Trump's supporters want respect

False:

Tariffs on imported cars, parts could harm U.S. economy and auto industry, experts warn
Michael Collins, USA TODAY Published 10:48 a.m. ET Sept. 5, 2018 |

WASHINGTON – The Trump administration’s new tariffs on aluminum and steel and the threat of more duties on imported cars and car parts will weaken the U.S. economy and inflict serious damage on the nation’s auto industry, a panel of trade analysts warned Wednesday.

Americans will pay thousands of dollars more for new cars and trucks as a result of the tariffs, and as many as 700,000 workers in the auto industry could lose their jobs, the analysts told a Senate committee.

Tariffs are not only a terrible idea, “they’re self-destructive,” said Bryan Riley, director of the National Taxpayers Union’s Free Trade Initiative.

With “sloppily applied tariffs” as the centerpiece of the administration’s trade policy, “we can expect to get all of the pain from higher import prices but little of the gain” that would come from a more strategic levying of duties, said Thea Mei Lee, president of the Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank based in Washington.

The analysts made their dire predictions during a hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which is looking into the tariffs’ effect on the auto industry.

The committee’s chairman, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said in an interview that he hopes the hearing will demonstrate not only the dangers of “piling tariffs on top of tariffs,” but that zero tariffs would be the best approach for the auto industry and other manufacturers.

In Tennessee, the number of auto jobs has nearly doubled, and exports and family incomes have increased under the North American Free Trade Agreement, which eliminated most tariffs between the United States, Mexico and Canada. A third of the state’s manufacturing workforce is now employed in the automobile industry.

“All of the evidence supports that a zero-tariff policy under NAFTA has helped raised family income in Tennessee,” Alexander said. “And that policy would be good to apply to our relationships with other countries in the world, particularly our allies like Europe and Japan and South Korea.”

Though President Donald Trump said in June that his goal is “no tariffs, no (trade) barriers,” he has imposed a 25 percent tariff on imported steel and a 10 percent tariff on imported aluminum, arguing that the dumping of cheap imported metals has harmed U.S. companies and jobs.

Trump also instructed the Commerce Department in May to look into the possibility of imposing a 25 percent tariff on foreign autos and parts by declaring them a threat to national security – the same justification he used to levy the duties on aluminum and steel. In July, he appeared to back off the threat to impose tariffs on cars from the European Union after meeting with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.

Regardless, the Commerce Department had been expected to issue its report on possible auto tariffs in August but later said it needed more time.

The tariffs on aluminum and steel already are rippling through the auto-supply chain, said John Bozzella, president and chief executive officer of the Association of Global Automakers, a trade group that represents the U.S. operations of international car manufacturers, equipment suppliers and others.

The price of steel has jumped 50 percent since the tariffs were announced, Bozzella said.

A 25 percent tariff on foreign cars and parts would cause a 5 percent drop in employment in the auto sector, which translates into more than 600,000 lost jobs, if U.S. trading partners retaliate as expected, according to an analysis by the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Another 117,000 dealers also could lose their jobs, concluded a separate study by the Center for Automotive Research.

What’s more, a tariff on auto imports and parts could cause car prices to jump by $2,100 for compact cars and nearly $7,000 for some SUVs, the Peterson Institute estimates.

When used strategically, tariffs can be an important and useful tool, providing leverage to address unfair trade practices such as currency manipulation and intellectual property theft, Lee said.

“However, the Trump administration’s tariffs have been erratically implemented, inconsistently messaged and sometimes apparently motivated by politics or whim,” she said. “This administration appears to have no overarching strategy or goal in sight.”

Sen. Doug Jones, D-Ala., called the Trump administration’s trade policy “totally incoherent” and said it is hurting not only the auto industry but also businesses and farmers.

Congress has “an obligation to work to change that incoherent policy or at least to try to do what we can to do that,” he said.

Stephen Moore, an economist with The Heritage Foundation’s Project for Economic Growth, said the administration’s trade strategy lacks coherence and is “a dangerous game.” Yet he predicted that it also would be effective in extracting trade concessions from countries like China.

“Six months from now, let’s see where we’re at,” said Moore, who served as a senior economic adviser to Trump’s presidential campaign. “I think in the end, Trump is going to prevail.”

It isn't false. A 25% tariff on cars made outside North America will ensure that most cars that are sold in the US are built in North America.

That's not an attempt to make them stop building electric cars. That's an attempt to make them keep building cars in America.

