• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mexican President Cancels Trump Meeting as Sparks Fly Over Wall, Trade

mbig said:
Does Trumpov also expect the Mexican leader to commit suicide (political and otherwise), bow and kiss his hand?

And I'm still baffled by this "Wall" stupidity.
Enforced E-verify would not only stop, but dramatically Reverse the flow of illegals.
NO verifiable national ID, NO job. (employer sanctions)
They Walk Home.

Mexican President Cancels Trump Meeting as Sparks Fly Over Wall, Trade
U.S. leader raised pressure on Mexico to pay for border barrier
Mexican President Cancels Trump Meeting as Sparks Fly Over Wall, Trade - WSJ
By JOSÉ DE CÓRDOBA and PETER NICHOLAS
Updated Jan. 26, 2017 12:17 p.m. ET

Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto canceled a planned meeting with President Donald Trump next week after the U.S. president increased pressure on Mexico to pay for a wall he wants built on the border.

“If Mexico is unwilling to pay for the badly needed wall, then it would be better to cancel the upcoming meeting,” Mr. Trump wrote on his personal Twitter feed on Thursday morning.
[......]​
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that what Trump is trying to do is to explain that Mexico needs to stop approving of and supporting illegal immigration. It probably won't work. But he is likely to get his wall. Trump doesn't strike me as someone who takes no for an answer. I like the idea of stopping it at the point of employment. The public would have to understand that prices would rise because of it. That's OK with me but it may not be OK with everyone.
 
Hicup said:
The USA doesn't have to cease all trade, but my point is that it could if it needed to be.. Stopping trade with China and Mexico will not hurt our economy, in fact I think it will get better. Indo China and India are also good partners, and China knows it. I also see Russian and US relations getter much better under Trump. Something the Chinese would not welcome. Look, we are not at a disadvantage in the global economy, in fact it entirely depend on us. The USA has leverage, and up until now, our past leadership has not embraced it, Bush included.


Tim-
Click to expand...


That has to be the most ignorant post I've seen on this file.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I think 35% is a start of a negotiation, He's negotiating from a position of power, not weakness like the last guy. as for your question, overall? I think we may see slight increase in the cost of goods for us, but I'm willing to trade that to bring American Jobs back to the working class. I don't think it will be as significant as a V.A.T tax, or other left wing tax pipe dream.
Click to expand...

Well I'm sure those well off are quite willing to trade that. But not everyone is going to want to shoulder that, some may not be able to. With wage stagnation in terms of purchasing power, taking away more purchasing power may not be the best idea. And who knows how many more jobs it creates vs. wealth it drains. We may not be on the right side of that curve.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I think 35% is a start of a negotiation, He's negotiating from a position of power, not weakness like the last guy.
Click to expand...
Yeah.... no

Trump has the exact same power to negotiate trade deals as Obama did. Namely: The President can hit a nation with a maximum 15% tariff for 150 days. Anything more than that requires federal legislation. And any federal laws need to meet WTO treaty restrictions.

In fact, Obama slammed China with tariffs numerous times. He implemented a 250% - 522% tariff on cheap Chinese steel. He set tariffs on Chinese tires and poultry. He filed -- and won -- 20 actions with the WTO, including illegal Chinese taxes on autos and aircrafts.

These steps didn't fail because Obama is relatively mild-mannered. It's because tariffs don't work. They don't lower prices, they don't boost domestic employment, they don't rebalance trade. They increase the cost of goods and invite retaliation.


as for your question, overall? I think we may see slight increase in the cost of goods for us, but I'm willing to trade that to bring American Jobs back to the working class. I don't think it will be as significant as a V.A.T tax, or other left wing tax pipe dream.
Click to expand...
Yeah, problem being? The tariff won't bring back jobs. That is a nativist fantasy.

Just look at steel as an example. Since levying the tariffs, the US steel industry is still screwed. They actually raised their prices to only slightly undercut the imported steel, because why not? However, unsurprisingly, this reduced demand for US steel, because demand drops as prices increase. US steel companies fired thousands of employees, and are still struggling. Meanwhile, China retaliated with its own tariffs, which cut US exports, and thus US jobs. They also did an end-run around the tariff by using Vietnam as an intermediary.

Sorry dude, but you can't have your cake and eat it, too. We've seen this dozens of times throughout history. I really don't understand why people refuse to accept a basic and demonstrable fact of economics.
 
Fletch said:
Oh look. another sky-is-falling Chicken Little thread. Perhaps this perpetual state of fear is what leads the left to embrace the nanny state. You guys remind me of the elephant terrified by the mouse.
Click to expand...

