Trump announces tariff on all Mexican imports

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,615
2,168
743
Where else but Stillwater
#42
yeah... that's yet another fools argument. When are you going to stop the flatulent spewing leftist demagoguery you keep trying to force on the suspicious minds of this site ?

you didn't even attempt to present a link between minimum wage and poverty.

The Obama Administration long ago removed the price of food from the poverty standard.

If you had a sole wage earner making minimum wage supporting a family of four, then you might have a point - but you didn't even try to establish that, or attempt to show if it is even likely.

Minimum wage serves two purposes 1) keep people from getting entry level jobs and prevent competition to union workers, and 2) increase the wages of union works, who's contracts are typically tied to the minimum wage (on a percentage basis).

come on dude, do you only know one song? It's getting really old
NO, CaliforniaCowboy you are quite sadly all out WRONG. Try telling your tirade to Arkansas people where the minimum wage is to go up from $9.25 an hour now to $11.00 on Jan. 1, 2021. They know full well what they're doing for their own common good. Probably a good side effect is that low pay will have to go up in border towns on the the Oklahoma side. Or are you a contrarian and see Arkansas border towns becoming ghost towns while Oklahoma border towns boom? IF you believe that, then you better visit Texarkana and see how both sides of town are doing.

Your points on unions are just the utter height of ridiculousness. To the relief of Republicans, union influence on the economy and wages has been going downhill as quite well reflected by Right to Work victories in several states in recent years. You can say Missouri was an exception, if you want.

You want a link between minimum wage and poverty? Here:

Nebraska min. wage: $9.00, poverty rate 10.8%.
Oklahoma min. wage: $7.25, poverty rate 15.8%.

Will higher and higher min. wage work to lift Arkansas out of its very high poverty levels? I don't know, but we will see in years to come.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,615
2,168
743
Where else but Stillwater
#43
Larry Kudlow once said Trump's proposed trade policies 'will pose incalculable damage' to US economy

(CNN)Larry Kudlow, the President's chief economic adviser, once said Donald Trump's proposed policies on trade would lead to a bad recession, cause "incalculable damage" to the economy and kill consumers and businesses alike.

Kudlow made those comments in 2015 on the Larry Kudlow Show, a radio program he hosted before joining the White House in March 2018. Trump at the time was in the early stages of his ultimately successful campaign to secure the Republican nomination and eventually the presidency.
In segments on his show, Kudlow said the tariffs Trump then sought and has now moved to impose on China and Mexico would damage the US economy enormously -- and also said that Mexico's government was not to blame for undocumented immigrants coming to the US.
The comments from Kudlow harshly contradict the administration's current positions on trade, which Kudlow is now tasked with publicly defending. In the past month, Trump has proposed a 5% tariff on all goods from Mexico starting on June 10 and raised tariffs on Chinese imports to 25% from 10%.

Kudlow stood by the administration's current policies in a phone interview with CNN's KFile this week.
"That was then and this is now," Kudlow said. "I think his trade policies with China in particular have been very strong. They are not damaging the US economy."
Asked about his past criticism, Kudlow claimed he was speaking hypothetically.
"Those were worst case scenarios, it was all hypothetical," he added. "We don't know what's going happen with Mexico."

More at: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/06/politics/kudlow-trade-incalculable-damage-economy/index.html
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,541
23,899
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#45
I doubt it.
Price of Big Mac meal in Omaha: $7.00, min. wage $9.00.
Price of BIg Mac meal in Oklahoma City: $7.00, min. wage $7.25.
Why'd you stop at a national chain and just one example.

Price of a dozen eggs in Omaha: $2.88, in Tulsa: $2.55
Price of 2 lb of tomatoes in Omaha: $3.89, in Tulsa: $2.62
Price of pair of jeans in Omaha: $54, in Tulsa: $43
Price of shampoo in Omaha: $5.43, in Tulsa: $3.56

Bottom line is that some things are cheaper in Omaha while other things are cheaper on Tulsa (or OKC). Minimum wage DOES cause prices to go up, because labor costs affect prices....anyone who pretends they don't is just an idiot. You're trying to look at minimum wage in a vacuum without taking other factors into consideration.

