Our Great Leader Is Not Leading Anybody Apparently

[NJ Stinks]

From the Washington Post today:

The United Nations General Assembly on Thursday overwhelmingly passed a measure rejecting the Trump administration’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, which was repeatedly criticized as undermining the prospects for peace.

Despite blunt warnings of U.S. funding cuts, 128 countries voted in favor of the nonbinding resolution and only nine voted against it. Another 35 countries abstained.

“The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out in this assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation,” said Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. “We will remember it when, once again, we are called up to make the world’s largest contribution to the U.N., and we will remember it when many countries come calling on us to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.”

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/un-begins-debate-on-jerusalem-resolution/2017/12/21/37cf9bf8-e65d-11e7-833f-155031558ff4_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_unjerusalem-1030am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.1695c73757a3


Does the quote by Haley above sound like it comes from a spoiled brat of a nation?

Or is it just me? :rolleyes:

[Ocala Mike]

The thing about US exceptionalism is that it may lead to us standing alone with practically no allies at crunch time. A century of our country in the forefront on the world stage being overturned by the scourge of Trumpism.

[JustRalph]

That quote was a giant PHUCK YOU! to those countries.

It’s exactly what many of us have wanted to hear for 40 years at the UN.

Trump wins again!

[JustRalph]

The thing about US exceptionalism is that it may lead to us standing alone with practically no allies at crunch time. A century of our country in the forefront on the world stage being overturned by the scourge of Trumpism.

It’s called declaring yourself the big dog.......it’s how you win!!

[chadk66]

I love this "grab the bull by the horns" mentality we have now. Bring them bitches to their knees. When we cut their funds they will be on their knees begging uncle. Uncle Sam that is :pound:

[boxcar]

The thing about US exceptionalism is that it may lead to us standing alone with practically no allies at crunch time. A century of our country in the forefront on the world stage being overturned by the scourge of Trumpism.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Most of the U.N. consists of globalist-socialist nations. So, yes...philosophically and politically the U.S. has been alone since Trump took office. The prez made the right decision, as it's already quite crowded at the bottom of the junk heap where his opposition lives.

[Tom]

The UN is a collection of useless groups of people pretending to be countries.
Most have them have one out to get money from us while holding a knife ready to stab us in the back.

Screw them all. WE do not need them.

Next step - stop ALL contributions of anything to the UN.
They are dead to us.:rip:

[davew]

Trump should kick the UN out of New York, then his friends could develop something useful there.

[wisconsin]

The thing about US exceptionalism is that it may lead to us standing alone with practically no allies at crunch time. A century of our country in the forefront on the world stage being overturned by the scourge of Trumpism.


We were on the forefront when it came to getting our help. These leaker countries will someday need our help again. At our discretion, of course...:headbanger:

[JustRalph]

X

[boxcar]

Trump should kick the UN out of New York, then his friends could develop something useful there.

:lol::lol: :ThmbUp:

[JustRalph]

I never thought I would see the day.........FANTASTIC!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF_cEg5gVy0

[rastajenk]

Does the quote by Haley above sound like it comes from a spoiled brat of a nation?

Or is it just me? :rolleyes:Pretty sure it's just you.:p

[chadk66]

I don't think Trump nor anybody that voted for him gives a shit about the UN

[Fager Fan]

I don't think Trump nor anybody that voted for him gives a shit about the UN

They voted out of fear.

Here's the thing: dealing with radical governments and terrorists out of fear doesn't work.

[Tape Reader]

“Let them vote against us, we’ll save a lot” – President Trump.

It gets better by the day!

[fast4522]

Trump should kick the UN out of New York, then his friends could develop something useful there.

Well I agree to kick the UN out of New York, but I would relocate a new building / complex just on our side of the border in Texas. Exactly where the UN was I would tear down and drill for oil. Not that there is any there but if there was I would make all profits go to the family's who lost folks on 911. With that I also would build super structures all along the southern border good and deep. The thought would be to choke the bastards drug flow off. Every idea the United Nations hates about the United States I'd make sure it was right in their face in the heart of gun country.

[chadk66]

They voted out of fear.

Here's the thing: dealing with radical governments and terrorists out of fear doesn't work.who voted out of fear?

[Fager Fan]

who voted out of fear?

Probably all of them?

[thaskalos]

Was this UN vote a surprise for Trump and Nikki Haley? They sound as if they actually thought that the vote would go their way.

[Tom]

Here's the deal.
If you call yourself a country and you are smaller than a US city, you don't count. What you want doesn't matter. STFU.

"The United States will remember this vote."


Go TRUMP!

bye...memo to Japan: Remember when we told we had your back when it comes to N Korea?
Well, GFY!

[davew]

Time to move the United Nations headquarters to Europe - maybe Germany or even Vatican City (since they are all on board with the climate disruption bs)

[OntheRail]

The UN Useless Nations... This non bindings vote is like your neighbors bitchin' about the dog house in your backyard... Phuck Em':coffee:

[Fager Fan]

Was this UN vote a surprise for Trump and Nikki Haley? They sound as if they actually thought that the vote would go their way.

I had no idea they were going to take a vote to slap our wrist. I'm sure they had advance notice just like all of them must, but of course it was only days notice, not weeks or months. I'm sure they knew there would be votes against us, but perhaps not as many or from particular states?

I don't know how this is going to all unfold, but I do find it an interesting move. There was a report that a US delegation including the son in law met with the young leader of Saudi just days before this announcement. Then I heard an expert say that this move by Trump is something that many of the Middke East leaders are fine with in private, but they can't say so publicly. They have to maintain their public stand of supporting the Palestinians. But they are really a bit tired of the issue, and have softened their thoughts regarding Israel, and this is just an annoyance, their big concern is Iran.

So if this is all true, maybe this was a move privately supported by Saudi and perhaps some others.

[Ocala Mike]

If you call yourself a country and you are smaller than a US city, you don't count. What you want doesn't matter. STFU.





You mean like Togo, Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands?

[thaskalos]

You mean like Togo, Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands?

Hey...you forgot Guatemala and Honduras.

Those are some "Allies" that we've gathered there...:)

[davew]

Hey...you forgot Guatemala and Honduras.

Those are some "Allies" that we've gathered there...:)

Those allies have 10% of their population living in US.

[Tom]

You mean like Togo, Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands?

Yes, and add Gus's list.
They understand what side of the bread the butter goes on.
And who supplies them the butter.
Hell, the bread too! :pound:

Nikki Haley in 2024!

[Tom]

BTW, the palestinian mad dogs have called for a day of rage to protest.
Make the point - they are not civilized people, and do not deserve to be treated as if they were. Israel should take BACK all the land they gave up under pressure.

[Track Collector]

From the Washington Post today:

The United Nations General Assembly on Thursday overwhelmingly passed a measure rejecting the Trump administration’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, which was repeatedly criticized as undermining the prospects for peace.


Total BS given that many of the Palestinians believe the solution of peace only comes about with the annihilation of Israel.

[jocko699]

BTW, the palestinian mad dogs have called for a day of rage to protest.
Make the point - they are not civilized people, and do not deserve to be treated as if they were. Israel should take BACK all the land they gave up under pressure.

Will that shut down their rock factories? What will happen to their economy if no one is making rocks?:pound::pound::pound:

[Tom]

Let's take a good look at the UN and why it is useless.

China, the totalitarian embarrassment to the civilized world.
Outside of Bejing attacks migrant workers homes and forces the people out in to the cold with no home. Like Hitler did.
JUST like Hitler did.

https://news.sky.com/story/migrant-workers-tears-as-schools-and-homes-flattened-in-beijing-11018543

On the outskirts of Beijing we found large swathes of housing reduced to rubble, in what looked like the aftermath of an earthquake.
But this destruction is wholly man-made.
It is part of what's known as the "urban rectification" campaign - a local government plan to limit the capital's population, and smarten up its image.
It appears to be being conducted with no consultation, and little regard for those who live here.
China - the first to sign the UN Charter.
That says it all. The Chinese government is no better than the nazis and the world should never treat them as anything but nazis.

I am ashamed that our country recognizes them as legitimate and has any dealing with them at all.

The UN has done noting to stoop this - because the UN is useless and doesn't care about these people. Like the vichy french - nothing but puppets for the oppressors.

Trump, end all dealing with this evil empire and throw the GD UN out of NYC. And stop all dealing with any nation that does deal with China. There is no place in a civilized world for China under its oppressive current government.

China is nothing more than N Kore with electricity.

[Tom]

Will that shut down their rock factories? What will happen to their economy if no one is making rocks?:pound::pound::pound:

We have a few posting here who have an unlimited supply in their heads. They could supply the palestonians for decades.

[boxcar]

Looks like Trump has led the way for Guatemala to relocate its embassy to Jerusalem. The pipeline has it that several other nations will follow suit.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/guatemala-says-moving-embassy-israel-jerusalem-230221174.html

[mostpost]

From the Washington Post today:

The United Nations General Assembly on Thursday overwhelmingly passed a measure rejecting the Trump administration’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, which was repeatedly criticized as undermining the prospects for peace.

Despite blunt warnings of U.S. funding cuts, 128 countries voted in favor of the nonbinding resolution and only nine voted against it. Another 35 countries abstained.

“The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out in this assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation,” said Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. “We will remember it when, once again, we are called up to make the world’s largest contribution to the U.N., and we will remember it when many countries come calling on us to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.”

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/un-begins-debate-on-jerusalem-resolution/2017/12/21/37cf9bf8-e65d-11e7-833f-155031558ff4_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_unjerusalem-1030am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.1695c73757a3


Does the quote by Haley above sound like it comes from a spoiled brat of a nation?

Or is it just me? :rolleyes:
One intelligent post to start this thread. After that, mostly the ravings of idiots-only Ocala Mike and Thaskalos make any sense.

[mostpost]

That quote was a giant PHUCK YOU! to those countries.

It’s exactly what many of us have wanted to hear for 40 years at the UN.

Trump wins again!
No surprise that you support the US playing the role of bully. It's what you do here.

[mostpost]

It’s called declaring yourself the big dog.......it’s how you win!!
Real "Big dogs" don't have to posture and bluster. Real "Big dogs" take care of the smaller dogs.

[mostpost]

The UN is a collection of useless groups of people pretending to be countries.
Most have them have one out to get money from us while holding a knife ready to stab us in the back.

Screw them all. WE do not need them.

Next step - stop ALL contributions of anything to the UN.
They are dead to us.:rip:
Is there anyone who is not a member of a useless group of people to you. The answer is simple. You are the useless one. Everyone else is fine.

[mostpost]

Trump should kick the UN out of New York, then his friends could develop something useful there.
We should kick Trump out of Washington. We actually have more power to do that than he does to kick the UN out of New York.

