• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Farm Bailout Now Twice As Expensive As Auto Bailout

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by iluvatar5150, Sep 21, 2019.

  1. iluvatar5150

    iluvatar5150 Well-Known Member

    +10,455
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

     
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • List
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Dropout_Theologian

    Dropout_Theologian Not an ant in God's glorious library. Supporter

    254
    +269
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Others
    Well I learned something today. Thank you.
     
  3. LostMarbels

    LostMarbels Follower of Jesus

    +2,133
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Others
  4. Tanj

    Tanj Redefined comfortable middle class

    +3,589
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Tariffs are taxes. They are paid by Americans, not foreigners. The revenue stream is 100% tax on Americans. In fact, even the little logo you proudly displayed has the word "tax" in it.
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  5. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +5,644
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Ugh...

    I suppose that it's just a drop in the bucket of poor economic/financial decisions this president has made. The weird thing is that under basically any other president, this would be big news. Under Trump though....it's a footnote.

    I the upside is that farmers actually deserve it. They're weathering a government created crisis...not asking for a handout to save themselves from poor business practices and then giving millions to themselves in bonuses. It's still a big pricetag that seems to have been easily avoided.
     
  6. ToddNotTodd

    ToddNotTodd Iconoclast

    +2,334
    Seeker
    Married
    As a conservative, I’m against these socialist hand outs. These farmers made their own bed, and now they need to lie in it. We need to keep these liberals in Washington in check.

    Wait... Your telling me the president is responsible?

    As a conservative, I’m for these beneficial aid packages, in order to protect our farmers, who are being victimized by Hillary Clinton and George Soros.
     
    • Funny Funny x 8
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  7. essentialsaltes

    essentialsaltes Stranger in a Strange Land

    +9,459
    Atheist
    Legal Union (Other)
    Sounds like wealth redistribution. Wait, that's what farm and corporate subsidies have always been.
     
  8. RocksInMyHead

    RocksInMyHead God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

    +1,379
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Democrat
    As an addendum to Tanj's post (about a concept that has been explained to you multiple times), that number is ALL tariff tax revenue. Our tariffs were not zero before Trump enacted his tariffs on China. So even if it was money coming in from foreign sources (which it isn't), about half of it was already spoken for as part of the existing budget. In other words, for every dollar of tariff revenue from Trump's tariffs (which comes from American importers, not foreign exporters), we're giving a dollar to farm subsidies. So not only is additional money not being introduced into the economy, but the government is also not seeing any additional revenue from its tariffs because all of the money goes to bailouts.

    Taking things further, if the tariffs have the desired result of fewer people buying Chinese goods, then there will be significantly less tariff revenue. However, the farmers will still need subsidies, because China still won't be buying their harvests. This means that the money will have to come from other sources - in other words, the government would be losing money on the deal.
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • List
  9. LostMarbels

    LostMarbels Follower of Jesus

    +2,133
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Others

    Lets not forget it was reported the auto bailout was actualy 80 billion. Oh right, was that a differnt bailout? How many times did we pay for the auto industry?

    upload_2019-9-22_20-35-28.png

    I understand what you are saying. We are still bleeding, and any 'revenue' at the american importer's expense is not 'new' revenue. It is more of a duty tax. I get that. You are correct. I was saying it is not coming from our federal budget. 'It' is it's own revenue stream.

    Last year however we lost $419 Billion in trade. Now we spent $28 Billion on aid to the farmers. Honestly, we would save billions not even trading with them. I think anyone would be happy to reduce their losses/shrinkage by $‭391‬ billion a year. Even if that isn't an achievable figure, the way I see it, if we are able to absorb the cost of the farm aid, and still reduce our losses below $419 billion, we are saving money.

    An example. Let's say we get the costs considering farm aid and everything trade with China entails down to $200 billion. That still puts us $219 billion ahead of what we are currently spending while trading with them. However, I still believe the ideal situation would be fair and reciprocal trade where both parties benefit.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2019
  10. LostMarbels

    LostMarbels Follower of Jesus

    +2,133
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Others
    I am for this because Trump is trying to take care of the famers while his policies are enacted. He is not just shrugging his shoulders and letting the farmers get wiped out.
     
  11. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +9,885
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    Who's "we?" A trade deficit is not paid for directly by American consumers, but tariffs are.
     
  12. LostMarbels

    LostMarbels Follower of Jesus

    +2,133
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Others
    Galactic apes from the planet Gargone. If you do not even understand who is 'we' in a post in an American Politics forum, discussing American tariffs/trade... why even bother?
     
  13. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +9,885
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    Who pays for the trade deficit?
    Who pays for tariffs on imported goods?
     
  14. LostMarbels

    LostMarbels Follower of Jesus

    +2,133
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Others
    A trade deficit does not get 'paid off'. Being in trade deficit means you buy more than you sell. Think about the country as a business. If you buy more goods then you sell you will get into debt. You will also put your own people out of work because they aren't needed to produce the goods.

    A simplistic way to veiw it is capital. Money has value. Cell phones, cars, live stock, all have value. The man with the most gold has that most money. If you are the one producing for the demand you are the one making money. Also, simple supply and demand. Control the supply, you control the demand. And everyone's coming to you with their money for your supply. OPEC has done it for decades. Just on a whim they can regulate the entire world's gas prices. Supply. Demand. And in this case capital in oil.

    Is it bad for an economy to have a trade surplus of hundreds of billions? The nation will not prosper as well as those who deficit spend and have a deficit in the hundreds of billions?
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2019
  15. iluvatar5150

    iluvatar5150 Well-Known Member

    +10,455
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Democrat
    $80 billion was the amount loaned to the auto industry; most of that was paid back. $12 billion (or possibly 14, I’m seeing different numbers) was the amount we lost on it and had to write down.
     
  16. LostMarbels

    LostMarbels Follower of Jesus

    +2,133
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Others
    Ok, so what would have happened had we not spent that money?
     
  17. iluvatar5150

    iluvatar5150 Well-Known Member

    +10,455
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Something worse than what did happen.
     
  18. essentialsaltes

    essentialsaltes Stranger in a Strange Land

    +9,459
    Atheist
    Legal Union (Other)
    The Treasury received stock in the companies in exchange for the money. And later sold that stock to recoup most of the investment.

    With the farmers, we're not even getting soybeans in exchange for the money.
     
  19. LostMarbels

    LostMarbels Follower of Jesus

    +2,133
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Others
    Good point. This is a straight up aid. The only way to recoup is thru better trade.
     
  20. RocksInMyHead

    RocksInMyHead God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

    +1,379
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Democrat
    But that was the situation. Trade deficits aren't necessarily a bad thing, especially if you're only looking at the balance with a single country.
     
Loading...