Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

House G.O.P. Signals Break With Trump Over Tariff Threat
New York Times ^ | December 5, 2016 | JENNIFER STEINHAUER

Posted on 12/06/2016 1:29:12 AM PST by reaganaut1

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last
To: Helicondelta
If you look HERE you will read that Congress sets the rates for tariffs. Here is a sample:

The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) was enacted by Congress and made effective on January 1, 1989, replacing the former Tariff Schedules of the United States. The HTS comprises a hierarchical structure for describing all goods in trade for duty, quota, and statistical purposes. This structure is based upon the international Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS), administered by the World Customs Organization in Brussels ; the 4- and 6-digit HS product categories are subdivided into 8-digit unique U.S. rate lines and 10-digit non-legal statistical reporting categories. Classification of goods in this system must be done in accordance with the General and Additional U.S. Rules of Interpretation, starting at the 4-digit heading level to find the most specific provision and then moving to the subordinate categories.

41 posted on 12/06/2016 4:35:26 AM PST by InterceptPoint (Ted, you finally endorsed. About time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Our tariffs on imported products should be simple to calculate - it should be the greater of:

A - The total cost of regulations and taxes inflicted on a business if they operated within the US., or

B - An amount equal to the tariff that the sending country imposes on similar US goods.


42 posted on 12/06/2016 4:37:33 AM PST by meyer (There is no political solution to this troubling evolution...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Oh how The Slimes and Steinhoofer must be salivating to gen up some conflict with a “signal” of a kerfuffle with le Donald.

GO AWAY SLIMES! GO AWAY AND DIE! NO ONE NEEDS YOU ANYMORE!


43 posted on 12/06/2016 4:38:02 AM PST by Hostage (Article V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint

From your link:

“Embargoes, anti-dumping duties, countervailing duties, and other very specific matters administered by the Executive Branch are not contained in the HTS.”

Case in point:

http://archive.fortune.com/2009/10/07/news/economy/obama_china_tires_tariff.fortune/index.htm


44 posted on 12/06/2016 4:42:02 AM PST by Helicondelta (Deplorable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Helicondelta
From your link:
"... The tire case fell under a provision, called Section 421, that gives the President broad discretion on whether to impose quotas or tariffs when imports disrupt the U.S. market.

Ford wants to build a factory in Mexico. This is not dumping. This is not a disruption of U.S. markets. It has an impact on U.S. employment and that is the motive for Trump wanting the power to put a tariff on products imported from specific American companies.

He can do that. He just needs to get Congress to pass the applicable legislation.

Nice try. But not good enough.

45 posted on 12/06/2016 4:52:39 AM PST by InterceptPoint (Ted, you finally endorsed. About time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Boardwalk

Exactly..., and a good default position when you are not sure.


46 posted on 12/06/2016 5:00:11 AM PST by Enlightened1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

Agree...

I should have known better than to take the bait.


47 posted on 12/06/2016 5:00:45 AM PST by Enlightened1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64

You nailed it!

Agree 100%


48 posted on 12/06/2016 5:01:42 AM PST by Enlightened1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint

Look, the president has the power to conduct foreign policy and trade is part of it. Obama didn’t have to justify himself to anyone. He simply hit the Chinese with a 35% tariff. End of story. It wasn’t even controversial at the time.

Here is another example for you:

BUSH PUTS TARIFFS OF AS MUCH AS 30% ON STEEL IMPORTS

President Bush took some of the broadest federal action in two decades to protect a major American industry today, imposing tariffs of up to 30 percent on most types of steel imported into the United States from Europe, Asia and South America. The tariffs will last three years, he said, to give American steel producers time to consolidate operations and stem layoffs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/06/us/bush-puts-tariffs-of-as-much-as-30-on-steel-imports.html


49 posted on 12/06/2016 5:04:06 AM PST by Helicondelta (Deplorable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Please - stop it! He suggested the tariff for companies that opted to leave the nation and expect to reap major benefits - not across the board.


50 posted on 12/06/2016 5:04:39 AM PST by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

Amen


51 posted on 12/06/2016 5:10:52 AM PST by pangaea6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

The dumbasses are undercutting Trump’s whole negotiating strategy.

