Trump Shifts Deportation Focus, Pausing Raids on Farms, Hotels and Eateries

[George50]

My business experience is none of your business but, from your comments here, I can tell that you're the type and level of individual that I would have cheerfully had fired.

Ditto.

 

[George50]

It's absurd only to someone who has no idea of how things like tariffs can be used as negotiating steps on the path to an agreement.

Supposedly the purpose of Trump’s trade war is to eliminate our trade deficits which is a stupid goal and will never happen. So far the only so called agreement which is not even an implementable plan at this point is with the UK and we had a trade surplus with them!

The reason you're so wrong, so often, is that you paint a picture of a Trump voter and then you class everyone who disagrees with you (and that's a whole lot of people) and foolishly assume that everyone fits your picture. It's that kind of behavior (I can't call it thinking) that has the Democrat Party leaderless and losing it's heavy donors. It's insulting, of course, but that's the M.O. for Democrats.

That is all drivel from a member of the party that believes all these lies and has built the foundation of the current administration on them:

The 2020 election was stolen.

Climate change is a hoax.

Most illegal immigrants are dangerous criminals, only some are good people.

Tariffs on China are paid by China.

China operates the Panama canal.

The U.S. is the only country with birthright citizenship.

January 6 was a love fest.

EV’s are going to put our automakers out of business.

Trump won the 2024 election by a landslide.

Ukraine started the Russia/Ukraine war.

There’s no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective.

Vietnam charges a 90% tariff to the USA.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia has MS-13 tattooed on his knuckles.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Supposedly the purpose of Trump’s trade war is to eliminate our trade deficits

That's your first mistake. The purpose of what you call a "trade war" is to make trade more fair, by permitting businesses in each country to trade fairly in all other countries. If Country "A" wants to sell it's products in the U.S. it should not have high tariff and other non-tariff barriers to U.S. products being sold in Country "A."

That is all drivel from a member of the party

It is a determination based on your posts, made by someone who has decades of experience with people in business.

 

[ncguy]

My business experience is none of your business but, from your comments here, I can tell that you're the type and level of individual that I would have cheerfully had fired.

Based on your posts, being cheerfully fired by you would be a sign that you would soon be working for someone more competent

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Based on your posts, being cheerfully fired by you would be a sign that you would soon be working for someone more competent

And yet i rarely had people in any of my departments resign. Go figure.

 

[ncguy]

And yet i rarely had people in any of my departments resign. Go figure.

Internet bragging is so credible LOL
But hey, based on your posts incompetent people are likely to remain working for you. Birds of a feather and all that

 

[Threegoofs]

And yet i rarely had people in any of my departments resign. Go figure.

That’s impressive. Cinnabon shops usually have a lot of turnover.

 

[George50]

That's your first mistake. The purpose of what you call a "trade war" is to make trade more fair, by permitting businesses in each country to trade fairly in all other countries. If Country "A" wants to sell it's products in the U.S. it should not have high tariff and other non-tariff barriers to U.S. products being sold in Country "A."

You aren’t paying attention. Trump has the misguided idea that trade deficits are inherently bad. You aren’t even aware that his so called reciprocal tariffs are based on the trade deficit, not tariffs or any other barriers.

Having a trade deficit does not mean that there are any tariffs or other trade barriers. It only means that we buy more from them than they buy from us. That could be because we have more money to spend, that they have something we need and can’t produce for ourselves or any one of a number of things.

It is a determination based on your posts, made by someone who has decades of experience with people in business.

I don’t know what kind of business you worked for but you wouldn’t last long working with top management in a large corporation because you don’t recognize that they are extremely risk adverse and will only act when they have a high degree of certainty. Also you not only do not acknowledge obviously relevant sources nor do you cite any sources of your own. I say this as someone who also has decades of business experience.

Finally, when you reply you have a habit of deleting important portions of the comment you are replying to so you aren’t even a fair debater.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Having a trade deficit does not mean that there are any tariffs or other trade barriers. It only means that we buy more from them than they buy from us. That could be because we have more money to spend, that they have something we need and can’t produce for ourselves or any one of a number of things.

Trade deficits can also exist because a country has high tariffs or other non-tariff barriers to the sale of US products in that other country. Those are what is being addressed at this time.

a high degree of certainty.

"A high degree of certainty" is not "certainty." "A high degree of certainty" is relative to the kind and scale of what's at risk. For example, a 75% degree of certainty may be sufficient if the thing at risk is a10% market share for a minor product line, whereas a 98% degree of certainty would likely be required if the company stock value is at risk.

Also you not only do not acknowledge obviously relevant sources

You mistake "acknowledgment" for "agreement."

nor do you cite any sources of your own

I don't provide sources for opinions, but I do provide them for facts. And I cite the most authoritative sources I can find, usually original documents. I avoid newspaper reports whenever possible, because they tend to be written from the POV of the reporter or his managers.

