An Obama accomplishment

[Ame®icano]

One thing Obama did while president was set up the C.A.R.S (Car Allowance Rebate System) system. The idea was to take older, less efficient cars off the road and stimulate new auto production in the process.

Obama used $3 billion taxpayer dollars to fund C.A.R.S. AKA "Cash for clunkers" and called it
"stimulus"

However, C.A.R.S. is a dismal failure that wastes taxpayer money, drives up the prices of new and used cars, and slows new car production.

According to research by 2 University of Delaware professors it is a net loss of $2600 per vehicle.

"With per vehicle environmental benets
at $596 and the costs at $2,600 per ve-
hicle, the clunker program is a net drain on
society of roughly $2,000 per vehicle. Given
the approximately 700,000 vehicles in the
program, we estimate the total welfare loss to
be about $1.4 billion."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46555587_Is_cars_a_clunker


Prices of new and used cars are now higher for everyone thanks to less availability of used cars on the market.


"the average used car price hit a record $16,800 last year, according to a report from Edmunds.com"


Average used car price hits record high in 2014


"The deep cuts in production capacity during the restructuring of recent years, coupled with the recent rebound in demand for new cars from consumers, means that shoppers can't find the deals they once did."


Car prices at record highs - and rising


If anyone wishes to compare any auto prices between pre-C.A.R.S. and post cars, you can do so here with any make, model, and year:


Car Prices, Sales History, and Mileage on a Graph


So in effect, C.A.R.S. is a program that cost everybody $2k per car, drives up the price of new and used cars, and is a net loss to everyone.

Thanks, Obama!

Our car companies are still in business. Thanks Obama.

Two of them bankrupted anyways. One is not even American anymore.

Which two?

I don't think you don't know, it wasn't that long ago.

GM and Chrysler bankrupted after they were "saved" with bailout. Ford never get the bailout money.

 

[Marion Morrison]

One thing Obama did while president was set up the C.A.R.S (Car Allowance Rebate System) system. The idea was to take older, less efficient cars off the road and stimulate new auto production in the process.

Obama used $3 billion taxpayer dollars to fund C.A.R.S. AKA "Cash for clunkers" and called it
"stimulus"

However, C.A.R.S. is a dismal failure that wastes taxpayer money, drives up the prices of new and used cars, and slows new car production.

According to research by 2 University of Delaware professors it is a net loss of $2600 per vehicle.

"With per vehicle environmental benets
at $596 and the costs at $2,600 per ve-
hicle, the clunker program is a net drain on
society of roughly $2,000 per vehicle. Given
the approximately 700,000 vehicles in the
program, we estimate the total welfare loss to
be about $1.4 billion."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46555587_Is_cars_a_clunker


Prices of new and used cars are now higher for everyone thanks to less availability of used cars on the market.


"the average used car price hit a record $16,800 last year, according to a report from Edmunds.com"


Average used car price hits record high in 2014


"The deep cuts in production capacity during the restructuring of recent years, coupled with the recent rebound in demand for new cars from consumers, means that shoppers can't find the deals they once did."


Car prices at record highs - and rising


If anyone wishes to compare any auto prices between pre-C.A.R.S. and post cars, you can do so here with any make, model, and year:


Car Prices, Sales History, and Mileage on a Graph


So in effect, C.A.R.S. is a program that cost everybody $2k per car, drives up the price of new and used cars, and is a net loss to everyone.

Thanks, Obama!

Our car companies are still in business. Thanks Obama.

Two of them bankrupted anyways. One is not even American anymore.

Which two?

I don't think you don't know, it wasn't that long ago.

GM and Chrysler bankrupted after they were "saved" with bailout. Ford never get the bailout money.

I really don't know. I'm guessing it was before I started taking notice of politics. If you don't have it on hand, don't worry about it, I guess.

 

[The VOR]

One thing Obama did while president was set up the C.A.R.S (Car Allowance Rebate System) system. The idea was to take older, less efficient cars off the road and stimulate new auto production in the process.

Obama used $3 billion taxpayer dollars to fund C.A.R.S. AKA "Cash for clunkers" and called it
"stimulus"

However, C.A.R.S. is a dismal failure that wastes taxpayer money, drives up the prices of new and used cars, and slows new car production.

