Free Traders Case For Tariffs

[DaisyDay]

Budget Reconciliation Update: Cuts to SNAP are Cuts to School Meals - Food Research & Action Center
No cuts to the federal child nutrition programs were included in the House Education and Workforce Committee’s bill

However (from your excellent link):

Even though the Committee did not include direct cuts to school meals, the reconciliation process continues to move forward, and proposals to cut programs could be incorporated at various points in that process. Advocacy is still needed to protect access to school meals and stop the proposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid.

Cuts to SNAP and Medicaid are cuts to school meals.

• Children are directly certified for free school meals if their household participates in SNAP, and most states directly certify children for free and/or reduced-price school meals using Medicaid data and a means test. If Congress cuts SNAP or Medicaid and children lose access to these programs, they will also lose their direct connection to free or reduced-price school meals and will have to complete a school meal application. This additional paperwork would burden families and school nutrition staff, and some eligible children will fall through the cracks.

• These cuts would also reduce the number of schools able to offer free meals to all students through CEP. Fewer schools would be eligible for CEP, and it would be less financially viable for those schools that remain eligible because reimbursements are primarily determined by the number of students who are directly certified.

Cuts to SNAP and Medicaid would also negatively impact participation in the Summer EBT Program and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

What’s next? House GOP leadership continues to work toward a unified budget reconciliation bill. Other committees are expected to mark up their sections over the next few weeks, with the House Agriculture Committee (which has jurisdiction over SNAP) expected to mark-up the week of May 12. Keep the pressure on all Members of Congress and urge them to oppose and speak out against proposals to cut, gut, or weaken SNAP, Medicaid, and school meals.
​

.
.

 

[o_mlly]

However (from your excellent link):

​

Even though the Committee did not include direct cuts to school meals, the reconciliation process continues to move forward, and proposals to cut programs could be incorporated at various points in that process. Advocacy is still needed to protect access to school meals and stop the proposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid.​

​

Cuts to SNAP and Medicaid are cuts to school meals. ​

​

• Children are directly certified for free school meals if their household participates in SNAP, and most states directly certify children for free and/or reduced-price school meals using Medicaid data and a means test. If Congress cuts SNAP or Medicaid and children lose access to these programs, they will also lose their direct connection to free or reduced-price school meals and will have to complete a school meal application. This additional paperwork would burden families and school nutrition staff, and some eligible children will fall through the cracks.
• These cuts would also reduce the number of schools able to offer free meals to all students through CEP. Fewer schools would be eligible for CEP, and it would be less financially viable for those schools that remain eligible because reimbursements are primarily determined by the number of students who are directly certified.

Cuts to SNAP and Medicaid would also negatively impact participation in the Summer EBT Program and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).​

​

What’s next? House GOP leadership continues to work toward a unified budget reconciliation bill. Other committees are expected to mark up their sections over the next few weeks, with the House Agriculture Committee (which has jurisdiction over SNAP) expected to mark-up the week of May 12. Keep the pressure on all Members of Congress and urge them to oppose and speak out against proposals to cut, gut, or weaken SNAP, Medicaid, and school meals.

​

.
.

The article has one fact, which I cited.

But ignoring that fact, you want to cite, contrary to that fact, the fearmongering embedded in the conditional and subjunctive mode claims. Shame, shame.

 

[o_mlly]

No, they are vague. Typically, if you are going to use tariffs to promote an industry you do very targeted tariffs. One great example is the "chicken tax" that we have in the US, where we charge a 10% tariff on any light duty vehicles (pickup trucks and SUVs) being imported into the US. At the time we implemented the chicken tax, as I recall, the plan was to protect/promote our chicken ranching and to protect the US truck manufacturing from cheap imports. Just, for some reason, we've kept that tariff in place for 60 plus years (yet are complaining about car import tariffs other nations have that are the same or lower than the "chicken tax" -- a bit of hypocrisy there).

By putting blanket tariffs on countries, not on specific products, you have not plan or a very vague plan. We aren't going to bring every industry back and likely don't want to. For example, as I mentioned elsewhere, clothing manufacturing typically does not pay as high of wages as heavy industry, so it likely is an industry we aren't rushing to return to the US -- yet the tariffs on clothing are the same as on cars, as on steel (which we need to build cars), on Rare Earth metals (needed to build any number of higher tech products), etc.

And this is yet another example, if we are wanting to increase US auto manufacturing, than it makes no sense to tariff things like steel, iron, and many other imports, since those tariffs raise the price on the materials manufacturers need to build cars -- making it less likely we'll increase our manufacture of cars.



First, what made our trade deficits unsustainable? They weren't unsustainable -- so long as we generate enough income in the US to pay other countries for the goods we import, than they aren't unsustainable. And we were creating more than enough value in the US to pay our bills. As others pointed out, in many cases the countries that had large trade surpluses with us were using them to invest in US bonds.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that running large trade deficits is not something we wanted to change, or even that it is a good thing. It just wasn't some type of emergency problem that requires a "quick fix." There is no ledger where we had to "pay back" what we were negative in the deficit -- we don't work on a bartering economy where we have to trade X amount of goods for Y amount of goods from another country. Instead, we just paid dollars for what we were getting and the dollar has a high enough value to allow us to pay for those goods.