[mostpost]

I don't think Trump nor anybody that voted for him gives a shit about the UN
That is true. Which proves beyond a doubt the ignorance of Trump voters.

[mostpost]

They voted out of fear.

Here's the thing: dealing with radical governments and terrorists out of fear doesn't work.
One thing for sure, we couldn't extort them to vote our way.

[woodtoo]

One thing for sure, we couldn't extort them to vote our way.

Still on the wrong side of right I see.

[zico20]

One intelligent post to start this thread. After that, mostly the ravings of idiots-only Ocala Mike and Thaskalos make any sense.

Mostie, maybe you should find a message board where the average IQ is above 50, since that it what you are implying here. It seems you are far to superior intellectually to converse with us Neanderthals.

[elysiantraveller]

I don't know why anyone is surprised or cares about the UN vote. :confused:

I don't really know why we chose to move the embassy. :confused:

I don't know how that doing it improves anything. :confused:

I do know that a peace process is derailed.

I do know it wasn't really a high priority for this administration or they wouldn't have done it.

I do know a lot of people just want to watch the world burn.

:popcorn:

[JustRalph]

No surprise that you support the US playing the role of bully. It's what you do here.

You just called a bunch of people idiots. Who’s the bully? You are saturated in your own bile. TDS is strong in you. He’s walking all over Dems and the left. It’s hysterical.

And Trump just raised your blue state taxes :lol:

Cutting 285 million from the UN budget and telling 90% of them to eat it is the topper to a glorious week for the right. Burn baby burn.........:lol:

[Clocker]

I do know that a peace process is derailed.



Why do we need a peace process? Didn't a bunch of people like Carter and Arafat and Rabin get Nobel Peace Prizes back in the day for their accomplishments in achieving peace? If the UN did that, it must be all settled, right?

[elysiantraveller]

Cutting 285 million from the UN budget and telling 90% of them to eat it is the topper to a glorious week for the right. Burn baby burn.........:lol:

You don't think some of these foreign policy moves are upsetting the balance of power in the world and weakening our relationships with key allies?

I'm not talking about the Embassy. That's small potatoes.
Personally, I wouldn't have done it because it doesn't gain you any leverage but it's whatever... there are plenty of examples of us losing credibility.

One of the most disturbing pieces of information is that military spending is increasing across the globe substantially next year.

[elysiantraveller]

Why do we need a peace process? Didn't a bunch of people like Carter and Arafat and Rabin get Nobel Peace Prizes back in the day for their accomplishments in achieving peace? If the UN did that, it must be all settled, right?

I didn't say we did. Honestly it's a region that need a whole perspective shift for anything good to come from it. I also wasn't the one though that made a big deal about sending my Son-in-law there to begin working on it.

Only point I made is they are abandoning it. As far as the embassy thing it's... whatever... personally wouldn't have done it as it's a chip you can't play now and it gains you no leverage. On the whole though I give negative Fs either way.

[JustRalph]

You don't think some of these foreign policy moves are upsetting the balance of power in the world and weakening our relationships with key allies?

I'm not talking about the Embassy. That's small potatoes.
Personally, I wouldn't have done it because it doesn't gain you any leverage but it's whatever... there are plenty of examples of us losing credibility.

One of the most disturbing pieces of information is that military spending is increasing across the globe substantially next year.

Our Allies will line up right behind us as usual.

You can’t kill anybody or more importantly deter anybody with credibility. Peace through strength. :ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

You don't think some of these foreign policy moves are upsetting the balance of power in the world and weakening our relationships with key allies?

I'm not talking about the Embassy. That's small potatoes.
Personally, I wouldn't have done it because it doesn't gain you any leverage but it's whatever... there are plenty of examples of us losing credibility.

One of the most disturbing pieces of information is that military spending is increasing across the globe substantially next year.

The U.S. lost all credibility was in office because that communist community organizer only knew how to lead behind and had the respect of no one. Trump is regaining our credibility! Haven't you heard: He's Making America Great Again? :coffee:

[reckless]

Our Allies will line up right behind us as usual.

You can’t kill anybody or more importantly deter anybody with credibility. Peace through strength. :ThmbUp:

You also can't win the hearts of those UN nazis thru corruption as Bill Clinton tried, nor thru stupidity as G.W. Bush tried, and especially not thru surrender and treason as Barack Obama tried.

As Trump makes America Great Again, history will prove that he also saved Europe and the Middle East along the way.

Trump to the rescue; the nazis of the UN to the trash heap.

[FantasticDan]

As Trump makes America Great Again, history will prove that he also saved Europe and the Middle East along the way.
HE SHALL SAVE EUROPE AND THE MIDDLE EAST IN HIS SPARE TIME

SUCH IS HIS GREATNESS


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[davew]

HE SHALL SAVE EUROPE AND THE MIDDLE EAST IN HIS SPARE TIME

SUCH IS HIS GREATNESS


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Trump has no desire to save Europe and the Middle East, they are lost.

[Clocker]

Trump has no desire to save Europe and the Middle East, they are lost.

We need them to buy all the stuff we will be producing when the new fair trade tariffs go into effect.

[Tom]

HE SHALL SAVE EUROPE AND THE MIDDLE EAST IN HIS SPARE TIME

SUCH IS HIS GREATNESS


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Try ROLAIDS! :pound::pound::pound::pound::pound::pound:

[Tom]

Trump has no desire to save Europe and the Middle East, they are lost.


Amen, bro - neither are WORTH saving.
Europe has been nothing but loser for centuries.
Hitler walked all over them, and so would have the USSR if not for the USA.
Europe is impudent and useless.

Oh my, mostie, sorry to wreck your Christmas rant.
Shame to waste all that alcohol.

[reckless]

HE SHALL SAVE EUROPE AND THE MIDDLE EAST IN HIS SPARE TIME

SUCH IS HIS GREATNESS


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

What you are missing ... which is understandable considering your history ... is that the nazis and the Europe trash that govern a once-great Continent will come running to Trump and the USA to save them -- from themselves and their Open borders policy. There are just so many times that Muslim migrants rape and kill Europeans through terror before the 'leaders' cry help!

Then we have the generational and historic economic boom that has already begun in the USA -- thanks to Trump, and Trump alone -- which by extension will help the undeserving EU get out of their self-imposed economic malaise.

The best way for Trump to save Europe from themselves is actually quite simple: first, withdraw American troops from Germany and other EU sites where we have a presence. Let Merkel defend both the German people (and the other EU pikers too) and also provide 'free' healthcare to her snotty and spoiled citizenry. Same thing goes for the UK and France, both run by two of the dumbest people in the history of the world.

And when Trump/USA stops subsidizing these ungreatful cowards and freeloaders then maybe, just maybe, the EU will stop the insanity and get their act together. Our military and our taxpayers protect these losers and subsidize their slovenly lifestyle. This will end thanks to Trump and leadership.

As for the Middle East, moving our embassy to Jerusalem -- Israel's rightful and historic capitol city -- is just the very first step by Trump in saving the Middle East while telling the entire world the era of idiot US presidents is now over. And yes, Trump got the ball rolling in his spare time as you suggested.

The leading Middle East countries will happily work with Israel for peace knowing Trump is our President and the leader of the free world.

Another driver for peace will be the world-wide deflation in international oil prices --thanks to both Iran dumping and USA fracking-- which will keep the Saudis in line so they could concentrate on their real enemy, Iran.

I just can't wait for tomorrow because Trump gets better every day.

[elysiantraveller]

We need them to buy all the stuff we will be producing when the new fair trade tariffs go into effect.

:lol::lol::lol:

Widgets and Trinkets?

[woodtoo]

"I can't wait for tomorrow because Trump gets better every day"

You are not alone, he has much to clean up in his own back yard and that starts tomorrow!

[woodtoo]

:lol::lol::lol:

Widgets and Trinkets?

This kind of thinking is what got you (dims) where you are today...at the bottom of the trash heap.:rolleyes:

[elysiantraveller]

This kind of thinking is what got you (dims) where you are today...at the bottom of the trash heap.:rolleyes:

For the thousandth time not a democrat and more pro-free market than the President.

Take it up with clocker he's the one that posted it... sarcastically I might add.

[RunForTheRoses]

For those who need cartoons

[boxcar]

What you are missing ... which is understandable considering your history ... is that the nazis and the Europe trash that govern a once-great Continent will come running to Trump and the USA to save them -- from themselves and their Open borders policy. There are just so many times that Muslim migrants rape and kill Europeans through terror before the 'leaders' cry help!

Then we have the generational and historic economic boom that has already begun in the USA -- thanks to Trump, and Trump alone -- which by extension will help the undeserving EU get out of their self-imposed economic malaise.

The best way for Trump to save Europe from themselves is actually quite simple: first, withdraw American troops from Germany and other EU sites where we have a presence. Let Merkel defend both the German people (and the other EU pikers too) and also provide 'free' healthcare to her snotty and spoiled citizenry. Same thing goes for the UK and France, both run by two of the dumbest people in the history of the world.

And when Trump/USA stops subsidizing these ungreatful cowards and freeloaders then maybe, just maybe, the EU will stop the insanity and get their act together. Our military and our taxpayers protect these losers and subsidize their slovenly lifestyle. This will end thanks to Trump and leadership.

As for the Middle East, moving our embassy to Jerusalem -- Israel's rightful and historic capitol city -- is just the very first step by Trump in saving the Middle East while telling the entire world the era of idiot US presidents is now over. And yes, Trump got the ball rolling in his spare time as you suggested.

The leading Middle East countries will happily work with Israel for peace knowing Trump is our President and the leader of the free world.

Another driver for peace will be the world-wide deflation in international oil prices --thanks to both Iran dumping and USA fracking-- which will keep the Saudis in line so they could concentrate on their real enemy, Iran.

I just can't wait for tomorrow because Trump gets better every day. (emphasis mine)

Meanwhile...not so much for the Palestinians, according to their neighbors.

REPORT: Arab States Have Had It With the Stupidity of the Palestinian Authority

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/12/25/report-arab-states-stupidity-palestinian-authority/

[reckless]

(emphasis mine)

Meanwhile...not so much for the Palestinians, according to their neighbors.

REPORT: Arab States Have Had It With the Stupidity of the Palestinian Authority

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/12/25/report-arab-states-stupidity-palestinian-authority/

Yes, the Palestinians should be sent back to their rightful country -- Jordan!

Problem is, Jordan don't want these bottom-feeders either.

[davew]

Yes, the Palestinians should be sent back to their rightful country -- Jordan!

Problem is, Jordan don't want these bottom-feeders either.

maybe California would take them, Germany would

[johnhannibalsmith]

For the thousandth time not a democrat and more pro-free market than the President.

...

Have you never read his posts? That's just what you want him to think. And he's on to it.

[reckless]

Have you never read his posts? That's just what you want him to think. And he's on to it.