Finally, when you reply you have a habit of deleting important portions of the comment you are replying to so you aren’t even a fair debater.

I ignore comments that I feel are irrelevant to the discussion. It avoids getting the discussion derailed.

 

[ncguy]

Trade deficits can also exist because a country has high tariffs or other non-tariff barriers to the sale of US products in that other country. Those are what is being addressed at this time.

"A high degree of certainty" is not "certainty." "A high degree of certainty" is relative to the kind and scale of what's at risk. For example, a 75% degree of certainty may be sufficient if the thing at risk is a10% market share for a minor product line, whereas a 98% degree of certainty would likely be required if the company stock value is at risk.

You mistake "acknowledgment" for "agreement."

I don't provide sources for opinions, but I do provide them for facts. And I cite the most authoritative sources I can find, usually original documents. I avoid newspaper reports whenever possible, because they tend to be written from the POV of the reporter or his managers.

I ignore comments that I feel are irrelevant to the discussion. It avoids getting the discussion derailed.

you mean "relevant" posts like this from you?
"And yet i rarely had people in any of my departments resign. Go figure."

lol

 

[RetiredAtLast]

you mean "relevant" posts like this from you?

Yes, Every line is a direct response to a question or statement. If you don't like 'em, break my heart and ignore 'em.

 

[George50]

Trade deficits can also exist because a country has high tariffs or other non-tariff barriers to the sale of US products in that other country. Those are what is being addressed at this time.

Wrong. The reciprocal tariffs are based simply on deficits. They are in no way reciprocal which actually would be based on tariffs.

"A high degree of certainty" is not "certainty."

You missed the whole point again. The CHIPS act gave corporations near 100% certainty. Trump’s tariffs give corporations near zero certainty.

 

[George50]

I ignore comments that I feel are irrelevant to the discussion. It avoids getting the discussion derailed.

Ignoring comments is fine, but you edit them removing the facts presented and then respond.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

The reciprocal tariffs are based simply on deficits. They are in no way reciprocal which actually would be based on tariffs.

They were imposed because other countries had high tariffs.

You missed the whole point again. The CHIPS act gave corporations near 100% certainty. Trump’s tariffs give corporations near zero certainty.

You missed the whole point. The CHIPS Act doesn't guarantee that the money it spends will produce a profit. It just means that the cost of going into a business will be less, and any profits that result will be taxed less. The tariffs have no direct relationship to profits. They are only intended to improve competitiveness with other countries. Improved competitive position means more sales, more jobs and, possibly, lower trade deficits. The last are a by-product, not the driving reason for the tariffs.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Ignoring comments is fine, but you edit them removing the facts presented and then respond.

I leave out parts of your comments because my response is to the portion of your remark that is relevant to my comment. I don't see anything to be gained by just pasting all of your verbiage. But I do NOT in any way alter the meaning of your comment.

 

[George50]

They were imposed because other countries had high tariffs.

Apparently you don’t understand the reciprocal tariffs at all. They have nothing to do with other countries having high tariffs. They have to do with trade imbalances. Look up how they are calculated.

Here I’ll do it for you:

Trump’s Reciprocal Tariff Calculations Are Nonsense, Will Punish Mutually Beneficial Trade

If you tax trade, you get less of it—both imports and exports alike. Even a less-flawed version of Trump’s tariff plan would be unlikely to achieve its goals.

taxfoundation.org

You missed the whole point. The CHIPS Act doesn't guarantee that the money it spends will produce a profit.

That’s just silly. Company executives don’t expect to get a guarantee of profits. They do want government policy to give them what is promised. In the case of the CHIPS act that was grants and tax relief. Those were written into law.

Trump’s tariffs give nothing in the way of certainty. They change daily with his whims and can be wiped away completely when he leaves office. They are not written into law. The fact that you can’t understand this just shows how little you know about how large Corporations work.

 

[George50]

I leave out parts of your comments because my response is to the portion of your remark that is relevant to my comment. I don't see anything to be gained by just pasting all of your verbiage. But I do NOT in any way alter the meaning of your comment.

That’s not true. In multiple cases you leave out actual evidence that supports my comments leaving them to look like simple unsupported statements when others view them like your comments do.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Apparently you don’t understand the reciprocal tariffs at all. They have nothing to do with other countries having high tariffs. They have to do with trade imbalances. Look up how they are calculated.