"Significant efforts have been expended to combine the Buick, Pontiac and GMC (BPG) brands into a single dealer distribution network, with approximately 80% of these brands' combined sales sold through BPG-branded stores. This channel will be fully competitive in terms of total entries offered, with Pontiac serving as a specialty/niche brand with reduced product offerings solely intended to complement Buick and GMC models and reinforce the channel as a whole."

http://web.archive.org/web/20081209144930/freep.com/assets/PDF/1202gmplan.pdf

That doesn't sound like the demise of the entire division to me.

I lived it. knew the division was going out even while they were building the Saturn plant (With the idea that maybe it could be re outfitted ( for fibre glas or whatever) to accomodate Corvette production.
Sorry, youre wrong again about Obama's crimes.

So how come GM's official documents clearly indicate an effort to save Pontiac?

The left's tendency to try to erase history is interesting. Did Obama ever have his political enemies erased from photographs? Stalin did that too you know.

youre just reading and missing the fact that consolidation (as a last proposal) readily admits that the badge is in big trouble (Not, as you claim, a foul deed foisted upon an unwilling host by a cruel president)
As I said, I lived it because the Saturn plant was already a big mess of debt and production of Pontiac badged cars was stopped by virtue of a memo of the same date.

My company made a nice fee because we had to do plant closure environmental controls in both Wilmington Del and Tennessee. At the same time Chrysler was closing its Newark Del plant and turning it over to the U of Delaware for its new health and ag science campuses.

still seeing visions of Mussolini in your Rice Krispies?

I didn't miss it. The fact that they were trying to rescue Pontiac indicates that there was something that it needed rescuing from.

I would say that killing Pontiac counts as a foul deed. We don't have Trans Ams anymore because of Barack Obama.

That doesn't change the fact that GM had plans to continue selling a few popular Pontiac cars.

When liberals act like Stalin, I will take note of that similarity.

Steel and aluminum tariffs remain a headache despite Trump's trade deal with Mexico and Canada

Stephanie Dhue | @StephanieDhue
Published 3 Hours Ago Updated 42 Mins Ago
CNBC.com

-The United States might have a new North American trade deal in place, but the Trump administration's tariffs on steel and aluminum continue to be a headache for businesses, lawmakers and America's neighbors.
-The tariffs remain such a big point of contention that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took aim at the tariffs Friday during a signing ceremony for the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.
-Trudeau tied the tariffs to the layoff plans GM announced earlier this week. "Donald, it's all the more reason why we need to keep working to remove the tariffs on steel and aluminum between our countries," he told Trump.

The United States might have a new North American trade deal in place, but the Trump administration's tariffs on steel and aluminum continue to be a headache for businesses, lawmakers and America's neighbors.

Despite expectations to the contrary, the 25 percent tariffs on steel and 10 percent duties on aluminum are staying put for now. They remain such a big point of contention that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took aim at the tariffs Friday during a signing ceremony for the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

Trudeau tied the tariffs to the layoff plans at General Motors announced earlier this week to the chagrin of leaders and workers in the U.S. and Canada. "Donald, it's all the more reason why we need to keep working to remove the tariffs on steel and aluminum between our countries," the Canadian prime minister told U.S. President Donald Trump, who was standing directly to his right.

The tariffs were first put into place on March 23 under the Commerce Department's rarely used national security authority, known as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Mexico and Canada were initially exempt pending the outcome of the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The exemption was removed June 1, however.

Several lawmakers expressed their dismay that the tariffs on our key allies have not been lifted. Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Ind., separately said they were "disappointed" there is still no resolution. Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., said the tariffs are "doing more harm than good." He added that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said over the summer that the tariffs would be lifted as part of the larger trade negotiation.

"Our objective is to have a revitalized NAFTA, a NAFTA that helps America and as part of that the 232s would logically go away both as it relates to Canada and to Mexico," Ross told the Senate Finance Committee in testimony on June 20.

Speaking to reporters in Buenos Aires, Argentina, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said the tariffs are working, but that negotiations were continuing.

"We want an agreement that is fair to Mexico and fair to Canada but maintains the integrity of the president's steel and aluminum programs which have been very successful for the U.S.," he said.

"USTR Lighthizer today carefully acknowledged that the three countries will negotiate on the tariffs. Once they agree that there are demonstrably changed circumstances on metals issues, the metals tariffs on Canada and Mexico likely cease, our instinct is early in the New Year," Terry Haines, an analyst at ISI Evercore, wrote in a note to clients.

But businesses and farmers are growing impatient. An agricultural coalition group formed to oppose tariffs said that U.S. exports targeted with retaliation, including beef, pork and apples have faced more than $1.1 billion in new tariffs, leading to a 21 percent drop in exports.

"While USMCA offers exciting opportunities for market access into America's largest and closest ag export markets, any gains will continue to be offset by the losses farmers are experiencing from retaliatory tariffs as long as they are in place," Brian Kuehl, executive director of Farmers for Free Trade, wrote in a statement.

