Trump Unleashes Tariffs On Mexico "Until Illegal Immigration Stops"

[Swordsmyth]

Great, after that, let's try this:

-Eliminate all taxes
-Pass law making it illegal not to donate money equal to old taxes to the IRS
-Set fine for violation of said law at that same amount

No more taxes!

That's a difference without a distinction.

My idea only costs those who are breaking the law, therefore it is more of a fine than a tax.

Mexico and the other countries involved are waging war on the US and it is time we fought back with appropriate counter measures.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Good heavens almighty. As if Trump couldn't get more disappointing.

This is going to have a nasty impact on auto prices and auto-parts costs.

Will probably hit some electrical machinery too.

Just what we need, right now, an even bigger squeeze on the middle class while making the working poor in Mexico even more poor.

The most disturbing thing, throughout all of this, is this demonstrates how fragile free trade is, and how quickly it can go south.

Mercantalism really never died; it just hid for a while.

 

[oyarde]

You guys must be buying a lot of stuff from mexico . Just Dos Equis for me .

 

[PAF]

You guys must be buying a lot of stuff from mexico . Just Dos Equis for me .

I have not tried that yet. I like the Hallertau hops myself typically found in the Canadians.

 

[TheTexan]

This is how Mexico will pay for the wall

 

[Superfluous Man]

The thread title is wrong. It should say, "Trump Unleashes Tariffs on America..."

 

[enhanced_deficit]

This should also help stop the USMCA

[h=1]Trump Pushes USMCA Approval Plan in Move That Irks Pelosi[/h] By Jenny Leonard
and Erik Wasson
May 30, 2019, 4:02 PM EDT Updated on May 30, 2019, 7:07 PM EDT

• House speaker says Democrats’ concerns need to be addressed
  
• Vice President Pence says White House wants approval by summer

The Trump administration formally notified Congress it’s moving forward with its plan to get the new Nafta approved -- a move that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called “not a positive step” as her party weighs whether to support the deal.
White House officials submitted a so-called Statement of Administrative Action, a step toward introducing legislation that would bring the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement into force. The move starts a minimum 30-day period for consultations between the White House and Congress to finalize the bill before a vote can take place.

This action could set up a showdown with Democrats who have opposed efforts by the Trump administration to rush a vote on the deal. While some Democrats are also pushing the White House’s goal for approval before the August recess, others are wary of delivering Trump a signature legislative victory as he hits the campaign trail for his 2020 re-election bid.

The administration has put pressure on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrats to approve the trade agreement despite lingering concerns about the deal within the Democratic-held House.


The White House’s decision to move forward more quickly than Democrats asked follows a tense meeting between the president and Democratic congressional leaders last week. Trump told Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer that he would not negotiate with them on legislation while House committees investigate him.
Democrats have raised several concerns about the agreement, including enforcement of labor and environmental protections and the deal’s potential effect on drug prices.
As the administration pushes to approve the deal, Vice President Mike Pence met with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Thursday. While in Ottawa, the vice president promised the U.S. would “get the USMCA done this year.”


The notice presented Thursday by the White House to Congress outlines U.S. legal obligations that are required by the USMCA.

Trump is pursuing approval of the deal under so-called fast-track authority, which enables him to seek a straight yes-or-no vote in exchange for clearing certain procedural hurdles.

House Democrats have raised a number of areas where they would like to see changes, including provisions governing labor, the environment and pharmaceuticals. In a step viewed as positive, Pelosi this month created working groups to negotiate with the administration.

The removal of U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada and Mexico this month also cleared a hurdle for lawmakers of both parties.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...d-with-usmca-approval-plan-as-democrats-waver

 

[Zippyjuan]

A 5% tariff on the amount of trade goods coming to the US, for one year, would raise about... $10 Billion.

By the time negotiating even began, the tariffs would be gone, and wall paid for.

Almost, at 6 million a mile, that's about 1667 miles. Border is about 2000. Keep the tariffs for another 3 months. 15 months, wall paid for.

Paid for by US companies and consumers. Mexico and China don't pay the tariffs, we do.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Trump is pursuing approval of the deal under so-called fast-track authority, which enables him to seek a straight yes-or-no vote in exchange for clearing certain procedural hurdles.

https://piie.com/blogs/trade-invest...an-push-congress-nafta-congress-can-push-back

In accordance with the fast track provision of Trade Promotion Authority, Congress is supposed to vote the USMCA up or down, without amendments, within 90 legislative days of the introduction of implementing legislation—an event that may not occur before early 2019, because drafting the implementing legislation will likely consume more than a month. However, juxtaposition of the 6-month termination letter and the fast track timeline implies that congressional deliberations should be concluded while NAFTA termination is still pending.

