearly $4,000 more as they shell out more for a vast range of goods -- from avocados to iPhones.

Subtract the tax cut, and the average household will effectively be paying about $3,000 more a year in additional costs.

“It’s giving with one hand and taking with the other,” said Kim Clausing, an economics professor at Reed College in Portland, Oregon, who’s written a book promoting free trade.

Here’s how the math works: middle earners got an average tax cut of $930 for the tax overhaul passed in late 2017, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. The tariffs already in effect cost the average household about $831, according to research from the New York Federal Reserve.

China Goods

Add in the additional tariffs on another $300 billion in Chinese goods that Trump proposed in May, and is still considering, and that increases the cost for an average family of four to about $2,294 annually, according to research from “Tariffs Hurt the Heartland,” a coalition of business groups.

Trump has also threatened to levy tariffs on all imports from Mexico, starting with a 5% tax beginning as soon as Monday that would increase monthly to 25% in October unless Mexico curbs illegal migration to the president’s satisfaction.

If the tariffs reach their highest level, the annual cost to households would increase by $1,700, according to Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the centrist Peterson Institute for International Economics.

 

 

Quote

 

The full force of the Chinese and Mexican tariffs and subsequent retaliation would mean that consumers are facing an additional $3,994 in costs because of tariffs, more than four times the $930 tax cut for middle earners that the Republican Party touts as its signature legislative achievement under Trump.

These comparisons attempt to measure the direct benefit to households of the tax cuts -- including larger paychecks -- with the direct and indirect effects of tariffs, including lost jobs, higher prices, and retaliatory tariffs from trading partners.

The tariffs are “clearly demolishing” the benefits of the tax cuts for both businesses and consumers, said Daniel Ikenson, who directs trade policy at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Many households and consumers have been spared so far, but the next round of tariffs will be more problematic.”

 

 

Idiot Trump:

 

Quote

 

In the beginning of the trade dispute, Trump and his advisers sought to put tariffs on products that consumers don’t directly buy, such as steel and aluminum. But as the trade feud with China has escalated, they ran out of non-consumer goods on which to put levies. The most recent round of announced tariffs includes consumer products, such as apparel, sporting goods and kitchen ware.

Trump has disputed that American companies and consumers pay higher prices because of the tariffs placed on the imports they buy. He has said tariffs are beneficial because the levies are paid to the U.S. Treasury. “No visible increase in costs or inflation, but U.S. is taking in Billions!” he said in a tweet Friday.

Trump’s most recent threat on all imports from Mexico would increase prices on cars and auto parts, televisions, phones and air conditioners, as well as produce including avocados, citrus fruits and pineapples.

Only the top 5% of earners would continue to see a net tax cut of more than 1%, according to the right-leaning Tax Foundation. Tariffs would also depress wages by about 0.5% and result in the loss of nearly 610,000 full-time jobs, according to the foundation.

That creates political problems for Republicans in Congress who’ve continued to back Trump even as they disagreed with his trade policies. Republicans have cited the passage of the tax-cut law, low unemployment rates and wage increases as signs that Trump’s policies have buoyed the economy. But there are signs that support is beginning to fracture.

 

 

Quote

 

That creates political problems for Republicans in Congress who’ve continued to back Trump even as they disagreed with his trade policies. Republicans have cited the passage of the tax-cut law, low unemployment rates and wage increases as signs that Trump’s policies have buoyed the economy. But there are signs that support is beginning to fracture.

 

The tax cuts “vaulted America back into the most competitive economy,” said Representative Kevin Brady, the Texas Republican who led the passage of the tax cut legislation in the House. “Higher tariffs and the uncertainty that comes with trade disputes" hurt the economy, he said.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urged the administration this week to delay imposing the tariffs on Mexico until Republicans in Congress could plead their case to Trump. Most Senate Republicans have objected to Trump using tariffs to force tougher border enforcement by Mexico. Lawmakers are weighing moves to block the levies.

“This is a man-made disaster, because Donald Trump is not focused in any way on advancing a well-thought-out doctrine,” said Representative Hakeem Jeffries, a top Democrat from New York. “He seems to be carrying out at times personal vendettas, at other times political objectives and sometimes an effort to distract from the news of the day.”

 

 

[TGHusker]

Putin and Xi  sound more capitalistic or at least free trade  than Trump does as the two leaders take on Trump's tariff policies and their affect on free trade.

Nothing like a good tariff war to bring our economic adversaries closer together. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-forum-putin/putin-to-u-s-economic-egoism-is-recipe-for-trade-and-maybe-real-wars-idUSKCN1T819W

Quote

 

In some of his strongest words on the subject, Putin accused Washington of “unbridled economic egoism”, singling out U.S. efforts to thwart a Russian gas pipeline to Europe and a U.S. campaign to persuade countries to bar Huawei, the world’s biggest telecoms equipment maker, from supplying network gear.

His broadside, at an economic forum in St Petersburg on the same platform as Xi, was a clear show of unity with China at a time when Beijing is locked in a trade war with Washington and Moscow’s own ties with the West are at a post-Cold War low.