According to research by 2 University of Delaware professors it is a net loss of $2600 per vehicle.

"With per vehicle environmental benefits
at $596 and the costs at $2,600 per ve-
hicle, the clunker program is a net drain on
society of roughly $2,000 per vehicle. Given
the approximately 700,000 vehicles in the
program, we estimate the total welfare loss to
be about $1.4 billion."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46555587_Is_cars_a_clunker


Prices of new and used cars are now higher for everyone thanks to less availability of used cars on the market.


"the average used car price hit a record $16,800 last year, according to a report from Edmunds.com"


Average used car price hits record high in 2014


"The deep cuts in production capacity during the restructuring of recent years, coupled with the recent rebound in demand for new cars from consumers, means that shoppers can't find the deals they once did."


Car prices at record highs - and rising


If anyone wishes to compare any auto prices between pre-C.A.R.S. and post cars, you can do so here with any make, model, and year:


Car Prices, Sales History, and Mileage on a Graph


So in effect, C.A.R.S. is an Obama program that costs everybody $2k per car, drives up the price of new and used cars, and is a net loss to everyone.

Thanks, Obama!

Whoever makes lists of Obama's "accomplishments", be sure and include this boondoggle done within the 1st 6 months of his presidency.

Progressive policy failure right here.

Your list of accomplishments:















In other words, Obama accomplishes more in the morning when he gets out of bed and takes a piss than you have in your entire life.

 

[Marion Morrison]

One thing Obama did while president was set up the C.A.R.S (Car Allowance Rebate System) system. The idea was to take older, less efficient cars off the road and stimulate new auto production in the process.

Obama used $3 billion taxpayer dollars to fund C.A.R.S. AKA "Cash for clunkers" and called it
"stimulus"

However, C.A.R.S. is a dismal failure that wastes taxpayer money, drives up the prices of new and used cars, and slows new car production.

According to research by 2 University of Delaware professors it is a net loss of $2600 per vehicle.

"With per vehicle environmental benefits
at $596 and the costs at $2,600 per ve-
hicle, the clunker program is a net drain on
society of roughly $2,000 per vehicle. Given
the approximately 700,000 vehicles in the
program, we estimate the total welfare loss to
be about $1.4 billion."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46555587_Is_cars_a_clunker


Prices of new and used cars are now higher for everyone thanks to less availability of used cars on the market.


"the average used car price hit a record $16,800 last year, according to a report from Edmunds.com"


Average used car price hits record high in 2014


"The deep cuts in production capacity during the restructuring of recent years, coupled with the recent rebound in demand for new cars from consumers, means that shoppers can't find the deals they once did."


Car prices at record highs - and rising


If anyone wishes to compare any auto prices between pre-C.A.R.S. and post cars, you can do so here with any make, model, and year:


Car Prices, Sales History, and Mileage on a Graph


So in effect, C.A.R.S. is an Obama program that costs everybody $2k per car, drives up the price of new and used cars, and is a net loss to everyone.

Thanks, Obama!

Whoever makes lists of Obama's "accomplishments", be sure and include this boondoggle done within the 1st 6 months of his presidency.

Progressive policy failure right here.

Your list of accomplishments:















In other words, Obama accomplishes more in the morning when he gets out of bed and takes a piss than you have in your entire life.

Rule 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”


Rule 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

He makes one of you every morning I bet. At least I hope so, for his health's sake.

 

[Brain357]

You think we need more taxes?

I think we need more domestic production.

Tariffs are not new. Show me when in history tariffs have ever done that. It is just a tax.

Tariffs used to work back before ba-dum-tiss! Income taxes.

They worked as a tax. They have never increased domestic production.

Neither did Obama!

That doesn't make tariffs a good idea. You think more taxes is what we need?

 

[Marion Morrison]

I think we need more domestic production.

Tariffs are not new. Show me when in history tariffs have ever done that. It is just a tax.

Tariffs used to work back before ba-dum-tiss! Income taxes.

They worked as a tax. They have never increased domestic production.

Neither did Obama!

