Ryan: There will be no tariffs for companies that take jobs overseas

[TheOldSchool]

People and advancements in technology powered the industrial revolution. Not big government

Behind the protections of high tariffs.

High tariffs do not create anything. I never thought I'd see the day republicans turned to taxation for answers. The only good thing about your party is gone.

You made a claim about tariffs never being pro-jobs.

I have cited a very large historical example disproving your claim.

That is where we are at.

No you didn't. You presented a period of history with countless numbers of variables, and attributed economic growth to an artificial control that by it's own nature makes it more difficult and expensive to create or grow anything.

You made a claim about history, ie that tariffs were never pro-job,


and now you are citing issues that would make ANY historical example not applicable.


How do you propose we judge your historical claim if we are not allowed to use historical examples?

We are specifically talking about tariffs. In the realm of economics, tariffs are wealth destroyers. Ask the Russians and North Korea about protectionism.

 

[Correll]

Behind the protections of high tariffs.

High tariffs do not create anything. I never thought I'd see the day republicans turned to taxation for answers. The only good thing about your party is gone.

You made a claim about tariffs never being pro-jobs.

I have cited a very large historical example disproving your claim.

That is where we are at.

No you didn't. You presented a period of history with countless numbers of variables, and attributed economic growth to an artificial control that by it's own nature makes it more difficult and expensive to create or grow anything.

You made a claim about history, ie that tariffs were never pro-job,


and now you are citing issues that would make ANY historical example not applicable.


How do you propose we judge your historical claim if we are not allowed to use historical examples?

We are specifically talking about tariffs. In the realm of economics, tariffs are wealth destroyers. Ask the Russians and North Korea about protectionism.

But what about the "countless numbers of variables" that the Russians and NOrth Korean examples have? How can you look at them as examples of protectionism, with all those "countless numbers of variables"?

 

[Indeependent]

Behind the protections of high tariffs.

High tariffs do not create anything. I never thought I'd see the day republicans turned to taxation for answers. The only good thing about your party is gone.

You made a claim about tariffs never being pro-jobs.

I have cited a very large historical example disproving your claim.

That is where we are at.

No you didn't. You presented a period of history with countless numbers of variables, and attributed economic growth to an artificial control that by it's own nature makes it more difficult and expensive to create or grow anything.

You made a claim about history, ie that tariffs were never pro-job,


and now you are citing issues that would make ANY historical example not applicable.


How do you propose we judge your historical claim if we are not allowed to use historical examples?

We are specifically talking about tariffs. In the realm of economics, tariffs are wealth destroyers. Ask the Russians and North Korea about protectionism.

Ask Germany, Japan, India and China.
Ask the 98.2% of Americans making <20K/year.
Oh yeah, that's right, only the US doesn't practice any form of protectionism.

 

[Dot Com]

Looks like Donald Trump doesn't even have a mandate in his own party:

“We’re not going to be raising tariffs,” Ryan said on “The Hugh Hewitt Show.”

- See more at: Ryan Bucks Trump, Says Congress Will Not Raise Tariffs

Companies that were scared about sending jobs to Mexico can now be in peace again.

It is also possible that Trump always knew that there would be no tariffs, but used this promise to make gullible protectionist vote for him.

Ryan is a corp puppet, yes

 

[Tom Horn]

FAKE NEWS...see my OP for the truth.

 

[TheOldSchool]

High tariffs do not create anything. I never thought I'd see the day republicans turned to taxation for answers. The only good thing about your party is gone.

You made a claim about tariffs never being pro-jobs.

I have cited a very large historical example disproving your claim.

That is where we are at.

No you didn't. You presented a period of history with countless numbers of variables, and attributed economic growth to an artificial control that by it's own nature makes it more difficult and expensive to create or grow anything.

You made a claim about history, ie that tariffs were never pro-job,


and now you are citing issues that would make ANY historical example not applicable.