As for the previous administration, they were getting factories built. Some of it was from the Inflation Reduction Act, others from the CHIPs act. In both cases, new factories were built (at least 181 investments in manufacturing from the Inflation Reduction Act; and multiple new and expanded fabricating plants to build computer chips, with billions in investment, because of the CHIPs Act. As others have tried to say, this is what happens when you have an industrial plan and create policy/law to get companies to invest in those plans.

It was a bit ironic watching Republican leaders who had voted against these bills then go to a ground breaking for the factories and claim they made the investments happen for their districts (one example). And as Trump has brought up that Congress needs to repeal these Acts by Biden, Congressional Democrats aren't wanting to do that now.

Do I understand the gist of your arguments? "We've never tried blanket tariffs by country, so we know that can't work"? And (against Einstein's insight), targeted tariffs don't work so let just keep trying them hoping for different outcome"? Or "Let's just keep on kicking the can down the road until ..."?

 

[DaisyDay]

The article has one fact, which I cited.

But ignoring that fact, you want to cite, contrary to that fact, the fearmongering embedded in the conditional and subjunctive mode claims. Shame, shame.

The article has more than one single fact. And shame on your own self.

 

[o_mlly]

The article has more than one single fact.

The article has no facts related to the thread's topic. A poster steered this budget plan into the discussion. Let's stay on topic. Got anything else (facts) to add?

 

[DaisyDay]

The article has no facts related to the thread's topic. A poster steered this budget plan into the discussion. Let's stay on topic. Got anything else (facts) to add?

The article confirms that school lunches are a part of the social safety net.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes, yes ,,, we get it, you don't like Trump. Got any facts?

I didn't say anything about not liking him. I correctly identified him as painfully ignorant and misguided on international economics. (I gave you several facts in that post.) Someone who knows nothing about international trade would know more than Trump.

 

[o_mlly]

The article confirms that school lunches are a part of the social safety net.

Uhh? ... and how does that relate to "Free Traders Case For Tariffs"?

I correctly identified him as painfully ignorant and misguided on international economics. (I gave you several facts in that post.)

All I saw in your post was, once again, your negative opinions but no facts in support. Opinions are not facts.

 

[DaisyDay]

Uhh? ... and how does that relate to "Free Traders Case For Tariffs"?

Hmm. Perhaps don't post an article to the thread just to bitterly complain when the other posters discuss it?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Uhh? ... and how does that relate to "Free Traders Case For Tariffs"?

All I saw in your post was, once again, your negative opinions but no facts in support. Opinions are not facts.

That Trump and Navarro are far far outside the modern understanding of international economics and trade is true. (It is also true that Navarro invented quotes from an invented "expert" for his book. )

 

[o_mlly]

That Trump and Navarro are far far outside the modern understanding of international economics and trade is true.

Be specific (with facts), what "modern understanding" is Trump far outside of?

 

[o_mlly]

Perhaps don't post an article to the thread just to bitterly complain when the other posters discuss it?

"Bitter" is a feeling and not my area of expertise. Thinking is my area. No complaints or arguments about your feelings. On that you are always correct. But as to facts from you ... <crickets>.

 

[DaisyDay]

"Bitter" is a feeling and not my area of expertise.

You don't know your own feelings? Sorry to hear that.

Thinking is my area.

Sure.

No complaints or arguments about your feelings. On that you are always correct. But as to facts from you ... <crickets>.

As I did post a fact from the article you posted to this thread indicates that your area of expertise might just be a bit...sad.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Be specific (with facts), what "modern understanding" is Trump far outside of?

We can start with the modern understanding of international trade as net good, a win-win, versus Trump's obvious and well stated beliefs that in every deal someone gets the short end of the stick - for someone to get a good deal someone must get shafted. (Even in real estate development that is a poor understanding of transactions.)

 

[Vambram]

Trump says China agrees to 'fully' open country's markets to US businesses

President Donald Trump told reporters Monday at the White House that the arrangement arguably was the most significant development stemming from the trade negotiations.

www.foxnews.com

President Trump's tariffs against China is working to bring about the desired outcome of fair trade with China. We are winning.

 

[BCP1928]

Trump says China agrees to 'fully' open country's markets to US businesses

President Donald Trump told reporters Monday at the White House that the arrangement arguably was the most significant development stemming from the trade negotiations.

www.foxnews.com

President Trump's tariffs against China is working to bring about the desired outcome of fair trade with China. We are winning.

Who's we? I'm not winning, there won't be any more money in my pocket because of it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Trump says China agrees to 'fully' open country's markets to US businesses

President Donald Trump told reporters Monday at the White House that the arrangement arguably was the most significant development stemming from the trade negotiations.

www.foxnews.com

President Trump's tariffs against China is working to bring about the desired outcome of fair trade with China. We are winning.

Where is the agreement with China that codifies the detail of this new "openness"? It will number in the dozens or even hundreds of pages if it ever exists.

 

[Vambram]

Who's we? I'm not winning, there won't be any more money in my pocket because of it.

We are winning because the USA is winning.

 

[Vambram]

Where is the agreement with China that codifies the detail of this new "openness"? It will number in the dozens or even hundreds of pages if it ever exists.

Obviously, the details of this agreement shall be worked out and released. You would know that if you had read all of that article.

 

[BCP1928]

We are winning because the USA is winning.

OK, so the USA is winning. What's in it for me? What's in it for the working class generally?