Well written and all true, Americans paid more for nearly everything and in some cases still are, but won't get any compensation for this monumentally hare-brained idea.
Remember "Liberation Day"? The only thing that was liberated was money from from your wallet.
John, once again I don't quarrel with your data; I quarrel with how you use it. Your article finds no benefit to to Trump's tariffs--other than perhaps some benefit in returning $166 B to our economy--while use of tariffs prior to Trump gets no mention.
Trump's use of tariffs has resulted in billions if not trillions of dollar investment pledges to come to the U.S. None of which obviously, could materialize in Trump's current tenure.
And is it not reasonable for the average voter to assume, since Congress did nothing to interfere, that there was no problem with tariffs?
I know you find good things in Trump's tenure. This article appeared to almost rejoice with tariff's "failures."
>>Trump's use of tariffs has resulted in billions if not trillions of dollar investment pledges to come to the U.S.
I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, Al, but those "investment pledges," with few exceptions, have been nothing more than public announcements. They're not binding, and those countries have even less motivation now (with the tariffs collapsing) to move forward on them.
Trump just wanted such headlines to bolster the perception some still have of him as a master business-negotiator. Other countries' leaders understood this, and played along to get their tariff rates lowered. Predictably, the MAGA-media sold Trump's preferred narrative to their viewers as a binding commitment.
Trump does this kind of thing a lot. Shortly after he lost the 2020 election, he put direct pressure on senior DOJ officials to publicly declare the election results "corrupt" and illegitimate. When those officials repeatedly told him the results were legitimate, and that he in fact lost, he told them (according to sworn testimony): "Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congress." (They thankfully refused).
Again, it's all about the headline, and shaping public perception. Not reality.
>>And is it not reasonable for the average voter to assume, since Congress did nothing to interfere, that there was no problem with tariffs?
I don't think the average voter has any idea what Congress's role in tariffs are supposed to be. But that hardly matters in this respect. Congress well understood what Trump's tariffs would do, and were doing, to the economy (including the global economy). Everyday Americans were certainly feeling the pain, and most of them opposed the policy. And yet, the Congress did nothing about it, because too many Republican leaders were afraid of defying Trump. They deserve scorn for their negligence.
>>I know you find good things in Trump's tenure. This article appeared to almost rejoice with tariff's "failures."
I'm absolutely joyous that the tariffs were deemed illegal, because they were, in fact, illegal. They were also terrible for our country's economy and citizens, and our global standing in the world. I'm very happy that companies that suffered under them will be given their wrongfully-taken money back, so that they can grow, hire, and create more wealth. I like capitalism. I like free trade. I don't like central planning and quasi-socialism.
I don't decide how I feel about a policy based on whether it is good or bad for Trump's ego. It's a very bad thing for our country that millions of Americans do.
This was a longer version of what I was about to write:
These pledges of billions of dollars of investment were done under duress and no responsible company would follow through on them unless there was a compelling business case to do so.
Now that the threat of retaliation has been removed, they don't have to be forced into business decisions they ordinarily wouldn't do.
And no it isn't reasonable for the average voter to assume, since Congress did nothing to interfere, that there was no problem with tariffs because as we all know, half of congress is held hostage to Trump's insane whims and won't voice any opposition to them -be it illegal or not.
Joe Biden managed to secure billions in investment via the CHIPS Act, without resorting to extortion, which is what Al is basically heaping praise on and rooting for.
Hey friend, don't accuse me of supporting or rooting for extortion because I disagree with the way John uses his data.
By what stroke of genius can you conclude there is no compelling reason to invest in the U. S? Perhaps your business acumen exceeds Trump's; perhaps your net worth as well.
And no, we don't know half of Congress is held hostage to Trump's legal or illegal whims. What we know is that the majority of republicans vote for what Trump wants. You don't know that none of them will tell Trump if they think he is wrong.
BTW, where were you when Pelosi was forcing democrats to vote as she wanted? Or pressuring colleagues to support the now proven bogus Russian Collusion?
You may agree with John's tariff assessments, but clearly that topic has valid arguments on both sides.
Lol. The data is what it is, Al. What's positive about it, in your view? What economic benefit did the U.S. come away with that was better than if we'd never applied the tariffs in the first place? Non-binding investment pledges aren't economic data. They're just rhetoric.
>>By what stroke of genius can you conclude there is no compelling reason to invest in the U. S?