Our friend elysian has often cited that he's a 'Republican' as has our friend clocker calling himself 'conservative'. When one wrote that he knows more about free trade than Trump ... well that was the joke of day! What is funny though was that all their prior anti-Trump rhetoric and analysis was both easily debunked on the merits and proven patently incorrect, numerous times. Yet that doesn't stop either of them, now has it?

Both have often said that Trump is a dope; Trump doesn't know a thing about trade; Trump won't be able to get companies to return to the USA; and all those trade deals that Trump did make --despite those two-- was going to be made anyway (that one was the funniest of them all).

But that's OK; it hasn't stopped either of them from using the same silly and snarky arguments and comments all over again, again and again, a year later. (Do they think we forgot what they previously posted? -- :) )

Hey, it's really no big deal. It's still PA-OT General, and don't forget that.

[fast4522]

elysian has often cited that he's a 'Republican' as has our friend clocker calling himself 'conservative'

How many men in chat rooms pretend to be woman, forget that it is OT and remember that it's just the internet.

[Clocker]

knows more about free trade than Trump Another impassioned defense of The Donald without resorting to facts.

Trump says he is in favor of "free trade" as long as it is "fair trade".

The two concepts are contradictory. Free trade means trading without such restrictions as protectionist tariffs or quotas. "Fair trade" means using tariffs or other restrictions to manipulate and manage trade in order to get the results that you want.

Free trade is objective, fair trade is subjective. To equate the two is delusional or deceptive. Trump is not in favor of free trade. There can be no doubt that he wants to use protectionist tariffs to achieve his goals. He is in favor of "fair trade", as long as he gets to define what is fair. If you are in favor of "fair trade" as defined by Trump, at least be honest about what it is.

In politics, defining what is fair means deciding whose ox gets gored. As in Obama's mantra about the "rich" paying their fair share.

prior anti-Trump rhetoric and analysis was both easily debunked on the merits and proven patently incorrect, numerous timesI must have missed that. Got a cite or a link?

[Lemon Drop Husker]

What happened to Americans?

For decades we all wanted the UN to do anything; something; in our favor and/or simply dissolve because it has never done us any good. We finally stand up for ourselves, and we are now the bad guys? We've been there for everybody. When has anybody been there for us?

For decades we wanted to move our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. We are doing that now, and we are now the bad guys? Isn't Jerusalem the Capital of Israel; one of our best allies? This dates back before the Clinton days in the WH. I guess many are conditioned to all talk and no action?

Long standing "policies" are now getting done (or starting to get done). The most important job of our President is protecting its citizens and has come to a massive charge with DJT at the helm. While we aren't shipping out illegals at any rate anywhere close to the Obama years, we are securing our borders, and keeping out the unwanted and suspect.

After 8 years of meaningless diatribe from a really good speaker, what can anybody of any intellect tell me that Obama really got done? The $1 Trillion bailout that was already in place before he took oath? A shit healthcare system that was promised to lower costs and allow people to keep their doctor of choice?

Tell me, please, what did he do to award your awe and appreciation.

[reckless]

How many men in chat rooms pretend to be woman, forget that it is OT and remember that it's just the internet.

I don't know the answer to that since I don't hang out in chat rooms where men pretend to be women.

[reckless]

Another impassioned defense of The Donald without resorting to facts.

Trump says he is in favor of "free trade" as long as it is "fair trade".

The two concepts are contradictory. Free trade means trading without such restrictions as protectionist tariffs or quotas. "Fair trade" means using tariffs or other restrictions to manipulate and manage trade in order to get the results that you want.

Free trade is objective, fair trade is subjective. To equate the two is dI just can't wait for tomorrow because Trump gets better every day.elusional or deceptive. Trump is not in favor of free trade. There can be no doubt that he wants to use protectionist tariffs to achieve his goals. He is in favor of "fair trade", as long as he gets to define what is fair. If you are in favor of "fair trade" as defined by Trump, at least be honest about what it is.

In politics, defining what is fair means deciding whose ox gets gored. As in Obama's mantra about the "rich" paying their fair share.

I must have missed that. Got a cite or a link?

I guess all those anti-America trade deals done pre-Trump were OK by you because 'conservatives' in the GOP made them ... ??

'Fair' trade deals were they? Or were they 'free' trade deals?

It doesn't really matter because whatever terms Trump used and meant the anti-Trump crowd made sure to criticize it because .... well, it's Trump and what does he know about business and trade, free, fair or otherwise??

And using your ox is gored line of thought ... well there are winners and losers to be had. The difference is Trump wants America to win and Obama wanted anybody but America to win. The same could be said about most of the pre-Trump GOP-majority congresses, too.

What we do know is since Day One you and other 'conservatives' on here that are anti-Trump have been playing the analyzing/parsing game with almost everything he says and does. Which is no big deal because most of us know by now the real silly game being played.

Bottom line, after just a single year in office, Trump already has proven to be quite astute in correcting all of these 'free trade' deals made by previous GOP 'conservatives' -- the same people who told us that Trump knows little about such things. :lol:

I just can't wait for tomorrow because Trump gets better every day.

[Clocker]

I guess all those anti-America trade deals done pre-Trump were OK by you because 'conservatives' in the GOP made them ... ??

'Fair' trade deals were they? Or were they 'free' trade deals?

It doesn't really matter because whatever terms Trump used and meant the anti-Trump crowd made sure to criticize it because .... well, it's Trump and what does he know about business and trade, free, fair or otherwise??



I have no idea what anti-American trade deals you are talking about. Again, you accuse without facts. As a general rule, just about any trade deal the government does is a bad idea.

I am not anti-Trump. He is much preferable to Hillary, but he has some screwball ideas, and I will point them out when they come up. I am not a Republican either. I don't understand how you think branding anyone with political labels is going to disprove a position.

It does matter what terms Trump uses, because calling things something that they aren't indicates that either he doesn't understand what he is doing or that he is being deceitful. Free trade is good for the consumer. Protectionist tariffs, which is what Trump is proposing, are bad for consumers and good for a few selective industries. Trump's spokesman in the campaign admitted in an interview last year that Trump's tariff proposals could raise the cost of living of the average family by 10-15%.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Protectionist tariffs, which is what Trump is proposing, are bad for consumers and good for a few selective industries. Trump's spokesman in the campaign admitted in an interview last year that Trump's tariff proposals could raise the cost of living of the average family by 10-15%.

Prove it.

Bring facts and an actual reliable news source to show this 10-15% comment to be even remotely true. Not opinion. But facts.

[Clocker]

Prove it.

Bring facts and an actual reliable news source to show this 10-15% comment to be even remotely true. Not opinion. But facts.

Congressman Chris Collins, a Republican from NY, was co-chairman of the Trump campaign’s U.S. House Leadership Committee.

He made the 10-15% comment on several TV shows, including an interview on MSNBC.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/01/endorser-agrees-trump-policies-will-benefit-rich-at-expense-of-poor-and-middle-class/

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Congressman Chris Collins, a Republican from NY, was co-chairman of the Trump campaign’s U.S. House Leadership Committee.

He made the 10-15% comment on several TV shows, including an interview on MSNBC.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/01/endorser-agrees-trump-policies-will-benefit-rich-at-expense-of-poor-and-middle-class/

:pound:

You can't be phucking serious. Can you?

An OPINION? At best? GTFO of here.

The Federalist, making an article about MSNBC's Chuck Todd and a NYer in Collins talking metrics on what they believe and/or think?

Do you know what proof actually is?

[Clocker]

:pound:

You can't be phucking serious. Can you?

An OPINION? At best? GTFO of here.

The Federalist, making an article about MSNBC's Chuck Todd and a NYer in Collins talking metrics on what they believe and/or think?

Do you know what proof actually is?

I gave you proof that what I said actually happened, that a spokesman for Trump said that a 10-15% increase was what the campaign estimated would result from the tariffs. I did not say anything about the number itself. No one can prove that number would or would not actually happen until after the fact, if the tariffs are implemented. But that was the campaign's estimate, not the Federalist's or MSNBC's.

The point is that Trump was running on a platform of imposing those kind of tariffs while assuming they would result in those kind of increases in the cost of living. The video is proof of that.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

I gave you proof that what I said actually happened, that a spokesman for Trump said that a 10-15% increase was what the campaign estimated would result from the tariffs. I did not say anything about the number itself. No one can prove that number would or would not actually happen until after the fact, if the tariffs are implemented. But that was the campaign's estimate, not the Federalist's or MSNBC's.

The point is that Trump was running on a platform of imposing those kind of tariffs while assuming they would result in those kind of increases in the cost of living. The video is proof of that.

Fantastic since the tariffs have not been implemented, nor will they likely be implemented.

Nor do I remember the word "tariff" ever being spoken about from Trump's campaign or even post-election efforts.

By the way, why is tariff such a bad word to you? Nearly every country puts tariffs on our goods that we ship.

What's next, you gonna drag out some CBO score that the tax cut won't give you a tax break? When you get your tax break, will you donate it to the IRS or your favorite charity?

[elysiantraveller]

Fantastic since the tariffs have not been implemented, nor will they likely be implemented.

Nor do I remember the word "tariff" ever being spoken about from Trump's campaign or even post-election efforts.

You're kidding right? Google: Trump Trade Tariff and see what pops up... here's one. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-usa-russia-idUSKBN19Y2L4?il=0)

By the way, why is tariff such a bad word to you? Nearly every country puts tariffs on our goods that we ship.

I'm pretty sure he and Trumps campaign explained why in that they artificially raise prices on consumers. Also Mexico and Canada don't... well currently don't but probably will shortly. ;) Also there is this thing called the WTO organization that sets regulatory trade standards all members are supposed to adhere to.

What's next, you gonna drag out some CBO score that the tax cut won't give you a tax break? When you get your tax break, will you donate it to the IRS or your favorite charity?

Classic redirect.

[fast4522]

They do real well buying Canadian up there so just let them sell into China, no problem sticking it to Mexico to pay for the wall especially cars made inside Mexico. This JOBS President could make it real difficult for temp agency's to find people with company's hiring people direct without the middleman. But it is still a wait and see the effect the tax plan has in 2018, according to Dan Pena the new year is going to be tremendous barring any black swan event.

[fast4522]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38CXIT1wJZM

[Fager Fan]

I don't know why anyone is surprised or cares about the UN vote. :confused:

I don't really know why we chose to move the embassy. :confused:

I don't know how that doing it improves anything. :confused:

I do know that a peace process is derailed.

I do know it wasn't really a high priority for this administration or they wouldn't have done it.

I do know a lot of people just want to watch the world burn.

:popcorn:

What peace process?

[elysiantraveller]

What peace process?

The one they were working on as late as November.