Read The Art of the Deal, people!!!


52 posted on 12/06/2016 6:06:19 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Bullshiite

Same spew used to sell NAFTA. None of it true. There is no free trade.

Tariffs were the primary source of revenue until 1913.

Ryan thinks tax reform id the best way? OK abolish income taxation. Then fedgov would have an incentive to do things that grow a real economy.


53 posted on 12/06/2016 6:10:34 AM PST by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

They’d have a stronger position if the benefits of NAFTA and similar trade deals were clear and apparent. They’re not. They’re shooting blanks.


54 posted on 12/06/2016 6:11:51 AM PST by Ted Grant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Isn’t it true that our trade pardoners tax American goods sold in their countries while their goods come in here duty free??

If so, then that is not free trade and the war already exists.


55 posted on 12/06/2016 6:50:25 AM PST by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-hereQaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

“It would create a domestic incentive for effective competing products, save American jobs and promote American businesses.”

Here’s where I see the problem:

A hammer made in China costs $10. A 35% tariff is added to make the cost of the hammer $13.50.

What’s to prevent an American manufacturer from charging $13.50 for a hammer? We’ve gained nothing.

What’s your opinion on this pricing matter?


56 posted on 12/06/2016 7:11:41 AM PST by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TheCipher

—”Trade war with whom? This tax isn’t on a foreign company exporting to the US - such as Chinese company selling their products in the US. It is on a US based company bringing their goods back into the US.”

You’re completely forgetting that US domestic-company cars (e.g. those made in Mexico) are competing against foreign imported cars (think Toyota/Nissan)...

If Trump makes these more expensive (via 35% tax), then Toyota/Nissan cars will be relatively cheaper. Then the domestic companies that manufacture in Mexico will have LESS sales and there will be layoffs (e.g. US job LOSSES).

So, the next step to “balance” the problem he created would be to tax all FOREIGN imported cars — and you’d have a trade war and higher prices for US consumers.

I’m all for Trump, but his trade protectionism stance is shallow economics. He’ll sooner or later understand this, but for a Wharton grad, I’m surprised he doesn’t seem to understand basic economic supply & demand & pricing principles.

The fact is, spoiled American workers expect too much salary if they want to produce products that compete against a global market. Trump doesn’t get this, but that’s the cold reality. We can’t simply “legislate higher wages.” American workers have to earn it just like everyone else.

Trump’s policy is just as wrong as left-wingers wanting to legislate higher minimum wages for American workers. It’s the use of force & coercion via gov’t against free individuals & businesses. Surely, both left-wing & “conservative” forms of market coercion go against the notion of liberty.

Hate to say it, but this is another use of the heavy hand of gov’t...


57 posted on 12/06/2016 7:25:16 AM PST by AlanGreenSpam (Obama: The First 'American IDOL' President - sponsored by Chicago NeoCom Thugs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

—” It’s one thing to use a tariff to remedy an unfair trade practice, but we shouldn’t use tariffs to mask serious inefficiencies and dysfunction in our own economic system.”

Exactly! You nailed it. And what do you say to those here who state “we’ve always had Tariffs and they work?”

The fact is, Trump (and US companies and US workers) need to address economic inefficiencies here.

Excessive business regulation is one place to start. As Reagan said, get gov’t out of the way.


58 posted on 12/06/2016 7:38:27 AM PST by AlanGreenSpam (Obama: The First 'American IDOL' President - sponsored by Chicago NeoCom Thugs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

I prefer tax cuts.


59 posted on 12/06/2016 7:48:22 AM PST by Uncle Miltie (The Media were SuperPacs for Clinton. Throw them in prison.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: franklog

-—”These are American companies. You cannot have a trade war with companies in your own country.”

Ummm, think again...

A 35% tax on US companies IS A TRADE WAR with an American company.

This has to be done in another way (addressing US company inefficiencies and over-regulation).


60 posted on 12/06/2016 7:51:16 AM PST by AlanGreenSpam (Obama: The First 'American IDOL' President - sponsored by Chicago NeoCom Thugs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson