Jump to content

Trump's Trade War

F250

By F250
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Naaah. Evil wins, because evil fights dirty.

The rule of law - pretty essential if you want to do “good” long-term - is an illusion. It is only as viable as the willingness of those in power to follow it. And they ain’t. They revel in their abuses, they laugh at your lib tears.

Evil wins because it is willing to hold, chop block, and gouge your eyes, and they just ignore the ref. Good only wins when it gets down in the mud with evil and fights just as dirty...at which point, it’s no longer good. Heads evil wins, tails decency and humanity lose.

Those are the rules. They have been written in stone since we stared writing WITH stones.

Evil still loses in the end, but not to good, just more evil.  

Because evil is inherently self destructive and a big reason we’re so good at killing each other. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Ted Lange
Ted Lange

Now let’s imagine a world where China decides to dump several hundreds of millions of dollars into a campaign to elect a democrat.  And that Democrat openly screams for Beijing’s support.  And uses in

Mojo Hand
Mojo Hand

Looks like Elkhart County went for Trump 64-32 over Hillary in 2016, so fuck 'em.  Enjoy the tariffs you voted for! 

Chooky
Chooky

Apparently China didn't heed the stark example of what happens to those in a battle of financial wit between Donald Trump and Dennis Rodman. Ask Clint Black or Gene Simmons what happens. Go ahead and

retread

retread 2951

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, achooloco said:

This is true. Life means we aren’t perfect. There are too many people who suffered under real oppression to let that shit happen here. You welcome all the refugees of oppression and freedom fighters, guess what? They’ll fight you for freedom here. 

That's the most moronic point of all. Many of the immigrants trying to come to America want to contribute, to live their lives, and to make America stronger. We put them in internment camps under the most deplorable conditions.

The 40% huddle in their homes afraid of the hordes of MS-13 standing outside their back door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29174

Posted
Posted

i'm assuming this was posted on a different thread, but i missed this story yesterday - that sunlight helped some photographs make his "secret" agreement partially readable.

https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/photographer-reveals-part-of-trumps-secret-agreement-with-mexico-with-a-close-up-shot/

Obviously, it’s hard to be confident about the full context of the agreement unless we can see it in full. But the last paragraph described here is particularly vague and unimpressive. It basically says that if Trump isn’t happy with the agreement after a month and a half, Mexico will try really hard to live up to the agreement. It’s essentially meaningless.

Perhaps the rest of the document has more substantive information, but the other sentences visible seems to suggest vague promises as well, such as Mexico committing to reviewing its laws and regulations “with a view to identifying any changes” … whatever that means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32318

Posted
Posted (edited)

Gee, never would have guessed this would happen:

 

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/trending/trade-war-aid-farms-got-more-than-max-amount-trump/article_a93bd707-4f2e-5ab5-b771-3cf57c586a92.html

 

Quote

When President Donald Trump's administration announced a $12 billion aid package for farmers struggling under the financial strain of his trade dispute with China, the payments were capped. But many large farming operations had no trouble finding legal ways around them, records provided to The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act show.

The government paid out nearly $2.8 million to a Missouri soybean-growing operation registered as three entities at the same address. More than $900,000 went to five other farm businesses, in Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee and two in Texas. Three other farming operations collected more than $800,000. Sixteen more collected over $700,000. And the data list more than 3,000 recipients who collected more than the $125,000 cap.

 

Quote

Recipients who spoke to AP defended the payouts, saying they didn't cover their losses from the trade war, and they were legally entitled to them. U.S. Department of Agriculture rules let farms file claims for multiple family members or other partners who meet the department's definition of being "actively engaged in farming."

But critics including U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican who has long fought for subsidy limits, say it's the latest example of how loopholes in federal farm subsidy programs allow large farms to collect far more than the supposed caps on that aid.

 

 

 

 

 

5d1c9ca213a6c.image.jpg?resize=1000,1507

 

Spoiler

Grassley said in a statement to AP that some of the nation's largest farms are receiving huge subsidies "through underhanded legal tricks. They're getting richer off the backs of taxpayers while young and beginning farmers are priced out of the profession. This needs to end. The Department of Agriculture needs to re-evaluate its rules for awarding federal funds and conduct more thorough oversight of where it's funneling taxpayer dollars."

USDA officials defended the program, saying they believe its rules are being followed and that the department has procedures in place to audit recipients.

About 83% of the aid under the Market Facilitation Program has gone to soybean farmers because they've suffered the most under China's retaliatory tariffs. The program sets a $125,000 cap in each of three categories of commodities: one for soybeans and other row crops, one for pork and dairy, and one for cherries and almonds. But each qualified family member or business partner gets their own $125,000 cap for each category. Farmers who produce both soybeans and hogs, for example, would have separate caps for each and could thus collect $250,000. But there are legal ways around those caps, and the data show that farmers are using them.

