Trump steel tariffs cost $900,000 for every job created

Sometimes, depending on the amount of the tariff.

 

Correct.

That is true. But the one guaranteed freedom from tariffs is domestic production.

 

Sweet, then all those tales about if taxes go up prices will go up are just that, fairy tales.

That is good to know.

 

If so then they should be increased or dropped. Leaving them the same makes no sense. I'm not sure how steel tariffs could cost jobs, however.

 

Biden saying he will or won't do something means spit. Same goes for McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer or even the Orange Man himself. If they they have and (R) or (D) by their name you can't believe anything they say.

 

Lying is a tool for politicians. Biden has used it no more than most

 

US companies use that raw material. They pay a higher price for that raw material while demand stays the same. They are paying a higher price for the same amount of goods, so they need to cut losses somewhere.

Countries will put a tariff in return on US goods. Less US goods purchased means less profit = less jobs.

 

He did drop them.

They raise the cost of finished products making them less competitive.

 

Trump tariffs are broader in scope than antidumping laws. Antidumping is used to protect domestic producers from foreign countries selling products at below market value. Trump tariffs are punishing countries for simply importing.

 

This was one of the moves that Trump can take near sole credit for. There was no wave of Red behind him .. was something like 18 or 22 of his inner cabinet told him not to use the "Economic Nuclear Option". - it is called that for a reason.

For those that are confused - this was when Trump forced every nation in the world to abide by his unilateral Iran Sanctions - by threatening to block Banks/Corps out of the international system of payments - run by the US.

Was a bold move on the geopolitical chessboard - a move which might likely have succeeded a number of decades ago when we were the only economic game in gown .. but this is flawed analysis - as the world has changed.

 

It did give stability - Stability for the Status Quo, which is not a good thing.

 

And yet the great liberal hope Biden has left them in place. They are Joe's Tarriff's now.

 

Trump steel tariffs cost $900,000 for every job created

Hardly surprising. Trump never was a Republican or even a Conservative.He was and continues to be a super egotistical con artist. Everything about running for and being President was about him personally. About pumping up his brand, giving him cover from lawsuits and criminal investigations. Giving him an opportunity to use the Presidency to channel government spending into his hotels.

Yup, hardly a surprise.

 

No. Money grabbing is the whole idea. You supported taxation / government intervention because you were told it was "America first".

 

Or changing trade balances

 

Trade deficit got worse. Is that what you wanted?

 

How long did it take our base to migrate offshore? Tariffs didn't even have 4 years to effect change. I have felt tariffs should be used to even the field because without them we just continue to leak jobs. The cake ain't ready just because it was stuck in the oven, takes time.

 

And what is wrong with that? The constitution does not set a limit on the number of supreme court justices. Our founding fathers adjusted the size of the court to fit their partisan needs. It started out at 6 then went to 10 with Lincoln. If our founders changed the number of judges, then so can Biden through Congress.

 

I don't think anyone disputes that he can but should he is a valid question. The only need to do that seems to be political.

 

Both parties do whatever they can to influence the balance in the SC. GOP did it recently by refusing to seat Garland. IMO, its a war over nothing, because nothing ever changes no matter who sits in the SC. Heck, conservatives legalized abortion and gay marriage, which are two major issues they pretend to oppose.

 

Abortion and guns are the issues that simply will not be accepted by the party that opposes one or the other. Other than that I think pretty much any court makeup would make decisions that were acceptable. As to Garland, I sort of agreed with you until recently when he has gotten into the public light and we have heard his position on an item or two. The man is left of AOC.

 

Abortion was legalized by conservatives, so obviously they accepted it. It wasn't until after legalization when they begun to use it for political football by blaming it on Democrats.

Which ones of his positions are left of AOC?

 

I don't remember, he spoke on something after he was appointed by Biden and that was how I saw him. Perhaps not AOC but he's a strong left vote. That being said, Obama probably should have gotten his choice just because that is how it has always been. I think Bork was the first I remember being rejected on ideological grounds. They should be measured by their body of work and not how they vote.

 

Legal scholars ranked him as moderate and in the past he has been respected by both parties. Maybe now that certain media is obligated to opposed everything in regards to the new admin, you might hear things like "Garland is left of AOC".

 

+.

If he didn't lean left Obama wouldn't have picked him. I guess OBiden can take another run at him if it should come up.