Soybean Farmers Hit Hard By Donald Trump’s Tariffs

[libertybele]

I tried to avoid soy. Don't like it.  Don't need it.

[edpc]

US soybean farmers warn Trump trade war with China will cause 'serious damage'

John Heisdorffer, an Iowa soybean farmer and president of the ASA, warned of the impact of the tariffs on farmers.

"Soybeans are the top agriculture export for the United States, and China is the top market for purchasing those exports," Heisdorffer said in the statement. "The math is simple. You tax soybean exports at 25-percent, and you have serious damage to U.S. farmers."

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/395986-us-soybean-farmers-warn-trump-trade-war-with-china-will-cause-serious-damage?amp

[Emjay]

I tried to avoid soy. Don't like it.  Don't need it.

My SD relatives grew soybeans and they wouldn't eat it on a bet.

[Emjay]

Ya, too bad for them the government decided to make them losers... Got break a few eggs and all...

I freely admit to not knowing a lot about this particular industry.  But I don't think these farmers were targeted.  The tariff thing is complicated but it may result in The Greater Good.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

I freely admit to not knowing a lot about this particular industry.  But I don't think these farmers were targeted.  The tariff thing is complicated but it may result in The Greater Good.

You're honestly ignorant of the issue but you think tarriffs might be good.  MAGA

[Emjay]

You're ignorant of the issue but you think tarriffs might be good.  MAGA

I am honest about it at least, @Once-Ler while you and others pretend to be authorities about a complicated economic issue.

Trump claims he's trying to level the playing field with the tariffs.  He may be wrong but you don't know that, do you?

[Frank Cannon]

You're ignorant of the issue but you think tarriffs might be good.  MAGA

Better than being generally ignorant like some others here trolling away.

[Oceander]

I freely admit to not knowing a lot about this particular industry.  But I don't think these farmers were targeted.  The tariff thing is complicated but it may result in The Greater Good.

The ends always justify the means, don’t they. 

[DB]

I freely admit to not knowing a lot about this particular industry.  But I don't think these farmers were targeted.  The tariff thing is complicated but it may result in The Greater Good.

The "greater good" has been used to justify a lot of things throughout history.

Government shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers. To protect one group you damage another. It then comes down to who has the best lobbyists. And that is the root of corruption in government.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Better than being generally ignorant like some others here trolling away.

Sure some trolls are generally ignorant, but the truly great ones are colossally ignorant @Frank Cannon .

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

The ends always justify the means, don’t they.

China can't meet their own soybean needs anywhere else but the U.S. So they put a retaliatory tariff on ours. Cut their nose off to spite their face.

Germany has a 10pct tariff on U.S. cars. So Trump threatens them with a 20pct tariff across the whole EU on their cars.

Upshot? Mercedes is lobbying Merkel's govt to get rid of Germany's 10pct.

Upshot #2: China is trying to cozy up to Germany to create an Alliance against the U.S. and Germany so far wants nothing to do with them.

[Oceander]

China can't meet their own soybean needs anywhere else but the U.S. So they put a retaliatory tariff on ours. Cut their nose off to spite their face.

Germany has a 10pct tariff on U.S. cars. So Trump threatens them with a 20pct tariff across the whole EU on their cars.

Upshot? Mercedes is lobbying Merkel's govt to get rid of Germany's 10pct.

Upshot #2: China is trying to cozy up to Germany to create an Alliance against the U.S. and Germany so far wants nothing to do with them.

Does the end justify the means?  It’s a very simple question. 

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

So now you're Amish, to make your point?

You don't believe in self defense?

Then take the locks off your doors.

[Oceander]

So now you're Amish, to make your point?

You don't believe in self defense?

Then take the locks off your doors.

Answer the question:  does the end justify the means?

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

In this instance yes, absolutely.

Or perhaps all of us "azzholes, idiots, and unicorn chasers" (your words, not mine) should bow instead to your puffed up virtue signaling oh most Exalted One.

[Oceander]

In this instance yes, absolutely.

Or perhaps all of us "azzholes, idiots, and unicorn chasers" (your words, not mine) should bow instead to your puffed up virtue signaling oh most Exalted One.

Ahh.  So what differentiates “this instance” when it is acceptable to other instances where it is not?

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

And get mired in a fruitless course in western ethics with you?

Way cool junior.

When you don't even Have a point to make, drive the train off the tracks.


/Snicker

[Oceander]

And get mired in a fruitless course in western ethics with you?

Way cool junior.

When you don't even Have a point to make, drive the train off the tracks.


/Snicker

In other words, you don’t have an answer that isn’t simply based on your subjective political beliefs.  Which makes you no different from a run of the mill liberal. 

[endicom]

Answer the question:  does the end justify the means?

When the means are just. Leveling the playing field is just.

[Oceander]

When the means are just. Leveling the playing field is just.

Ahh.  So if one concludes that the ends are just, all manner of means are permitted. 

Thank you for justifying Obamacare. 

[endicom]

Ahh.  So if one concludes that the ends are just, all manner of means are permitted. 

Thank you for justifying Obamacare.

If that is your conclusion then it is. I said nothing about "all manner of means" but stuck to the issue at hand.

[Oceander]

If that is your conclusion then it is. I said nothing about "all manner of means" but stuck to the issue at hand.

You said if the ends were just the means were justified.  You placed no limit on the means allowed.  Are you now walking that back?

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Justifying Obamacare? The smell of desperation in the morning.

"When you have the law, pound it. When you don't, pound the desk."

Heard that one before, Counselor?

Reductio in Absurdium.

Riddle me this Riddler;

Should FDR, Churchill and more be excoriated and villified for allying with Stalin to defeat Hitler?

"Nations do not have friends. Nations have Interests."

Winston Churchill, which he lifted and paraphrased from George Washington.

[endicom]

You said if the ends were just the means were justified.  You placed no limit on the means allowed.  Are you now walking that back?

Can't you read? I said the means are just.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

In other words, you don’t have an answer that isn’t simply based on your subjective political beliefs.  Which makes you no different from a run of the mill liberal.

I'm the Lib here? When you're channel surfing all over the place as a debating strategy?