Jerusalem Post Article (http://m.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Will-Trump-bring-peace-to-the-Middle-East-514001)

[Tom]

I don't know the answer to that since I don't hang out in chat rooms where men pretend to be women.

How you know for sure? :eek:

[elysiantraveller]

They do real well buying Canadian up there so just let them sell into China, no problem sticking it to Mexico to pay for the wall especially cars made inside Mexico. This JOBS President could make it real difficult for temp agency's to find people with company's hiring people direct without the middleman. But it is still a wait and see the effect the tax plan has in 2018, according to Dan Pena the new year is going to be tremendous barring any black swan event.

That's hilarious.

Finding people has never been a problem. Finding people who are hireable is.

[Inner Dirt]

Fantastic since the tariffs have not been implemented, nor will they likely be implemented.

Nor do I remember the word "tariff" ever being spoken about from Trump's campaign or even post-election efforts.

By the way, why is tariff such a bad word to you? Nearly every country puts tariffs on our goods that we ship.

What's next, you gonna drag out some CBO score that the tax cut won't give you a tax break? When you get your tax break, will you donate it to the IRS or your favorite charity?

Had an ex-friend whose company sold customized circuit board testing machines to China. He did the installs, service and upgrades. The base machines sent by shipping company were hit with 25% tariffs on top of "gratuities" paid here and there to expedite paperwork and shipment. The parts used for upgrades and service that he checked as baggage were subject to 100% tariffs. One time someone forgot to prepay a tariff on something he arrived with. He was detained in the airport until money was wired, which took hours. He said it scared the crap out of him.

Mexico does the same thing the tariffs aren't as high, my Aunt imports items from the US there. China and Mexico can't claim they are using tariffs to protect their manufacturing base as they put tariffs on items for import their countries do not produce.

I guess the hate America liberals think tariffs to help USA manufacturers is a bad thing. Yet they are perfectly fine with foreign countries slapping tariffs on American goods.

[elysiantraveller]

Mexico does the same thing the tariffs aren't as high, my Aunt imports items from the US there. China and Mexico can't claim they are using tariffs to protect their manufacturing base as they put tariffs on items for import their countries do not produce.

I guess the hate America liberals think tariffs to help USA manufacturers is a bad thing. Yet they are perfectly fine with foreign countries slapping tariffs on American goods.

Mexico does not place tariffs on much. They have a VAT that must be paid. Tariffs don't help manufacturers and they hurt consumers. Wealth of Nations is a good book... outdated with the modern global economy but worth the read.

Adam Smith should be required reading in this country.

[Inner Dirt]

Mexico does not place tariffs on much. They have a VAT that must be paid. Tariffs don't help manufacturers and they hurt consumers. Wealth of Nations is a good book... outdated with the modern global economy but worth the read.

Adam Smith should be required reading in this country.

Not going through all the verbage, Mexico slaps a fee on most anything imported into the country, plain and simple. So what if they call it a tariff, VAT, Sales tax, import fee, etc,etc.

[Tom]

Forget tarifs.
When so-called American companies make cars in Mexico and then ship them here, they are denying jobs to American and giving their customers no bargain pricing either.

Make it in Mexico, slee it in Mexico.
Or pay for the privilege of selling it here.
And btw, when you make it down there, you are held to the exact same environmental regulations and labor laws as companies operating in America. And that includes 100% of your foreign supply base as well.

[Clocker]

Forget tarifs.
When so-called American companies make cars in Mexico and then ship them here, they are denying jobs to American and giving their customers no bargain pricing either.

American companies make cars in Mexico for a lot of reasons, but tariffs in other countries is a big one. Cars made in Mexico generally have much lower tariffs in other countries than the same cars made in the US. The US is not a big market for cars made in Mexico.

[boxcar]

The one they were working on as late as November.

Jerusalem Post Article (http://m.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Will-Trump-bring-peace-to-the-Middle-East-514001)

Oh, yes...the one that is always a work in progress but like spinning wheels in deep mud never gets anywhere because the two main players don't trust one another. From the link you posted:

“Ultimately, both Netanyahu and Abbas just have this long, long history and they’ve played this game really well,” said Foundation for Defense of Democracies scholar Grant Rumley.

“They don’t trust each other and I don’t think they will ever get to the point where they will trust each other.”

Indulge me for a while and let me see if I can put this "peace process", as well as Trump's diplomatic move, into some biblically historical context. I'll keep this as brief as possible by just presenting a very big picture in a thumbnail sketch of Israel's relationship with the nations, i.e. Gentiles. (And we mustn't forget that all Israel's neighbors are included in this group, all are "Gentiles".) But first...Trump's diplomatic move.

There is a good news and bad news to this old but now newly implemented policy. The good news is that to the best of my knowledge of the bible, the move itself does not fulfill any prophecy per se. But the bad news is that I most certainly can see serious, worldwide ramifications to it in light of biblical prophecy, particularly those oracles of God that deal specifically with Israel's relationship with the nations during these end times. I believe Trump has unwittingly furthered God's agenda for Israel and indeed the entire world.

So...how did we get to this point in human history? Paul told the Gentiles at Lystra, who were engaged in idol worship, that "in past generations gone by, He (God) permitted all the nations (Gentiles) to go their own way." (Act 14:16). When did God do this and why? This occurred shortly after the Flood at the Tower of Babel when God judged the wickedness of men for their flagrant disobedience to disperse and fill the earth and for their idolatry. So, God confused their tongues and dispersed all men to all parts of the earth -- and in so doing established nations and their boundaries (cf. Genesis 11). At this time, in a very real sense, God abandoned the nations.
He left the nations to their own wicked devices. This is what Paul was telling the people at Lystra.

But thankfully for mankind, Genesis 12 follows chapter 11 and soon after this great universal diaspora, God called Abraham so that Abraham could father a new nation -- a nation separate from the Gentiles.

However, thanks again to God's infinite mercy and grace, he didn't leave the Gentiles in their abandoned state. In fact, he never intended to because he even told Abraham that He would make the Jewish patriarch "the father of many nations", i.e. their spiritual father. Up until the first advent of Christ, Israel had an exclusive covenant relationship with God. But the Jews, as a nation, rejected their Messiah so Jesus told the Jews that the "kingdom of heaven" (Christ personified) would be taken away from them and given to another "nation" who would bear fruit in keeping with the nature of the glorious kingdom (Mat 21:43). This "nation" is spiritual in nature, having no borders since the extent of Christ's Church is universal -- it's all over the world, as the Gospel of Christ spread immediately throughout Asia Minor and the Roman Empire in the first century.

Jesus also told the Jews of his day that Jerusalem would be trodden under foot by the Gentiles until the "times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (Lk 21:24).
In essence the Jewish Age (a/k/a the Mosaic dispensation) began to become extinct after the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and actually came to an end in 70 A.D. All humanity has been in these Times of the Gentiles for the last 2,000 years. And in a real sense, Jerusalem is still being trodden under foot, even after she became a nation in 1948; for the nations of the world have made the holy city one very hot and explosive political football. (Perhaps now some of you readers can see the tension between what was predicted by Jesus, now is and what Trump and others like him hope for Jerusalem.)

But of course, the Times of the Gentiles will come to an end. Nothing is forever. When Jesus returns He will establish his physical kingdom forever in a totally restored heaven and earth. But just before that time, Paul tells us that even though currently a "partial hardening of the heart" has happened to Israel until the fulness of Gentiles has come in" (Rom 11:25), God promises to Israel will be ultimately fulfilled; "for all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:26). (Paul doesn't mean all Jews strictly by lineage only, but rather all Jews who have the faith of their father Abraham.) How is this going to come about? Well, this brings us full circle back to the political relationship Israel has with the nations.

There is no need for me to write very much about this, for all who are interested in pursuing this subject could start by reading the central OT passage dealing with it -- Zechariah 12-14. Suffice it to say that Israel will come to faith in their Messiah when their backs are up against the wall -- or perhaps against the Mediterranean. When Israel is faced with the wrath of the world, then they will call out to their Messiah to save them. Here is how the prophet's oracle about the nations and Israel begins:

Zech 12:1-9
1 The burden of the word of the Lord concerning Israel.

Thus declares the Lord who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him, 2 "Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against Judah. 3 "And it will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured. And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it. 4 "In that day," declares the Lord, "I will strike every horse with bewilderment, and his rider with madness. But I will watch over the house of Judah, while I strike every horse of the peoples with blindness. 5 "Then the clans of Judah will say in their hearts, 'A strong support for us are the inhabitants of Jerusalem through the Lord of hosts, their God.' 6 "In that day I will make the clans of Judah like a firepot among pieces of wood and a flaming torch among sheaves, so they will consume on the right hand and on the left all the surrounding peoples, while the inhabitants of Jerusalem again dwell on their own sites in Jerusalem. 7 "The Lord also will save the tents of Judah first in order that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem may not be magnified above Judah. 8 "In that day the Lord will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the one who is feeble among them in that day will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the Lord before them. 9 "And it will come about in that day that I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
NASB

Of course, this end times theme is picked up in many other places in scripture, most notably in Revelations in the NT.

For those of you who have eyes to see and ears to hear -- for all who can discern the signs of the times -- you should give very careful heed to these things I just wrote; for as assuredly as I am here typing this, all these things will come upon this world. Repent, therefore, and believe the Gospel of Christ and be saved!

1 Tim 1:15
15 It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.
NASB

[elysiantraveller]

Oh, yes...the one that is always a work in progress but like spinning wheels in deep mud never gets anywhere because the two main players don't trust one another. From the link you posted:

“Ultimately, both Netanyahu and Abbas just have this long, long history and they’ve played this game really well,” said Foundation for Defense of Democracies scholar Grant Rumley.

“They don’t trust each other and I don’t think they will ever get to the point where they will trust each other.”

Indulge me for a while and let me see if I can put this "peace process", as well as Trump's diplomatic move, into some biblically historical context.

Sorry but that's where I stopped.

Don't attack the messenger on this. The Trump Administration this past fall appeared to put some effort into the notion of a peace process. Personally I think it's a waste of time as long as Nentanyahu and Abbas are running the show there is no chance for peace. Both have to go first.

[elysiantraveller]

Not going through all the verbage, Mexico slaps a fee on most anything imported into the country, plain and simple. So what if they call it a tariff, VAT, Sales tax, import fee, etc,etc.

Everything in Mexico comes with a VAT whether it's made here, there, or anywhere. Its hardly competitive in nature.

Tariffs do not help the American worker:

“This may no doubt give encouragement to some particular class of workmen among ourselves, and by excluding some of their rivals, may enable them to raise their price in the home-market. Those workmen, however, who suffered by our neighbours’ prohibition will not be benefited by ours. On the contrary, they and almost all the other classes of our citizens will thereby be obliged to pay dearer than before for certain goods. Every such law, therefore, imposes a real tax upon the whole country, not in favour of that particular class of workmen who were injured by our neighbours’ prohibition, but of some other class.”