That doesn't make tariffs a good idea. You think more taxes is what we need?

No I do not; However, taxing imported goods is likely to spur domestic production.

 

[Brain357]

Tariffs are not new. Show me when in history tariffs have ever done that. It is just a tax.

Tariffs used to work back before ba-dum-tiss! Income taxes.

They worked as a tax. They have never increased domestic production.

Neither did Obama!

That doesn't make tariffs a good idea. You think more taxes is what we need?

No I do not; However, taxing imported goods is likely to spur domestic production.

Then show me when that has ever happened. They have never increased domestic production.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Tariffs used to work back before ba-dum-tiss! Income taxes.

They worked as a tax. They have never increased domestic production.

Neither did Obama!

That doesn't make tariffs a good idea. You think more taxes is what we need?

No I do not; However, taxing imported goods is likely to spur domestic production.

Then show me when that has ever happened. They have never increased domestic production.

It's just common sense that tariffs promote domestic production..

If you can prove to me that they decreased domestic production within the first 150 years of the US then by all means do so.

One thing tariffs did do for 150 years is wholly fund the entirety of the Federal government.

 

[Brain357]

They worked as a tax. They have never increased domestic production.

Neither did Obama!

That doesn't make tariffs a good idea. You think more taxes is what we need?

No I do not; However, taxing imported goods is likely to spur domestic production.

Then show me when that has ever happened. They have never increased domestic production.

It's just common sense that tariffs promote domestic production..

If you can prove to me that they decreased domestic production within the first 150 years of the US then by all means do so.

One thing tariffs did do for 150 years is wholly fund the entirety of the Federal government.

Yes they are a tax. Funding the government is all they will do.

Tariffs have never increased domestic production. EVER!

 

[Brain357]

US Steel Tariffs Against China Are Working: Americans Losing Jobs, Becoming Poorer As A Result

As a result of a Section 201 (“safeguard”) investigation brought at the
behest of the U.S. steel industry, President Bush in March 2002 imposed tariffs
on imports of certain steel products for three years and one day. The tariffs,
combined with other challenges present in the marketplace at the time and in the
months that followed, boosted steel costs to the detriment of American
companies that use steel to produce goods in the United States. The resulting
negative impact included job losses for thousands of American workers.
The Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition (CITAC) Foundation
requested a formal examination of the impact of higher steel costs on American
steel-consuming industries,1 and in particular, a quantification of employment
losses at those companies. This study employed straight-forward and widelyaccepted
regression analysis using a variety of price and employment data to
maximize the reliability of the results.2 We found that:
• 200,000 Americans lost their jobs to higher steel prices during 2002.
These lost jobs represent approximately $4 billion in lost wages from
February to November 2002.3
• One out of four (50,000) of these job losses occurred in the metal
manufacturing, machinery and equipment and transportation equipment and
parts sectors.
• Job losses escalated steadily over 2002, peaking in November (at 202,000
jobs), and slightly declining to 197,000 jobs in December.4
• More American workers lost their jobs in 2002 to higher steel prices than
the total number employed by the U.S. steel industry itself (187,500
Americans were employed by U.S. steel producers in December 2002).

 

[Marion Morrison]

US Steel Tariffs Against China Are Working: Americans Losing Jobs, Becoming Poorer As A Result

As a result of a Section 201 (“safeguard”) investigation brought at the
behest of the U.S. steel industry, President Bush in March 2002 imposed tariffs
on imports of certain steel products for three years and one day. The tariffs,
combined with other challenges present in the marketplace at the time and in the
months that followed, boosted steel costs to the detriment of American
companies that use steel to produce goods in the United States. The resulting
negative impact included job losses for thousands of American workers.
The Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition (CITAC) Foundation
requested a formal examination of the impact of higher steel costs on American
steel-consuming industries,1 and in particular, a quantification of employment
losses at those companies. This study employed straight-forward and widelyaccepted
regression analysis using a variety of price and employment data to
maximize the reliability of the results.2 We found that:
• 200,000 Americans lost their jobs to higher steel prices during 2002.
These lost jobs represent approximately $4 billion in lost wages from
February to November 2002.3
• One out of four (50,000) of these job losses occurred in the metal
manufacturing, machinery and equipment and transportation equipment and
parts sectors.
• Job losses escalated steadily over 2002, peaking in November (at 202,000
jobs), and slightly declining to 197,000 jobs in December.4
• More American workers lost their jobs in 2002 to higher steel prices than
the total number employed by the U.S. steel industry itself (187,500
Americans were employed by U.S. steel producers in December 2002).

