Who’s confused here
 

A tariff is a tax on imports or exports. Money collected under a tariff is called a duty or customs duty. Tariffs are used by governments to generate revenue.
So just how is China getting charged?
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
1h
The United States Treasury has taken in MANY billions of dollars from the Tariffs we are charging China and other countries that have not treated us fairly. In the meantime we are doing well in various Trade Negotiations currently going on. At some point this had to be done!

He answered his own question.

You must have gone to Wharton with Trump
We pay not China

Aha, so in this instance you want to talk about people rather than countries. In some instances, when you're in "the people, individuals, just can't do it" mode you want countries and governments to do stuff, like fix healthcare. In this instance, its not a country thing, its the people.

But that's OK, since in either instance, wittingly or unwittingly, he answered his own question. The tariff is not on the American taxpayer. It is on the product being imported from China. Obviously, the American buyer pays the price that the seller adds on. And the billions in tariff taxes are paid by the American buyers. In the meantime, the seller pays in loss of income due to less sales.

As far as the shorthand phrase "charging China" goes, tariffs are not on countries, they are on products. China is not selling itself. Ostensibly, it is not selling anything. The manufacturer is being charged a fee to sell his product here. In actuality, though, China is also "paying" in loss of any revenue it would have got through the sale of more product. It is losing some of its share in the overall balance of trade.

So, yes, Trump did answer his own question, whether he knew that he actually did or not.

All parties are "charged" when tariffs are imposed. But it may be worth it to a more static economy to protect its sellers on the world market. So loss of sales are, theoretically though perhaps not truly, better than no sales.

Or, as in this case, tariffs can be used as a counter against other tariffs, with the goal of eliminating them. If China loses enough due to the damage to its economy, then a more mutually beneficial agreement can be made.

But, of course, getting into the total weeds was not your intention. You just wanted to point out what a fool Trump is. If it all winds up in a better trade relation with China, is he a fool.

And if his ignorance and adherence to his rhetoric results in the collapse of markets then what will he be seen as?
You’re close to correct but I think that he’s a con man and can’t find a way out of his own long con. So that would make him a fool because any con man can tell you, the exit is the difference between con and convicted.
Look at his record
The stock market is down
Trade is down
He failed to repeal and replace
The government is partially unfunded
He lost the midterms
Romney fired the first shot across his bow and he flinched, more are coming
He can’t fund the wall
Lindsey Graham claims that if he fails at that his presidency is over
He’s tweeting 10x a day
He can’t find cabinet members perhaps because he gets one and then stabs them in the back when they leave
He has no knowledge of history
He thinks Afghanistan is what broke up the USSR
The rest of the world is laughing at the crazy uncle we elected
He stole a new line “presidential harassment” lifted from Mitch McConnell, maybe he’s hoping it becomes like the #metoo movement
But no other president has had so little skill at leading or been less willing to build a team and learn
He has done a few things that were handed to him by others
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is false and totally stupid. In another thread you posted an article by a lady who worked for him. She credited him directly for his success and debunked the notion that his father handed him that success. He was personally responsible for putting together the team and carrying out his role and responsibility in order to get elected President of the United States. Very few have done that.

Your bias, hate, and lack of knowledge shines in your posts about Trump.

Did I have to be so obvious as to say that if his blind blundering policies succeed he won’t be seen as the fool he is, but when they fail you and he are quite quick to lay the blame on others. So I’m sure as Trump does you’ll deflect the lack of ability to presidential harassment
Time will tell
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess Pete should be happy you didn't accuse him of hating the constitution.

You were blind enough to say stupid untrue stuff rather than answering my question. And the question was connected to your quick to lay judgment that he's confused without waiting for time to tell if his tariff policy is a blunder.

If you think I'm too "quick to lay the blame on others", it should be easy to prove I'm wrong. As far as I can tell, that hasn't happened.

I don't think he's happy.

That was one person and if you read the whole article You would see her thoughts on him being president.

"Anything problematic for being president of the United States?

I’ve worked for a lot of developers, and the biggest developers in the world. I don’t think any of them should be president. I don’t think that he has the experience and the knowledge of the law, the knowledge of politics to be president."

I did read the whole article. And she did, for the most and main body of the article, praise Trump for his methods, including selecting teams to carry out his vision and working with them toward success. And she attributed his success to his own direction, methods, and ability to promote and carry things to completion. And she said that she would gladly work with him again.

Her small negative statement regarding his qualification for being President was solely on his lack of experience in law and politics. It was not about him supposedly being a terrible, incompetent, sexist, homophobe, etc. The experience thing was her opinion. If you agree with that, I disagree with you and her. The few qualifications listed in the Constitution don't agree with either of you. And the fruits of those kind of "qualified" politicians who have been running the federal government is proof to me that those qualifications don't necessarily lead to good government. Otherwise, we should all be satisfied with the present state of national debt, and government squabbling of how it should intrude in every aspect of our lives.

I agree more with what W. F. Buckley said: "I would rather be governed by the first 2000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2000 people on the faculty of Harvard University."

