Trump's New Humanitarian Streak--Foreign Aid at Businesses Expense

[InTheLight]

In a series of tweets today President Trump laid out a new humanitarian aid policy that he says will benefit the United States and US farmers. Here's how he says it will work.

1. Apply a tariff of 25% to imported Chinese goods.

2. This will generate $100 billion for the US Treasury.

3. Use $15 billion of this newly found money and buy agricultural products from US farmers that are being hurt by retaliatory tariffs imposed by China on US agricultural products.

4. Take that $15 billion of agricultural products and ship them overseas to poor and starving countries.

5. With the $85 billion "left over" we could build infrastructure or finance health care or...whatever.

Take a look:



I can't be the only one to see the inherent problems with this approach, am I?

First off all, the tariffs would be new taxes. Secondly, he's proposing these new taxes be spent on a government aid program to prop up farmers and farm products. Third, he wants to take these products and give them away to "poor and starving nations." Fourth, the "remaining $85 billion" would be used for infrastructure or health care? Really? How long would $85 billion a year last in funding these sorts of projects? Do we want $85 billion in taxpayer's money (businesses will pay this tax directly; taxpayers will pay it indirectly) going for government funded health care?

Anybody else have a problem with the idea of $15 billion worth of US farm products being given out as foreign aid? And $85 billion being spent on government health care?

 

[Reformed]

In a series of tweets today President Trump laid out a new humanitarian aid policy that he says will benefit the United States and US farmers. Here's how he says it will work.

1. Apply a tariff of 25% to imported Chinese goods.

2. This will generate $100 billion for the US Treasury.

3. Use $15 billion of this newly found money and buy agricultural products from US farmers that are being hurt by retaliatory tariffs imposed by China on US agricultural products.

4. Take that $15 billion of agricultural products and ship them overseas to poor and starving countries.

5. With the $85 billion "left over" we could build infrastructure or finance health care or...whatever.

Take a look:

View attachment 2831

I can't be the only one to see the inherent problems with this approach, am I?

First off all, the tariffs would be new taxes. Secondly, he's proposing these new taxes be spent on a government aid program to prop up farmers and farm products. Third, he wants to take these products and give them away to "poor and starving nations." Fourth, the "remaining $85 billion" would be used for infrastructure or health care? Really? How long would $85 billion a year last in funding these sorts of projects? Do we want $85 billion in taxpayer's money (businesses will pay this tax directly; taxpayers will pay it indirectly) going for government funded health care?

Anybody else have a problem with the idea of $15 billion worth of US farm products being given out as foreign aid? And $85 billion being spent on government health care?

Oh, my! You and I agree on something. Write this date down. LOL

Trump is a small "p" Progressive. He tends to get cutesy with his use of government. He has done some very good things like relaxing regulations in the energy sector. Still, he is not an ideological conservative. Is he preferable to Hillary? That goes without saying.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[MartyF]

First off all, the tariffs would be new taxes.

Nope.

First, many people take the Globalist position on Tariffs. I guess you believe that low tariffs are always good.

This belief is simply false. Tariffs work and tariffs are helpful. Tariffs are a tax on foreign companies - not American consumers.

Take two widget companies.

Widget company A charges $X and Widget company B charges $X. Government places $Y tax on widget company A. Can Widget company A charge $(X+Y) to its customers to pass on the costs? No.

Widget company A is now disadvantaged compared to Widget company B.

The tax is on the company - not the consumer.

 

[MartyF]

Still, he is not an ideological conservative.

Correction - He is no a neocon. Thank God. I hope all Neocons die early natural deaths.

 

[InTheLight]

Nope.

First, many people take the Globalist position on Tariffs. I guess you believe that low tariffs are always good.

#4

This belief is simply false. Tariffs work and tariffs are helpful. Tariffs are a tax on foreign companies - not American consumers.

American companies that import the products from other countries pay the tariff. The American companies then pass along this tax by raising prices to American consumers. American consumers indirectly pay for the tariffs.

Take two widget companies.

Widget company A charges $X and Widget company B charges $X. Government places $Y tax on widget company A. Can Widget company A charge $(X+Y) to its customers to pass on the costs? No.

Yes, Widget company A can pass along the costs, and they frequently do so.

The tax is on the company - not the consumer.

American companies that import the products from other countries pay the tariff. The American companies then pass along this tax by raising prices to American consumers. American consumers indirectly pay for the tariffs.

 

[Reformed]

The company I work for imports certain products from China. I can state for a fact our prices will be going up. It is called the law of economics.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[MartyF]

American companies that import the products from other countries pay the tariff. The American companies then pass along this tax by raising prices to American consumers. American consumers indirectly pay for the tariffs.