- Adam Smith

[boxcar]

Sorry but that's where I stopped.

Don't attack the messenger on this. The Trump Administration this past fall appeared to put some effort into the notion of a peace process. Personally I think it's a waste of time as long as Nentanyahu and Abbas are running the show there is no chance for peace. Both have to go first.

Regardless...there's no chance for lasting peace between the Gentiles and Israel. None. Nada. Zip. (And Slim is pushing up daisies.) Trump's actions, as good as his intentions are, will only fan the flame of hatred the Gentiles have for Israel. Trump, unwittingly painted, a larger target on Israel's back.

[lefty359]

To have peace both sides must want it. Palestine has never shown they want it...

[dnlgfnk]

Sorry but that's where I stopped.

Don't attack the messenger on this. The Trump Administration this past fall appeared to put some effort into the notion of a peace process. Personally I think it's a waste of time as long as Nentanyahu and Abbas are running the show there is no chance for peace. Both have to go first.

Good time to tap the brakes.

If they ever did, no Palestinian now considers the U.S. an honest broker in the peace process after the embassy move. And the majority of Christians, at least by number (Catholics and big "O" Orthodox), are not biblical dispensationalists, and for whom the secular, political, nation-state of Israel does not fulfill a biblical mandate.

[boxcar]

Good time to tap the brakes.

If they ever did, no Palestinian now considers the U.S. an honest broker in the peace process after the embassy move. And the majority of Christians, at least by number (Catholics and big "O" Orthodox), are not biblical dispensationalists, and for whom the secular, political, nation-state of Israel does not fulfill a biblical mandate.

Au contraire, my friend! Israel will certainly fulfill scriptures' mandate; for God has already decreed it! He will "make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the nations". And he "will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured" (Zech 12:2,3). (How exceedingly appropriate that God through his prophet compares Jerusalem to a heavy stone, since Christ, the antitype to Israel, is also a Stone upon which either men will fall and will be broken to pieces, or the Stone will fall on them and scatter them like dust (Mat 21:44). How appropriate that God's Holy City has already become a great stone over which the nations of this world are already stumbling! And in God's infinite wisdom and grace, he will use the nations' wrath against Israel to turn many Jews to their Messiah!

Don't you know that Jerusalem is called the "holy city", and this because it's God's city!? Do you recall from what mountain top Jesus ascended into heaven? Do you recall what the angel told Christ's onlookers as Jesus ascended on high? Do you know upon which mountain top Christ will return and split that mountain in half into north and south sections?

One does not even need to be premillennial in his eschatology, let alone dispensational to understand what will take place at the end of this age. Nowhere have I stated that Christ will establish some 1,000-year earthly kingdom when he returns. Quite the contrary if you go back and carefully read post 91.

[dnlgfnk]

Au contraire, my friend! Israel will certainly fulfill scriptures' mandate; for God has already decreed it! He will "make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the nations". And he "will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured" (Zech 12:2,3). (How exceedingly appropriate that God through his prophet compares Jerusalem to a heavy stone, since Christ, the antitype to Israel, is also a Stone upon which either men will fall and will be broken to pieces, or the Stone will fall on them and scatter them like dust (Mat 21:44). How appropriate that God's Holy City has already become a great stone over which the nations of this world are already stumbling! And in God's infinite wisdom and grace, he will use the nations' wrath against Israel to turn many Jews to their Messiah!

Don't you know that Jerusalem is called the "holy city", and this because it's God's city!? Do you recall from what mountain top Jesus ascended into heaven? Do you recall what the angel told Christ's onlookers as Jesus ascended on high? Do you know upon which mountain top Christ will return and split that mountain in half into north and south sections?

One does not even need to be premillennial in his eschatology, let alone dispensational to understand what will take place at the end of this age. Nowhere have I stated that Christ will establish some 1,000-year earthly kingdom when he returns. Quite the contrary if you go back and carefully read post 91.

It's not any lack of information. It's interpretation. And that's what makes a horse race. Let's not bore the others.

[fast4522]

That's hilarious.

Finding people has never been a problem. Finding people who are hireable is.

Take note: Nothing is going your preferred way, and if Harry Reid was still in the Senate it is likely all of your positions would be in line with his. Blowing apart your conservative claim. But you knew he would be against all your positions prior to winning the Presidency, blowing apart your idea the little Marco was the only one who could beat Hillary. You should be more genuine and admit you were all in for Hillary/Obama policy with everything you had years ago.

[boxcar]

It's not any lack of information. It's interpretation. And that's what makes a horse race. Let's not bore the others.

You're right. The allegorical junk would put everyone to sleep. :coffee:

[Clocker]

You're right. The allegorical junk would put everyone to sleep. :coffee:

Did I miss something? I seem to have dozed off about 8-10 posts back.

[elysiantraveller]

Take note: Nothing is going your preferred way, and if Harry Reid was still in the Senate it is likely all of your positions would be in line with his. Blowing apart your conservative claim. But you knew he would be against all your positions prior to winning the Presidency, blowing apart your idea the little Marco was the only one who could beat Hillary. You should be more genuine and admit you were all in for Hillary/Obama policy with everything you had years ago.

What are you talking about?

I made a comment in response to yours about a industry I have a lot of personal experience in and you launch into diatribe about Harry Reid?

Newsflash: Democrats hate staffing agencies. They break unions and get rich off the backs of the unfortunate. Their words not mine. We own one.

For every 5 applicants only one is actually employable.

As for the rest my opinions are easily accessible on here. Name one major Obama policy I backed. Maybe New START...?

[elysiantraveller]

Take note: Nothing is going your preferred way, and if Harry Reid was still in the Senate it is likely all of your positions would be in line with his. Blowing apart your conservative claim. But you knew he would be against all your positions prior to winning the Presidency, blowing apart your idea the little Marco was the only one who could beat Hillary. You should be more genuine and admit you were all in for Hillary/Obama policy with everything you had years ago.

Here ya go bud...

It was all R after that...

[dnlgfnk]

Did I miss something? I seem to have dozed off about 8-10 posts back.

Well, when more than opinion was requested re: Trump tariff, I would have obliged:

http://nfap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Impact-of-the-Trump-Tariffs.NFAP-Policy-Brief.May-20161.pdf

[Clocker]

Well, when more than opinion was requested re: Trump tariff, I would have obliged:

http://nfap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Impact-of-the-Trump-Tariffs.NFAP-Policy-Brief.May-20161.pdf

Didn't bother to read that. Trump doesn't understand tariffs, period. He's a realtor. There are no tariffs on real estate.

His own campaign advisor on the subject said that Trump's proposed tariffs would increase the cost of living for the average American by 10-15%. No one in the Trump camp has ever tried to deny or refute that.

All of which is moot, because Congress will never pass his tariffs. The bad news is that any president has the discretion and authority to increase or decrease certain existing tariffs. Trump recently increased tariffs on Canadian lumber, which increased the cost of new housing in this country. He apparently does not understand that tariffs, like other business taxes, are passed on to customers.

The cost of this new duty will increase Canadian lumber costs for U.S. customers by 6.4 percent, according to the National Association of Home Builders, and that will be passed on to homebuyers. The NAHB estimates it will increase the price of an average new single-family home by $1,236.https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/25/trumps-canadian-lumber-tariff-could-cost-us-homebuyers-about-1200.html

[elysiantraveller]

Well, when more than opinion was requested re: Trump tariff, I would have obliged:

http://nfap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Impact-of-the-Trump-Tariffs.NFAP-Policy-Brief.May-20161.pdf

Clocker is wrong.
That report is wrong.
Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/trade/commentary/how-tariffs-and-regressive-trade-policies-hurt-the-poor) is wrong.
Milton Friedman is wrong.
Adam Smith is wrong.
You are wrong.
I am wrong.

[rastajenk]

He's a realtor. There are no tariffs on real estate.
You usually come off as a fair and balanced guy, but this seems unusually simplistic for you. Ronald Reagan was an actor. You can't just pick a piece of one's past and assume that's the extent of their knowledge, rationale, and judgment.

Sometimes you have to pass the tariff to see what the effect of the tariff is. :D

[Clocker]

You usually come off as a fair and balanced guy, but this seems unusually simplistic for you. Ronald Reagan was an actor. You can't just pick a piece of one's past and assume that's the extent of their knowledge, rationale, and judgment.


It's fun to take a cheap shot and stir the pot from time to time. Trump's ignorance of tariffs is something that he has revealed in detail, and something I have discussed here in some detail in the past, with no response from the Trumpsters. So I thought I'd just throw it against the wall and see what sticks.

Also, Reagan knew what he didn't know, and listened to his advisors. Trump tends more to operate on instinct and on his personal experience. Reagan was an actor, but he was also an effective union leader and a governor of California.

[rastajenk]

Fair enough, but I don't see Trump the way you do. I think he gets good advice and processes it as well as anyone else might.

Now for contrast, just to rile up the libs, we have eight years of The One saying, "All options are on the table (but I've already made up my mind so why bother)."

[Clocker]

Fair enough, but I don't see Trump the way you do. I think he gets good advice and processes it as well as anyone else might.



Some yes, some no. I am comparing his campaign speeches with his actions in office. I have been pleasantly surprised by many of his decisions to date (or his lack of interference in the workings of Congress), often in contrast to his campaign rhetoric.

His rhetoric on tariffs has been seriously ignorant of the consequences of his proposals. Tariffs have costs that are borne entirely by American consumers. He has shown no indication that he understands this.

[kingfin66]

Here ya go bud...

It was all R after that...

Dammit, I should have voted for Harambe too. Why didn't I think of that?

[Fager Fan]

Regardless...there's no chance for lasting peace between the Gentiles and Israel. None. Nada. Zip. (And Slim is pushing up daisies.) Trump's actions, as good as his intentions are, will only fan the flame of hatred the Gentiles have for Israel. Trump, unwittingly painted, a larger target on Israel's back.

I don't think so. I posted early on that this may be a good strategic move. Someone posted an article a few posts back saying that this isn't having the huge negative reaction that was expected, and that it may be putting pressure on the Palestinians that previously wasn't there. So let's see how this shakes out.

[Fager Fan]

It's fun to take a cheap shot and stir the pot from time to time. Trump's ignorance of tariffs is something that he has revealed in detail, and something I have discussed here in some detail in the past, with no response from the Trumpsters. So I thought I'd just throw it against the wall and see what sticks.

Also, Reagan knew what he didn't know, and listened to his advisors. Trump tends more to operate on instinct and on his personal experience. Reagan was an actor, but he was also an effective union leader and a governor of California.

Reagan broke the union bigger than anyone when he ordered air traffic controllers to work or be fired.

Maybe your opinion on tariffs isn't the correct one.