Data provided to AP from the USDA show that the biggest beneficiary has been the DeLine Farms Partnership and two similarly named partnerships registered at the same address in Charleston, Missouri, that collected nearly $2.8 million combined. They're led by Donald DeLine and his wife, Lisa DeLine. They referred calls to their attorney, Robert Serio of Clarendon, Arkansas, who said the three partnerships qualified legally and probably could have qualified for more if not for the caps. He said each partnership farms around 27,000 acres and is made up of eight or nine partners who all meet the "actively engaged" requirement.

USDA spokesman Dave Warner said in an email that the department couldn't comment on the specifics of the DeLines' operations but that such a large claim was likely audited to ensure eligibility, and that the agency had no reason to believe they didn't meet the requirements.

At Peterson Farms in Loretto, Kentucky, eight members of the family partnership collected a total $863,560 for crops they grow on over 15,000 acres in seven counties, including wheat and corn used at the nearby Maker's Mark bourbon distillery.

Co-owner Bernard Peterson said that it didn't make up for all their losses at a time when it was already hard to be profitable. The $1.65 per bushel aid payments for soybeans fell well short of losses he estimated at $2 to $2.50 per bushel, factoring in the loss of the Chinese market that took years to develop.

"It's a big number but there are a big number of people directly depending on the success of our operation in the community," he said. Peterson said the operation supports about 30 families year-round, and more at harvest time. "It's a lot more than just the owners of the company."

The numerous ways around the $125,000 caps mean that millions of subsidy dollars flow to "city slickers who are stretching the limits of the law," said Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, which has long tracked federal farm subsidy programs, and criticizes them as biased toward big producers and promote environmentally damaging farming practices. Urban dwellers might play only a small role in an operation without ever setting foot on the farm because of the loose definitions for who qualifies, he said.

More trade aid is on the way. The Trump administration in May announced a new $16 billion package for Round Two for 2019. But most details of how the new edition will be structured have yet to be released.

The USDA says it has spent only about $8.6 billion so far out of the $12 billion authorized. But Congress recently eased a rule that said a producer's average adjusted gross income could not exceed $900,000. That change will require the agency to reopen Round One to producers with higher incomes, as long as 75 percent or more of their income is derived from agriculture. And that will push spending closer to the $12 billion.

Matt Keller, a pork producer in Kenyon, Minnesota, who also grows crops to feed his livestock, said he "definitely appreciated" the $143,820 he collected from the program. It didn't cover all his losses but it helped with his cash flow, he said. He reached the $125,000 cap on his hogs, and the remaining money was for his soybeans and corn.

Keller said his wife and other family members are all involved in his operation, which produces about 29,000 pigs per year. He doesn't blame the trade wars for depressed hog prices, but he said the tariffs, piled on top of an already existing oversupply, make things even tougher for producers.

"It was kind of a relief, I guess, that we had a little support from the president and the country," Keller said.

 

Edited by Francisco 2.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gengs1

Gengs1 2583

Posted
Posted

I am sure those red states will accept that it may have been trump trade war that caused them to miss on selling their crops and they will contemplate their decisions to vote for him again.

 

who am I kidding, they’ll blame AOC for being a former bartender 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
SmokeyTheBear

SmokeyTheBear 5562

Posted
Posted

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/05/investing/dow-stock-market-today/index.html

Quote
The Chinese government devalued the yuan to fall below its 7-to-1 ratio with the US dollar for the first time in a decade Monday. A weaker currency could soften the blow the United States has dealt China with its tariffs.
The cheaper yuan ignited fear on Wall Street that the United States would respond with even higher tariffs, prolonging the standoff with China and potentially weakening the global economy. Investors are particularly concerned that the Trump administration could try to devalue the dollar, sparking a currency war that could weaken Americans' purchasing power.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Chooky

Chooky 13302

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Apparently China didn't heed the stark example of what happens to those in a battle of financial wit between Donald Trump and Dennis Rodman. Ask Clint Black or Gene Simmons what happens. Go ahead and ask Danny Bonoduce or Todd Bridges. Does China think they're smarter than Lou Ferrigno? They better tread lightly when going head to head with a guy who once owned Gary Busey and Bret Michael's from Poison in the same season. Ask Lil Jon or Jose Canseco or Cyndi Lauper what happens. Does China want a little of what Kloe Kardashian got? I think not. The global economy is in good, albeit tiny, hands. 