Nope - this is globalist cool-aid.

Yes, Widget company A can pass along the costs, and they frequently do so.

Then buy from Widget Company B.

American companies that import the products from other countries pay the tariff. The American companies then pass along this tax by raising prices to American consumers. American consumers indirectly pay for the tariffs.

Once again, more globalist cool-aid.

The company I work for imports certain products from China. I can state for a fact our prices will be going up. It is called the law of economics.

Tariffs Hit Steel and Aluminum Over a Year Ago and They Haven't Boosted Consumer Prices | Breitbart

It's called reality. Trumps made-up stuff every time.

 

[MartyF]

#4

#3

 

[InTheLight]

Nope - you're drinking the globalist cool-aid.


Once again, more globalist cool-aid.

Below is a list of more than 200 separate businesses that have been negatively impacted by Trump’s tariffs. These impacts include lost vendors, lost customers, and lost earnings. To compensate, businesses are raising prices, laying off employees, and forgoing hiring & expansion plans.

Many of these victims are the small businesses, manufacturers, and farmers that make up President Trump’s base. The consequences to them will only be exacerbated if Trump doubles tariffs on Chinese goods as he reportedly plans to do.

Stories - Republicans Fighting Tariffs
-----

U.S. | Consumer products
Walmart: In a letter to the U.S. Trade Representative, Walmart warns that the duties to be imposed Sept. 24 in the U.S. and China will raise prices for consumers and hurt profit margins for retailers and suppliers. Based on a proposed 10% U.S. tariff on bicycles, Christmas lights, gas grills

U.S. | Industrials
Caterpillar: Will boost prices to offset an expected $100 million to $200 million jump in tariff-related material costs in the second half. Based on a 25% U.S. tariff on raw materials

U.S. | Consumer products
Coca-Cola: Raised prices for soda and other beverages to offset higher costs for freight shipments and metals used in its bottling systems. Based on a 25% U.S. tariff on steel, aluminum

3M Co.: The maker of industrial, safety, health-care and consumer products sees $100 million in ``headwinds’’ from tariffs but has been able to compensate by raising prices.


Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
------

 

[just-want-peace]

No solution is going to be 100% advantageous to all people until Jesus takes over in the future. (somehow I feel that the dims will find something, even then, to belly-ache about!)

I remember when I was in the Army, early 60s, and the military got a pay raise. A Sgt I knew complained because the raise just barely put him into the next tax bracket, and his take-home was less than before the raise.

Our world is still imperfect, so the ideal is to help as many as possible, and the others, hopefully, are a bare minimum.

IOW, I firmly believe that, in the long run, (or even short run) Trump's strategy is far, FAR, superior to ANYTHING the dims/rinos have to offer!!

Personally I'm glad I'm not the one having to make these decisions!!!!!!

 

[InTheLight]

I'm not opposed to putting tariffs on Chinese goods to get them to the bargaining table on trade issues. My OP was mainly about this idea that we create some new foreign aid program with the money.

What do you call it when the government buys crops from farmers in hardship (who are largely suffering from a government policy) and then redistributes that food to the needy? Think it over and get back to me.

 

[MartyF]

Below is a list of more than 200 separate businesses that have been negatively impacted by Trump’s tariffs. These impacts include lost vendors, lost customers, and lost earnings. To compensate, businesses are raising prices, laying off employees, and forgoing hiring & expansion plans.

Many of these victims are the small businesses, manufacturers, and farmers that make up President Trump’s base. The consequences to them will only be exacerbated if Trump doubles tariffs on Chinese goods as he reportedly plans to do.

Stories - Republicans Fighting Tariffs
-----

U.S. | Consumer products
Walmart: In a letter to the U.S. Trade Representative, Walmart warns that the duties to be imposed Sept. 24 in the U.S. and China will raise prices for consumers and hurt profit margins for retailers and suppliers. Based on a proposed 10% U.S. tariff on bicycles, Christmas lights, gas grills

U.S. | Industrials
Caterpillar: Will boost prices to offset an expected $100 million to $200 million jump in tariff-related material costs in the second half. Based on a 25% U.S. tariff on raw materials

U.S. | Consumer products
Coca-Cola: Raised prices for soda and other beverages to offset higher costs for freight shipments and metals used in its bottling systems. Based on a 25% U.S. tariff on steel, aluminum

3M Co.: The maker of industrial, safety, health-care and consumer products sees $100 million in ``headwinds’’ from tariffs but has been able to compensate by raising prices.


Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
------

In the first part you are literally quoting a propaganda website . . . Are you serious?

Propaganda = false misleading information.

The other part is "hurt profit margins for retailers and suppliers". Not emphasized because you are reading propaganda.