[Clocker]

Reagan broke the union bigger than anyone when he ordered air traffic controllers to work or be fired.

Maybe your opinion on tariffs isn't the correct one.

Air traffic controllers on strike broke the law. Federal employees know when they are hired that strikes are illegal. They knew that, but went on strike anyway, and most stayed out even after Reagan said he would fire them.

My opinion on tariffs is based on the economic reality that most of them are designed to protect selected industries against foreign competition at the cost of American consumers. And outside of agricultural products, where the protection is often also enforced by quotas, they generally don't work. Recent manufacturing job loss breaks down into 20% moving off-shore and 80% replaced by automation.

The major result of protectionist tariffs is higher prices for consumers.

[Fager Fan]

Air traffic controllers on strike broke the law. Federal employees know when they are hired that strikes are illegal. They knew that, but went on strike anyway, and most stayed out even after Reagan said he would fire them.

My opinion on tariffs is based on the economic reality that most of them are designed to protect selected industries against foreign competition at the cost of American consumers. And outside of agricultural products, where the protection is often also enforced by quotas, they generally don't work. Recent manufacturing job loss breaks down into 20% moving off-shore and 80% replaced by automation.

The major result of protectionist tariffs is higher prices for consumers.

There was a reason why Reagan held that power. He couldn't fire striking workers at the Nabisco factory. The point was that you brought up Reagan as being kind of a pro-union guy when I saw no sign of that during his Presidency and his action towards the air traffic controllers was the strongest action towards a union that I recall a President making.

I'd suggest there is a sweet spot between no taxes and high taxes. You act as though total free trade is the only way that is "right" when our trading partners don't have total free trade with us. You keep saying Trump is an idiot on the matter, and no offense to you, but I don't know what expertise you can claim over Trump and his advisors. Frankly, Trump seems to be landing on the right decisions so I'd quit knocking him, see what he does, then see how it works out.

By the way, who cares if we have to pay 20 cents more for the cheap crap at the Dollar Store produced by China? There's no law that says higher prices are always bad. There is good and bad to low prices and high prices. One always has to find the sweet spot.

[boxcar]

I don't think so. I posted early on that this may be a good strategic move. Someone posted an article a few posts back saying that this isn't having the huge negative reaction that was expected, and that it may be putting pressure on the Palestinians that previously wasn't there. So let's see how this shakes out.

Remember: I did say no lasting peace. :coffee:

Rev 20:7-10
7 And when the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, 8 and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. 9 And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them.
NASB

Notice the definite article before the term "war". It's called THE war for a reason (actually multiple reasons).

And, of course, the "beloved city" certainly isn't Vatican City. ;) It's Jerusalem and the "camp of the saints" are the redeemed, believing Jews in Israel, thus fulfilling what the apostle Paul in Romans 11 said would happen when the "fullness of the Gentiles" reaches its zenith. (The phrase means when all the elect Gentiles are brought into God's kingdom.)

Zecharia 14 describes what happens when the Lord goes to battle for his people in the above mentioned war:

Zech 14:12-13
12 Now this will be the plague with which the Lord will strike all the peoples who have gone to war against Jerusalem; their flesh will rot while they stand on their feet, and their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongue will rot in their mouth. 13 And it will come about in that day that a great panic from the Lord will fall on them; and they will seize one another's hand, and the hand of one will be lifted against the hand of another.
NASB

Truly, all these things will come to past; for this is how this age will end upon Christ's return. The first time he came, the Prince of Peace came lowly and humble and in peace; but the second time comes, he'll come as a majestic, glorious, all-powerful conquering King making war upon his enemies and the enemies of Israel. All the peoples of the earth will drink from the cup of His fierce wrath.

[elysiantraveller]

There was a reason why Reagan held that power. He couldn't fire striking workers at the Nabisco factory. The point was that you brought up Reagan as being kind of a pro-union guy when I saw no sign of that during his Presidency and his action towards the air traffic controllers was the strongest action towards a union that I recall a President making.

I'd suggest there is a sweet spot between no taxes and high taxes. You act as though total free trade is the only way that is "right" when our trading partners don't have total free trade with us. You keep saying Trump is an idiot on the matter, and no offense to you, but I don't know what expertise you can claim over Trump and his advisors. Frankly, Trump seems to be landing on the right decisions so I'd quit knocking him, see what he does, then see how it works out.

By the way, who cares if we have to pay 20 cents more for the cheap crap at the Dollar Store produced by China? There's no law that says higher prices are always bad. There is good and bad to low prices and high prices. One always has to find the sweet spot.

Literally ever major economist and capitalist disagrees. Key figures in Trumps own administration openly disagree with him. His campaign admitted it would hurt the American consumer.

You talk about free trade but then complain about a trade deficit so which is it? You don't get to fix both.

Apparently you are of the opinion the American consumer is too stupid to know goods he or she shouldn't buy... and I get called the liberal on here...:lol:

[Clocker]

The point was that you brought up Reagan as being kind of a pro-union guy when I saw no sign of that during his Presidency and his action towards the air traffic controllers was the strongest action towards a union that I recall a President making.



I was talking about administrative experience. As head of the actor's union, Reagan was an effective leader. As president, he was effective in enforcing laws about unions.


By the way, who cares if we have to pay 20 cents more for the cheap crap at the Dollar Store produced by China? There's no law that says higher prices are always bad. There is good and bad to low prices and high prices. One always has to find the sweet spot.We aren't talking about 20 cents here or a dollar there. By the estimates of Trump's own campaign, we are talking about a 10-15% increase in the total cost of living of the average American worker.

It is not the president's job to find the "sweet spot" in prices. All evidence shows that the free market does that much more efficiently than the bureaucrats in Washington.

[elysiantraveller]

I'd suggest there is a sweet spot between no taxes and high taxes. You act as though total free trade is the only way that is "right" when our trading partners don't have total free trade with us. You keep saying Trump is an idiot on the matter, and no offense to you, but I don't know what expertise you can claim over Trump and his advisors. Frankly, Trump seems to be landing on the right decisions so I'd quit knocking him, see what he does, then see how it works out.

I totally agree with the bolded. The less Trump does that he campaigned on and you people voted for the better. A real objective look at his first year would show he has failed on a lot of his campaign promises, tariffs, ACA (not happy about this one), the wall while having some success in other issues, tax reform, dreamer act, Russian Sanctions. I can live with that.

[Fager Fan]

Literally ever major economist and capitalist disagrees. Key figures in Trumps own administration openly disagree with him. His campaign admitted it would hurt the American consumer.

You talk about free trade but then complain about a trade deficit so which is it? You don't get to fix both.

Apparently you are of the opinion the American consumer is too stupid to know goods he or she shouldn't buy... and I get called the liberal on here...:lol:

I didn't say a word about a trade deficit, and the rest of your post makes no sense whatsoever. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

[Fager Fan]

I was talking about administrative experience. As head of the actor's union, Reagan was an effective leader. As president, he was effective in enforcing laws about unions.

We aren't talking about 20 cents here or a dollar there. By the estimates of Trump's own campaign, we are talking about a 10-15% increase in the total cost of living of the average American worker.

It is not the president's job to find the "sweet spot" in prices. All evidence shows that the free market does that much more efficiently than the bureaucrats in Washington.

Sure it's his job to find the sweet spot. The free market doesn't make the decision on which countries tax which goods and by what amount.

You give too much credit for what's made in China. Most of it is stuff we can live without. It sure wouldn't raise the total cost of living 10-15%. And remember that there is always good and bad when talking of costs. The bad would be an increase to consumers, the good would be the money raised through the tariffs, for example.

[elysiantraveller]

I didn't say a word about a trade deficit, and the rest of your post makes no sense whatsoever. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

What part of the first paragraph do you not get. Nobody but Trump and his supporters think Tariffs are smart. Go read Wealth of Nations.

Second paragraph the whole MAGA thing is bringing back jobs that were lost to automation to increase American manufacturing and cut into the trade deficit.

Finally, tariffs take choices away from you the American consumer with your flippant 20 cents more here a dollar there phrase. No. I want to buy what I want at a price the market determines is fair... not a politician.

[Fager Fan]

What part of the first paragraph do you not get. Nobody but Trump and his supporters think Tariffs are smart. Go read Wealth of Nations.

Second paragraph the whole MAGA thing is bringing back jobs that were lost to automation to increase American manufacturing and cut into the trade deficit.

Finally, tariffs take choices away from you the American consumer with your flippant 20 cents more here a dollar there phrase. No. I want to buy what I want at a price the market determines is fair... not a politician.

Shew, you still don't get it. They're able to price their cheap crap cheaper than our manufacturers of cheap crap due in part to taxes, not what the free market decided was a fair price.

[elysiantraveller]

Shew, you still don't get it. They're able to price their cheap crap cheaper than our manufacturers of cheap crap due in part to taxes, not what the free market decided was a fair price.

Proof?

Mexico has a VAT it's the primary revenue stream of the government. All Mexican goods are subject to the VAT. Mexico is still able to manufacture cars and automotive industry products cheaper than us IN SPITE of their taxes not because of them.

They make something... slap a 16% tax on it... and still produce a good cheaper there than we can here.

[Clocker]

Sure it's his job to find the sweet spot.


Where does it say that in the Constitution?

The free market doesn't make the decision on which countries tax which goods and by what amount.Where does it say in the Constitution that the president or the Congress can or should use taxes as a tool to decide winners and losers in the market?

[Fager Fan]

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

Where does it say in the Constitution that the president or the Congress can or should use taxes as a tool to decide winners and losers in the market?

Are you kidding? This is getting ridiculous. You know governments tax all sorts of things apparently with authority. In this case, fair trade among countries, along with doing what's best for this country, isn't just in the fed gov's scope but what it should do.

[Fager Fan]

Proof?

Mexico has a VAT it's the primary revenue stream of the government. All Mexican goods are subject to the VAT. Mexico is still able to manufacture cars and automotive industry products cheaper than us IN SPITE of their taxes not because of them.

They make something... slap a 16% tax on it... and still produce a good cheaper there than we can here.

Ah, yes, times are good for the Mexican workers, which is why none want to come here.

[Clocker]

Are you kidding? This is getting ridiculous. You know governments tax all sorts of things apparently with authority.

The government does a lot of things without authority, because no one has the power to stop them. That doesn't make it right, or in the best interest of the people.

Where is the federal government given authority to determine winners and losers in the market? Why are the most heavily regulated markets (like health care) the most expensive? Why are the least regulated markets (like retail such as WalMart or Amazon) the most competitive and the least expensive?

In this case, fair trade among countries, along with doing what's best for this country, isn't just in the fed gov's scope but what it should do.Who gets to define "fair trade"? What's fair to you might not be fair to me. Look at what Congress has been doing just this year. You want those guys determining what's fair? How would you like the feds to get into horse racing and make sure all the outcomes are fair?

