Buchanan - Trump is right on trade

[jimnyc]

But do these Republicans, good free-traders all, realize their own indispensable role in converting an indigent China into the mighty and menacing power that seeks to push us out of Asia?

Last year, China ran up the largest trade surplus in history, at our expense, $365 billion. We exported $116 billion in goods to China. China exported $482 billion worth of goods to us.

Using Census Bureau statistics, Terry Jeffrey of CNSNEWS.com documents how Beijing has, over decades, looted and carted off the greatest manufacturing base the world had ever seen.

In 1985, China's trade surplus with us was a paltry $6 million. By 1992, when some of us were being denounced as "protectionists" for raising the issue, the U.S. trade deficit with China had crossed the $10 billion mark.

In 2002, it crossed the $100 billion mark. In 2005, the $200 billion mark. In each of the last four years, Communist China has run an annual trade surplus at the expense of the United States in excess of $300 billion.

Total trade deficits with China in the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama era? $4 trillion. Total U.S. trade deficit in 2015 -- $736 billion, 4 percent of our GDP.

To understand why Detroit look as it does, while the desolate Shanghai Richard Nixon visited in '72 is the great and gleaming metropolis of 2016, look to our trade deficits.

They also help explain America's 2 percent growth, her deindustrialization, her shrinking share of the world economy, and the stagnation of U.S. wages as manufacturing jobs are replaced by service jobs.

Those trade deficits also explain the rise of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

Yet, with the exception of Trump, none of the GOP candidates seems willing to debate, defend or denounce the policies that eviscerated America -- and empowered the People's Republic.

.....

Free trade is not a zero-sum game. The losers are the workers whose jobs, factories and futures are shipped abroad, and the dead and dying towns left behind when the manufacturing plants shut down.

America is on a path of national decline because, while we have been looking out for what is best for the "global economy," our rivals have been looking out for what is best for their own nations.

.....

Controlling the largest market on earth, we might impose on foreign producers a cover charge, an admissions fee, a tariff, to get into our market.

Example: Impose a 20 percent tariff on foreign cars entering the USA. This might raise the cost of a Lexus or Mercedes produced and assembled abroad from $50,000 to $60,000.

However, if Lexus or Mercedes buys or makes all their parts in the USA and assembles all their cars here, no tariff. Their cars could still sell for $50,000. This would be a powerful incentive to shift production here. As an added incentive, all tariff revenue could be used to reduce or eliminate corporate taxes in the USA.

.....

Between the Civil War and World War I, under Republicans, the U.S. became the world's greatest industrial power and a wholly self-sufficient nation. How? We taxed foreign goods entering the United States, but did not tax the profits of U.S. companies or the incomes of U.S. workers.

Rest here - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/19/trump_is_right_on_trade_129717.html#!

[Perianne]

Pat Buchanan is right about 99% of the time. Or more.

[fj1200]

No. He's not. He's taken some correlation and attempted to make causation. The US has been resting on its laurels for quite some time but the fault lies in excessive corporate taxes and regulations that destroys job growth and not some faith that we can count on government to determine proper tariff levels.

Abolish the Corporate Income Tax (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/opinion/abolish-the-corporate-income-tax.html)
In the model, eliminating the United States’ corporate income tax produces rapid and dramatic increases in American investment, output and real wages, making the tax cut self-financing to a significant extent. Somewhat smaller gains arise from revenue-neutral corporate tax base broadening, specifically cutting the corporate tax rate to 9 percent and eliminating all corporate tax loopholes. Both policies generate welfare gains for all generations in the United States, but particularly for young and future workers. Moreover, all Americans can benefit, though by less, if foreign countries also cut their corporate tax rates.

The size of the potential economic and welfare gains are stunningly large and don’t reflect any extreme supply-side (a k a, voodoo economics) assumptions. Fully eliminating the corporate income tax and replacing any loss in revenues with somewhat higher personal income tax rates leads to a huge short-run inflow of capital, raising the United States’ capital stock (machines and buildings) by 23 percent, output by 8 percent and the real wages of unskilled and skilled workers by 12 percent. Lowering the corporate rate tax to 9 percent while also closing loopholes is roughly revenue neutral and also produces very rapid increases in capital (by 17 percent), output (by 6 percent) and real wages (by 8 percent).