So would Robespierre, Mao and Pol Pot but you can’t kill all the people with glasses here
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the first 2000 people in the Boston telephone directory had ruled France at the time of the French Revolution, things would have turned out much better for the French people. Of course, there was no Boston telephone directory at that time. But if 2000 Bostonians at that time had ruled France, that as well would have been far far far better for the French people. Even though Robespierre had more political experience.

And if those same 2000 Bostonians, either from the telephone directory, or like those during the American revolution, had ruled Cambodia instead of Pol Pot, the Cambodians would have been much much much better off.

It's far less about the qualifications of 2000 random people than about the anti-intellectual viewpoint of the right.

Ahhh sweet Jesus . . . your typical sliding out of some argument that you can't sustain into a new, vague, "It." You're as divisive, politicized, and disgusting as Trump, Clinton, and typical politicians. Here you are implying that those on the right don't have intellect. So what are we, baboons? Brainless idiots? Dumber than you?

Victimized as usual
Just what is this then if not anti-intellectual:I agree more with what W. F. Buckley said: "I would rather be governed by the first 2000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2000 people on the faculty of Harvard University."
Is it because they have degrees, where they work, live or just what would make them worse than any 2000 people in Boston other than that they are intellectuals?

None of the above... I am very sure he meant that 1999 of the 2000 would be screaming liberal lefties like you.... "Intellectual" is the new code word for "MoonBat"

Your not being very intellectual here. Buckley didn't prefer the 2000 regular folks because the Harvard faculty was intellectual. That would have been a condemnation of himself. Buckley was one of the greatest intellectual forces of conservative philosophy.

He trusted average Americans to know what was best for themselves (especially in a time when American individualist values were still admired) over the elitist opinions of academics in the aloof ivory towers of universities which had shifted from their founding ideology of American individualism and self government to the Progressive view of government by experts. The average American increasingly bore the brunt of this top down expert way, and surprise, the guys on top increasingly got better off.

These universities were informing the minds of those they were breeding to be the next lawyers, politicians, journalists, educators, and "thinkers" who would continue the process of changing our constitutionally based system of government into the Progressive model of an administrative state wherein We The People were no longer the boss of our own lives and the government the servant, but, on the contrary, it would be the other way around.

Which was supposedly for the good of the common man, who was not "educated" nor informed well enough about what really was best for society. It was the task of these "educated" graduates to transform this country into what was to be the best governed and free one because it would be ruled by those with expert knowledge on how it should be done. Freedom was no longer to be some undisciplined and ignorant exercise of individual "rights." Freedom was to be what government rulers and expert administrators would allow in order for society to function in a way which suited their idea of "good."

And, by today, the people would be happy. And feel free. How else could they be and feel when living under the enlightened creation of the best Progressive minds.

So here we are. Happy as a lark. Except for half the population (and rising) of ill educated, political illiterates, depending on the experts to solve the best way to sustain their lives. And most of the other half worrying if the experts will eff up what middling lives they have. And don't look behind the curtain where the small cadre of economic and political rulers are expertly pulling and pushing regulatory strings and levers trying to maintain their power by somehow, or however, keeping the whole thing from blowing up.

Buckley understood how destructive to the practice of individual freedom Progressive political ideology would be. And how it could turn a nation of basically self-governing individuals into one of government directed collectives. His notion is not anti-intellectual. It is a mixture of pragmatism, common sense, and critical thinking which applies it all to who best knows how to live one's own life.

It is not an anti-intellectual viewpoint of the right. The "right" has no shortage of college educated people. Nor would those 2000 Bostonians in the telephone directory that Buckley would trust (some of whom could have college degrees) all be on the right. In fact, being from Boston, most would probably lean more left.

And my view is certainly not anti-intellectual. I have two college degrees and credits for more. And I certainly don't feel victimized if I think that I am not dumber than you.

So it's not "because they have degrees, where they work, [or] live" as you say. It's because they are out of touch with the heart and soul of who a free people really are. And a free people would rather govern themselves and elect government servants who think and live like them than by those who have an ill founded belief that they are better because they think they are more "intellectual."

And given all your verbiage
Why did the authors of the Constitution find it necessary to have an Electoral College rather than a popular vote?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

To prevent you from becoming President.

Insert The Joker laugh
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wow, are you seriously defending Trump on his knowledge of history, OMG that is hysterical. Go google Trump and his knowledge of history, here and abroad. If he took history in school, he must of been up all night watching TV, because he clearly wasn't paying attention.

My other issue with your commentary is that Trump is willing to compromise, I guess you were away on vacation when they had a deal up until the Fox and Friends started to rail on him and he changed his mind. We wouldn't be here if he signed the deal everyone already agreed to.

I recall him offering a super sweet deal regarding doubling what the Dems wanted re DACA, but they turned it down. I don't watch Fox and Friends. Nor what deal your talking about. The Dems are now saying there will be no money for the wall. Trump wants to make a deal that includes that money. So, for the present, he's the one that wants to make some compromise to get the funding.

What makes you think I am joking?

This thread is exhausting.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why do you even bother ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn’t really read it. On the plane, I got tired just scrolling.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It boring for Spence because Pete F. is out liberaling him. Compared to Pete F., Spence looks more like a Mit Romney type than his normal Hillary flare.