But Speaker Pelosi created ample precedent for ignoring the fast track timeline in 2008, when she overrode TPA procedures for the Peru, Colombia, and Korea free trade agreements. Assuming she is re-elected speaker in January, what she did to President Bush in 2008 she could do again to President Trump in 2019. As justification, Pelosi could cite the scant consultation between the administration and congressional Democrats before the USMCA text was finalized.

If USMCA is either rejected by Congress when the 6-month termination date arrives, or the vote has not yet been taken, and Trump declares NAFTA dead and gone, what then?

The Trump administration will face multiple lawsuits, filed by business firms, states, senators, and members of Congress, all claiming that Trump lacks the authority to impose tariffs on imports from Canada or Mexico, or to rescind other features of the NAFTA Implementation Act of 1993 (H.R. 3450). Moreover, both H.R. 3450 and the Trade Agreements Act of 1974 outline congressional consultation procedures that the president should follow prior to re-imposing tariffs on Canada and Mexico.

If Trump takes his time on the imposition of new tariffs, North America could reach the middle of 2020 before the politically and commercially disruptive event date. A presidential election will then be in sight, which could be reason for further delay.

But if Trump attempts to circumvent court review and congressional consultations by invoking other statutes to revive pre-NAFTA tariffs,[1] he could spark a congressional firestorm. Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress, not the president, jurisdiction over foreign commerce. Congressional outrage could in turn foster sweeping legislation to restrain the president.

Congress enacted several statutes over the past century that gave the president multiple powers to restrict foreign commerce. But those delegated powers could be constrained by fresh legislation attached to a single “must pass” bill. That prospect, together with the adverse financial and business consequences of new tariffs, could well persuade the president to think again.

Or the House could just vote "no" on approval. (Trump never did follow through on his threat to vacate NAFTA).

 

[ARealConservative]

never going to defend tariffs. EVER!

 

[UWDude]

Paid for by US companies and consumers. Mexico and China don't pay the tariffs, we do.

us consumers have planty of consumer goods, those are cheap and easy.

land and housing, however, is becoming an outrageous burden.
a person can not live on 40 hour a week minimum wage where i live (very high immigration area), without sharing a house with others.
nobody cares about the price of avacadoes and car parts, when rent is literally over 75% of their income.


stopping immigration relieves pressure on real estate prices.

 

[UWDude]

and for those whodont know, city walls were built for two reasons:

1) to defend against invaders
2) to tax people wanting to do business inside. as much as merchants hated paying these "tarrifs", they payed them anyway, because access to the market was far more profitable than not having access to it.

 

[Stratovarious]

Brilliant move, but we won't see real improvement till we have border security,
all incentives are cut , illegals are deported.

 

[tfurrh]

2) to tax people wanting to do business inside. as much as merchants hated paying these "tarrifs", they payed them anyway, because access to the market was far more profitable than not having access to it.

Then the merchant, being out the cost, charges more for his merchandise. From there, long term, it's all downhill in a million different directions.

 

[nikcers]

Then the merchant, being out the cost, charges more for his merchandise. From there, long term, it's all downhill in a million different directions.

Either that or people go through other merchants. The thing I have noticed about the Chinese tarrifs is that China made it cheaper for companies to do business in china in order to circumvent the costs at burden to the rest of the Chinese economy.


Since they subsidize so much of their "capitalism" making things cost more for people who produce gives people an incentive to do business in other countries to circumvent the cost and China would rather subsidize that cost rather than lose the business entirely so they are taking a lot more of a beating on this than you would imagine because they don't have free markets.

 

[TheTexan]

Since they subsidize so much of their "capitalism" making things cost more for people who produce gives people an incentive to do business in other countries to circumvent the cost and China would rather subsidize that cost rather than lose the business entirely so they are taking a lot more of a beating on this than you would imagine because they don't have free markets.

Trump's tariffs are teaching China a lesson in the importance of free markets

 

[nikcers]

Trump's tariffs are teaching China a lesson in the importance of free markets

They didn't like that secret meeting with Taiwan either.

 

[TheTexan]

Trump's tariffs are the best tariffs, really great, ask anyone

 

[phill4paul]

Then the merchant, being out the cost, charges more for his merchandise. From there, long term, it's all downhill in a million different directions.

The merchant (importer) is not necessarily out of the cost. Nor the buyer of the merchandise. The merchant, realizing that the higher cost would price his merchandise out of the acceptable price range for customers, would then do one of two things. He would either tell the wholesaler that they would need to eat some of the cost and therefore receive a lesser profit. Or he would look to other wholesalers for like products that do not carry the tariff.

 

[ARealConservative]

Trump's tariffs are the best tariffs, really great, ask anyone

all the other tariffs are disasters!