Jump to content


Trump Domestic Policy - Budgets, etc


Recommended Posts


17 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Not sure what your point with this reply is, or what part you're replying to, agreeing/disagreeing with.

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing.

 

The information you posted is just that....it's information.

 

But it shows in regard to steel in those charts that we wrote a lot of checks and China and Japan cashed a lot of checks.

 

Some of them might have been ours......

 

Edited by TheSker
Link to comment

This was enough to make the local news last night.

 

It's pretty lame companies just use these shell companies to bid on federal jobs like this. Then again, this company sounds like they're after Trump's own heart with their practices.

This stinks kind of like that Whitefish contract for Puerto Rico. Whitefish had two employees & were from Sec of the Interior Zinke's hometown. One of Zinke's kids worked a summer construction job for the head guy at Whitefish.

 

 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
15 hours ago, TheSker said:

It means we are a consumer.

 

A global consumer.

Which also means that since a tariff on steel will hurt the companies that consume steel, the net effect on the US economy of a steel tariff is very likely to be negative. At least for the foreseeable future.

 

Mark Blyth talks about this in the opening minutes of this podcast:

 

Edited by RedDenver
  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Which also means that since a tariff on steel will hurt the companies that consume steel, the net effect on the US economy of a steel tariff is very likely to be negative. At least for the foreseeable future.

 

Mark Blyth talks about this in the opening minutes of this podcast:

 

Yes, that is possible, even probable, especially in the short term.

 

But maybe a longer term perspective will move us toward a producer role?

Link to comment

Just now, TheSker said:

Yes, that is possible, even probable, especially in the short term.

 

But maybe a longer term perspective will move us toward a producer role?

That's fine, but we'd need an actual plan to get there. (Blyth mentions this in the linked podcast.) If Trump and team came out with a plan to get back to steel manufacturing in 10 or 20 years, then that would be different than the silly reactionary actions he's taking now.

 

But, as someone already mentioned, bringing back steel manufacturing doesn't necessarily bring back jobs. How much of the returning industry is automated? And those jobs might not pay much since US workers' pay has been stagnant since the 1970's.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

That's fine, but we'd need an actual plan to get there. (Blyth mentions this in the linked podcast.) If Trump and team came out with a plan to get back to steel manufacturing in 10 or 20 years, then that would be different than the silly reactionary actions he's taking now.

 

But, as someone already mentioned, bringing back steel manufacturing doesn't necessarily bring back jobs. How much of the returning industry is automated? And those jobs might not pay much since US workers' pay has been stagnant since the 1970's.

The actions he is taking are not reactionary.  They are part of his campaign promises.

 

The tariffs are also not stand alone policies.  They are coupled with deregulation to make aggressive growth possible.

 

I totally understand that it's fun to make it seem like this is reactionary, but it's not.  If there is one thing Trump is doing it's pushing forward on his campaign points, especially the ones to promote business growth and income.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, TheSker said:

The actions he is taking are not reactionary.  They are part of his campaign promises.

 

The tariffs are also not stand alone policies.  They are coupled with deregulation to make aggressive growth possible.

 

I totally understand that it's fun to make it seem like this is reactionary, but it's not.  If there is one thing Trump is doing it's pushing forward on his campaign points, especially the ones to promote business growth and income.

They are campaign promises, but so what? It's reactionary in the sense that it's a reaction to the steel industry declining, but it doesn't make the full attempt to restore the steel industry. Deregulation doesn't help the steel industry return. So saying tariffs and deregulation are coupled doesn't really make sense. In fact, as I pointed out before, the steel tariffs are likely to shrink the economy because the US economy is a far bigger consumer than producer of steel, which means the "aggressive growth" narrative doesn't make logical sense. And that's before considering the effects of reciprocal tariffs by other nations.

 

If the goal is to restore the steel industry, then there needs to be a comprehensive plan over some time horizon. And then we can judge if that plan makes sense or not, since it might lead to more steel jobs (or might not depending on automation), but may result in loss of jobs in other sectors due to reciprocal tariffs.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

The mention of reciprocal tariffs is a good point, @RedDenver. This is why you rarely see tariffs utilized anymore. Any nation that decides to impose tariffs is going to get hit back by both individual countries via the WTO (think the Canadian lumber tariffs) but also by large markets like the EU, who is reportedly ready to impose equivalent tariffs on Kentucky bourbon, Wisconsin motorcycles/dairy products & Levi's jeans in California as a shot at the home states of Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan & Kevin McCarthy.

 

They're a neutral move because you wind up getting hit back for what you put tariffs on. Thus, you hurt your own exporters & make the items you put tariffs on more expensive.

 

A beer tax isn't going to make very many Americans very happy.

 

Besides, it was most definitely reactionary. Trump announced tariffs because he had a terrible week in the news & inside the White House. So he decided to play to his base (again) & try to claim he was finally doing something for steel workers.

 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

I'm not sure why it's relevant whether it was a campaign promise. He still seems to have done it out of the blue.

 

The number one problem with democracy imho is the leader's goal isn't necessarily to do what's best for the country. It's to do what helps him get re-elected.

At the same time... being beholden to voters is good. But if an action is going to hurt the country, even if it breaks a campaign promise, you should still not do it.

Edited by Moiraine
Link to comment

1 hour ago, TheSker said:

That is possibly the most relevant thing since he's already announced intention.

 

 

Ya, I'm not getting the logic here. There is a lot of time after a campaign promise to get more information to find out the affects of enacting said promise, or to find out it's a stupid idea. I find it unlikely Trump did that. The last bit is probably where we differ.

 

There's a little evidence for why I don't think he did that though.

 

Quote

But the public show of confidence belies the fact that Trump's policy maneuver, which may ultimately harm U.S. companies and American consumers, was announced without any internal review by government lawyers or his own staff, according to a review of an internal White House document.

According to two officials, Trump's decision to launch a potential trade war was born out of anger at other simmering issues and the result of a broken internal process that has failed to deliver him consensus views that represent the best advice of his team.

 

If the above is true, that's not how you make a decision, and whether he made a campaign promise on it is irrelevant.

Edited by Moiraine
  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
20 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Ya, I'm not getting the logic here. There is a lot of time after a campaign promise to get more information to find out the affects of enacting said promise, or to find out it's a stupid idea. I find it unlikely Trump did that. The last bit is probably where we differ.

 

There's a little evidence for why I don't think he did that though.

 

 

If the above is true, that's not how you make a decision, and whether he made a campaign promise on it is irrelevant.

I get it.  You think it's irrelevant.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...