The rest is simply made-up. This is propaganda.

Did you read the Bloomberg article? How many of the companies mentioned were not even U.S.?

Do you know how to start a steel plant from scratch? Do you know how long it takes? Do you know what happens when one shuts down? Do you know what steel is used for? How you ever risked your life to save a steel plant? Do you know that people even do this?

Building and protecting our steel industry is worth a 25% tariff.

By the way, Caterpillar is doing just fine.

Caterpillar Inc.

Oh noes, sugar sodas in a can might, maybe, probably won't go up.

You're saying the price of tape is going up . . . I haven't seen the $10 roll of tape yet.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

In a series of tweets today President Trump laid out a new humanitarian aid policy that he says will benefit the United States and US farmers. Here's how he says it will work.

1. Apply a tariff of 25% to imported Chinese goods.

2. This will generate $100 billion for the US Treasury.

3. Use $15 billion of this newly found money and buy agricultural products from US farmers that are being hurt by retaliatory tariffs imposed by China on US agricultural products.

4. Take that $15 billion of agricultural products and ship them overseas to poor and starving countries.

5. With the $85 billion "left over" we could build infrastructure or finance health care or...whatever.

Take a look:

View attachment 2831

I can't be the only one to see the inherent problems with this approach, am I?

First off all, the tariffs would be new taxes. Secondly, he's proposing these new taxes be spent on a government aid program to prop up farmers and farm products. Third, he wants to take these products and give them away to "poor and starving nations." Fourth, the "remaining $85 billion" would be used for infrastructure or health care? Really? How long would $85 billion a year last in funding these sorts of projects? Do we want $85 billion in taxpayer's money (businesses will pay this tax directly; taxpayers will pay it indirectly) going for government funded health care?

Anybody else have a problem with the idea of $15 billion worth of US farm products being given out as foreign aid? And $85 billion being spent on government health care?

Ya can’t fix stupid

 

[MartyF]

What do you call it when the government buys crops from farmers in hardship (who are largely suffering from a government policy) and then redistributes that food to the needy? Think it over and get back to me.

The farmers are directly being messed up by the tariffs. China basically banned all U.S. food. Eventually, the U.S. will find other markets, but since food will spoil in the meantime and many farmers are living year-to-year, Trump is probably dong this in part for votes in key states. I trust Trump more than anyone-else on this. I'd want God in charge, but he hasn't come down to run for office.

I have die-hard loyalty for Trump. It may be a weakness of mine. However, I have heard for far too long about how wonderful no Tariffs will be and I have not seen many benefits of 40 years of zero tariffs. I have seen other countries benefit mightily. But not mine.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The company I work for imports certain products from China. I can state for a fact our prices will be going up. It is called the law of economics.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Do you have competitors that make products in foreign countries besides China.... like Vietnam, India, Mexico, Sri Lanka? Who has the unfair advantage now?!?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The farmers are directly being messed up by the tariffs. China basically banned all U.S. food. Eventually, the U.S. will find other markets, but since food will spoil in the meantime and many farmers are living year-to-year, Trump is probably dong this in part for votes in key states. I trust Trump more than anyone-else on this. I'd want God in charge, but he hasn't come down to run for office.

I have die-hard loyalty for Trump. It may be a weakness of mine. However, I have heard for far too long about how wonderful no Tariffs will be and I have not seen many benefits of 40 years of zero tariffs. I have seen other countries benefit mightily. But not mine.

Tell that to the soy bean farmers!

 

[MartyF]

Ya can’t fix stupid

#4

LoL.

Just kidding.

 

[Benjamin]

Take two widget companies.

Widget company A charges $X and Widget company B charges $X. Government places $Y tax on widget company A. Can Widget company A charge $(X+Y) to its customers to pass on the costs? No.

Widget company A is now disadvantaged compared to Widget company B.

The tax is on the company - not the consumer.

That there demonstrates the logical truth of why China was so quickly gaining in world economical domination and why giving them back some of the same medicine absolutely gives us an advantage by simply leveling the field. This action is not only necessary but vital.

I have no problem with supplementing our farmers with a percentage of the tariff and giving our extra farm goods to needy countries.

I do have a concern of dishing out free health care on a large scale because people will quickly relate it to a sense of entitlement and if and when the tariff war ends these people would still expect their free stuff.

 

[InTheLight]

However, I have heard for far too long about how wonderful no Tariffs will be and I have not seen many benefits of 40 years of zero tariffs. I have seen other countries benefit mightily. But not mine.

Well, go right ahead and keep talking about how you oppose zero tariffs--something no one in this thread has supported or mentioned.

 

[MartyF]

Tell that to the soy bean farmers!

That's why he is offering to purchase their beans.