- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/14/18 at 11:42 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
you are the only person making caricatures here
oh good grief. over the last few weeks, knuckleheads like you have been attacking tariff advocates as
1. wanting them permanently
2. also wanting permanent subsidies
yet, i have asked for someone to produce a quote as saying this is the case. crickets
quote:whatever mr duck
you, OTOH, are out to lunch
Posted on 8/14/18 at 11:44 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Read what you responded to again
Sweet jesus man. Where in what I posted even remotely suggested that businesses make money from taxes?
quote:
US manufacturers aren't benefiting from this - the federal government is.
2 false statements.
1- US Manufacturers will and do benefit from it. They increase output and people buy it from the US Steel mills.
2- Federal gov makes more from increased sales tax on the new production from steel mills
quote:
The tax doesn't go to manufacturers. The point was the money goes to the gubment
And My point is NO... not all monies will go to Gov. I didn't say just taxes. I laid out clearly how the businesses will benefit and the gov.
Posted on 8/14/18 at 11:46 am to bfniii
quote:
over the last few weeks, knuckleheads like you have been attacking tariff advocates as
1. wanting them permanently
2. also wanting permanent subsidies
if you have a particular point of mine you would like to respond to, please do so in the appropriate place. otherwise, i can't really answer what you accuse some nebulous group of knuckleheads of supposedly saying somewhere
quote:
mr duck
you might notice that the post you link has a response, from me. the substantive argument there is not addressed by you, ever. instead you appeal to articles that also do not prove what you claim.
Posted on 8/14/18 at 11:46 am to bfniii
quote:
there's no need for a wall
yet, these experts are saying the opposite.
quote:Sounds like they agree with Shrub. Simply enforcing existing laws would accomplish the same thing.
"Operational control means our ability to detect, deter and deny illegal entry, maintain situational awareness and provide the appropriate law enforcement response."
quote:
And these experts
quote:They sound skeptical, too.
“The problem arises when you secure one area, you push traffic to another,” Moran said, citing a Border Patrol program called Operation Gatekeeper that blocked entry to much of the San Diego area.
“We didn’t think they would go through the mountains. We didn’t think they would go through the deserts. But they did,” Moran said. “The smugglers really didn’t seem to care.”
This post was edited on 8/14/18 at 11:53 am
Posted on 8/14/18 at 11:47 am to Jjdoc
quote:
2 false statements.
1- US Manufacturers will and do benefit from it. They increase output and people buy it from the US Steel mills.
steel/aluminum manufacturers are a tiny subset of US manufacturing, and the subset of users of their product is far larger
there's no way us manufacturers come close to benefiting on net. the protected little group though, sure
Posted on 8/14/18 at 11:57 am to bfniii
quote:
explain how you get this from his comment
Sure.
If you justify tariffs as a tool to get another country to change their trade practices then you can drop those tariffs as the other country changes their practices. That is, they are temporary (at least in theory).
If we need tariffs to protect our domestic steel industry, that doesn't go away in the future. If you justify something based on protecting an industry that is vital to the nation, then you are arguing for a permanent solution. As an example, farm subsidies. The argument is made that we need "food stability" therefore we need to protect our domestic agricultural industry via subsidies. That isn't temporary.
Posted on 8/14/18 at 11:57 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
teel/aluminum manufacturers are a tiny subset of US manufacturing, and the subset of users of their product is far larger there's no way us manufacturers come close to benefiting on net. the protected little group though, sure
As production increases yes, it will.
Posted on 8/14/18 at 11:59 am to Jjdoc
quote:
As production increases yes, it will.
nope, the whole time our giant group of steel/aluminum users will be being robbed of the opportunity to take advantage of cheaper input options, and our steel producers will have no incentive to do anything with the price other than keep it high. otherwise the tariffs would have no effect
Posted on 8/14/18 at 12:01 pm to Northwestern tiger
What about the $12 billion in subsidies that are going to be paid to farmers as a result of these tariffs?
Posted on 8/14/18 at 12:03 pm to TigerSaintCubSox
quote:
What about the $12 billion in subsidies that are going to be paid to farmers as a result of these tariffs?
devastating first post. op DONE.
Posted on 8/14/18 at 2:12 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:yeah, nice try
you might notice that the post you link has a response, from me. the substantive argument there is not addressed by you, ever.
Posted on 8/14/18 at 2:15 pm to TX Tiger
quote:
Sounds like they agree with Shrub
did you even read the headline of the second article? no? ok, i'll quote it "vital tool"
Posted on 8/14/18 at 2:17 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:oh good grief. this has already been addressed.
devastating first post. op DONE.
90 with the GOTCHA.
Posted on 8/14/18 at 2:19 pm to Northwestern tiger
Maybe we can use that money to build the wall...But wait, the wall just got more expensive
Posted on 8/14/18 at 2:21 pm to TigerSaintCubSox
quote:
What about the $12 billion in subsidies that are going to be paid to farmers as a result of these tariffs?
Trumpkins no care about monies. He's not a fiscal conservative and they know it. All aboard the deficit train to $1 trillion! Choo choo
Posted on 8/14/18 at 2:21 pm to BigJim
quote:there was nothing in his comment that suggested this. you read into it. plus, the point is just wrong altogether. just because the industry persists doesn't mean the tariff has to. once trade becomes more equal, and it already is, then the tariffs can drop. everybody wins.
If we need tariffs to protect our domestic steel industry, that doesn't go away in the future.
so again, caricature. as usual
quote:as i have been saying, i have not seen one person who is for permanent subsidies. i have asked for a quote showing that and i get either crickets or strawmen like yours.
The argument is made that we need "food stability" therefore we need to protect our domestic agricultural industry via subsidies. That isn't temporary.
and yes, subsidies can be temporary just like the tariffs.
Posted on 8/14/18 at 2:31 pm to bfniii
quote:
yeah, nice try
uh, thanks for linking proof that you never even tried to address the substantive argument.
Posted on 8/14/18 at 2:33 pm to bfniii
quote:
oh good grief. this has already been addressed.
it has? so where did you (or someone whose argument you endorse) "address" the magnitude of the subsidy in relation to the magnitude of the money the "US reaps"?
Posted on 8/14/18 at 2:34 pm to bfniii
quote:
once trade becomes more equal, and it already is,
huh?
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News