Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He is. And this is why he won over traditional Dem states like WI, MI, and PA in 2016, and why Bernie Sanders would've annihilated Trump had he been the Dem nominee. The DNC really shot itself in the foot by rigging the system in favor of Hillary
Exactly, I don't care for Trump or Hillary either.
This should be a wake up call to Democratic party to get ducks in a row, find a good candidate and not Bernie.
I don't have a problem with the policy, in fact I think something like this should have been in place years ago.
All I'm saying is that my understanding is that Trump only has authority to proclaim a tariff in the name of national security, and that carving out an exception for Canada and Mexico might undermine the legality of the entire tariff. Because if national security is truly at stake, then it doesn't matter where the imported steel is made. It is very hard to maintain that you are putting tariffs on imported steel in the name of national security if the tariff doesn't apply to most imported steel.
There's been a lot of Congressional resistance to tariffs over the years, and that is especially true of commodities like steel. That's why Trump is doing it on his own authority, which is based on national security. Tariffs for other reasons must, AFAIK, be imposed by Congress. And I don't think Congress, especially an R Congress, will do it.
Good question, although I don't have a full answer. Here, it's discouraging that few attempt to understand a subject like trade that is vital to national welfare but at the same time somewhat complex.
My take is that Congress has delegated most trade policy to the Executive Branch, which is one of my objections to these tariffs. Trump made some promises on the campaign trail that he should be keeping but instead we get these national security tariffs that could be subject to lawsuits in US courts not only the WTO.
It is the US Special Trade Representative (cabinet position) who negotiates agreements and tariffs. So certainly, it is the executive branch that should be designing and implementing a comprehensive trade policy, like that called for by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. (Trump could well impose tariffs under the same provision that Bush II used for the steel tariffs but they didn't work in 2001 resulting in a net loss of jobs and are not going to work 15 plus years later.)
From reading (curious about your question but not knowing I googled some) it appears that Congress becomes involved when a trade agreement is considered to be a treaty, but that most "agreements" are issued these days by Executive Order. Congress (and not just the Senate ?) clearly was involved in NAFTA ... Congress had a role in our agreement that China be accorded WTO status. Certainly Congress has an oversight role.
Just as industries like steel age so does our current trade policy. The current trade system was designed by the US for its benefit after ww2 and we have well profited from it. As other countries have themselves industrialized and become more competitive, it seems time that we ourselves "modernize" and perhaps move away from pure, unfettered "free trade."
But I don't know that a retreat into old-style protectionism is the answer. Is there NO room for careful consideration of approaches like what have been so successful in Europe. Industrial policy? https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/policy_en
Sure it might cost a few dollars. But I'd sure rather pay for it with a progressive tax rate than incur regressive taxes as a consumer with unilateral, punitive tariffs.
That's just bad policy, sloppy policy although it does play well.
it sure works for China and other countries we trade with.......try getting any product made in the U.S.A in China and other countries, see how smooth and easy that works......we don't have "free" trade, it's a joke!
As a business owner and a consumer, buying products made in the U.S. isn't my #1 priority. My #1 priority is the best value for my money. Let the free market decide which products are successful.
Good question, although I don't have a full answer. Here, it's discouraging that few attempt to understand a subject like trade that is vital to national welfare but at the same time somewhat complex.
My take is that Congress has delegated most trade policy to the Executive Branch, which is one of my objections to these tariffs. Trump made some promises on the campaign trail that he should be keeping but instead we get these national security tariffs that could be subject to lawsuits in US courts not only the WTO.
It is the US Special Trade Representative (cabinet position) who negotiates agreements and tariffs. So certainly, it is the executive branch that should be designing and implementing a comprehensive trade policy, like that called for by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. (Trump could well impose tariffs under the same provision that Bush II used for the steel tariffs but they didn't work in 2001 resulting in a net loss of jobs and are not going to work 15 plus years later.)
From reading (curious about your question but not knowing I googled some) it appears that Congress becomes involved when a trade agreement is considered to be a treaty, but that most "agreements" are issued these days by Executive Order. Congress (and not just the Senate ?) clearly was involved in NAFTA ... Congress had a role in our agreement that China be accorded WTO status. Certainly Congress has an oversight role.
Just as industries like steel age so does our current trade policy. The current trade system was designed by the US for its benefit after ww2 and we have well profited from it. As other countries have themselves industrialized and become more competitive, it seems time that we ourselves "modernize" and perhaps move away from pure, unfettered "free trade."
But I don't know that a retreat into old-style protectionism is the answer. Is there NO room for careful consideration of approaches like what have been so successful in Europe. Industrial policy? https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/policy_en
Sure it might cost a few dollars. But I'd sure rather pay for it with a progressive tax rate than incur regressive taxes as a consumer with unilateral, punitive tariffs.
That's just bad policy, sloppy policy although it does play well.
Very true that tariffs are extremely complex but i couldn’t imagine congress addressing tariffs. Just looking at trade deficits as the primary reason for tariffs is lacking.
Of course he is. The key word in your post is "reminder." Some of us have always known that Trump is a (wannabe) New York liberal elite. The problem is he's one of the worst kind. He exemplifies everything his base loathes (and everything the New York liberal establishment also loathes), but he conned them into believing that he cares about their issues.
Exactly.
It's the same with Obama's base--they completely ignored (and still ignore) that he was a corporatist Democrat who greatly expanded State surveillance powers and was a drone-bombing war criminal.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Sunday that she approves of President Trump's move to bring tariffs into the trade conversation.
Why it matters: It's a reminder that Trump is closer to the left wing of the Democratic Party on trade than he is to mainstream Republicans like Paul Ryan.
----
Remember too: The President's tariff plan comes from his adviser Peter Navarro. Navarro is a Democrat who Hilary Clinton supported in his (failed) run for Congress.
It is funny how so many here seem to "hate" all Democrats but don't have a problem with the President who is toeing the line with Democrats on trade.
I am really surprised at Warren...being a far left liberal, one who supported all the freetrade agreements and the TTP, figured she would be screaming against the tariffs like most globalist liberals
Quote:
Why it matters: It's a reminder that Trump is closer to the left wing of the Democratic Party on trade than he is to mainstream Republicans like Paul Ryan.
the left wing liberals (remember there are liberals with a party designator of D and R) have been pushing globalism since the 1970's... and trump (although a former democrat) did run on bring back tariffs and jobs, which the liberals have been against
Democrats almost across the board support Trump on this issue.
Me included.
I'm considered on the left by this board, and I support the congressional Republicans in favor of free trade on this issue, and not Trump.
I think tariffs on steel and aluminum is a terrible idea. It will hurt manufacturers that use these products in the United States, which employ far more Americans than the steel and aluminum industries. A better alternative would be to offer incentives or discounts for customers that buy American-made steel and aluminum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
