NO person associated with teh Cato institute has ever accused tehm of using false numbers and if you define anyone who opposes their use of numbers as not being reputable, knowledegable then your charge is true. They used unreferenced numbers that are not verifiable by reasy means in support of questionable claims. This fact alone indicts them we have multiiple examples on many threads.
Clearly I advise anyone to go to teh Cato Institutes web site and see if you can find any fair treatment of opposing viewpoints see if all their numbers are sourced. The presumption is an unsoyrced number is false unless easily verifiable from public sources. Cato uses unsourced numbers taht are not easily verifiable from public sources. They have republished a study of teh Steel tariffs that does a regression analysis of only the cost side of the equation as a complete evaluation aof the Steel tariffs.
I think tarrifs are taxes and should never be used to bully some people to benefit other people for political power.
If we were limiting the "bullying" to just people in teh USA I would agree philosophically but when we are talking overall benefit of the USA then I strongly disagree. If I were just advocating tariffs on the basis of my personal philosophical or religous beliefs then I would be subject to teh same dismissal for the same reason.
I don't get caught in the trap of debating the details of policies with which I disagree. Clearly your right to refuse. And we are free to make any inference we wish from that refusal.
First of all, you are stuttering again. It must be a blood pressure thing. Unreadable posts make no points.
Second, all their numbers are all footnoted on their policy papers. If you don't have copies you can obtain them. If that's not easy enough for you, oh well. It doesn't mean they are lying, it means you are lazy.
Clearly I advise anyone to go to teh Cato Institutes web site and see if you can find any fair treatment of opposing viewpoints
It's not a debating society, they have no responsibility to present opposing viewpoints. You clearly have a skewed view of what a think tank does.
If we were limiting the "bullying" to just people in teh USA I would agree philosophically but when we are talking overall benefit of the USA then I strongly disagree.
So it's ok to bully anyone other than US citizens. Or even them if the "overall benefit" is to the USA? (in your opinion)
And we are free to make any inference we wish from that refusal.
WE? You have a frog in your pocket?
Ah, the first shot in a brand new flame war. Here we go again. I guess the mods will be called again as soon as you get your A-- kicked again. Maybe you can give them a heads up now that you will soon be whining for posts to be removed. That way they can be ready with the delete button.