How do you propose we judge your historical claim if we are not allowed to use historical examples?

We are specifically talking about tariffs. In the realm of economics, tariffs are wealth destroyers. Ask the Russians and North Korea about protectionism.

But what about the "countless numbers of variables" that the Russians and NOrth Korean examples have? How can you look at them as examples of protectionism, with all those "countless numbers of variables"?

Go ahead pick a variable. Tariffs are bad for economies. There's one variable. How about slave labor? Slave labor is great for economies! What about creating a 2 day work week? That would be terrible for the economy. Any variables that you want to discuss?

 

[Dot Com]

Ryan is toast when Trump supports his opponent in the next election cycle.

One can only hope. I despise that Randroid

 

[Indeependent]

You made a claim about tariffs never being pro-jobs.

I have cited a very large historical example disproving your claim.

That is where we are at.

No you didn't. You presented a period of history with countless numbers of variables, and attributed economic growth to an artificial control that by it's own nature makes it more difficult and expensive to create or grow anything.

You made a claim about history, ie that tariffs were never pro-job,


and now you are citing issues that would make ANY historical example not applicable.


How do you propose we judge your historical claim if we are not allowed to use historical examples?

We are specifically talking about tariffs. In the realm of economics, tariffs are wealth destroyers. Ask the Russians and North Korea about protectionism.

But what about the "countless numbers of variables" that the Russians and NOrth Korean examples have? How can you look at them as examples of protectionism, with all those "countless numbers of variables"?

How about slave labor? Slave labor is great for economies!

Thanks for admitting you're an asshole.

 

[Correll]

You made a claim about tariffs never being pro-jobs.

I have cited a very large historical example disproving your claim.

That is where we are at.

No you didn't. You presented a period of history with countless numbers of variables, and attributed economic growth to an artificial control that by it's own nature makes it more difficult and expensive to create or grow anything.

You made a claim about history, ie that tariffs were never pro-job,


and now you are citing issues that would make ANY historical example not applicable.


How do you propose we judge your historical claim if we are not allowed to use historical examples?

We are specifically talking about tariffs. In the realm of economics, tariffs are wealth destroyers. Ask the Russians and North Korea about protectionism.

But what about the "countless numbers of variables" that the Russians and NOrth Korean examples have? How can you look at them as examples of protectionism, with all those "countless numbers of variables"?

Go ahead pick a variable. Tariffs are bad for economies. There's one variable. How about slave labor? Slave labor is great for economies! What about creating a 2 day work week? That would be terrible for the economy. Any variables that you want to discuss?

I'm happy to talk about tariffs, but when I cited an historical example you dismissed it because of "variables".


There really isn't a variable that we can pick that we can examine without other variables being present.


Your dismissal my example with a standard, that if we hold to , renders history utterly useless as a learning tool.

So, what is your favorite color? Cause anything else, variables.

 

[TheOldSchool]

High tariffs do not create anything. I never thought I'd see the day republicans turned to taxation for answers. The only good thing about your party is gone.

You made a claim about tariffs never being pro-jobs.

I have cited a very large historical example disproving your claim.

That is where we are at.

No you didn't. You presented a period of history with countless numbers of variables, and attributed economic growth to an artificial control that by it's own nature makes it more difficult and expensive to create or grow anything.

You made a claim about history, ie that tariffs were never pro-job,


and now you are citing issues that would make ANY historical example not applicable.


How do you propose we judge your historical claim if we are not allowed to use historical examples?

We are specifically talking about tariffs. In the realm of economics, tariffs are wealth destroyers. Ask the Russians and North Korea about protectionism.

Ask Germany, Japan, India and China.
Ask the 98.2% of Americans making <20K/year.
Oh yeah, that's right, only the US doesn't practice any form of protectionism.

You're a conservative and you want the U.S. to be more like Germany, Japan, India, and China?! WTF is going on in this country? Nevermind that China and India basically have slave labor, Japan is no more protectionist than we are right now, and Germany is the head of a ******* Union of countries created to improve free trade with each other to compete with the rest of the world!

