Posted on 06/24/2018 4:45:49 AM PDT by central_va
None of those are remotely ‘small’, or ‘light-duty’ by historical or world standards.
The reason is that these small/mid sized PU trucks get the same gas mileage as the big ones. Nobody wants the smaller trucks if you get more HP, capacity and the same MPG. Doddge said no to the Dakota because their full sized 1500 eco diesel gets almost 30 mpg highway!
Protectionist are PRO American business and believe in free trade INSIDE THE USA between the 50 states.
Stop making sense.
Without also addressing the issue of the EU VAT, EU import of foreign parts, and adminstrative obstruction of US products, I’d say that if all things are equal, then reciprocity is the objective.
By having such a narrow minded view, you show your selves to be anti American business. That is a very unpatriotic stand
So why does the rest of the world almost universally practice protectionism? And name a country with lower average tariff rates than the USA
I remember when the Japanese tried to put Harley Davidson out of business. Pat Buchanan had his ear. Went against Reagan’s instincts but he went along. Trump is up front about it. Doesn’t need a Buchannan.
The reason is that these small/mid sized PU trucks get the same gas mileage as the big ones. Nobody wants the smaller trucks if you get more HP, capacity and the same MPG. Doddge said no to the Dakota because their full sized 1500 eco diesel gets almost 30 mpg highway!
Maybe so, but a lot of us don’t want a full-size truck. We have a Dodge Dakota that we pull behind our motorhome. I’d rather not have to tow its full-size big brother RAM.
Also seems like Ford is bringing back the Ranger, so I guess there’s a market after all.
Nobody, least of all American automakers, believes big trucks are the only ones that sell. That’s why they spend millions of dollars per year bribing Congress to keep the 25% truck tariff in place.
Just like any other vehicles, there should be an option for a 190” or less overall length rather than a 212” minimum.
Apparel industry, semi-skilled labor?
Have you ever turned out a shirt on a sewing machine?
It takes a lot of skill and knowledge to do that.
I see from google that you have tried several times, unsuccessfully, to get the dictionary to add that as a new word to the English lexicon. Perhaps if you provide the definition the Urban Dictionary will pick it up. Or perhaps you were really intending to use the word balderdash.
Anyway, you aren't seriously implying that the pirates had an agenda to merely interrupt American global trading are you?
First off, Sweden had been at war with them since 1800. Jefferson didn't join in the war until 1801, when he assumed office, along with several other European countries. The pirates in the region of Tripoli & Algiers had been at it for centuries, and had sold an estimated 1 - 1.25 million Europeans into slavery for nearly 3 centuries. Their entire agenda was to ransom off American sailors, and later seek tribute, period. I dare say they wanted American traders to come by even more often. Because their motivation had nothing to do with interrupting American global trade. Missing their easy money they went back to their pirate practices in 1815, prompting the 2nd Barbary War.
Again, President Trump is not against trade at all, but he is against our trading partners, and the sycophants here at home who support our trading partners, taking advantage of American generosity. Well the time for that generosity to cease has come. Before we have nothing left of this country. Forgive my patriotism, which in your mind makes me a scoundrel.
Let me ask, are you also supportive of illegal immigration and the eradication of our borders and ultimately our sovereignty? If not, why not? Free traders claim that we should grant them citizenship. Must be because only those who claim patriotism, who are scoundrels, can be for that.
Alan Tonelson on Tariffs interviews:
Do a search for: Alan Tonelson - May 31, 2018 to hear the first interview
Next search for: Allen Tonelson - June 8, 2018 (same person, they just spelled his name wrong here).
This person actually knows what he is talking about.
Jefferson found that to be reason enough to go to war to protect American interests.
By the overly broad definitions of globalists used here, Jefferson was in fact a globalist founder.
Balderdacious is used to add emphasis to the concept of drivel
I hate the thought of a flat tariff. Reciprocal trade like Trump is attempting is the way to go. I’m all for free trade like the Adam smith free traders want as long as it is truly free trade. Telling me we have a NAFTA free trade deal that’s just wonderful only to find out that Mexico and Canada charges US business high tariffs and we charge nothing is a mockery of free trade. Still proponents of this lie will tell us what a great deal we got. They either drank the kool aid or like being made fools.
Free and fair, reciprocal trade is the future. No tariffs and true competition.
Excellent. Thanks.
Just a quick thought, but maybe we should have negotiated quotas on different imports. No tax. The biggest problem always seems to be when the market is flooded and our businesses go under. Then the prices are jacked up on the imports. There would have to be a transition. The real answer is to figure out how to outcompete them. That includes the burdon the the Federal, State and local governments put on the businesses in terms of taxes and regulations.
Detroit is not going to like losing the tariff on trucks. It might be politically risky, but no more risky than what the results of a 30% tax on every imported item would be.
De industrialization is pretty risky too.
I am well aware of your position on tariffs. Something we will have to agree to disagree on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.