That is one high quality contribution to the thread!
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I think 35% is a start of a negotiation, He's negotiating from a position of power, not weakness like the last guy. as for your question, overall? I think we may see slight increase in the cost of goods for us, but I'm willing to trade that to bring American Jobs back to the working class. I don't think it will be as significant as a V.A.T tax, or other left wing tax pipe dream.
Click to expand...

LOL your blind guess is that a 35% across the board cost increase won't hurt our economy as much as some social services?
 
Fearandloathing said:
That has to be the most ignorant post I've seen on this file.
Click to expand...

Well I've come to ignore your economic advice, you're really not well adept. We've always had the upper hand in negotiations, but no one in power willing to use it, and take our interests first. Always greedy little politcos who sell our ass down the river for their individual benefit. Well, no more! Suck it buttercups, and snowflakes, we' won! :)


Tim-
 
Ikari said:
Well I'm sure those well off are quite willing to trade that. But not everyone is going to want to shoulder that, some may not be able to. With wage stagnation in terms of purchasing power, taking away more purchasing power may not be the best idea. And who knows how many more jobs it creates vs. wealth it drains. We may not be on the right side of that curve.
Click to expand...



I'm "wait and see" at this point on this one.
 
Visbek said:
Yeah.... no

Trump has the exact same power to negotiate trade deals as Obama did. Namely: The President can hit a nation with a maximum 15% tariff for 150 days. Anything more than that requires federal legislation. And any federal laws need to meet WTO treaty restrictions.

In fact, Obama slammed China with tariffs numerous times. He implemented a 250% - 522% tariff on cheap Chinese steel. He set tariffs on Chinese tires and poultry. He filed -- and won -- 20 actions with the WTO, including illegal Chinese taxes on autos and aircrafts.

These steps didn't fail because Obama is relatively mild-mannered. It's because tariffs don't work. They don't lower prices, they don't boost domestic employment, they don't rebalance trade. They increase the cost of goods and invite retaliation.



Yeah, problem being? The tariff won't bring back jobs. That is a nativist fantasy.

Just look at steel as an example. Since levying the tariffs, the US steel industry is still screwed. They actually raised their prices to only slightly undercut the imported steel, because why not? However, unsurprisingly, this reduced demand for US steel, because demand drops as prices increase. US steel companies fired thousands of employees, and are still struggling. Meanwhile, China retaliated with its own tariffs, which cut US exports, and thus US jobs. They also did an end-run around the tariff by using Vietnam as an intermediary.

Sorry dude, but you can't have your cake and eat it, too. We've seen this dozens of times throughout history. I really don't understand why people refuse to accept a basic and demonstrable fact of economics.
Click to expand...



https://www.ft.com/content/1522243c-c93e-11e6-8f29-9445cac8966f


Just because you claim it, doesn't make it so!
 
Absentglare said:
LOL your blind guess is that a 35% across the board cost increase won't hurt our economy as much as some social services?
Click to expand...


/facepalm, Why must I suffer....


I never claimed that it will be 35%


I actually say that in the very quote you posted.... *sigh*
 
Lets see...so the left is REALLY upset over a 'wall' and a threat to actually enforce the law of the land with regard to US immigration policy.

yes...its very clear who has ****ed up priorities and why there are 20-30 million illegal immigrants in this country, just as its clear as to why we have such a massive trade imbalance and why the US sends so many billions of dollars into mejico.

And for the record...the rat party held sway from 2006 to 2012 controlling both the house and senate and from 2009-2012 held power in the house, senate, and WH. Can anyone point to their sweeping immigration reform that was meant to solve the actual problems?

And speaking of rats and their minions....





****ing hypocrites, the lot.


"That’s right. In 2006, scores of Democrats, including Schumer, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) voted for George W. Bush’s wall in 2006, according to Rachel Stoltzfoos of The Daily Caller: Two-thirds of the Republican-led House approved the bill, including 64 Democrats, and 80 of 100 senators approved the bill in the Senate. Then Sens. Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton were among the 26 Democrats who approved the bill. Supporters also included Sen. Chuck Schumer, who is set to take over leadership of the Senate for Democrats in 2016. Other Democrats in the Senate who voted for the wall in 2006 are Sens. Barbara Boxer (CA), Sherrod Brown (OH — then in the House), Tom Carper (DE), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Bill Nelson (FL), Debbie Stabenow (MI), and Ron Wyden (OR).
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
/facepalm, Why must I suffer....


I never claimed that it will be 35%


I actually say that in the very quote you posted.... *sigh*
Click to expand...

Oh right, you admitted he wants a 35% increase but you're holding out hope that he secretly wants something more sensible.

The problem is that a 17% or even a 10% across the board cost increase would be catastrophic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom