brandymac27

Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Individual 1 is in trouble

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, Destino said:

This isn’t a criticism on anything you wrote here Burgold, but I find how we discuss this trade situation curious.  If we’re going to talk trade shouldn’t the place we start the conversation be with information on which nations are hitting US goods with what tariffs and which tariffs the US is imposing?  Why is it that on this one issue everyone wants to get philosophical and vague?  I’ve read dozens of media stories on trade and everyone seems to want to dance around the specifics.  This isn’t how these discussions normally go, not when it should be possible to create side by side factual comparisons. 

 

It is difficult because tariffs aren't the whole story.  The US government has a long history of aiding companies and industry through non-tariff actions that other countries see as equivalent if not worse than tariffs.

 

Things like US farm bill, bailing out Chrysler and GM, US federal government policies for "buy America first", the farm bill, cash for clunkers, and even our federal research funding (and laws associated with patents from that).

 

I read a story about a Canadian law maker who supported getting rid of the Canadian tariffs on agriculture products as soon as we no longer pass a farm aid bill (noting Canada doesn't have an equivalent thing).

 

How do you compare the effects of a Canadian tariff on cheese to the US government buying 11 million pounds of cheese generated from US dairies?  Both are artificial supports for the dairy industry in their respective countries.  If you just compare tariffs, we generally come off looking better, but most people that really study trade will recognize that's not the whole story.

 

(And then you get to things like Japan's efficiency laws (and not just for cars, but for all sorts of things).  Many US companies complain that they are a form of protectionism, but Japan claims that are an important component of their national security).

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I feel like it should also be pointed out part of the reason we lose trade is simply because we consume more (per a person), and we are a larger market.

 

Just really simply, if I give everybody $10 and let them buy stuff from each other, the person that spends the most of their $10 is going to buy the most stuff from other people.

 

The 2nd part of that is in terms of effort you are willing to put into penetrate the market.  The Japanese don't buy many cars (they are much more likely to use public transport), the cars that they do tend to buy are the types that car companies don't make a lot of money on, and there are many more Americans than Japanese so a lot more cars are sold in the US than Japan for a lot more profit.  It makes economic sense for Japanese car companies to spend money to cater (design cars) to and penetrate (line up high quality dealerships) the US market.  It makes much less sense for US car companies to spend money to penetrate the Japanese markets.  The net effect is that the Japanese companies invest much more to penetrate the US market and have much more success than the US companies have in Japan.

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Oh, I agree with your history.  Germany in particular was one of the reason why Obama had to work so hard to get even sanctions against Russia after their invasion of the Ukraine.  (The US Congress was another.)  

 

Obama wanted our response to Russia to be a lot tougher.  The sanctions we wound up with were the toughest he could get.  

 

However, Trump is not attacking Germany because Trump wants us to be tougher on Russia, and Germany is blocking it.  Trump wants to get rid of the sanctions we've got.  Trump is attacking Germany because Trump is attacking NATO.  (Because Russia wants him to.)  

 

 

I will point out that I don't think Trump is necessarily doing it because Russia wants him to.  I think if you looked back in the 1990s when there was talk of him running on the reform ticket he probably talked similarly.

 

This might be a case where Trump is doing it because he thinks it is right, Russia realized he would do it and so supported him.

 

I'd point out, it isn't just Russia though either in terms of things like this.  Many of the European countries are much more constrained in terms of energy.  We've had issues with them in terms of things like sanctions on Iran for similar reasons.

 

(From there, I'm not sure if it is actually energy or do the Europeans just less strongly believe in the power of sanctions and it really makes the news and comes to ahead when it is related to countries that have an important energy component to their economy.

 

Was Europe not as supportive of sanctions against Russia because they didn't want to see energy prices rise or because they just don't have as favorable opinion on the usefulness of sanctions?)

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Destino said:

This isn’t a criticism on anything you wrote here Burgold, but I find how we discuss this trade situation curious.  If we’re going to talk trade shouldn’t the place we start the conversation be with information on which nations are hitting US goods with what tariffs and which tariffs the US is imposing?  Why is it that on this one issue everyone wants to get philosophical and vague?  I’ve read dozens of media stories on trade and everyone seems to want to dance around the specifics.  This isn’t how these discussions normally go, not when it should be possible to create side by side factual comparisons. 

I think the problem is really that these problems are multifaceted and they must be examined from multiple perspectives all at once.

 

A tariff by any other name isn't the same as a rose. Trade has to be considered in terms of freedom of access, environmental impact, intellectual property, national security, etc. To ignore the full picture and all its associated tendrils is to oversimplify and create false arguments. So, I think the reason we get vague is because it is a global issue that contains a little bit of everything.

 

I think that's probably even more true under an Administration like Trump's because it is so wont to make deals for personal gain at the detriment to national interests. In fact, time and time again we have seen that Trump's Washington is at best indifferent to national interests. That means we have to consider more than the usual political lens, or the lobbyist lens, but the lens of ego and self-enrichment to a degree that we haven't ever before (at least to my awareness.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Now, I will say that I think this country has been overly focused on "everything is about Russia" for far too long, and it's been hurting us in lots of ways.  (Makes it too easy for other countries to manipulate us.)  

 

And not just economically.  How much has our country's policy of "we will actually train the personnel of Satan himself in the techniques of how to terrorize and torture his own citizens, as long as he loudly announces that he's not a communist" (and the predictable consequence that, whenever the citizens of BFE get tired of being tortured, they are forced to go to Russia for help in getting rid of the US-supported dictator) cost us, the last 50 years?  