That's not what he said. He said there would be no reason for a country to follow through with pledges leveraged only by tariffs threats (that no longer exist) UNLESS there was a compelling business case to do so.
>>Perhaps your business acumen exceeds Trump's; perhaps your net worth as well.
One of these days, you should really look at Trump's record as a businessman. I'm not talking about the stories Tony Schwartz and Mark Burnett came up with. I'm talking about his actual business record using the almost half billion dollars his daddy gave him (Trump was already a millionaire by the time he was 8 years old).
>>And no, we don't know half of Congress is held hostage to Trump's legal or illegal whims.
I wouldn't say "held hostage" but rather "scared into submission" because they know he'll end their political careers if they oppose him. This practice has been on full display, for all to see, for years. Sorry you've somehow managed to miss it.
>>You don't know that none of them will tell Trump if they think he is wrong.
With one or two exceptions at this point, we do know that.
>>BTW, where were you when Pelosi was forcing democrats to vote as she wanted?
That's one of the many problems with whataboutism: those who reflexively use it (as a shallow defense of their tribe) typically don't understand the significant differences between what they're comparing. They just go there because they heard someone else do it.
>>You may agree with John's tariff assessments, but clearly that topic has valid arguments on both sides.
You have yet to put forth a valid argument on your side. So no, it's not clear.
>>And no, we don't know half of Congress is held hostage to Trump's legal or illegal whims.<< Um, yes we do, they're called the GOP.
There's never been any evidence of them telling Trump he's wrong publicly, not to mention the tariffs Trump imposed unilaterally that never got voted on by congress in the first place! Because all GOP congressmen and senators are scared sh1tless to disagree with mafia Don, lest he pull his endorsement or worse, primary them out of a job.
Nice try, but you must be asleep most of the time.
You don't have any valid arguments for illegal decisions made by your own government filled with dangerous and corrupt gangsters.
You might be able to gaslight your friends and family with BS, but I can assure you friendo, that won't work here, because it isn't a MAGA echo chamber you must be accustomed to.
Well written and all true, Americans paid more for nearly everything and in some cases still are, but won't get any compensation for this monumentally hare-brained idea.
Remember "Liberation Day"? The only thing that was liberated was money from from your wallet.
The entire tariff debacle was DUMB from the start! Which of his toadies told him most a good idea? Those individuals should be fired.
John, once again I don't quarrel with your data; I quarrel with how you use it. Your article finds no benefit to to Trump's tariffs--other than perhaps some benefit in returning $166 B to our economy--while use of tariffs prior to Trump gets no mention.
Trump's use of tariffs has resulted in billions if not trillions of dollar investment pledges to come to the U.S. None of which obviously, could materialize in Trump's current tenure.
And is it not reasonable for the average voter to assume, since Congress did nothing to interfere, that there was no problem with tariffs?
I know you find good things in Trump's tenure. This article appeared to almost rejoice with tariff's "failures."
>>Trump's use of tariffs has resulted in billions if not trillions of dollar investment pledges to come to the U.S.
I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, Al, but those "investment pledges," with few exceptions, have been nothing more than public announcements. They're not binding, and those countries have even less motivation now (with the tariffs collapsing) to move forward on them.
Trump just wanted such headlines to bolster the perception some still have of him as a master business-negotiator. Other countries' leaders understood this, and played along to get their tariff rates lowered. Predictably, the MAGA-media sold Trump's preferred narrative to their viewers as a binding commitment.
Trump does this kind of thing a lot. Shortly after he lost the 2020 election, he put direct pressure on senior DOJ officials to publicly declare the election results "corrupt" and illegitimate. When those officials repeatedly told him the results were legitimate, and that he in fact lost, he told them (according to sworn testimony): "Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congress." (They thankfully refused).
Again, it's all about the headline, and shaping public perception. Not reality.
>>And is it not reasonable for the average voter to assume, since Congress did nothing to interfere, that there was no problem with tariffs?
I don't think the average voter has any idea what Congress's role in tariffs are supposed to be. But that hardly matters in this respect. Congress well understood what Trump's tariffs would do, and were doing, to the economy (including the global economy). Everyday Americans were certainly feeling the pain, and most of them opposed the policy. And yet, the Congress did nothing about it, because too many Republican leaders were afraid of defying Trump. They deserve scorn for their negligence.
