Tariffs Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter BubbaOtis
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 138K
  • Politics 
Just guessing there won't be any trade deals for awhile.

But the coolest thing might be what it does to farmers. Our tariffs don't affect the counter tariffs China and other countries have levied. Which means the markets for farmers are screwed. And if there is no tariff money coming in then it will be pretty hard to bail farmers out. Will be fun watching Trump explain this to them.
 
BlueSmoke said:
Just guessing there won't be any trade deals for awhile.

But the coolest thing might be what it does to farmers. Our tariffs don't affect the counter tariffs China and other countries have levied. Which means the markets for farmers are screwed. And if there is no tariff money coming in then it will be pretty hard to bail farmers out. Will be fun watching Trump explain this to them.
Click to expand...
1. It will not be hard to bail them out with or without tariffs.
2. I would expect all of the counter tariffs to be paused during any pause of American tariffs. Well, all that matter. The Chinese ones don't matter that much because tariffs don't drive the structure of China's import policies.
3. I don't think it's cool to screw over farmers like this. Yes, I enjoy FAFO to some degree, but here the FO seems disproportionate. It's not "oh, you voted for deportations but don't like the fact that your neighbor got deported." It's more like, "your guy used you as cannon fodder, like he said he would" and up until this point I'm okay with chortling, but what you're suggesting is like adding, "and he's still sending the cannon fodder into the barbed wire after the war is over"
4. The tariffs are not dead yet, not until the Supreme Court has its say.
 
BlueSmoke said:
Just guessing there won't be any trade deals for awhile.

But the coolest thing might be what it does to farmers. Our tariffs don't affect the counter tariffs China and other countries have levied. Which means the markets for farmers are screwed. And if there is no tariff money coming in then it will be pretty hard to bail farmers out. Will be fun watching Trump explain this to them.
Click to expand...
He will just tell them to eat it, since they got to own the libs.
 
superrific said:
1. It will not be hard to bail them out with or without tariffs.
2. I would expect all of the counter tariffs to be paused during any pause of American tariffs. Well, all that matter. The Chinese ones don't matter that much because tariffs don't drive the structure of China's import policies.
3. I don't think it's cool to screw over farmers like this. Yes, I enjoy FAFO to some degree, but here the FO seems disproportionate. It's not "oh, you voted for deportations but don't like the fact that your neighbor got deported." It's more like, "your guy used you as cannon fodder, like he said he would" and up until this point I'm okay with chortling, but what you're suggesting is like adding, "and he's still sending the cannon fodder into the barbed wire after the war is over"
4. The tariffs are not dead yet, not until the Supreme Court has its say.
Click to expand...
I feel bad for them also, it's a demanding job with little gratitude or reward, but if any group should have had an idea how bad the tariffs are, this group should have.
 
UNCatTech said:
I feel bad for them also, it's a demanding job with little gratitude or reward, but if any group should have had an idea how bad the tariffs are, this group should have.
Click to expand...
Don't feel that bad. Most farmers aren't really being hurt. I couldn't find a good survey but these two data points allow for quite a bit of extrapolation when you look at production share and such. I'm expecting that bottom 74% are fairly unscathed and the top 6% already deep in the public trough.

• The 105,384 farms with sales of $1 million or more were 6% of U.S. farms and 31% of farmland; they sold more than three-fourths of all agricultural products. The 1.4 million farms with sales of $50,000 or less accounted for 74% of farms, 25% of farmland and 2% of sales.
 
superrific said:
1. It will not be hard to bail them out with or without tariffs.
2. I would expect all of the counter tariffs to be paused during any pause of American tariffs. Well, all that matter. The Chinese ones don't matter that much because tariffs don't drive the structure of China's import policies.
3. I don't think it's cool to screw over farmers like this. Yes, I enjoy FAFO to some degree, but here the FO seems disproportionate. It's not "oh, you voted for deportations but don't like the fact that your neighbor got deported." It's more like, "your guy used you as cannon fodder, like he said he would" and up until this point I'm okay with chortling, but what you're suggesting is like adding, "and he's still sending the cannon fodder into the barbed wire after the war is over"
4. The tariffs are not dead yet, not until the Supreme Court has its say.
Click to expand...


By it won't be hard to bail them out, do you mean just add to the deficit?

Its not cool to screw our farmers. I agree with that. But it could get interesting to see Trump having to explain what he's done to farmers. That could be cool.
 
superrific said:
Hey Rand, I don't care that all much what you've always said.

I do care that what you do, and what you've done is largely rubber stamp the unilateral power Trump now claims. Let's see what you have to say about the anti-contempt provisions of the House bill.
Click to expand...
Does the House bill set the minimum amount of the undertaking in order to enforce through contempt? If not, courts could set the undertaking at $1 under FRCP 65(c).
 
I feel quite confident that Supreme Court is going to stay these rulings. I don't mean confident in a good way, it's just that I think they are going to stay any judgment that implicates executive presidential power at all.
 
Calheel said:
Does the House bill set the minimum amount of the undertaking in order to enforce through contempt? If not, courts could set the undertaking at $1 under FRCP 65(c).
Click to expand...
$1 is OK, per my understanding. But the thing is, the bond has to have been paid at the beginning of the case. If the bond wasn't paid at the outset, then there is no jurisdiction.

The primary purpose of that provision, in my view, isn't to strip courts of their contempt powers in any meaningful way. It's to insulate Trump and the administration from the PIs already entered in the present cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top