The article you cite, in the sixth paragraph, clearly states that Mr. Cole calculates reciprocal tariffs differently than the Administration calculated them. And Cole may be right, technically. Or not. The announcement of higher tariffs on countries that exact high tariffs on our goods used the term, "reciprocal," in a way that most Americans can relate to them. It isn't a President's job to school the public on economic lexicon and, whether Mr. Cole agrees with the calculations or not, the current higher tariffs are being used as a threat in negotiations that may, in fact, bring down trade deficits.

That’s just silly. Company executives don’t expect to get a guarantee of profits.

That was the implication of your earlier post, in which you compared the benefits of the CHIPS Act to what Trump is doing. If what you meant was certainty that companies would get the up-front benefits of government handouts, any certainty comes from the CHIPS Act having been passed, while Trump's plans have yet to be enacted.

They change daily with his whims and can be wiped away completely when he leaves office. They are not written into law.

And yet large corporations are acting as if they had been passed into law. Go figure.

 

[George50]

The article you cite, in the sixth paragraph, clearly states that Mr. Cole calculates reciprocal tariffs differently than the Administration calculated them.

The sixth paragraph reads:

First, the formula. The alleged “tariff rate” from each trading partner is fully a function of trade aggregates, specifically, the deficit divided by US imports, with a minimum of 10 percent. No factors discussed by the administration in these documents or anywhere else (like tariffs, digital services taxes, value-added taxes, or monetary policy) play any role.

That is how the administration calculated the so called reciprocal tariffs. As the author states, that calculation has nothing to do with another country’s tariffs.

And Cole may be right, technically. Or not.

He is definitely correct. You would know that if you got your information from legitimate news sources. Everyone who does so has known that for a long time now. Those who don’t have been conned into thinking that other countries are charging us huge tariffs which is simply not true. It’s only what Trump wants you to believe.

The announcement of higher tariffs on countries that exact high tariffs on our goods used the term, "reciprocal," in a way that most Americans can relate to them.

Total nonsense. Do you even know what the word reciprocal even means?

Reciprocal means if you charge me a 20% tariff, then I will charge you a 20% tariff. That is what Americans who know what the word reciprocal means would relate to.

With the goofball formula the administration used a country could have a zero tariff and the goofball formula would say that the reciprocal tariff was 50% or any other number imaginable.

It isn't a President's job to school the public on economic lexicon

Good thing it’s not his job or no one would have a functioning knowledge of the English language.

That was the implication of your earlier post,

Wrong.

in which you compared the benefits of the CHIPS Act to what Trump is doing. If what you meant was certainty that companies would get the up-front benefits of government handouts, any certainty comes from the CHIPS Act having been passed, while Trump's plans have yet to be enacted.

Enact? There is no plan to enact tariffs.

And yet large corporations are acting as if they had been passed into law. Go figure.

False.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Those who don’t have been conned into thinking that other countries are charging us huge tariffs which is simply not true.

Example: The EU charges a tariff of 10% on US automobiles, while the US charges a tariff of 2.5% on European cars in the US.

Why don't Europeans buy more American cars?

Trump wants US vehicles to be more popular in Europe, but it's a difficult market for them to crack.

www.bbc.com

Reciprocal means if you charge me a 20% tariff, then I will charge you a 20% tariff. That is what Americans who know what the word reciprocal means would relate to

Most Americans would relate to the first dictionary definition:

adjective: reciprocal: given, felt, or done in return.

IOW, to most Americans it means something like, 'If you hit me I'm gonna knock your block off.'

Wrong.

Right! It may not be what you meant to say, but that's how it came across in context at the time.

Enact? There is no plan to enact tariffs

Trump's plans involve more than just tariffs. For example, he has proposed a 15% corporate tax on US-manufactured products, near the lowest in the world. He has proposed on-site power generation, rather than waiting for the national grid to be updated.

False.

True. Hyundai, for example, is going to build new manufacturing facilities plus a steel plant in Louisiana. Roche will spend $50 billion on new and expanded facilities in five states.


​

 

[George50]

Example: The EU charges a tariff of 10% on US automobiles, while the US charges a tariff of 2.5% on European cars in the US.

Why don't Europeans buy more American cars?

Trump wants US vehicles to be more popular in Europe, but it's a difficult market for them to crack.

www.bbc.com

As I said Trump is trying to make people think the rest of the world is charging us huge tariffs. Trump’s “reciprocal” tariff chart was constructed to make people believe that the EU tariff was 39% but as you say it’s really 10%.

Most Americans would relate to the first dictionary definition:

adjective: reciprocal: given, felt, or done in return.

IOW, to most Americans it means something like, 'If you hit me I'm gonna knock your block off.'
​

It sure sounds like you have a lot of hostility towards other countries.

Trump spelled it out with these exact words in his announcement:

But we will charge them approximately half of what they are and have been charging us. So, the tariffs will be not a full reciprocal I could have done that, yes, but it would have been tough for a lot of countries.