In 2002, Pittsburgh Steel was just about dead, Unions didn't help,

EPA overregulation didn't either.

 

[Rustic]

One thing Obama did while president was set up the C.A.R.S (Car Allowance Rebate System) system. The idea was to take older, less efficient cars off the road and stimulate new auto production in the process.

Obama used $3 billion taxpayer dollars to fund C.A.R.S. AKA "Cash for clunkers" and called it
"stimulus"

However, C.A.R.S. is a dismal failure that wastes taxpayer money, drives up the prices of new and used cars, and slows new car production.

According to research by 2 University of Delaware professors it is a net loss of $2600 per vehicle.

"With per vehicle environmental benefits
at $596 and the costs at $2,600 per ve-
hicle, the clunker program is a net drain on
society of roughly $2,000 per vehicle. Given
the approximately 700,000 vehicles in the
program, we estimate the total welfare loss to
be about $1.4 billion."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46555587_Is_cars_a_clunker


Prices of new and used cars are now higher for everyone thanks to less availability of used cars on the market.


"the average used car price hit a record $16,800 last year, according to a report from Edmunds.com"


Average used car price hits record high in 2014


"The deep cuts in production capacity during the restructuring of recent years, coupled with the recent rebound in demand for new cars from consumers, means that shoppers can't find the deals they once did."


Car prices at record highs - and rising


If anyone wishes to compare any auto prices between pre-C.A.R.S. and post cars, you can do so here with any make, model, and year:


Car Prices, Sales History, and Mileage on a Graph


So in effect, C.A.R.S. is an Obama program that costs everybody $2k per car, drives up the price of new and used cars, and is a net loss to everyone.

Thanks, Obama!

Whoever makes lists of Obama's "accomplishments", be sure and include this boondoggle done within the 1st 6 months of his presidency.

Progressive policy failure right here.

Yep, only fucking morons Think cash for clunkers was a success…

 

[Rustic]

One thing Obama did while president was set up the C.A.R.S (Car Allowance Rebate System) system. The idea was to take older, less efficient cars off the road and stimulate new auto production in the process.

Obama used $3 billion taxpayer dollars to fund C.A.R.S. AKA "Cash for clunkers" and called it
"stimulus"

However, C.A.R.S. is a dismal failure that wastes taxpayer money, drives up the prices of new and used cars, and slows new car production.

According to research by 2 University of Delaware professors it is a net loss of $2600 per vehicle.

"With per vehicle environmental benets
at $596 and the costs at $2,600 per ve-
hicle, the clunker program is a net drain on
society of roughly $2,000 per vehicle. Given
the approximately 700,000 vehicles in the
program, we estimate the total welfare loss to
be about $1.4 billion."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46555587_Is_cars_a_clunker


Prices of new and used cars are now higher for everyone thanks to less availability of used cars on the market.


"the average used car price hit a record $16,800 last year, according to a report from Edmunds.com"


Average used car price hits record high in 2014


"The deep cuts in production capacity during the restructuring of recent years, coupled with the recent rebound in demand for new cars from consumers, means that shoppers can't find the deals they once did."


Car prices at record highs - and rising


If anyone wishes to compare any auto prices between pre-C.A.R.S. and post cars, you can do so here with any make, model, and year:


Car Prices, Sales History, and Mileage on a Graph


So in effect, C.A.R.S. is a program that cost everybody $2k per car, drives up the price of new and used cars, and is a net loss to everyone.

Thanks, Obama!

Our car companies are still in business. Thanks Obama.

Actually George W. Bush started the fraud that is the bailout of auto companies... fucking moron

 

[Marion Morrison]

One thing Obama did while president was set up the C.A.R.S (Car Allowance Rebate System) system. The idea was to take older, less efficient cars off the road and stimulate new auto production in the process.