  • Like 9
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104557

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Chooky said:

Apparently China didn't heed the stark example of what happens to those in a battle of financial wit between Donald Trump and Dennis Rodman. Ask Clint Black or Gene Simmons what happens. Go ahead and ask Danny Bonoduce or Todd Bridges. Does China think they're smarter than Lou Ferrigno? They better tread lightly when going head to head with a guy who once owned Gary Busey and Bret Michael's from Poison in the same season. Ask Lil Jon or Jose Canseco or Cyndi Lauper what happens. Does China want a little of what Kloe Kardashian got? I think not. The global economy is in good, albeit tiny, hands. 

The fact that this is not satire......oh for fuck's sake.  We're fucking toast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chooky

Chooky 13302

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The fact that this is not satire......oh for fuck's sake.  We're fucking toast.

You're being dreary again. Did Tom Green give up? Did La Toya Jackson or Jesse James from the wildly popular motorcycle show give up? What would Meat Loaf or the midget who bounced around with Kid Rock do? They'd lose to Trump but they'd never give up. Do you honestly think China will succeed where Carnie Wilson and Eric Dickerson could not? We got this! 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104557

Posted
Posted
Just now, Chooky said:

You're being dreary again. Did Tom Green give up? Did La Toya Jackson or Jesse James from the wildly popular motorcycle show give up? What would Meat Loaf or the midget who bounced around with Kid Rock do? They'd lose to Trump but they'd never give up. Do you honestly think China will succeed where Carnie Wilson and Eric Dickerson could not? We got this! 

I repped you only because we at least deserve to laugh as we plummet into Hell.  So, thanks for the chuckles.  Man, it's getting hot in this handbasket, though......

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chooky

Chooky 13302

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I repped you only because we at least deserve to laugh as we plummet into Hell.  So, thanks for the chuckles.  Man, it's getting hot in this handbasket, though......

I PM'd trump to tell him that you were fretting and getting nervous again. He said he has one word for you: Jonas Brothers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28680

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 8/1/2019 at 3:45 PM, Thrawn said:

Follow up question Mr. President.  Then who is paying for the tariffs?

Never quite seem to get those in though.  Furk.  

Or maybe ask, "Mr. President, could you explain what a tariff is?"

Then follow up with, "A tariff is an import tax paid by the importer and since U.S. companies are the importers, how is it that China is paying the tariffs?"

The media does a shit job of asking questions.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8348

Posted
Posted
On 8/1/2019 at 3:45 PM, Thrawn said:

Follow up question Mr. President.  Then who is paying for the tariffs?

Never quite seem to get those in though.  Furk.  

The problem is that the question is ambiguous.

There is a literal answer:  Importers pay the tariff on goods they import, that cost generally gets passed on to consumers

There is a also a big picture answer:  More expensive (imported) goods leads to less of them being imported (whether replaced by goods imported from somewhere else or produced domestically).  Less exported goods from the country targeted by the tariffs hurts them.  They "pay for it" in a bigger picture sense.

In reality though, trade wars lead to currency wars which leads to shooting wars (historically).  So, we all end up paying for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WBT

WBT 20415

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, bernorange said:

The problem is that the question is ambiguous.

There is a literal answer:  Importers pay the tariff on goods they import, that cost generally gets passed on to consumers

There is a also a big picture answer:  More expensive (imported) goods leads to less of them being imported (whether replaced by goods imported from somewhere else or produced domestically).  Less exported goods from the country targeted by the tariffs hurts them.  They "pay for it" in a bigger picture sense.

 In reality though, trade wars lead to currency wars which leads to shooting wars (historically).  So, we all end up paying for it.

I wish people would stick to more "tariffs are destructive and harm both importers and exporters" and less "herp derp, trump doesn't understand who pays!!1!"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34171

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, bernorange said:

The problem is that the question is ambiguous.

There is a literal answer:  Importers pay the tariff on goods they import, that cost generally gets passed on to consumers

There is a also a big picture answer:  More expensive (imported) goods leads to less of them being imported (whether replaced by goods imported from somewhere else or produced domestically).  Less exported goods from the country targeted by the tariffs hurts them.  They "pay for it" in a bigger picture sense.

In reality though, trade wars lead to currency wars which leads to shooting wars (historically).  So, we all end up paying for it.

part of that big picture step is that we either replace those goods with more expensive similar goods from elsewhere, or we forego those goods altogether, so, we also pay for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chooky

Chooky 13302

Posted
Posted

The longer the trade war goes on the more tariffs applied. Win win! We're making billions and billions! 

That goes completely unchallenged in front of cameras. I have no idea why. Fire is cold and water freezes at a rolling boil. What in the holy fuck is wrong with the press? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...