[Perianne]

No. He's not. He's taken some correlation and attempted to make causation. The US has been resting on its laurels for quite some time but the fault lies in excessive corporate taxes and regulations that destroys job growth and not some faith that we can count on government to determine proper tariff levels.

Abolish the Corporate Income Tax (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/opinion/abolish-the-corporate-income-tax.html)



Fj, quit arguing with me. If I say something, by nature it is true. Buchanan is right 99%+ of the time.

Learn how to be a conservative from me. I give lessons for free on here nearly everyday. You should quit trying to impersonate a conservative. We real ones can see right through it. Though I understand your admiration.

[jimnyc]

So Trump is wrong, as well as Buchanan...

But the op-ed of LAURENCE J. KOTLIKOFF?

You're more than welcome to believe the opposite. :)

[Perianne]

So Trump is wrong, as well as Buchanan...

But the op-ed of LAURENCE J. KOTLIKOFF?

You're more than welcome to believe the opposite. :)

Jim, in spite of his orneriness, I have offered to teach him in the ways of conservatism. I have worked with many argumentative, difficult people. I generally have great patience with the less endowed.

[fj1200]

Fj, quit arguing with me. If I say something, by nature it is true. Buchanan is right 99%+ of the time.

Learn how to be a conservative from me. I give lessons for free on here nearly everyday. You should quit trying to impersonate a conservative. We real ones can see right through it. Though I understand your admiration.

Arguing with you assumes you have a basis upon which to debate. I'm telling. ;)

Most of Buchanan's 1% wrong is wrapped up in his trade views.

[jimnyc]

Jim, in spite of his orneriness, I have offered to teach him in the ways of conservatism. I have worked with many argumentative, difficult people. I generally have great patience with the less endowed.

Good luck with that! FJ is the energizer bunny of disagreement!! :laugh2:

[fj1200]

So Trump is wrong, as well as Buchanan...

But the op-ed of LAURENCE J. KOTLIKOFF?

You're more than welcome to believe the opposite. :)

No. It would be in the studies on the corporate tax upon which his op-ed is based. I could go with Kudlow, Friedman, most conservative economists... I don't put a whole lot of stock on a piece that solely compares two different countries and suggests that the entire reason for any disparity rests there.

[Perianne]

Arguing with you assumes you have a basis upon which to debate. I'm telling. ;)

Most of Buchanan's 1% wrong is wrapped up in his trade views.

That may be.

[revelarts]

Buchanon is absolutely right about 65% of the time the rest of the time he's an outright real life racist anglo-saxon's 1st last and always xenophobe at the edge of nazism.

[Perianne]

Buchanon is absolutely right about 65% of the time the rest of the time he's an outright real life racist anglo-saxon's 1st last and always xenophobe at the edge of nazism.

And? I don't understand your point.

[revelarts]

And? I don't understand your point.

I'm not sure i understand your misunderstanding

[Perianne]

I'm not sure i understand your misunderstanding

Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter are my favorite columnists. I never, or rarely, disagree with them.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?49177-Favorite-Political-Columnist&p=729356#post729356

[Black Diamond]

Buchanon is absolutely right about 65% of the time the rest of the time he's an outright real life racist anglo-saxon's 1st last and always xenophobe at the edge of nazism.

You're not a fan of Hitler, Churchill, and the unnecessary war?

[revelarts]

You're not a fan of Hitler, Churchill, and the unnecessary war?
never read it.
My experience with Buchanon is years -on and off- of watching Crossfire and the McLaughlin Group.
But here's what Charles Krauthammer says about him "he makes subliminal appeals to prejudice."

IMO it's often not subliminal

[Perianne]

never read it.
My experience with Buchanon is years -on and off- of watching Crossfire and the McLaughlin Group.
But here's what Charles Krauthammer says about him "he makes subliminal appeals to prejudice."

Krauthammer is a jew.

[revelarts]

Krauthammer is a jew.
And... that makes him wrong by default?

[Kathianne]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwLWZE7nCKM

[jimnyc]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwLWZE7nCKM

Only that's not his plan. He wants to increase tariffs to 35%, yes - to also hopefully get the companies back here or to stay here, and then there is no such increase.

To say that this is his "tax plan" is dishonest. But that's Youtube for ya.