Obama used $3 billion taxpayer dollars to fund C.A.R.S. AKA "Cash for clunkers" and called it
"stimulus"

However, C.A.R.S. is a dismal failure that wastes taxpayer money, drives up the prices of new and used cars, and slows new car production.

According to research by 2 University of Delaware professors it is a net loss of $2600 per vehicle.

"With per vehicle environmental benefits
at $596 and the costs at $2,600 per ve-
hicle, the clunker program is a net drain on
society of roughly $2,000 per vehicle. Given
the approximately 700,000 vehicles in the
program, we estimate the total welfare loss to
be about $1.4 billion."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46555587_Is_cars_a_clunker


Prices of new and used cars are now higher for everyone thanks to less availability of used cars on the market.


"the average used car price hit a record $16,800 last year, according to a report from Edmunds.com"


Average used car price hits record high in 2014


"The deep cuts in production capacity during the restructuring of recent years, coupled with the recent rebound in demand for new cars from consumers, means that shoppers can't find the deals they once did."


Car prices at record highs - and rising


If anyone wishes to compare any auto prices between pre-C.A.R.S. and post cars, you can do so here with any make, model, and year:


Car Prices, Sales History, and Mileage on a Graph


So in effect, C.A.R.S. is an Obama program that costs everybody $2k per car, drives up the price of new and used cars, and is a net loss to everyone.

Thanks, Obama!

Whoever makes lists of Obama's "accomplishments", be sure and include this boondoggle done within the 1st 6 months of his presidency.

Progressive policy failure right here.

Yep, only fucking morons Think cash for clunkers was a success…

I can't believe the price of buying a vehicle vs what a part-time worker makes these days.

They can't afford one, period. No $700 Hondas or anything. What was $700 is now $3800.

 

[Rustic]

One thing Obama did while president was set up the C.A.R.S (Car Allowance Rebate System) system. The idea was to take older, less efficient cars off the road and stimulate new auto production in the process.

Obama used $3 billion taxpayer dollars to fund C.A.R.S. AKA "Cash for clunkers" and called it
"stimulus"

However, C.A.R.S. is a dismal failure that wastes taxpayer money, drives up the prices of new and used cars, and slows new car production.

According to research by 2 University of Delaware professors it is a net loss of $2600 per vehicle.

"With per vehicle environmental benets
at $596 and the costs at $2,600 per ve-
hicle, the clunker program is a net drain on
society of roughly $2,000 per vehicle. Given
the approximately 700,000 vehicles in the
program, we estimate the total welfare loss to
be about $1.4 billion."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46555587_Is_cars_a_clunker


Prices of new and used cars are now higher for everyone thanks to less availability of used cars on the market.


"the average used car price hit a record $16,800 last year, according to a report from Edmunds.com"


Average used car price hits record high in 2014


"The deep cuts in production capacity during the restructuring of recent years, coupled with the recent rebound in demand for new cars from consumers, means that shoppers can't find the deals they once did."


Car prices at record highs - and rising


If anyone wishes to compare any auto prices between pre-C.A.R.S. and post cars, you can do so here with any make, model, and year:


Car Prices, Sales History, and Mileage on a Graph


So in effect, C.A.R.S. is a program that cost everybody $2k per car, drives up the price of new and used cars, and is a net loss to everyone.

Thanks, Obama!

Our car companies are still in business. Thanks Obama.

Actually George W. Bush started the fraud that is the bailout of auto companies... fucking moron

An Inconvenient Truth: It Was George W. Bush Who Bailed Out the Automakers

 

[Rustic]

One thing Obama did while president was set up the C.A.R.S (Car Allowance Rebate System) system. The idea was to take older, less efficient cars off the road and stimulate new auto production in the process.

Obama used $3 billion taxpayer dollars to fund C.A.R.S. AKA "Cash for clunkers" and called it
"stimulus"

However, C.A.R.S. is a dismal failure that wastes taxpayer money, drives up the prices of new and used cars, and slows new car production.

According to research by 2 University of Delaware professors it is a net loss of $2600 per vehicle.