>>I know you find good things in Trump's tenure. This article appeared to almost rejoice with tariff's "failures."
I'm absolutely joyous that the tariffs were deemed illegal, because they were, in fact, illegal. They were also terrible for our country's economy and citizens, and our global standing in the world. I'm very happy that companies that suffered under them will be given their wrongfully-taken money back, so that they can grow, hire, and create more wealth. I like capitalism. I like free trade. I don't like central planning and quasi-socialism.
I don't decide how I feel about a policy based on whether it is good or bad for Trump's ego. It's a very bad thing for our country that millions of Americans do.
This was a longer version of what I was about to write:
These pledges of billions of dollars of investment were done under duress and no responsible company would follow through on them unless there was a compelling business case to do so.
Now that the threat of retaliation has been removed, they don't have to be forced into business decisions they ordinarily wouldn't do.
And no it isn't reasonable for the average voter to assume, since Congress did nothing to interfere, that there was no problem with tariffs because as we all know, half of congress is held hostage to Trump's insane whims and won't voice any opposition to them -be it illegal or not.
Joe Biden managed to secure billions in investment via the CHIPS Act, without resorting to extortion, which is what Al is basically heaping praise on and rooting for.
Hey friend, don't accuse me of supporting or rooting for extortion because I disagree with the way John uses his data.
By what stroke of genius can you conclude there is no compelling reason to invest in the U. S? Perhaps your business acumen exceeds Trump's; perhaps your net worth as well.
And no, we don't know half of Congress is held hostage to Trump's legal or illegal whims. What we know is that the majority of republicans vote for what Trump wants. You don't know that none of them will tell Trump if they think he is wrong.
BTW, where were you when Pelosi was forcing democrats to vote as she wanted? Or pressuring colleagues to support the now proven bogus Russian Collusion?
You may agree with John's tariff assessments, but clearly that topic has valid arguments on both sides.
>>I disagree with the way John uses his data.
Lol. The data is what it is, Al. What's positive about it, in your view? What economic benefit did the U.S. come away with that was better than if we'd never applied the tariffs in the first place? Non-binding investment pledges aren't economic data. They're just rhetoric.
>>By what stroke of genius can you conclude there is no compelling reason to invest in the U. S?
That's not what he said. He said there would be no reason for a country to follow through with pledges leveraged only by tariffs threats (that no longer exist) UNLESS there was a compelling business case to do so.
>>Perhaps your business acumen exceeds Trump's; perhaps your net worth as well.
One of these days, you should really look at Trump's record as a businessman. I'm not talking about the stories Tony Schwartz and Mark Burnett came up with. I'm talking about his actual business record using the almost half billion dollars his daddy gave him (Trump was already a millionaire by the time he was 8 years old).
>>And no, we don't know half of Congress is held hostage to Trump's legal or illegal whims.
I wouldn't say "held hostage" but rather "scared into submission" because they know he'll end their political careers if they oppose him. This practice has been on full display, for all to see, for years. Sorry you've somehow managed to miss it.
>>You don't know that none of them will tell Trump if they think he is wrong.
With one or two exceptions at this point, we do know that.
>>BTW, where were you when Pelosi was forcing democrats to vote as she wanted?
That's one of the many problems with whataboutism: those who reflexively use it (as a shallow defense of their tribe) typically don't understand the significant differences between what they're comparing. They just go there because they heard someone else do it.
>>You may agree with John's tariff assessments, but clearly that topic has valid arguments on both sides.
You have yet to put forth a valid argument on your side. So no, it's not clear.
>>And no, we don't know half of Congress is held hostage to Trump's legal or illegal whims.<< Um, yes we do, they're called the GOP.
There's never been any evidence of them telling Trump he's wrong publicly, not to mention the tariffs Trump imposed unilaterally that never got voted on by congress in the first place! Because all GOP congressmen and senators are scared sh1tless to disagree with mafia Don, lest he pull his endorsement or worse, primary them out of a job.
Nice try, but you must be asleep most of the time.
You don't have any valid arguments for illegal decisions made by your own government filled with dangerous and corrupt gangsters.
https://youtu.be/zZh2Sxuc9VI?si=GnKlQYt0W5kVB71C
You might be able to gaslight your friends and family with BS, but I can assure you friendo, that won't work here, because it isn't a MAGA echo chamber you must be accustomed to.