[Perianne]

Only that's not his plan. He wants to increase tariffs to 35%, yes - to also hopefully get the companies back here or to stay here, and then there is no such increase.

To say that this is his "tax plan" is dishonest. But that's Youtube for ya.

That's anti-Trump obsession for ya. The world is full of them.

I suppose it has always been that way.

[fj1200]

Only that's not his plan. He wants to increase tariffs to 35%, yes - to also hopefully get the companies back here or to stay here, and then there is no such increase.

To say that this is his "tax plan" is dishonest. But that's Youtube for ya.

It's apparently part of his plan. Not dishonest on that part. As to protectionism:

Why Trump’s protectionist ways will hurt the economy (http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/26/why-trumps-protectionist-ways-will-hurt-the-economy-commentary.html)
Here's a historical fact that Donald Trump (http://www.cnbc.com/donald-trump/), and many voters attracted to him, may not know: The last American president who was a trade protectionist was Republican Herbert Hoover.

[fj1200]

That's anti-Trump obsession for ya. The world is full of them.

I suppose it has always been that way.

It's nothing to do with trump. It's anti-government mandated protectionism for ya.

[jimnyc]

It's apparently part of his plan. Not dishonest on that part. As to protectionism:

Why Trump’s protectionist ways will hurt the economy (http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/26/why-trumps-protectionist-ways-will-hurt-the-economy-commentary.html)



Again, it is NOT his "tax plan". It's a portion of what he will be doing with trade. He wants to raise tariffs on incoming products. Just as other countries are currently doing with our products. This should help the economy overall, and maybe bring companies/jobs back, and prevent companies from leaving.

[fj1200]

Again, it is NOT his "tax plan". It's a portion of what he will be doing with trade. He wants to raise tariffs on incoming products. Just as other countries are currently doing with our products. This should help the economy overall, and maybe bring companies/jobs back, and prevent companies from leaving.

The efforts of Smoot and Hawley say otherwise but it is part of his plan, I know because he says that sort of stuff about taxing imports. So my question; is free trade no longer a conservative tenet?

[jimnyc]

The efforts of Smoot and Hawley say otherwise but it is part of his plan, I know because he says that sort of stuff about taxing imports. So my question; is free trade no longer a conservative tenet?

Fixing our economy should be one of the top things. What we are doing now is obviously not working. We ARE being killed by foreign countries. I 100% agree with increasing tariffs and fees.

[Kathianne]

The efforts of Smoot and Hawley say otherwise but it is part of his plan, I know because he says that sort of stuff about taxing imports. So my question; is free trade no longer a conservative tenet?

And there is never blowback.

[jimnyc]

And there is never blowback.

Lord forbid someone disagrees that happens to also be a republican. I haven't really seen jack shit from you about the other candidates. I wonder where THAT blowback has been? Perhaps silent? Odd.

[fj1200]

Fixing our economy should be one of the top things. What we are doing now is obviously not working. We ARE being killed by foreign countries. I 100% agree with increasing tariffs and fees.

No we're not. We have crappy fiscal and regulatory policies that are 40 years out of date. Protectionism has failed us before.

[jimnyc]

No we're not. We have crappy fiscal and regulatory policies that are 40 years out of date. Protectionism has failed us before.

That's cool, I kinda knew 'that you knew everything' already, so disagreeing with me on his tax plan on foreign trade hasn't surprised me. Nonetheless, you're welcome to your opinion, or to claim it as fact. :)

[Perianne]

I don't know why we are really discussing this. Buchanan is always right about nearly everything.

EDIT: I guess we are discussing the <1% he might be not 100% right.

[fj1200]

That's cool, I kinda knew 'that you knew everything' already, so disagreeing with me on his tax plan on foreign trade hasn't surprised me. Nonetheless, you're welcome to your opinion, or to claim it as fact. :)

The history of Smoot-Hawley isn't really an opinion. Neither are trump's desire for taxing foreign goods. Besides, I don't claim to know everything, I just know what I know until shown otherwise.

[fj1200]

I don't know why we are really discussing this. Buchanan is always right about nearly everything.

EDIT: I guess we are discussing the <1% he might be not 100% right.

Because the premise of the thread is incorrect.