"With per vehicle environmental benefits
at $596 and the costs at $2,600 per ve-
hicle, the clunker program is a net drain on
society of roughly $2,000 per vehicle. Given
the approximately 700,000 vehicles in the
program, we estimate the total welfare loss to
be about $1.4 billion."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46555587_Is_cars_a_clunker


Prices of new and used cars are now higher for everyone thanks to less availability of used cars on the market.


"the average used car price hit a record $16,800 last year, according to a report from Edmunds.com"


Average used car price hits record high in 2014


"The deep cuts in production capacity during the restructuring of recent years, coupled with the recent rebound in demand for new cars from consumers, means that shoppers can't find the deals they once did."


Car prices at record highs - and rising


If anyone wishes to compare any auto prices between pre-C.A.R.S. and post cars, you can do so here with any make, model, and year:


Car Prices, Sales History, and Mileage on a Graph


So in effect, C.A.R.S. is an Obama program that costs everybody $2k per car, drives up the price of new and used cars, and is a net loss to everyone.

Thanks, Obama!

Whoever makes lists of Obama's "accomplishments", be sure and include this boondoggle done within the 1st 6 months of his presidency.

Progressive policy failure right here.

Yep, only fucking morons Think cash for clunkers was a success…

I can't believe the price of buying a vehicle vs what a part-time worker makes these days.

They can't afford one, period. No $700 Hondas or anything.

I know it's a shame, used to buy used cars for next to nothing to drive till the wheels fall off. Not so anymore

 

[Rustic]

One thing Obama did while president was set up the C.A.R.S (Car Allowance Rebate System) system. The idea was to take older, less efficient cars off the road and stimulate new auto production in the process.

Obama used $3 billion taxpayer dollars to fund C.A.R.S. AKA "Cash for clunkers" and called it
"stimulus"

However, C.A.R.S. is a dismal failure that wastes taxpayer money, drives up the prices of new and used cars, and slows new car production.

According to research by 2 University of Delaware professors it is a net loss of $2600 per vehicle.

"With per vehicle environmental benets
at $596 and the costs at $2,600 per ve-
hicle, the clunker program is a net drain on
society of roughly $2,000 per vehicle. Given
the approximately 700,000 vehicles in the
program, we estimate the total welfare loss to
be about $1.4 billion."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46555587_Is_cars_a_clunker


Prices of new and used cars are now higher for everyone thanks to less availability of used cars on the market.


"the average used car price hit a record $16,800 last year, according to a report from Edmunds.com"


Average used car price hits record high in 2014


"The deep cuts in production capacity during the restructuring of recent years, coupled with the recent rebound in demand for new cars from consumers, means that shoppers can't find the deals they once did."


Car prices at record highs - and rising


If anyone wishes to compare any auto prices between pre-C.A.R.S. and post cars, you can do so here with any make, model, and year:


Car Prices, Sales History, and Mileage on a Graph


So in effect, C.A.R.S. is a program that cost everybody $2k per car, drives up the price of new and used cars, and is a net loss to everyone.

Thanks, Obama!

Our car companies are still in business. Thanks Obama.

An Inconvenient Truth: It Was George W. Bush Who Bailed Out the Automakers

 

[Brain357]

US Steel Tariffs Against China Are Working: Americans Losing Jobs, Becoming Poorer As A Result

As a result of a Section 201 (“safeguard”) investigation brought at the
behest of the U.S. steel industry, President Bush in March 2002 imposed tariffs
on imports of certain steel products for three years and one day. The tariffs,
combined with other challenges present in the marketplace at the time and in the
months that followed, boosted steel costs to the detriment of American
companies that use steel to produce goods in the United States. The resulting
negative impact included job losses for thousands of American workers.
The Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition (CITAC) Foundation
requested a formal examination of the impact of higher steel costs on American
steel-consuming industries,1 and in particular, a quantification of employment
losses at those companies. This study employed straight-forward and widelyaccepted
regression analysis using a variety of price and employment data to
maximize the reliability of the results.2 We found that:
• 200,000 Americans lost their jobs to higher steel prices during 2002.
These lost jobs represent approximately $4 billion in lost wages from
February to November 2002.3
• One out of four (50,000) of these job losses occurred in the metal
manufacturing, machinery and equipment and transportation equipment and
parts sectors.
• Job losses escalated steadily over 2002, peaking in November (at 202,000
jobs), and slightly declining to 197,000 jobs in December.4
• More American workers lost their jobs in 2002 to higher steel prices than
the total number employed by the U.S. steel industry itself (187,500
Americans were employed by U.S. steel producers in December 2002).