“States which previously promoted free trade with honest and open competition have started speaking the language of trade wars and sanctions, of open economic raiding using arm-twisting and scare tactics, of eliminating competitors using so-called non-market methods,” said Putin.

“Look for example at the situation around Huawei which they are trying not to just squeeze out, but to unceremoniously push out of the global market. It’s already being called the first technological war of the emerging digital era in some circles.”

The world risked slipping into an era when “general international rules will be exchanged for the laws of administrative and legal mechanisms ... which is how the United States is unfortunately behaving, spreading its jurisdiction over the whole world,” added Putin.

“...It’s a path to endless conflicts, trade wars and maybe not just trade wars. Figuratively speaking, it’s a path to battles without rules that pit everyone against everyone else.”

China’s Xi struck a more conciliatory tone, calling for world powers to protect the global multilateral trade system.

Russia has long complained about Western sanctions imposed on it over disputes including its behavior in Ukraine. Moscow casts the restrictions as an attempt to contain its growth.

Washington has asked countries to reject Huawei technology in the development of new mobile phone networks, arguing that it could be vulnerable to Chinese eavesdropping. Huawei denies its equipment is a security risk.

 

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

12 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Why should Mexico "protect" it's own borders from migrants? If Mexico is ok with the migrants, then they don't need to "protect" from them.

 

They're "ok with the migrants" because they know most aren't looking to stay in their s#!tty country. They're just passing through to the U.S.

[ZRod]

32 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

They're "ok with the migrants" because they know most aren't looking to stay in their s#!tty country. They're just passing through to the U.S.

How very polite of you.

[Danny Bateman]

4 minutes ago, ZRod said:

How very polite of you.

 

The terribly fatalistic worldview of conservatives: We've got to punch down at all the sh#thole countries to assert our dominance while also demanding they do more to alleviate us from the intense anxiety and suffering wrought by the scary brown people.

[B.B. Hemingway]

17 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

The terribly fatalistic worldview of conservatives: We've got to punch down at all the sh#thole countries to assert our dominance while also demanding they do more to alleviate us from the intense anxiety and suffering wrought by the scary brown people.

 

I didn't say any of that, so don't imply that it's what I meant. I've said multiple times on here that I feel Hispanics living in the U.S. are our best shot at upholding American values in centuries to come. I've also pointed out on here multiple times that my largest (and really only) concern with mass immigration from South American countries, and Mexico, is assimilation. That should be everyone's concern.

 

 

[Moiraine]

2 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

They're "ok with the migrants" because they know most aren't looking to stay in their s#!tty country. They're just passing through to the U.S.

 

 

That's probably part of it. But even if it wasn't, any country should weigh the cost of dealing with illegal immigrants vs. the expense that the illegal immigrants bring to their country, and weigh the 2 against each other. Illegal immigrants do not necessarily have a net cost to a country. It just depends on that country's situation. For example, they might be in desperate need of low-skilled laborers and maybe that's who is entering the country, and due to filling that void there's a net benefit. When illegal immigration does have a net cost to a country, the only logical course of action is to only spend enough $ dealing with it so that you aren't losing $. Maybe if Mexico were to stop 10% of illegal immigrants into their country, they would not be losing any $ at that point. Hypothetically you could put your entire army and tanks and helicopters manning every border and stop all illegal immigrants, but it would cost too much and the results would not be worth it.

 

I'm not sure why the post I made about it got a confused face. It's a pretty damn simple concept. Figuring out the overall cost is complicated, but the logic is easy.

 

I'm also not sure why @TGHusker's reply to mine got a confused face. The 5% tariff threat is now part of the cost benefit analysis Mexico is doing. If they don't stop more illegal immigrants from entering their country, there may be economic consequences imposed on them by the U.S. 

[Danny Bateman]

2 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

I didn't say any of that, so don't imply that it's what I meant. I've said multiple times on here that I feel Hispanics living in the U.S. are our best shot at upholding American values in centuries to come. I've also pointed out on here multiple times that my largest (and really only) concern with mass immigration from South American countries, and Mexico, is assimilation. That should be everyone's concern. 

 

 

 

So tell me then, what this does to improve assimilation?

 

 

I'm sorry dude, it's nothing personal against you. But the Trump immigration doctrine is really just an utter and abject failure and it's time to start being a bit more forceful about saying so.

[B.B. Hemingway]

5 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

So tell me then, what this does to improve assimilation?

 

 

I'm sorry dude, it's nothing personal against you. But the Trump immigration doctrine is really just an utter and abject failure and it's time to start being a bit more forceful about saying so.

 

 

Where have you seen me support anything Trump does in this thread, or on this board?

[BigRedBuster]

5 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

So tell me then, what this does to improve assimilation?

 

 

I'm sorry dude, it's nothing personal against you. But the Trump immigration doctrine is really just an utter and abject failure and it's time to start being a bit more forceful about saying so.

 

Well....they are destroying America by bringing soccer here.