Omaha has other factors that help it's economy over OKC, for example it's the telecommunication capital of the US....but keep increasing labor costs and some of those companies might start looking to move....maybe to some place like OKC where the labor cost isn't so prohibitive.

Also, anyone still making minimum wage after 6 months, probably doesn't deserve a raise. Getting that first bump above minimum wage is the easiest thing to accomplish in any persons entire working career...if a person can't get that increase without help from the government, then something is wrong with them.
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
7,934
6,679
1,743
Yukon, OK
#46
I doubt it.
Price of Big Mac meal in Omaha: $7.00, min. wage $9.00.
Price of BIg Mac meal in Oklahoma City: $7.00, min. wage $7.25.
Why'd you stop at a national chain and just one example.
Because listing 2 examples from that same chain could completely blow up his argument...
Price of a Quarter Pounder in Dodge City, KS: $4.02, min. wage $7.25
Price of a Quarter Pounder in Enid, OK: $2.99, min wage $7.25


Can someone explain why the answer to some regions being more expensive to live in and those costs of living increasing should be answered by an arbitrary fed min wage increase? Why don't those STATES whose citizens are suffering the most just raise THEIR min wage??
 

John C

Deputy
A/V Subscriber
Oct 13, 2011
1,381
2,032
743
64
#48
During WW II, German saboteurs and spies were easily able to enter the U.S. by entering Mexico and then simply walking across our border. (Mexico’s media had a definite pro-German slant in the early part of the war.). Sounds like ISIS took a page from the Nazi play book.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,866
2,503
1,743
So Cal
#49
N

You want a link between minimum wage and poverty? Here:

Nebraska min. wage: $9.00, poverty rate 10.8%.
Oklahoma min. wage: $7.25, poverty rate 15.8%.

Will higher and higher min. wage work to lift Arkansas out of its very high poverty levels? I don't know, but we will see in years to come.
That is NOT a "link", that is simply coincidental statistics, that you have failed to actually link together.

A Raise Won’t End Poverty

Washington — HOW much do you think the average New York household with one minimum wage worker earns per year? $10,000? $15,000? $20,000?

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

It’s $53,370 a year, according to the latest census bureau figures. True, with that kind of money, a minimum wage worker won’t be buying the Knicks anytime soon. But it does put him comfortably in the middle class, with a big chunk of change between him and the poverty line.

Here’s another surprising statistic: less than 15 percent of minimum wage employees in New York are single parents supporting children. Most are teenagers looking to earn some extra cash or adults who are second or third earners in their families.

Unfortunately, these facts haven’t kept two powerful New York state legislators from trotting out the old myth that a minimum wage increase is a much-needed helping hand for the state’s poor.
https://www.epionline.org/oped/o102/

The minimum wage is an antiquated anti-poverty tool that hurts the people it’s supposed to help. Instead of raising it, legislators should expand the size and scope of the state’s earned income tax credit, which provides tax-free income to poor people who work (on top of income from the federal earned income tax program).


Who Earns the Minimum Wage? Suburban Teenagers, Not Single Parents

In his State of the Union address, President Obama called for raising minimum wage to $9.00 an hour. He argued that “no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty.”Most minimum-wage workers, however, are not poor. Congress should examine which workers—that would not lose their jobs—would benefit from a higher minimum wage.

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau show that most minimum-wage earners are young, part-time workers and that relatively few of them live below the poverty line. Their average family income is over $53,000 a year. A hike in the minimum wage primarily raises pay for suburban teenagers, not the working poor. If Congress and the President seriously want to help the working poor, they should look elsewhere.

https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-l...um-wage-suburban-teenagers-not-single-parents
 
Sep 22, 2011
3,583
2,748
743
31
#50
To me Trumps entire first term will be measured by the success/failure of the tax reform and the tariffs, if he can get a deal he can sell to the American people he will sail through to a second term but if he comes out empty handed, and the growth doesn’t come through from the tax cuts, A LOT of people will turn on him.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,866
2,503
1,743
So Cal
#51
To me Trumps entire first term will be measured by the success/failure of the tax reform and the tariffs, if he can get a deal he can sell to the American people he will sail through to a second term but if he comes out empty handed, and the growth doesn’t come through from the tax cuts, A LOT of people will turn on him.
So... he's a shoe-in, right? (since the success/failure of the tax reform is already known and is a rousing success, and tariffs have nothing to do with anything. "getting a deal", means that Congress agrees with him, but they're fighting him all the way, including the GOP who just this week undermined him by undercutting his Mexico tariff threats before he even had a chance to negotiate. Beyond that, he already did the NAFTA deal, and all the other deals.