[jimnyc]

The history of Smoot-Hawley isn't really an opinion. Neither are trump's desire for taxing foreign goods. Besides, I don't claim to know everything, I just know what I know until shown otherwise.

https://i.imgur.com/zIKxDMM.jpg

[fj1200]

"I don't want to debate. Here is a picture of a cookie."

[jimnyc]

Trade Deficit Responsible for Over Half of National Debt



While Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill squabble over how to reduce the deficit and raise the national debt ceiling, it is instructive to look back on how the country got in such a mess in the first place.

While the focus has been on spending on entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security and revenue increases through taxes, one of the largest contributors to the national debt has been completely overlooked: America’s failed trade policies.

Since the globalization era began in the 1970s America has consistently imported more goods and services than it has exported, leading to larger and larger trade deficits over the years.

Just two times since 1970 has the U.S. actually held a trade surplus with the rest of the world. In recent years, the trade deficit has regularly topped half a trillion dollars annually.

Lowered tariffs and failed free trade agreements have added nearly $8 trillion to the national debt over that time. The statutory debt limit currently stands at $14.3 trillion. That means that the nation’s cumulative trade deficit over that time is directly responsible for approximately 56 percent of the national debt.

Without failed trade policies that encourage companies to outsource jobs and whole factories, the country would be in much better shape financially.

But America’s failed trade policies contribute indirectly to the national debt as well. Millions of jobs have been lost as the nation opened its doors fully and enthusiastically to cheap imports from around the world. Those jobs represent tax revenues that could be used to help cover annual budget gaps. The outsourced factories also contribute to the debt. Once outside of America, those companies can hoard money overseas and avoid paying their tax obligations despite still being considered an American company.

Rest here - http://economyincrisis.org/content/trade-deficit-responsible-over-half-national-debt

[jimnyc]

"I don't want to debate. Here is a picture of a cookie."

I have to be honest, I really don't want to "debate" with you. I have ZERO desire to change your mind on anything, nor convince you of anything, nor convince others of anything or that I'm correct. Sometimes I simply voice my opinion or post an article.

Shall I count the amount of times I have seen LONG posts from Drummond, which were on topic, that you trimmed to a sentence, or just a few words, and then solely called him a troll or whatever instead of replying to what he took the time to write?

But you can still have your cookie.

[fj1200]

Trade Deficit Responsible for Over Half of National Debt

Excellent. I didn't see any links to studies supporting their numbers. I do agree however that we have abysmal trade policies, I just don't agree that free trade is the driver of that.

FREE TRADE DOES NOT COST AMERICAN JOBS (http://www.newsweek.com/free-trade-does-not-cost-american-jobs-331451)
Notable is the fact that America enjoys a $55 billion trade surplus with its trade agreement partners, compared with a $579 billion deficit with countries where such agreements are lacking. There is tremendous potential to be gained by lowering the barriers abroad for manufacturers by negotiating new trade agreements.Too many people, however, still subscribe to the myth that free trade agreements result in job losses.
The economic impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) remains a topic of debate two decades after it was ratified. But the official government numbers tell the truth: Manufacturing jobs actually grew by about 800,000 in the four years directly following NAFTA.
The reality is that protectionist policies do not work, and free trade does not kill jobs. It grows jobs and expands opportunities for manufacturers in the United States.
Time and again, history demonstrates that, when other countries lower tariffs, it makes our exports more competitive, gives us access to new markets, boosts demand for our products, increases jobs and drives economic growth.

Of course there's always a counter point:

FREE TRADE COSTS AMERICAN JOBS (http://www.newsweek.com/free-trade-costs-american-jobs-332962)

[fj1200]

I have to be honest, I really don't want to "debate" with you. I have ZERO desire to change your mind on anything, nor convince you of anything, nor convince others of anything or that I'm correct. Sometimes I simply voice my opinion or post an article.

Shall I count the amount of times I have seen LONG posts from Drummond, which were on topic, that you trimmed to a sentence, or just a few words, and then solely called him a troll or whatever instead of replying to what he took the time to write?

But you can still have your cookie.

Awesome, I like Oreos. I thought the purpose was to change minds and argue for my POV.

Count them if you like but you'd also be counting the number of times I didn't respond to what I'd responded to many times before.

[jimnyc]

Awesome, I like Oreos. I thought the purpose was to change minds and argue for my POV.

