Because the Wall St. Journal is an economic paper. I don’t trust them on this, because they defended Bush’s spending and his debt. You want American industries to die.
And because I disagree with you,
your reply: “You want American Industries to die”
That is just ignorant and obnoxious. Clearly you don’t wish to have a discussion, but I will post for other cerebral people who are actually wanting to discuss and debate.
I don’t want American Industries to die, I want American industries to be streamlined and competitive in order to survive. That is not going to happen when they are protected by tariffs. The auto industry had to go thru paradigm shifts and adjust to be able to “not die” and few would now argue that was a mistake. Automakers are on top of there game making quality products at a competitive price.
I just don’t see why we need tariffs on 2 industries that will be pivotal in the cost of our infrastructure and military spending going forward. Corps received a huge tax cut and onerous regulations are being peeled back.
Most importantly, I don’t think middle class should have to be subsidizing these industries—tariffs are a tax on the consumer—remember this next time you buy an appliance, home, car, etc. even your beer.
Oh, and you enjoy subsidizing the steel industry in your purchases, and watching your savings and 401K go down unless you invested in steel early on like Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross...
Yes, of course an economic newspaper that supports illegal immigration, and defended Bush’s debt and spending shouldn’t be trusted on other issues. You don’t care about American workers and America having any homegrown industries. Taxes go to the government. Tariffs protect American workers and protect the U.S. from being taken advantage of.
“I don’t want American Industries to die, I want American industries to be streamlined and competitive in order to survive.”
You cannot “streamline” enough to compete with some actual and extremely common near-slave labor, with governmental subsidies placed for strategic reasons, and with the legal ability to freely pollute with zero environmental rules.
And it is wrong to call the WSJ an “economic paper”. It’s a globalist economic paper owned by Rupert Murdoch who promised he wouldnt move them to the right from their traditonal stance.
WSJ is not pro-American or America first.
“In a 2004 study, Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo argue the Journal’s news pages have a pro-liberal bias because they more often quote liberal think tanks. They calculated the ideological attitude of news reports in 20 media outlets by counting the frequency they cited particular think tanks and comparing that to the frequency that legislators cited the same think tanks. They found that the news reporting of The Journal was the most liberal (more liberal than NPR or The New York Times).”