In 2002, Pittsburgh Steel was just about dead, Unions didn't help,

EPA overregulation didn't either.

Not surprisingly you missed the whole point of the quote. A tariff on steel hurt every industry using steel.

 

[Marion Morrison]

US Steel Tariffs Against China Are Working: Americans Losing Jobs, Becoming Poorer As A Result

As a result of a Section 201 (“safeguard”) investigation brought at the
behest of the U.S. steel industry, President Bush in March 2002 imposed tariffs
on imports of certain steel products for three years and one day. The tariffs,
combined with other challenges present in the marketplace at the time and in the
months that followed, boosted steel costs to the detriment of American
companies that use steel to produce goods in the United States. The resulting
negative impact included job losses for thousands of American workers.
The Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition (CITAC) Foundation
requested a formal examination of the impact of higher steel costs on American
steel-consuming industries,1 and in particular, a quantification of employment
losses at those companies. This study employed straight-forward and widelyaccepted
regression analysis using a variety of price and employment data to
maximize the reliability of the results.2 We found that:
• 200,000 Americans lost their jobs to higher steel prices during 2002.
These lost jobs represent approximately $4 billion in lost wages from
February to November 2002.3
• One out of four (50,000) of these job losses occurred in the metal
manufacturing, machinery and equipment and transportation equipment and
parts sectors.
• Job losses escalated steadily over 2002, peaking in November (at 202,000
jobs), and slightly declining to 197,000 jobs in December.4
• More American workers lost their jobs in 2002 to higher steel prices than
the total number employed by the U.S. steel industry itself (187,500
Americans were employed by U.S. steel producers in December 2002).

In 2002, Pittsburgh Steel was just about dead, Unions didn't help,

EPA overregulation didn't either.

Not surprisingly you missed the whole point of the quote. A tariff on steel hurt every industry using steel.

Probably moreso because of Unions than the tariffs themselves.

What you wanna bet Unions called for a bunch of strikes back then?

Or union wages were too high to compete with China?

 

[Brain357]

US Steel Tariffs Against China Are Working: Americans Losing Jobs, Becoming Poorer As A Result

As a result of a Section 201 (“safeguard”) investigation brought at the
behest of the U.S. steel industry, President Bush in March 2002 imposed tariffs
on imports of certain steel products for three years and one day. The tariffs,
combined with other challenges present in the marketplace at the time and in the
months that followed, boosted steel costs to the detriment of American
companies that use steel to produce goods in the United States. The resulting
negative impact included job losses for thousands of American workers.
The Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition (CITAC) Foundation
requested a formal examination of the impact of higher steel costs on American
steel-consuming industries,1 and in particular, a quantification of employment
losses at those companies. This study employed straight-forward and widelyaccepted
regression analysis using a variety of price and employment data to
maximize the reliability of the results.2 We found that:
• 200,000 Americans lost their jobs to higher steel prices during 2002.
These lost jobs represent approximately $4 billion in lost wages from
February to November 2002.3
• One out of four (50,000) of these job losses occurred in the metal
manufacturing, machinery and equipment and transportation equipment and
parts sectors.
• Job losses escalated steadily over 2002, peaking in November (at 202,000
jobs), and slightly declining to 197,000 jobs in December.4
• More American workers lost their jobs in 2002 to higher steel prices than
the total number employed by the U.S. steel industry itself (187,500
Americans were employed by U.S. steel producers in December 2002).

In 2002, Pittsburgh Steel was just about dead, Unions didn't help,

EPA overregulation didn't either.

Not surprisingly you missed the whole point of the quote. A tariff on steel hurt every industry using steel.

Probably moreso because of Unions than the tariffs themselves.

What you wanna bet Unions called for a bunch of strikes back then?

Did you bother to read the quote or link? Don't like facts?