Obama Slaps tariffs on Chinese tires

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-to-impose-tariffs-on-apf-2199438691.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode= ^

[Orange1998]

President Barack Obama on Friday slapped punitive tariffs on all car and light truck tires entering the United States from China in a decision that could anger the strategically important Asian powerhouse but placate union supporters important to his health care push at home.

Obama had until Sept. 17 -- next week -- to accept, reject or modify a U.S. International Trade Commission ruling that a rising tide of Chinese tires into the U.S. hurts American producers. A powerful union, United Steelworkers, blames the increase for the loss of thousands of American jobs.

[_Jim]

NOW you’re acting delusional! And I'm done with you. So done ...

[1rudeboy]

All I did was ask you to explain yourself. And when you ran away, I asked for a second opinion, that’s all . . . don’t sweat it, sweetheart.

[ElectronVolt]

To all those who want to shut down trade with China, I would say that you have no business criticizing liberals. What you are telling me is that I am not free to choose (a little Friedman lingo) the products I want to buy. In fact, you are saying the government knows better what I should buy than I do. Congrats, you're on the road to thinking like a Democrat.

I also reject "Buy American." This is the tired, wrong notion that buying your own country's products creates jobs and prosperity. Why, oh, why won't this idea die?! If you really believe this, then Hong Kong is poor and Africa (which has the highest tariffs) is rich. Switzerland and Monaco must also be dirt poor.

[_Jim]

Done. Fini. Like in “I’m-outa-here”. Bye.

[1rudeboy]

That’s just fine, go. The conversation will go on without you, and we will try to reconstruct your argument the way the NTSB reconstructs a plane crash.

[_Jim]

Uh-uh. Not going to ‘debate’ you. No way. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not next month. Not next rear. Not ever!

[1rudeboy]

Again, that’s fine. Just let the record show that I wasn’t trying to debate you . . . I merely asked you to be more specific. It was only then that you turned into a chick.

[_Jim]

And - and - I’m not going to read your replys! I’m going to use my hand to block the screen so as not see any messages you post. You might was well be Cuba and I’m the USA; there is a trade embargo in effect! (At this point I put my fingers in my ears, close my eyes and loudly proclaim “I dooonntthheeaarryyoouu!!”)

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think he realized the poster he was defending was wrong and why defend a guy who ran away.

He finally saw that your refutation of the original poster's error was in fact correct and he didn't want to admit it.

[1rudeboy]

Comment #196 threw me. I think he chose a fragment of my sentence and decided to argue against it, to the exclusion of all else.

That's how I'm reading it, at least. I can't even think of a word to describe the error. It's as if I wrote that "home run output increased, coinciding with higher pitching velocities," and he thought that I was implying that pitchers are throwing the ball more slowly, causing more home runs.

[1rudeboy]

Smoot-Hawley enacted: 1930
Smoot-Hawley repealed: 1934

I still don't see the point of narrowing the focus from long-term to short-term, though. No one is arguing that Smoot-Hawley caused the Great Depression.

Source.