[elysiantraveller]

Ah, yes, times are good for the Mexican workers, which is why none want to come here.

Another redirect.

How do tariffs benefit the average American? Clocker has said why they don't . I've said why they don't. Adam Smith says why they don't.

Stop being a fanboy and discuss the issue. How are tariffs good?

How are less choices at the store good?

How is paying more for something good?

[woodtoo]

How are less choices at the store good?

How is paying more for something good?

It is much easier and faster to decide what you want with less choices.

If you pay 10% more for American made products you are helping other Americans.

I don't buy cheap Chinese if possible to support any country more deserving
plus it is usually a waste of time and money.

MAGA buy American when possible.

Have you ever tried to get your warranty covered on a Chinese product? Doesn't happen unless you go thru Amazon or equivalent .

[elysiantraveller]

It is much easier and faster to decide what you want with less choices.

If you pay 10% more for American made products you are helping other Americans.

I don't buy cheap Chinese if possible to support any country more deserving
plus it is usually a waste of time and money.

MAGA buy American when possible.

Have you ever tried to get your warranty covered on a Chinese product? Doesn't happen unless you go thru Amazon or equivalent .

The issue here is choice over being forced. I'm sure you were all for the tax on large sodas in N.Y. too right? Fights obesity lowers healthcare costs for everyone right?

Spending more for the sake of helping Americans doesn't help them in the long run. Every study and economist would disagree with as it puts them at a major competitive disadvantage in the long run.

I can't believe Donald Trump has turned the small government free market capitalists into... this...

[Tom]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller View Post
How are less choices at the store good?

How is paying more for something good?

When it means you are supporting American jobs.
How is our having more choices and lesser prices good when we now have next to nothing in terms of American manufacturing left?

[Clocker]

When it means you are supporting American jobs.
How is our having more choices and lesser prices good when we now have next to nothing in terms of American manufacturing left?

The majority of lost manufacturing jobs in this country were due to automation. I read recently that Adidas is moving a lot of its shoe manufacturing back from Asia into fully automated plants in Germany and the US.

[Fager Fan]

The government does a lot of things without authority, because no one has the power to stop them. That doesn't make it right, or in the best interest of the people.

Where is the federal government given authority to determine winners and losers in the market? Why are the most heavily regulated markets (like health care) the most expensive? Why are the least regulated markets (like retail such as WalMart or Amazon) the most competitive and the least expensive?

Who gets to define "fair trade"? What's fair to you might not be fair to me. Look at what Congress has been doing just this year. You want those guys determining what's fair? How would you like the feds to get into horse racing and make sure all the outcomes are fair?

Do you mean like cigarettes, soft drinks, gasoline, property, and the list goes on anon? This is the least "pick the winners "kind of tax when it is a tax For all which come into this country. And fair shouldn't be too difficult to figure out why not hire her imports taxed and what bar are exports taxed?

[elysiantraveller]

When it means you are supporting American jobs.
How is our having more choices and lesser prices good when we now have next to nothing in terms of American manufacturing left?

Because we can't compete globally in manufacturing anymore!

80% of manufacturing job loss in this country was due to automation. No one really argues this fact. If you can't compete in a global market in a certain sector it's time to get out of that sector.

You are supporting dead end jobs that will eventually be lost to market forces. While putting them at a competitive disadvantage in the future should they decide to stay in. You boost inflation. And you raise the cost of living.

Businesses want to save money. Consumers want access to cheap goods. And supply and demand dictate price...

How can you claim to be a small government conservative capitalist and have a problem with the above three sentences?

[elysiantraveller]

Dammit, I should have voted for Harambe too. Why didn't I think of that?

It felt good... real good.

[Tom]

Well, mold making has been destroyed by China.
We have very few good mold makers left here. It is a job that takes a long time to learn and apprentice-ships don't happen overnight.

They do a mold for so much less that we can.
And from my experience, turn out junk.

Every tool we ever got from China needed work to make them functional.

If we are not competitive, then we damn sure need to get competitive.
Manufacturing provides us strength and value-added jobs. Real jobs.

No one is going to be able to work, raise a family and provide for their retirement on McJobs.

[elysiantraveller]

Well, mold making has been destroyed by China.
We have very few good mold makers left here. It is a job that takes a long time to learn and apprentice-ships don't happen overnight.

They do a mold for so much less that we can.
And from my experience, turn out junk.

Every tool we ever got from China needed work to make them functional.

If we are not competitive, then we damn sure need to get competitive.
Manufacturing provides us strength and value-added jobs. Real jobs.

No one is going to be able to work, raise a family and provide for their retirement on McJobs.

You're right...

And they aren't going to growing tobacco or trapping fur (18th century US), not making textiles (19th Century US) or automobiles (20th century US) now we go on to a new economy with new sectors to get good at.

You don't get competitive by walling yourself off from the competition. You get babied, lulled into a false sense of security, treated with kid gloves and then.... BOOM! The real world kicks the shit out of you... That's what tariffs do.

But I digress how great would it be if we made a bunch of expensive shit the rest of the world didn't want because they could buy it cheaper from someone else... bring back the looms I say!

[Fager Fan]

The issue here is choice over being forced. I'm sure you were all for the tax on large sodas in N.Y. too right? Fights obesity lowers healthcare costs for everyone right?

Spending more for the sake of helping Americans doesn't help them in the long run. Every study and economist would disagree with as it puts them at a major competitive disadvantage in the long run.

I can't believe Donald Trump has turned the small government free market capitalists into... this...

No, I wasn't at all for the tax on sodas. Talk apples and apples, would you?

How do you not understand that we have a problem when we manufacture American cars but can't sell them in China because by the time they double the price on the car with all their taxes, no one in China can afford to buy it?

But what do we charge for a tax on a Chinese car? Only about 5%. That's a huge difference, and why you and Clocker can't go around yelling about free markets and no taxes when THAT AIN'T HAPPENING. If China was charging the same amount of taxes on our exports that we charge on Chinese imports, then you'd have a point, but that ain't happening and isn't going to happen, so why do you even keep talking about it? This is about establishing a fair playing field. I won't criticize China if they can still manufacture an item for cheaper (unless we want to get into the whole issue of sweat shops and mistreatment of workers, which isn't irrelevant to this discussion) due to our unions and other benefits and wages we pay our workers, but I do expect equal taxation.

[elysiantraveller]

No, I wasn't at all for the tax on sodas. Talk apples and apples, would you?

How do you not understand that we have a problem when we manufacture American cars but can't sell them in China because by the time they double the price on the car with all their taxes, no one in China can afford to buy it?

But what do we charge for a tax on a Chinese car? Only about 5%. That's a huge difference, and why you and Clocker can't go around yelling about free markets and no taxes when THAT AIN'T HAPPENING. If China was charging the same amount of taxes on our exports that we charge on Chinese imports, then you'd have a point, but that ain't happening and isn't going to happen, so why do you even keep talking about it? This is about establishing a fair playing field. I won't criticize China if they can still manufacture an item for cheaper (unless we want to get into the whole issue of sweat shops and mistreatment of workers, which isn't irrelevant to this discussion) due to our unions and other benefits and wages we pay our workers, but I do expect equal taxation.

Source or is this just made up...?

This isn't...

GM Delivers September Record 366,305 Vehicles in China
SHANGHAI – General Motors and its joint ventures in China achieved their highest September sales ever, with deliveries rising 6.6 percent on an annual basis to 366,305 vehicles. (http://www.gm.com/mol/m-2017-October-1011_sales.html)

[Show Me the Wire]

Source or is this just made up...?

This isn't...

GM Delivers September Record 366,305 Vehicles in China
SHANGHAI – General Motors and its joint ventures in China achieved their highest September sales ever, with deliveries rising 6.6 percent on an annual basis to 366,305 vehicles. (http://www.gm.com/mol/m-2017-October-1011_sales.html)

Someone a well-versed as you on trade should already know the answer to the question you asked. The answer is China imposes a 21% to 30% tariff on imported cars.

The article you cited refers to cars that are produced in China by Chinese workers (i.e. joint venture) not imported cars.

[Clocker]

but I do expect equal taxation.

Why? We tax the hell out of Chinese steel, but it is still cheaper than American made. So who pays that tax in the end? American consumers and businesses. And who gets the tax revenue? Uncle Sam.

It is not a tax on the Chinese, it is a tax by the US government on American citizens, because the politicians think that they know better than the people what is good for them. And they may be right, since the voters keep sending the same political hacks back to Washington.

[Show Me the Wire]

Why? We tax the hell out of Chinese steel, but it is still cheaper than American made. So who pays that tax in the end? American consumers and businesses. And who gets the tax revenue? Uncle Sam.

It is not a tax on the Chinese, it is a tax by the US government on American citizens, because the politicians think that they know better than the people what is good for them. And they may be right, since the voters keep sending the same political hacks back to Washington.

In this specific instance the tariff is ineffective and fails because it is too low. When a tariff is too low it effectively is a tax on the final consumer.

elysiantraveller's cited article demonstrates the effectiveness of a properly applied tariff. China's tariff achieves the desired effect. Manufacturers move production to the tariff imposing country, creating capital investment, jobs and tax to the government.

China's use of tariffs proves the effectiveness of tariffs in creating economic growth for the taxing country.

[Clocker]

In this specific instance the tariff is ineffective and fails because it is too low. When a tariff is too low it effectively is a tax on the final consumer.



And if a higher tariff drives China out of the US steel market and Americans then have no choice but American-made steel at a price much higher than they were paying China, how does that help the final consumer? Driving China out of the market is effectively the same as a tax on the final consumer.

[Show Me the Wire]

And if a higher tariff drives China out of the US steel market and Americans then have no choice but American-made steel at a price much higher than they were paying China, how does that help the final consumer? Driving China out of the market is effectively the same as a tax on the final consumer.

If China wants to sell steel in America, it will move manufacturing here, as GM moved its manufacturing to China, creating capital investment, employment and tax revenues.

China is the example of the benefits of a properly constructed tariff policy.

[Clocker]

If China wants to sell steel in America, it will move manufacturing here, as GM moved its manufacturing to China, creating capital investment, employment and tax revenues.


No they wouldn't move here, because the costs of labor, health insurance, regulatory compliance, pollution control, etc., are too high here. It would take them years just to get the permits before they could even break ground.

If Chinese steel was taxed out of the US market, Chinese companies would move elsewhere in the region that don't face such punitive US tariffs, like Vietnam.

[elysiantraveller]

China is the example of the benefits of a properly constructed tariff policy.

:lol::lol::lol:

You're going to use China as the poster child of beneficial tariff policy helping the population when the average income is $5k a year and they have a larger income inequality problem than we do!