We charge them less, so how can anybody be upset?

Of course he’s just lying because the EU was not charging us 40%. Why do you people allow yourselves to be lied to continuously?

Right! It may not be what you meant to say, but that's how it came across in context at the time.
​

Read it again.

True. Hyundai, for example, is going to build new manufacturing facilities plus a steel plant in Louisiana. Roche will spend $50 billion on new and expanded facilities in five states.


​

LOL. These companies have been planning to make these investments for quite some time now. They don’t make these kind of decisions in a couple of months. Even if they were going to make a decision based on tariffs they would not do it without knowing how much the tariffs would be and how long they would be in place.

These decisions were made based tariffs being at the 2024 levels. Granted, any tariffs that might be levied would allow them to charge Americans more for their products but the decision to build and expand was made with the assumption that there would not be new tariffs.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

As I said Trump is trying to make people think the rest of the world is charging us huge tariffs. Trump’s “reciprocal” tariff chart was constructed to make people believe that the EU tariff was 39% but as you say it’s really 10%.

It's 4 times the US tariff, or 7.5% more. On a full-size $60,000 car that's a $4,500 difference.

It sure sounds like you have a lot of hostility towards other countries.

Nope. Been to several of them and liked all of them (except metropolitan France).

Of course he’s just lying

What you quoted was not lies.

Read it again.

No. It's not that important to me to read it twice and to try to make it what you claim.

LOL. These companies have been planning to make these investments for quite some time now

Check the announcement dates. They probably had been considering them, but finally pulled the trigger when Trump had talked about his plans to encourage US manufacturing.

Even if they were going to make a decision based on tariffs they would not do it without knowing how much the tariffs would be and how long they would be in place.

Again, Trump's plans include tariffs as negotiating tools and may end up as part of an overall environment. But, as key to your thinking as tariffs are, they are but one part of the effort to encourage US manufacturing. Now, I guess I have to apologize for not sticking to your script, but that's because you don't seem to want to discuss anything but tariffs.

 

[George50]

It's 4 times the US tariff, or 7.5% more. On a full-size $60,000 car that's a $4,500 difference.

Are you calling Trump a liar? He says it’s 15 times the US tariff or 36.5% more.

What you quoted was not lies.

If Trump was telling the truth, then you are lying. Has to be one or the other. Which is it?

Check the announcement dates. They probably had been considering them, but finally pulled the trigger when Trump had talked about his plans to encourage US manufacturing.

Delusional.

Here's the Roche announcement. They know how stupid it would be to base their decisions on what you claim they are doing. Thus nothing, nada, zippo about any Trump plans impacting their decision even though it would be politically very beneficial to them to do so.

Roche to invest USD 50 billion in pharmaceuticals and diagnostics in the United States over the next five years

USD 50 billion commitment includes new state-of-the art research and development (R&D) sites, new and expanded manufacturing facilities in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and California and...

www.roche.com

Again, Trump's plans include tariffs as negotiating tools and may end up as part of an overall environment. But, as key to your thinking as tariffs are,

You mean trump’s thinking.

they are but one part of the effort to encourage US manufacturing. Now, I guess I have to apologize for not sticking to your script, but that's because you don't seem to want to discuss anything but tariffs.

What would you like to talk about?

 

[ncguy]

Example: The EU charges a tariff of 10% on US automobiles, while the US charges a tariff of 2.5% on European cars in the US.

Why don't Europeans buy more American cars?

Trump wants US vehicles to be more popular in Europe, but it's a difficult market for them to crack.

www.bbc.com

Most Americans would relate to the first dictionary definition:

adjective: reciprocal: given, felt, or done in return.

IOW, to most Americans it means something like, 'If you hit me I'm gonna knock your block off

​

You are speaking on behalf of most Americans? Lol. Ego alert

You sound like you have anger ussues

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Are you calling Trump a liar? He says it’s 15 times the US tariff or 36.5% more.

I'm telling you what I found. His information may be more current or more specific than mine.

If Trump was telling the truth, then you are lying. Has to be one or the other. Which is it?

False dichotomy. We could be looking at different data (Are you lying when you say something that's not correct?)

Delusional.

Here's the Roche announcement. They know how stupid it would be to base their decisions on what you claim they are doing. Thus nothing, nada, zippo about any Trump plans impacting their decision even though it would be politically very beneficial to them to do so.

The delusion, I think, is yours. Many large organizations have plans developed that are waiting for an opportune environment in which to initiate actions. There is no requirement that they announce any political reason for their timing, in fact, it may be considered by them to be undesirable to do so.

What would you like to talk about?

In spite of your focus on tariffs, I've been trying to explain to you that there are other things involved in the effort to encourage manufacturing in this country. Two of those things are taxes and on-site power generation.