Count them if you like but you'd also be counting the number of times I didn't respond to what I'd responded to many times before.

Sometimes it is. I'll go far as to say the majority of the times. But fuck, you disagree with EVERYTHING. I don't have enough time in a day to debate you on everything you disagree with me on.

[jimnyc]

Excellent. I didn't see any links to studies supporting their numbers. I do agree however that we have abysmal trade policies, I just don't agree that free trade is the driver of that.

FREE TRADE DOES NOT COST AMERICAN JOBS (http://www.newsweek.com/free-trade-does-not-cost-american-jobs-331451)



Of course there's always a counter point:

FREE TRADE COSTS AMERICAN JOBS (http://www.newsweek.com/free-trade-costs-american-jobs-332962)



Good. Point - then counterpoint. There, we debated. :)

[revelarts]

I don't know why we are really discussing this. Buchanan is always right about nearly everything.

EDIT: I guess we are discussing the <1% he might be not 100% right.


As i said i believe Buchanan is right 65% of the time.
Perianne you ---and i assume JIM since he thanked you--- believes Buchanan is right 99% of the time.
And Black Diamond asked me if i didn't agree with the "unnecessary war" book Buchanan wrote about WW2.
But Buchanan also thinks IRAQ was an "unnecessary war".
Buchanan has never supported any of the Iraq Wars i believe. Or the idea of sending the military of the U.S. hither and yon to fight Muslims or create democracy round the world.
He's never been for attacking Iran and doesn't have a problem with the Iranian deal. and isn't deathly afraid of an Iranian nuke program.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pFpRBi-wpM&feature=youtu.be

In the link below he talks about the idea that the U.S. DOES NOT need to be some military giant striding the world after the cold war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCJSk9LlWLM

when i've said the same I've been called wrong, foolish, conspiracy theorist, and an Isolationist and told that it's not 1900.
but i guess since Pat is 99% right he must be right on all of the above too.

[Perianne]

As i said i believe Buchanan is right 65% of the time.
Perianne you ---and i assume JIM since he thanked you--- believes Buchanan is right 99% of the time.
And Black Diamond asked me if i didn't agree with the "unnecessary war" book Buchanan wrote about WW2.
But Buchanan also thinks IRAQ was an "unnecessary war".
Buchanan has never supported any of the Iraq Wars i believe. Or the idea of sending the military of the U.S. hither and yon to fight Muslims or create democracy round the world.
He's never been for attacking Iran and doesn't have a problem with the Iranian deal. and isn't deathly afraid of an Iranian nuke program.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pFpRBi-wpM&feature=youtu.be

In the link below he talks about the idea that the U.S. DOES NOT need to be some military giant striding the world after the cold war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCJSk9LlWLM

when i've said the same I've been called wrong, foolish, conspiracy theorist, and an Isolationist and told that it's not 1900.
but i guess since Pat is 99% right he must be right on all of the above too.

I understand, revelarts. There were times when I disagreed with Pat Buchanan on a couple of things. Then later, as I changed, I understood him to be right.

I do respect your views, too, sir. You may not think so, but I do.

[Black Diamond]

Good. Point - then counterpoint. There, we debated. :)

Did you call him an ignorant slut? :).

[Kathianne]

Lord forbid someone disagrees that happens to also be a republican. I haven't really seen jack shit from you about the other candidates. I wonder where THAT blowback has been? Perhaps silent? Odd.

Actually the 'blowback' was regarding tariff wars. For the rest, you haven't been reading.

[fj1200]

Sometimes it is. I'll go far as to say the majority of the times. But fuck, you disagree with EVERYTHING. I don't have enough time in a day to debate you on everything you disagree with me on.

Clearly not. But I do like to debate in favor of the conservative POV with great vigor.


Good. Point - then counterpoint. There, we debated. :)

Whew. All is right with the world.

[jimnyc]

Actually the 'blowback' was regarding tariff wars. For the rest, you haven't been reading.

I've been reading. Perhaps maybe you made a comment about one of the bottom of the 17? I don't know, I can't remember. I find some negative things about Hillary or the Democrats for sure, but nothing but Trump threads since the beginning, as far as negativity. Others were brought up, but only in a positive light. I guess they're perfect and none of them have flip flopped or anything like that, and even though they have different stances, somehow you agree with all of them?