The influential Business Roundtable also called for a "prompt resolution" of the tariff issue and said it would review the USMCA against the objective of increasing the competitiveness of U.S. companies.

Who had expectations to the contrary?

I expect those tariffs to be permanent.

Help domestic farmers out with a permanent 25% tariff on imported farm goods.

Trump’s car deal with China is great — for other countries

Why Japan, South Korea, and Germany are likely ecstatic right now.
By Alex [email protected]@vox.com Dec 3, 2018, 5:30pm EST

President Donald Trump and members of his administration are quite excited about Saturday’s handshake deal between the US and China.

They claim Beijing agreed to lower tariffs on American cars entering the Chinese market from 40 percent to zero. And even though China hasn’t confirmed this detail, it sounds like good news, as lower tariffs would greatly reduce the price of US vehicles, perhaps making them more attractive to China’s billion-plus consumers.

The problem is that this so-called concession is not the big deal the administration is making it out to be, and it could lead to greater frustration between the two countries down the line.

First, if China did agree to lower tariffs on American cars, other countries with competitive automotive sectors would likely benefit more than the US.

Here’s why: Trade between the US and China is governed by the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO), a global body that ensures countries trade fairly with one another. One of the biggest rules, the WTO says, is that “countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners.” This is known as the “most favored nation” principle: A country can’t give a special perk to just one nation; it must offer it to all of them.

In other words, if Beijing lowers the tariff rate on US autos to zero, it must also do that for all other countries that want to sell their vehicles in the Chinese market. That still may increase the number of American cars sold in China, but other nations will likely be the ultimate winners.

“Countries like Japan, South Korea, and Germany would benefit most from this, rather than US producers, as the Chinese don’t really buy many of the big pickups that US producers increasingly focus on,” Jacob Kirkegaard, an international trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, told me.

German cars are already more welcome in China, for example, as Beijing’s tariff rates on those vehicles are currently at 15 percent.

Second, experts said that most cars sold in China are produced there. That means there are already few American cars taxed at the Chinese border. Reducing the tariffs to zero would therefore have very little impact on America’s export industry to China.

If China doesn’t do what the US says it agreed to — or Trump doesn’t see immediate benefits — the trade war may actually escalate down the line.

This is not the best deal for the US

The only way the US reaps most of the benefits from this deal, experts said, is if China and US sign a formal free-trade deal, since those agreements supersede WTO rules. So if Trump and Xi sign such a deal with the zero-tariff provision in it — and Congress ratifies it — then US automakers would see the most benefits.

But few experts currently believe Washington and Beijing will sign such a complicated and massive agreement. They’re having trouble agreeing on how to stop an escalating trade war, let alone figuring out how to reduce most trade barriers.

It’s therefore possible that Beijing said it would reduce the tariffs, which were raised to 40 percent in July in response to Trump’s trade war, as a mostly empty gesture to placate the president.

But Trump may still celebrate the deal, even though car makers in Japan, South Korea, and Germany would likely celebrate it even more.

Google "idiot" leads you to "Trump".

Old news.

most of us have known for quite some time now that 45 is an idiot...

You also know he defeated your party, whatever you losers are calling yourselves, for quite a while too.

We've also known he was the choice of the Kremlin, who gave him substantial help in the campaign, for quite a while too.

Prove it. No one else has.

940. The FBI interfere US president election (12/29/2016)


The FBI played an active role to interfere the US 2016 president election. It hit Democrate's nominee Hillary Clinton by email gate to help its candidate Donald Trump. The evident scene was in July 5 during Chilcot report. "FBI Director Comey potentially gave Clinton’s political rivals some ammunition, conceding there was "evidence of mishandling” classified information and that an FBI employee who did the same “would face consequences for this.”
The FBI didn't indict Clinton because they have no evidence that Clinton intended to do wrong with her email setup."(washingtonpost.com) In fact, this is common for others. Powell had done samething. Why they beat the drum this time on Clinton? Because this time the FBI need a candidate of their own to handle a criminal case. So they determined to help Trump to win the election. This was also the time the Feds made a secret deal with Russian to hack Clinton's computer.

So then Trump started to call for Russian's help. Why not China? Because he knew they had a deal with Russia already.



What Russian had hacked? Maybe there was something important. Because in President Debate, Trump intimidated his rival hillary that he'd have special prosecutor and "you'd be in jail".

On 10/28, the FBI director Comey reopened Clintion email investigation, then dramatically dropped the investigation on 11/6. A powerful department of the nation so openly, actively interfere in president election is unprecedented.

That is a lie. Please quote that exactly. You can't. He said "you would be in jail" stop the bullshit.