Biden Regime considering TRIPLING tariffs

Biden kept the tariffs on China this whole time, so it's not new. But a fair criticism based on that tweet that he has kept those while inflation is high.

 

I like how critics of Biden call him weak on the PRC and selling out Us industry but he has not just maintained tariffs and wants to raise them.

That said I don’t agree with the raising of tariffs. I was listening to an analysis of the steel tariffs and they haven’t led to an increase in US steel production as Chinese steel has instead been moved through other countries.

 

It's protectionism. Tariffs can increase costs to consumers, protect jobs in the U.S., and are a tool for demanding trade fairness. It's a balancing act, and yes, they can be used as a political tool as well during elections.

It is wrong to claim tariffs are simply being paid by China (to the U.S.), which was what the previous POTUS claimed but not the current POTUS.

 

Not at all disingenous.

Yes, you are right that that was the tweet's implication, which was valid and reasonable. As I mentioned, tariffs can raise costs for consumers in the U.S., effectively harming them. However, tariffs can also serve other purposes, such as protecting domestic jobs and acting as a negotiating tool to demand fairer trade practices, or as a domestic political tool. The previous POTUS was wrong in claiming that China directly pays the U.S. due to tariffs. In contrast, the current POTUS does not make this inaccurate assertion.

 

ur being willfully ignorant.

the ignorant Trump who infamously said "tariffs are easy" thinks the target country pays the tariff​

 

what has changed.

China’s attempts to “flood the market with cheap products” through anti-dumping and countervailing duties, among other actions.

eg

China has set up steel-producing co in Mexico---using less expensive raw materials shipped from Chinaa---and produce the steel Mexico and
then sell to us co, i=bypassing the original tariff on steel from China

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/17/politics/biden-tariffs-chinese-steel-economic-pitch/index.html​

 

Partisans love carrying water for **** they piled on Trump. Mental gymnastics should be an Olympic sport.

If one thought Trump's tariff policies were a disaster (oh no Mr. Hawley Smoots is rolling in his grave!!!!) and a contributor to inflation, then what Biden is doing falls in line with the same damn thing.

Biden wants those blue collar "Pittsburgh voters" as much as Trump...which is fair game but you can't have and eat the cake while still raling on Trump's tariff tweets.

Oh. Noes. Steel. And. Aluminum. The. Inflation.

 

When it comes to trade, the difference between Biden and Trump is how we treat our allies. Countries with fair trade practices deserve free trade, but Trump was super protectionist with his trade policies. The idea that Biden is a Chinese puppet was among the most absurd things Republicans ever came up with.

 

Hhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm
So . . .what are we trying to say
Biden is terrible because he is doing the terrible thing that Trump was doing?
Question: Is Trump terrible for doing it in the first place ?

Terrible is Terrible
Politicians gonna politician

I don't know enough about this one to really comment on the particulars
Is this true protectionism or a way to allow the corporations to price gouge and profit fest

Rocket River

 

There is absolutely no doubt that the Trump tariffs were sweeping and had a giant role in inflation. Lumber tariffs alone shut down vast swaths of lumber production in Canada, and when the housing boom hit during the pandemic, it caused serious supply issues until Canadian lumber production could ramp back up. (remember $6 pine fence pickets? **** that)

Selective tariffs are good for encouraging trade balances and growth in your country, but it's a very delicate thing.

 

Less room for nuanced discussion, but that's a rare commodity around here. The Biden admin claims that this impacts less than 0.6% of US steel, so basically no inflationary pressure... which then suggests that it's mostly a political move. Caveat - this is according to one news article I read, and I havne't took the time to dig into it more.

Regarding the tweet, there is a significant difference that shouldn't be ignored and grouped into a broad category of political sport. Trump was clearly misleading the public when he said and continued to insist, even when corrected, that China paid the US for the tariffs.

 

Well it is what the REGIME has chosen to do. One thing about this REGIME is that even when they follow the former president's policies, the MAGA voters still aren't pleased with the REGIME. That's the funny about REGIMEs some people like them and some people don't. We will have to wait and see what happens with the REGIME in the future.

 

The official WH xeet brags they tripled tariffs by design while burying "the impacts" in the fine print.

The whole tree for the forest routine as proxy for nuanced discussion is exhausting because he's largely kept the China tariffs of his predecessor on top of piling more trade restrictions and bans.

"This one this time" doesn't increase inflation that much, but that orange shirtbag is lying and threatening more tariffs on truff social! DoeSNt hE kNoW HaWleY smOOt???222

 

Making a statement to the press on the impact isn't exactly burying the impact in fine print. But as I implied, I wouldn't just buy it at this time.

A nuanced discussion acknowledge not only the trees but also the whole forest and recognize known limitations, with caveats and the like. What I prefer are expressions without 100% certainty when there seem to be unknowns, leaving room for discussion. The opposite leaves no room.