My point is, there are things even the candidates disagree with. But here? Somehow you aren't conservative, or part of the party or whatever if you disagree and take a different stance.

Since they obviously disagree on an awful lot - can you point out the threads you started about Cruz or Rubio, showing what it is you disagree with, the parts I apparently missed because I wasn't reading? :)

[Kathianne]

I've been reading. Perhaps maybe you made a comment about one of the bottom of the 17? I don't know, I can't remember. I find some negative things about Hillary or the Democrats for sure, but nothing but Trump threads since the beginning, as far as negativity. Others were brought up, but only in a positive light. I guess they're perfect and none of them have flip flopped or anything like that, and even though they have different stances, somehow you agree with all of them?

My point is, there are things even the candidates disagree with. But here? Somehow you aren't conservative, or part of the party or whatever if you disagree and take a different stance.

Since they obviously disagree on an awful lot - can you point out the threads you started about Cruz or Rubio, showing what it is you disagree with, the parts I apparently missed because I wasn't reading? :)


I'm not going to go through threads started or post counts to find what I've done. Yeah, I'm scared to be proven a liar. :rolleyes: You might want to check out some of the stuff I've posted regarding what's going on in FL, then again, maybe not?

I've made it clear that I'd settled on Rubio. I've also been clear that Cruz is most likely to survive and Rubio should likely step aside now. I know that won't happen until after FL in all likelihood. I'm not going to bother mentioning Kasich, though he's likely to do well in MI today, OH down the road. My guess he's hoping that he'll be the choice at the convention. With the GOP, who the hell knows?

I pretty much have given up on 'party.' I guess I'll be an independent-leaning GOP or whatever party takes its place. I'll vote for the most conservative candidate that wants to shrink government; use our military to our advantage; wants due process for all; in other words-believes in and plans on following the constitution by enforcing the laws.

The last candidate I was 'excited about' was GW in 2000. I supported him in large measure because he wasn't looking for nation building or primarily focused on foreign affairs. He spoke of the problems at home and wanted to reach out and work with governors to address problems. He didn't see the federal government as the solution, but rather a problem that siphoned off too much money from the people, returning a pittance to the states to deal with mandates from the fed.

9/11 changed that. I don't see any possible way that his original plan could be dealt with in the 8 years he was there. He paid a price in popularity and the mid-term elections. I don't think anyone could have done better, not Al Gore for certain.

As for Cruz, Rubio, Kasich and 'changing their minds' aka 'flip flops. Yeah, they all likely have changed their minds or 'matured in their thinking' on a couple decisions. Rubio believes what he does regarding immigration reform-has he changed his mind or has he come to realize that the plan he supported would not be accepted by the people? His 'change' if elected would be to do what the people have called for, find out if they believe it is working, is the border secure? If so, then try to address reform. He most definitely would work at compromises, again not something I find offensive.

Ted Cruz? Pretty hard to find many flip flops-he's pretty set on his core. I don't necessarily find that always attractive, but you do know what you're getting. He's not big on compromise, though bet he's learned a thing or two in the election process. He's rock solid in his positions and there is some level of comfort in that, as I said I do hope he's learned enough from his senate term and this election to find some ways to play nice with others, so some of them will come to your aid when needed.

Kasich? I don't care for him, find him very preachy and whiny at the same time. Disconcerting.

[Gunny]

Only that's not his plan. He wants to increase tariffs to 35%, yes - to also hopefully get the companies back here or to stay here, and then there is no such increase.

To say that this is his "tax plan" is dishonest. But that's Youtube for ya.

:rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

:rolleyes:

Very intelligent!!

[fj1200]

Study: Trump's trade agenda could cost $250B (http://thehill.com/regulation/finance/272248-study-trumps-protectionist-trade-agenda-would-cost-250b)

The conservative American Action Forum study (http://americanactionforum.org/research/tariffs-on-chinese-and-mexican-imports-could-cost-consumers-250-billion) released Tuesday found that consumers could see prices raised by as much as $250 billion each year under Trump’s "protectionist" trade policy.The Republican presidential front-runner has suggested taxing Chinese imports at 45 percent and Mexican automobile imports at 35 percent in an effort to stimulate domestic production and jobs.
But American consumers would pay the price, the analysis suggests.