Are we in the twilight zone?

 

[TheOldSchool]

No you didn't. You presented a period of history with countless numbers of variables, and attributed economic growth to an artificial control that by it's own nature makes it more difficult and expensive to create or grow anything.

You made a claim about history, ie that tariffs were never pro-job,


and now you are citing issues that would make ANY historical example not applicable.


How do you propose we judge your historical claim if we are not allowed to use historical examples?

We are specifically talking about tariffs. In the realm of economics, tariffs are wealth destroyers. Ask the Russians and North Korea about protectionism.

But what about the "countless numbers of variables" that the Russians and NOrth Korean examples have? How can you look at them as examples of protectionism, with all those "countless numbers of variables"?

How about slave labor? Slave labor is great for economies!

Thanks for admitting you're an asshole.

You disagree? Destroying organized labor, eliminating regulations on work conditions, and eliminating the minimum wage are all great for economies. Do you disagree?

 

[Tom Horn]

You're a conservative and you want the U.S. to be more like Germany, Japan, India, and China?! WTF is going on in this country? Nevermind that China and India basically have slave labor, Japan is no more protectionist than we are right now, and Germany is the head of a ******* Union of countries created to improve free trade with each other to compete with the rest of the world!

Are we in the twilight zone?

You're in the twilight zone running your mouth over a FAKE NEWS story.

 

[Indeependent]

You made a claim about tariffs never being pro-jobs.

I have cited a very large historical example disproving your claim.

That is where we are at.

No you didn't. You presented a period of history with countless numbers of variables, and attributed economic growth to an artificial control that by it's own nature makes it more difficult and expensive to create or grow anything.

You made a claim about history, ie that tariffs were never pro-job,


and now you are citing issues that would make ANY historical example not applicable.


How do you propose we judge your historical claim if we are not allowed to use historical examples?

We are specifically talking about tariffs. In the realm of economics, tariffs are wealth destroyers. Ask the Russians and North Korea about protectionism.

Ask Germany, Japan, India and China.
Ask the 98.2% of Americans making <20K/year.
Oh yeah, that's right, only the US doesn't practice any form of protectionism.

You're a conservative and you want the U.S. to be more like Germany, Japan, India, and China?! WTF is going on in this country? Nevermind that China and India basically have slave labor, Japan is no more protectionist than we are right now, and Germany is the head of a ******* Union of countries created to improve free trade with each other to compete with the rest of the world!

Are we in the twilight zone?

Actually, you have something there concerning Merkel...her US like behavior is starting to destroy Germany.
I doubt she will win another election.
Fair Trade...Comparative Advantage...Poison to a self-absorbed asshole such as yourself.

 

[Indeependent]

You made a claim about history, ie that tariffs were never pro-job,


and now you are citing issues that would make ANY historical example not applicable.


How do you propose we judge your historical claim if we are not allowed to use historical examples?

We are specifically talking about tariffs. In the realm of economics, tariffs are wealth destroyers. Ask the Russians and North Korea about protectionism.

But what about the "countless numbers of variables" that the Russians and NOrth Korean examples have? How can you look at them as examples of protectionism, with all those "countless numbers of variables"?

How about slave labor? Slave labor is great for economies!

Thanks for admitting you're an asshole.

You disagree? Destroying organized labor, eliminating regulations on work conditions, and eliminating the minimum wage are all great for economies. Do you disagree?

Why are you putting words in my mouth?
Show me a post where I diss Unions and Regulations.
The MW is a Band-Aid to avoid discussing Fair Trade.
Our economy was doing quite well from post-WWII until Reagan started the fiasco called Supply Side.

 

[TheOldSchool]

No you didn't. You presented a period of history with countless numbers of variables, and attributed economic growth to an artificial control that by it's own nature makes it more difficult and expensive to create or grow anything.

You made a claim about history, ie that tariffs were never pro-job,


and now you are citing issues that would make ANY historical example not applicable.


How do you propose we judge your historical claim if we are not allowed to use historical examples?

We are specifically talking about tariffs. In the realm of economics, tariffs are wealth destroyers. Ask the Russians and North Korea about protectionism.

But what about the "countless numbers of variables" that the Russians and NOrth Korean examples have? How can you look at them as examples of protectionism, with all those "countless numbers of variables"?

Go ahead pick a variable. Tariffs are bad for economies. There's one variable. How about slave labor? Slave labor is great for economies! What about creating a 2 day work week? That would be terrible for the economy. Any variables that you want to discuss?

I'm happy to talk about tariffs, but when I cited an historical example you dismissed it because of "variables".


There really isn't a variable that we can pick that we can examine without other variables being present.


Your dismissal my example with a standard, that if we hold to , renders history utterly useless as a learning tool.

So, what is your favorite color? Cause anything else, variables.

You picked a singular event in human history, the industrialization of the world thanks to the invention of machines that could do what no human ever could, and attributed the whole ******* thing to tariffs. The concept of a tariff is a definable thing. It seeks to suppress demand by artificially raising costs. So there is less incentive for the producer to create, and less incentive for the consumer to buy. Wealth successfully destroyed.

 

[Indeependent]

You made a claim about history, ie that tariffs were never pro-job,


and now you are citing issues that would make ANY historical example not applicable.


How do you propose we judge your historical claim if we are not allowed to use historical examples?

We are specifically talking about tariffs. In the realm of economics, tariffs are wealth destroyers. Ask the Russians and North Korea about protectionism.

But what about the "countless numbers of variables" that the Russians and NOrth Korean examples have? How can you look at them as examples of protectionism, with all those "countless numbers of variables"?

Go ahead pick a variable. Tariffs are bad for economies. There's one variable. How about slave labor? Slave labor is great for economies! What about creating a 2 day work week? That would be terrible for the economy. Any variables that you want to discuss?

I'm happy to talk about tariffs, but when I cited an historical example you dismissed it because of "variables".


There really isn't a variable that we can pick that we can examine without other variables being present.


Your dismissal my example with a standard, that if we hold to , renders history utterly useless as a learning tool.

So, what is your favorite color? Cause anything else, variables.

You picked a singular event in human history, the industrialization of the world thanks to the invention of machines that could do what no human ever could, and attributed the whole ******* thing to tariffs. The concept of a tariff is a definable thing. It seeks to suppress demand by artificially raising costs. So there is less incentive for the producer to create, and less incentive for the consumer to buy. Wealth successfully destroyed.

So China has a Tariff, takes 25% of non-Chinese company profits and pays their workers $13.00/day.
You sure you're Liberal.
Or just a greedy ass sociopath?

 

[TheOldSchool]

No you didn't. You presented a period of history with countless numbers of variables, and attributed economic growth to an artificial control that by it's own nature makes it more difficult and expensive to create or grow anything.

You made a claim about history, ie that tariffs were never pro-job,


and now you are citing issues that would make ANY historical example not applicable.


How do you propose we judge your historical claim if we are not allowed to use historical examples?

We are specifically talking about tariffs. In the realm of economics, tariffs are wealth destroyers. Ask the Russians and North Korea about protectionism.

Ask Germany, Japan, India and China.
Ask the 98.2% of Americans making <20K/year.
Oh yeah, that's right, only the US doesn't practice any form of protectionism.

You're a conservative and you want the U.S. to be more like Germany, Japan, India, and China?! WTF is going on in this country? Nevermind that China and India basically have slave labor, Japan is no more protectionist than we are right now, and Germany is the head of a ******* Union of countries created to improve free trade with each other to compete with the rest of the world!

Are we in the twilight zone?