"It's the Economy stupid", to borrow an old tagline.

Trump has done a fantastic job in practically every area, but if the economy turns South, then none of his good works will matter much (provided the Socialists can come up with a candidate that doesn't absolutely turn the stomachs of the general public, like the last one did)

Trump might just run unopposed (so to speak), if the left can't come up with someone that is not just more of the same DC politics - and so far, there is not one candidate that is even slightly palatable to the general public.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
7,485
3,619
743
49
#52
N

You want a link between minimum wage and poverty? Here:

Nebraska min. wage: $9.00, poverty rate 10.8%.
Oklahoma min. wage: $7.25, poverty rate 15.8%.

Will higher and higher min. wage work to lift Arkansas out of its very high poverty levels? I don't know, but we will see in years to come.
That is NOT a "link", that is simply coincidental statistics, that you have failed to actually link together.

A Raise Won’t End Poverty

Washington — HOW much do you think the average New York household with one minimum wage worker earns per year? $10,000? $15,000? $20,000?

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

It’s $53,370 a year, according to the latest census bureau figures. True, with that kind of money, a minimum wage worker won’t be buying the Knicks anytime soon. But it does put him comfortably in the middle class, with a big chunk of change between him and the poverty line.

Here’s another surprising statistic: less than 15 percent of minimum wage employees in New York are single parents supporting children. Most are teenagers looking to earn some extra cash or adults who are second or third earners in their families.

Unfortunately, these facts haven’t kept two powerful New York state legislators from trotting out the old myth that a minimum wage increase is a much-needed helping hand for the state’s poor.
https://www.epionline.org/oped/o102/

The minimum wage is an antiquated anti-poverty tool that hurts the people it’s supposed to help. Instead of raising it, legislators should expand the size and scope of the state’s earned income tax credit, which provides tax-free income to poor people who work (on top of income from the federal earned income tax program).


Who Earns the Minimum Wage? Suburban Teenagers, Not Single Parents

In his State of the Union address, President Obama called for raising minimum wage to $9.00 an hour. He argued that “no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty.”Most minimum-wage workers, however, are not poor. Congress should examine which workers—that would not lose their jobs—would benefit from a higher minimum wage.

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau show that most minimum-wage earners are young, part-time workers and that relatively few of them live below the poverty line. Their average family income is over $53,000 a year. A hike in the minimum wage primarily raises pay for suburban teenagers, not the working poor. If Congress and the President seriously want to help the working poor, they should look elsewhere.

https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-l...um-wage-suburban-teenagers-not-single-parents
Higher minimum wages also help unions because most have clauses in their contracts that say their members get raises comparable to the percentage increase in the minimum wages, or it trips a contract negotiation clause allowing them to force management into raises.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

ramases2112

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Jun 28, 2008
10,340
5,400
1,743
27
Inside the Basket of Deplorables
www.reddit.com
#53
To me Trumps entire first term will be measured by the success/failure of the tax reform and the tariffs, if he can get a deal he can sell to the American people he will sail through to a second term but if he comes out empty handed, and the growth doesn’t come through from the tax cuts, A LOT of people will turn on him.
Well it has. We have had 3% growth for a full GDP year last year which is the first in a long time if I'm remembering correctly. Tariffs arent really having an impact on the economy it seems because wages are going up and every one has a job. I keep waiting for the negative effects of the tariffs but I just haven't yet. If having to pay a little extra for certain items, I doubt anyone will even care.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 
Sep 22, 2011
3,583
2,748
743
31
#54
So... he's a shoe-in, right? (since the success/failure of the tax reform is already known and is a rousing success, and tariffs have nothing to do with anything. "getting a deal", means that Congress agrees with him, but they're fighting him all the way, including the GOP who just this week undermined him by undercutting his Mexico tariff threats before he even had a chance to negotiate. Beyond that, he already did the NAFTA deal, and all the other deals.

"It's the Economy stupid", to borrow an old tagline.