:lol::lol::lol:

Is the goal to help the people or the oligarchs or this case party?

[elysiantraveller]

No they wouldn't move here, because the costs of labor, health insurance, regulatory compliance, pollution control, etc., are too high here. It would take them years just to get the permits before they could even break ground.

If Chinese steel was taxed out of the US market, Chinese companies would move elsewhere in the region that don't face such punitive US tariffs, like Vietnam.

Yup, and they will just sell to other markets as the price of steel increases.

Meanwhile we still pay more.

Capitalism is always on the move.

[Show Me the Wire]

No they wouldn't move here, because the costs of labor, health insurance, regulatory compliance, pollution control, etc., are too high here. It would take them years just to get the permits before they could even break ground.

If Chinese steel was taxed out of the US market, Chinese companies would move elsewhere in the region that don't face such punitive US tariffs, like Vietnam.

Bingo. Exactly why there is no fair trade. Other countries do not have the regulations we impose on our manufacturers, thus there is no such animal as free trade.

[Show Me the Wire]

:lol::lol::lol:

You're going to use China as the poster child of beneficial tariff policy helping the population when the average income is $5k a year and they have a larger income inequality problem than we do!

:lol::lol::lol:

Is the goal to help the people or the oligarchs or this case party?

As far as a properly used tariff system. We are discussing tariffs are we not?

If you want to talk about quality of economic life fine. What is the economic and social cost to American society for unemployment, which arises from so-called free trade?

[elysiantraveller]

As far as a properly used tariff system. We are discussing tariffs are we not?

If you want to talk about quality of economic life fine. What is the economic and social cost to American society for unemployment, which arises from so-called free trade?

:bang:

What unemployment? 4% right now. Natural unemployment.

The argument for tariffs is the argument for a bygone era that isn't coming back.

What net benefit do tariffs provide the average American?

[Clocker]

there is no such animal as free trade.
But some animals are freer than others. Contrary to a lot of "common sense", the correct policy in dealing with a country like China is not to match their trade restrictions, but to have freer trade policies than they do.

Tariffs on imports such as Chinese steel or Canadian lumber benefit special interests in this country at the expense of the general public, the American consumer. The more that consumers must spend on Chinese steel or Canadian lumber, the less they have to spend on other products and services. The more that consumers must spend on American steel or lumber because of lack of foreign competition, the less they have to spend on other products and services.

Why shouldn't Americans buy those less expensive imports, leaving them with more disposal income to spend on other American products and services? More disposable income helps the American economy. Paying more for products, foreign or domestic, because of high tariffs hurts the economy.

[zico20]

But some animals are freer than others. Contrary to a lot of "common sense", the correct policy in dealing with a country like China is not to match their trade restrictions, but to have freer trade policies than they do.

Tariffs on imports such as Chinese steel or Canadian lumber benefit special interests in this country at the expense of the general public, the American consumer. The more that consumers must spend on Chinese steel or Canadian lumber, the less they have to spend on other products and services. The more that consumers must spend on American steel or lumber because of lack of foreign competition, the less they have to spend on other products and services.

Why shouldn't Americans buy those less expensive imports, leaving them with more disposal income to spend on other American products and services? More disposable income helps the American economy. Paying more for products, foreign or domestic, because of high tariffs hurts the economy.

The liberals on here are not going to be happy with you for that comment. Don't you know the way to prosperity is through taking as much money from the American people as possible, including the middle class. Don't believe me, Mostie will be along to set you straight. :lol:

[Show Me the Wire]

But some animals are freer than others. Contrary to a lot of "common sense", the correct policy in dealing with a country like China is not to match their trade restrictions, but to have freer trade policies than they do.

Tariffs on imports such as Chinese steel or Canadian lumber benefit special interests in this country at the expense of the general public, the American consumer. The more that consumers must spend on Chinese steel or Canadian lumber, the less they have to spend on other products and services. The more that consumers must spend on American steel or lumber because of lack of foreign competition, the less they have to spend on other products and services.

Why shouldn't Americans buy those less expensive imports, leaving them with more disposal income to spend on other American products and services? More disposable income helps the American economy. Paying more for products, foreign or domestic, because of high tariffs hurts the economy.

I have not made any argument about an economic policy responding to China's use of tariffs.

Again, elysiantraveller's cited article demonstrated the benefits of a properly applied tariff policy. China's tariff policy caused the foreign company/manufacturer to invest capital, create jobs and generate tax revenue for the tariff imposing country. As an aside the Chinese obtain new technologies, because the foreign investor/manufacturer must form a joint venture with China as a partner.

[Clocker]

The liberals on here are not going to be happy with you for that comment. Don't you know the way to prosperity is through taking as much money from the American people as possible, including the middle class. Don't believe me, Mostie will be along to set you straight. :lol:

Ah, yes, got to protect those union jobs in the steel mills.

The other side of that coin, not much discussed, is that the lower the cost of basic materials like steel or lumber, the more likely that American businesses that use those materials as inputs can keep their prices down and keep the demand for their products up. Let the market decide if we need more lumberjacks or more carpenters.

[Show Me the Wire]

:bang:

What unemployment? 4% right now. Natural unemployment.

The argument for tariffs is the argument for a bygone era that isn't coming back.

What net benefit do tariffs provide the average American?

Can't deal with the actual facts that trump your theory about tariffs? I have to ask, as another poster observed, have you been correct about anything you opine?

[Clocker]

As an aside the Chinese obtain new technologies, because the foreign investor/manufacturer must form a joint venture with China as a partner.

Yes, the cost of entry into a closed economy. How many of those joint venture folks on the Chinese side are highly connected in the party?

[elysiantraveller]

Can't deal with the actual facts that trump your theory about tariffs? I have to ask, as another poster observed, have you been correct about anything you opine?

What facts?

http://freedomandprosperity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/China-Tariff-Rates.jpg

http://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/images/reports/2013/04/bg2792/chart-2big.jpg

The argument is that tariffs hurt consumers.

You haven't refuted that instead you point to China a proper use of tariffs. I fail to see the tangible benefit to the consumers. I see the benefit to the party and oligarchy.

Pick up your Adam Smith.

[Show Me the Wire]

Yes, the cost of entry into a closed economy. How many of those joint venture folks on the Chinese side are highly connected in the party?

I am sure all of them, since the Chinese military is the real partner.

[Show Me the Wire]

What facts?

The argument is that tariffs hurt consumers.

You haven't refuted that instead you point to China a proper use of tariffs. I fail to see the tangible benefit to the consumers. I see the benefit to the party and oligarchy.

The Trump model and the Chinese model are not sustainable. Pick up your Adam Smith.

Times are vastly different than the 1700's. You are right there is no benefit to the consumers via capital investment, jobs and tax revenues.:faint:

[elysiantraveller]

Times are vastly different than the 1700's. You are right there is no benefit to the consumers via capital investment, jobs and tax revenues.:faint:

And you're wrong confusing trade policy with corporate investment in emerging markets.

Couldn't possibly be the natural resources on site, the extremely cheap labor, and a market of 1.2 Billion people.

Nope it's the tariffs.

[Show Me the Wire]

And you're wrong confusing trade policy with corporate investment in emerging markets.

Couldn't possibly be the natural resources on site, the extremely cheap labor, and a market of 1.2 Billion people.

Nope it's the tariffs.

Or it could be the exemption from high tariffs coupled with VAT and other taxes which would increase the product price by 50%.

BTW Hamilton who actually put our financial system together favored tariffs, protective tariffs..

[Tom]

If China wants to sell steel in America, it will move manufacturing here, as GM moved its manufacturing to China, creating capital investment, employment and tax revenues.

China is the example of the benefits of a properly constructed tariff policy.

As Toyota, Honda, Subaru and others have done - build factories here, creating jobs at the assembly plants, jobs at a vast number of US based suppliers, transportation, etc. Value added. When they build a car here, we get a lot more than a car in return. When they shop one here, we get a car.

[Clocker]

BTW Hamilton who actually put our financial system together favored tariffs, protective tariffs..
Hamilton was killed in a duel by Aaron Burr, a notorious free trader. :rip:

[Tom]

We needed tighter gun control laws! :coffee:

[elysiantraveller]

Or it could be the exemption from high tariffs coupled with VAT and other taxes which would increase the product price by 50%.

BTW Hamilton who actually put our financial system together favored tariffs, protective tariffs..

It could.

But the more likely reason(s) are the ones I mentioned. Its a booming market and proximity means less cost as well as cheap labor. Its the exact same reason Japanese and European auto manufacturers are coming here. It has nothing to do with tariffs.

As far as China they have slashed their tariffs over the past few decades. Emerging markets trigger investment and they have been much smarter than the Russians after perestroika and the fleecing they took.

China is more open now that ten years ago. Twenty. Ect.

As far as Hamilton tariffs were used as the main revenue stream for nation's at the time so it's hardly unusual. Income taxes as we know them didn't even exist yet. We aren't talking about a balance sheet though we are discussing punitive tariffs.

[fast4522]

Here ya go bud...

It was all R after that...

Tons of those images are on the internet, everything Obama did is being undone and giving you gas. Obviously I am part of the President's base, how I see it he is making all the right moves. Your angst in 2018 is almost certainly to grow five fold, the President is just getting started. Much of the good cop / bad cop at the state department is for one man. You have fun with it as far as it has legs, we will both get up one day to hear on the news that it is over in NK. However that happens on the news it will be just one bump in the road. You will have plenty of material to go on with, just do not expect agreement.

[Show Me the Wire]

It could.

But the more likely reason(s) are the ones I mentioned. Its a booming market and proximity means less cost as well as cheap labor. Its the exact same reason Japanese and European auto manufacturers are coming here. It has nothing to do with tariffs.

As far as China they have slashed their tariffs over the past few decades. Emerging markets trigger investment and they have been much smarter than the Russians after perestroika and the fleecing they took.

China is more open now that ten years ago. Twenty. Ect.

As far as Hamilton tariffs were used as the main revenue stream for nation's at the time so it's hardly unusual. Income taxes as we know them didn't even exist yet. We aren't talking about a balance sheet though we are discussing punitive tariffs.

He was in favor of protective tariffs too. He believed protective tariffs would encourage domestic industry. This discussion over protective tariffs has been ongoing since the formation of the U.S. I am confident the debate will continue for centuries to come.

[Show Me the Wire]

But some animals are freer than others. Contrary to a lot of "common sense", the correct policy in dealing with a country like China is not to match their trade restrictions, but to have freer trade policies than they do.



Actually, Congress and Trump responded accurately with the Tax Cut Act. China is already panicking and offering companies no taxes on income the company reinvests back into China. I wonder how many companies will opt to have to reinvest its earnings in China to avoid taxation?

[boxcar]

I am confident the debate will continue for centuries to come.

Such optimism is a rare find. :coffee: