Republican senators balk at Trump’s trade aid for farmers

[Chris]

I believe a few days ago there was a thread regarding soya farmers hurting because of the tariffs. Unsurprisingly, the notion that farmers could possibly be damaged by the trade war was roundly pooh-poohed by many on this forum. This is just the beginning of economic sectors that will take a hit, all really for the sake of steel and aluminum, which will never regain their former glory because the markets have changed for good. There is now competition from China and even Russia, the Japanese (they are great recyclers). Plus demand is falling. Composites are gaining ground because they are cheaper.

Trump has picked the wrong hill to die on and the danger is that the rest of the world will find new trading partners - permanently. The world population stands at 7.44 billion. I think the US market of 300 million people and its buying power is important, but not indispensable. Not any more.

Given all the recriminations vs the Democrats for any money given to prevent business failures (even though those bailouts were initiated under the Republicans), I thought the comment was ironic, considering the pushback Trump is receiving from Republicans.

I thought you were one of the ones that swore that farms, being already subsidized, couldn't possibly be affected by tariffs (remember the soya thread?). Now they need a $12B subsidy in order to survive because Canada and other markets have imposed reciprocal tariffs? It's summer and produce is being harvested that is no longer competitive in the market. Quelle surprise. Furthermore, the government welfare is going to Trump's core supporters. Quelle surprise, encore. Taxpayers will now not only have to pay more for goods, but that old debt clock will jump another $12 billion. I wonder what other industries among Trump's core supporters will next receive a cash infusion from the government to ensure that they don't feel the pain of the trade war?

Bad for consumers in general, but sometimes there are other considerations, including food security. Once you lose an industry to overwhelming competition, if push comes to shove and you really need it, it's not there. Every country must always remain self-sufficient in those areas of production where if suddenly in a situation where trade goods cannot be imported, life can continue on without major food shortages or without the ability to secure the nation. I understand the need for America to protect its steel and aluminum industry, but if it's that important, then, and I know that you will vehemently disagree, subsidize it so that no matter what, it won't fail. Canada's dairy industry is far too small to survive US industrialized mega dairy farm exports without massive tariffs being imposed and actually, it's really only milk that is protected, not milk products. Like sugar and cotton in the US, Canadian milk is off the table. Non-negotiable. Every country has its sacred cows.

I didn't argue that they do, I admitted that they do, but sometimes there are more important issues than just price. It's like people choosing to buy from local farmers to keep them in business rather than buying cheaper produce from industrial farms or people choosing to support more expensive local shops to keep towns alive rather than deserting them for Walmart. There are all manner of costs out there. There is a cost to losing local business that is reflected in damage to communities. Nations can make similar choices.

I didn't argue that they do...

You most certainly did argue that.

It's virtually impossible to have a discussion with you when you are so inconsistent in your statements.

I'm done. Stew in your own mess.

[Dr. Who]

You most certainly did argue that.

It's virtually impossible to have a discussion with you when you are so inconsistent in your statements.

I'm done. Stew in your own mess.

Clearly you don't see the difference between a trade war and special case protected industries that every nation has, whether they like to admit it or not.