Trump has done a fantastic job in practically every area, but if the economy turns South, then none of his good works will matter much (provided the Socialists can come up with a candidate that doesn't absolutely turn the stomachs of the general public, like the last one did)

Trump might just run unopposed (so to speak), if the left can't come up with someone that is not just more of the same DC politics - and so far, there is not one candidate that is even slightly palatable to the general public.
A lot of people are already hurting because of the tariff war with China, with the Mexican tariffs people will start paying more for a lot of stuff. If he gets Mexico and China to make big concessions with it he can turn it into a win, but if he goes into the election with no concessions from China and Mexico and <4% growth he will be in trouble. Remember that you and I don’t matter because of the electoral college only swing voters in swing states matter and turnout matters more than anything. Trump needs wins to turn out the voters in the rust belt, and right now the tariffs are hurting them.

I had a chance to hear from senator lankford about the tax cuts last year and he said that the gamble that they made was for 4% growth, if the tax cuts led to 4% growth the tax cuts would be revenue neutral, we aren’t there right now so all the tax cuts have done is to give people larger returns and lowering rates by increasing the deficit and growing the debt. Not a good thing in my book.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,541
23,899
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#55
To me Trumps entire first term will be measured by the success/failure of the tax reform and the tariffs, if he can get a deal he can sell to the American people he will sail through to a second term but if he comes out empty handed, and the growth doesn’t come through from the tax cuts, A LOT of people will turn on him.
The irony of this is that China and Mexico might be thinking they only need to bide their time and if Trump loses, the next president will immediately get rid of the tariffs....so no need to make a deal

However if Trump is a shoe in, or if the Dem challenger vowed to keep the tariffs in place then China might go ahead and make a deal sooner rather than later. It's a game of chicken that unfortunately doesn't have to be if both parties would stand united on this.

As for growth from the tax cuts, that's already happened....that growth may slow down by next summer but you can't say it hasn't happened.
 

NotOnTV

BRB -- Taking an okie leak
Sep 14, 2010
8,106
6,199
743
Gondor
#56
The irony of this is that China and Mexico might be thinking they only need to bide their time and if Trump loses, the next president will immediately get rid of the tariffs....so no need to make a deal

However if Trump is a shoe in, or if the Dem challenger vowed to keep the tariffs in place then China might go ahead and make a deal sooner rather than later. It's a game of chicken that unfortunately doesn't have to be if both parties would stand united on this.

As for growth from the tax cuts, that's already happened....that growth may slow down by next summer but you can't say it hasn't happened.
Little Schmucky Schumer is on record as favoring the tariffs.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,866
2,503
1,743
So Cal
#57
A lot of people are already hurting because of the tariff war with China, with the Mexican tariffs people will start paying more for a lot of stuff. If he gets Mexico and China to make big concessions with it he can turn it into a win, but if he goes into the election with no concessions from China and Mexico and <4% growth he will be in trouble. Remember that you and I don’t matter because of the electoral college only swing voters in swing states matter and turnout matters more than anything. Trump needs wins to turn out the voters in the rust belt, and right now the tariffs are hurting them.

I had a chance to hear from senator lankford about the tax cuts last year and he said that the gamble that they made was for 4% growth, if the tax cuts led to 4% growth the tax cuts would be revenue neutral, we aren’t there right now so all the tax cuts have done is to give people larger returns and lowering rates by increasing the deficit and growing the debt. Not a good thing in my book.
none of that is really true though, other than Lankford might believe it.

China is China, and everybody and their brother is on board with holding China at task. Everybody.

Nothing will happen with Mexico.... worse case is companies move their plants. Mexico already signed the new NAFTA, just waiting on our Congress.

All of that is just blather and left-wing fluff. Fake news.

People are not hurting as much as you're suggesting, except perhaps the farmers, and he's going to give them money, so there is that.

Tax cuts IS revenue neutral on individual taxes.... actually it's net positive on revenue. ALREADY. Corporate taxes not so much, yet, but that was already known, and job/employment numbers alone justify the corporate tax rates.

