Senator: the sacrifice of paying tariffs is minimal compared to serving overseas
17 replies, posted
As the U.S. and China inch closer to an all-out trade war, Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton says that the sacrifice Americans will pay for President Trump's tariffs are "minimal" compared to
those serving overseas. President Trump has maintained that Americans would not be fronting the brunt of the cost for tariffs, but many, including the president's own economic adviser,
say they will.
"There will be some sacrifices on the part of Americans, I grant you that, but I also would say that sacrifice is pretty minimal compared to the sacrifices that our soldiers make overseas
that are fallen heroes that are laid to rest in Arlington make," Cotton told "CBS This Morning" when asked about the impact of tariffs on farmers in his own state of Arkansas.
Cotton, the author of "Sacred Duty: A Soldier's Tour at Arlington National Cemetery," said that in the long term, the goal is to make sure that the U.S. "remains preeminent as a global
super power both in the economic and the security" worlds. The price tag for that "preeminence" on the average American family, according to trade experts falls between $700 to $1,000.
"If we remain the world's largest economy and the world's largest economic super power in the short term, I say it is worth that cost," said Cotton.
Taxing your own citizens on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of imported goods to own the libs ...show respect to our men and women in uniform?
China will slap import surcharges on 5,140 U.S. products starting on June 1, with levies of 25 per cent on agricultural products such as honey, vegetables, coffee and various meats.
Beijing is running out of imports to penalize due to the lopsided U.S.-Chinese trade balance. Regulators have started targeting American companies in China by slowing down customs clearance for shipments and issuance of business licences.
BTW China's retaliating with a 25% levy (presumably increasing from 10%) on most things they import from America, and it's working to fuck with American companies trying to do business in China as an alternative pressure valve because the US exports way less than it imports so China can't just keep matching its tariffs 1:1.
Telling Americans that beings conscripted into a trade war against their will "isn't as bad as" being conscripted into a violent war
Somehow I don't think that'll go very well.
Destroying China's economy before it fucks us over would be a good thing, but we need to make actual efforts to be more self-reliant and stop buying anything from China.
I'd say its better
but also a very retarded comparison because they're totally different things, so it doesn't even work
It's a dumb flavourful comparison to try and create some kind of fake moralist point to say the "the sacrifice... for tariffs are "minimal" compared to those serving oversea"
You just wiped out all the gains I've ever made from stock trading you absolute fucker
This is a really weird defence. This is like whataboutism but worse.
I guess the next logical step in pretending that you have a sound economic policy when you really don't is to tell people to stuff it once they start complaining about everything going to hell. :V
To be fair, the stock market is basically just fancy gambling and that's the risk you take.
On the plus side, with all this extra cash the gubment can expand the military even further
how about the rich pay the taxes they owe and we close up all the fucking shell companies and offshore loopholes instead or is that more painful than military service?
No, investing is absolutely not gambling if you actually diversify. Statistically, you're going to save money over inflation when compared to banking even when accounting for regular market activity (i.e. crashes), that just isn't true if the president decides to randomly fuck the economy for 0 reason.
No matter how much you diversify, investing in stocks remains fundamentally the same: you are paying a company money to purchase a portion of that company in hopes that they do well so that portion you own does better. You are gambling on the success of every single company in your portfolio. You diversify to reduce the chance that everything you've invested in is going to shit the bed all at once, but that doesn't change the fact that, at the core of it all, you are gambling on the success of everything you have money in.
That's about as useful as saying it's gambling to take a job because you have the chance of losing that job in the future.
I agree that it's gambling, but it's gambling with pretty good odds.
There's no "house always wins" argument to be made, because the stock market has trended upwards since it's inception. It would take economic collapse to cause irreversible damage. Even the GFC was recoverable, it just took a few years.
Don't mean to derail the thread though. I just can't even grasp the kind of mental gymnastics required to equate a trade war to a military one.
Then you might as well call putting your money in the bank gambling as well because it's the exact same thing.
I think china has a lot of terrible practices that need to be internationally condemned by the US and others, much more aggressively than we have been. However, a trade war isn't the best way to go about this-- it needlessly hurts consumers and only exacerbates worldwide instability, rather than fighting against it.
I lost 45 dollars because I only invested in Chinese stocks. Buy high sell low.
Almost every major dip you see there is when the dumb-ass started going on about tariffs.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.