 

The Chinese have it right.  Their foreign policy is straight quid pro quo.

 

The US is quid pro we will pay for everything dont worry we dont need anything in return actually why dont you **** us with no lube.

1 hour ago, Larry said:

My, what an interesting chart about how much the US spends on defense worldwide.  

 

How much of that is spent defending NATO?  You know, the question that's being discussed.  

 

Great point.  It should include S Korea, Japan, Singapore, and a host of other allies across the world who dont pay their fair share and take advantage of the US economy, while getting to hoard their cash and spend it on themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Was Europe not as supportive of sanctions against Russia because they didn't want to see energy prices rise or because they just don't have as favorable opinion on the usefulness of sanctions?)

 

I didn't see them proposing any tougher responses to Russia, either. 

 

(Which was really surprising to me, at the time. I sure would have expected Europe to be a lot more panicked at the sight of Russian tanks moving into a small European country than they were. Seemed like the US was the only country that really cared). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I didn't see them proposing any tougher responses to Russia, either. 

 

(Which was really surprising to me, at the time. I sure would have expected Europe to be a lot more panicked at the sight of Russian tanks moving into a small European country than they were. Seemed like the US was the only country that really cared). 

I wouldn't assume that.  We don't necessarily handle problems the same way they do and different countries in Europe reacted differently as well.  But they also have long-standing ties to Russia that we don't, so it is complicated.  There was a lot of back and forth about canceling various deals, and other punishments, and such.  

Edited by visionary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

They're kinda right. 

 

It's just not good news. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zoony said:

 

The Chinese have it right.  Their foreign policy is straight quid pro quo.

 

The US is quid pro we will pay for everything dont worry we dont need anything in return actually why dont you **** us with no lube.

 

Great point.  It should include S Korea, Japan, Singapore, and a host of other allies across the world who dont pay their fair share and take advantage of the US economy, while getting to hoard their cash and spend it on themselves.

 

 I don’t hear Trump talking about shrinking the military budget at all those stupid rallies he holds.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

 I don’t hear Trump talking about shrinking the military budget at all those stupid rallies he holds.

The second they could (eliminated the sequester) the Rs increased military spending. They were dying to do so for years. Now Trump is pushing for 4% gdp military spending for all NATO members (a .5 % increase for us) and more corporate tax cuts. But yeah, we are so overburdened protecting Europe. More like we want to sell some weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it true Benczkowski never prosecuted a case or filed a motion in Federal court?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This press conference is a dumpster fire.  He just answered a question about Brexit by talking about 306 electoral votes and saying (again) that he won Wisconsin, the only state Reagan lost in 1984.  Of course, Reagan ACTUALLY won Wisconsin, losing only Minnnesota.

 

This is about the 15th time Trump has repeated this easily disprovable lie.  Do we think he has been told and simply forgets each time (therefore believes he is being truthful), or is he simply, pointlessly, lying?  Or that he simply doesn’t understand the difference between Minnesota and Wisconsin?  (as someone living in MN, them’s fightin’ words).  Either way, he is either addled or simply incapable of truthfulness.  Or both (probably).

 

That’’s just one of who knows how many lies.  This is so embarrassing and depressing.

Edited by bcl05
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

Is it true Benczkowski never prosecuted a case or filed a motion in Federal court?

Yes, true. 

29 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

Trump is a pathological liar.

You must be watching the press conference now. 

What an idiot. 

Joe & Mika pointing out each lie as we speak. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dan T. said:

 

 I don’t hear Trump talking about shrinking the military budget at all those stupid rallies he holds.

That’s because Trump lies....all the time. From one situation and encounter to the next his lies don’t have to match they just have to serve his interests. He is in every way the most cynical description of a salsman that ever was. “Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.” He’s a **** and I hate him. I’m pretty sure he is kept alive by a voodoo shaman on a diet of puppy blood.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Macron has already released a statement that there was no new agreement to increase spending. Everything is performance art with Trump, zero substance. North Korea, NATO, and on and on.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

And Macron has already released a statement that there was no new agreement to increase spending. Everything is performance art with Trump, zero substance. North Korea, NATO, and on and on.

 

Well, every few days, he attends a rally at which hundreds of people loudly shout that it is working.  

 

In fact, is there any place he can look, from where he is, that would tell him that it's not working?  

 

Edit:  

 

And it's possible that he's right.  

 

 

Edited by Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, zoony said:

Great point.  It should include S Korea, Japan, Singapore, and a host of other allies across the world who dont pay their fair share and take advantage of the US economy, while getting to hoard their cash and spend it on themselves.

 

What is their fair share?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/opinion/trump-south-korea-alliance.html

https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2018/05/22/heres-how-many-billions-japan-and-south-korea-are-spending-on-american-defense-goods/

 

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-allies-20160930-snap-story.html

 

(Japan and South Korea, especially, are two places where you might see our ally simply say leave if we push them for more.  We don't have a good history of treating the locals well, they have contributed significantly to the troops being stationed there, and we've essentially forced them to invest heavily in military equipment produced from American companies.)

10 hours ago, Dan T. said:

 

 I don’t hear Trump talking about shrinking the military budget at all those stupid rallies he holds.

 

He's never going to withdraw from those countries because he's not going to release all of those service people, and we don't have space to house tens of thousands of more soldiers on US soil.

 

And everybody knows it.

Edited by PeterMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

Trump is a pathological liar.

In other news, the sky is blue...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.