The debt is growing because SPENDING is not being cut - it has nothing to do with tax collections, per se. We're not all that far behind in "total tax" collections. (91 billion, last report)

I'm not a fan of tariffs, but they will not cost Trump an election, and neither will <4% growth (which is actually freaking excellent)
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
28,878
15,709
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#58
Well it has. We have had 3% growth for a full GDP year last year which is the first in a long time if I'm remembering correctly. Tariffs arent really having an impact on the economy it seems because wages are going up and every one has a job. I keep waiting for the negative effects of the tariffs but I just haven't yet. If having to pay a little extra for certain items, I doubt anyone will even care.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
GDP growth by year back to 1980
Dec 31, 2018 2.97%
Dec 31, 2017 2.47%
Dec 31, 2016 1.88%
Dec 31, 2015 2.00%
Dec 31, 2014 2.70%
Dec 31, 2013 2.61%
Dec 31, 2012 1.47%
Dec 31, 2011 1.61%
Dec 31, 2010 2.57%
Dec 31, 2009 0.18%
Dec 31, 2008 -2.75%
Dec 31, 2007 1.97%
Dec 31, 2006 2.59%
Dec 31, 2005 3.13%
Dec 31, 2004 3.28%
Dec 31, 2003 4.33%
Dec 31, 2002 2.09%
Dec 31, 2001 0.15%
Dec 31, 2000 2.97%
Dec 31, 1999 4.81%
Dec 31, 1998 4.88%
Dec 31, 1997 4.49%
Dec 31, 1996 4.42%
Dec 31, 1995 2.20%
Dec 31, 1994 4.12%
Dec 31, 1993 2.61%
Dec 31, 1992 4.38%
Dec 31, 1991 1.17%
Dec 31, 1990 0.60%
Dec 31, 1989 2.74%
Dec 31, 1988 3.80%
Dec 31, 1987 4.48%
Dec 31, 1986 2.91%
Dec 31, 1985 4.18%
Dec 31, 1984 5.58%
Dec 31, 1983 7.90%
Dec 31, 1982 -1.44%
Dec 31, 1981 1.30%
Dec 31, 1980 -0.04%
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
7,485
3,619
743
49
#59
Well it has. We have had 3% growth for a full GDP year last year which is the first in a long time if I'm remembering correctly. Tariffs arent really having an impact on the economy it seems because wages are going up and every one has a job. I keep waiting for the negative effects of the tariffs but I just haven't yet. If having to pay a little extra for certain items, I doubt anyone will even care.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
GDP growth by year back to 1980
Dec 31, 2018 2.97%
Dec 31, 2017 2.47%
Dec 31, 2016 1.88%
Dec 31, 2015 2.00%
Dec 31, 2014 2.70%
Dec 31, 2013 2.61%
Dec 31, 2012 1.47%
Dec 31, 2011 1.61%
Dec 31, 2010 2.57%
Dec 31, 2009 0.18%
Dec 31, 2008 -2.75%
Dec 31, 2007 1.97%
Dec 31, 2006 2.59%
Dec 31, 2005 3.13%
Dec 31, 2004 3.28%
Dec 31, 2003 4.33%
Dec 31, 2002 2.09%
Dec 31, 2001 0.15%
Dec 31, 2000 2.97%
Dec 31, 1999 4.81%
Dec 31, 1998 4.88%
Dec 31, 1997 4.49%
Dec 31, 1996 4.42%
Dec 31, 1995 2.20%
Dec 31, 1994 4.12%
Dec 31, 1993 2.61%
Dec 31, 1992 4.38%
Dec 31, 1991 1.17%
Dec 31, 1990 0.60%
Dec 31, 1989 2.74%
Dec 31, 1988 3.80%
Dec 31, 1987 4.48%
Dec 31, 1986 2.91%
Dec 31, 1985 4.18%
Dec 31, 1984 5.58%
Dec 31, 1983 7.90%
Dec 31, 1982 -1.44%
Dec 31, 1981 1.30%
Dec 31, 1980 -0.04%
Yep, highest GDP going all the way back to 2005.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Sep 22, 2011
3,583
2,748
743
31
#60
4% growth for revenue neutral, sustained, the target of the tax cut was 5%, it resulted in 1 quarter of 4% growth and the rest have been below 4, better than be for the tax cut, and to its credit it has resulted in great unemployment and soaring stock market. but It will significantly increase the deficit in the years to come