Actually, you have something there concerning Merkel...her US like behavior is starting to destroy Germany.
I doubt she will win another election.
Fair Trade...Comparative Advantage...Poison to a self-absorbed asshole such as yourself.

The last time Germany was destroyed was thanks to a guy who loved protectionism. Actually we should hope the EU breaks up. The countries now in it would have far less leverage in trade negotiations and we could have our way with them.

 

[Indeependent]

You made a claim about history, ie that tariffs were never pro-job,


and now you are citing issues that would make ANY historical example not applicable.


How do you propose we judge your historical claim if we are not allowed to use historical examples?

We are specifically talking about tariffs. In the realm of economics, tariffs are wealth destroyers. Ask the Russians and North Korea about protectionism.

Ask Germany, Japan, India and China.
Ask the 98.2% of Americans making <20K/year.
Oh yeah, that's right, only the US doesn't practice any form of protectionism.

You're a conservative and you want the U.S. to be more like Germany, Japan, India, and China?! WTF is going on in this country? Nevermind that China and India basically have slave labor, Japan is no more protectionist than we are right now, and Germany is the head of a ******* Union of countries created to improve free trade with each other to compete with the rest of the world!

Are we in the twilight zone?

Actually, you have something there concerning Merkel...her US like behavior is starting to destroy Germany.
I doubt she will win another election.
Fair Trade...Comparative Advantage...Poison to a self-absorbed asshole such as yourself.

The last time Germany was destroyed was thanks to a guy who loved protectionism. Actually we should hope the EU breaks up. The countries now in it would have far less leverage in trade negotiations and we could have our way with them.

Face it; you have exposed yourself way too much today as a phony Liberal and a greedy, sociopathic Capitalist.

 

[Correll]

You made a claim about history, ie that tariffs were never pro-job,


and now you are citing issues that would make ANY historical example not applicable.


How do you propose we judge your historical claim if we are not allowed to use historical examples?

We are specifically talking about tariffs. In the realm of economics, tariffs are wealth destroyers. Ask the Russians and North Korea about protectionism.

But what about the "countless numbers of variables" that the Russians and NOrth Korean examples have? How can you look at them as examples of protectionism, with all those "countless numbers of variables"?

Go ahead pick a variable. Tariffs are bad for economies. There's one variable. How about slave labor? Slave labor is great for economies! What about creating a 2 day work week? That would be terrible for the economy. Any variables that you want to discuss?

I'm happy to talk about tariffs, but when I cited an historical example you dismissed it because of "variables".


There really isn't a variable that we can pick that we can examine without other variables being present.


Your dismissal my example with a standard, that if we hold to , renders history utterly useless as a learning tool.

So, what is your favorite color? Cause anything else, variables.

You picked a singular event in human history, the industrialization of the world thanks to the invention of machines that could do what no human ever could, and attributed the whole ******* thing to tariffs. The concept of a tariff is a definable thing. It seeks to suppress demand by artificially raising costs. So there is less incentive for the producer to create, and less incentive for the consumer to buy. Wealth successfully destroyed.

IS that why the 18th was a time of the United States being left further and further behind the rapidly industrializing rest of the world?

Oh, wait, no, the exact opposite happened.

 

[TheOldSchool]

We are specifically talking about tariffs. In the realm of economics, tariffs are wealth destroyers. Ask the Russians and North Korea about protectionism.

But what about the "countless numbers of variables" that the Russians and NOrth Korean examples have? How can you look at them as examples of protectionism, with all those "countless numbers of variables"?

Go ahead pick a variable. Tariffs are bad for economies. There's one variable. How about slave labor? Slave labor is great for economies! What about creating a 2 day work week? That would be terrible for the economy. Any variables that you want to discuss?

I'm happy to talk about tariffs, but when I cited an historical example you dismissed it because of "variables".


There really isn't a variable that we can pick that we can examine without other variables being present.


Your dismissal my example with a standard, that if we hold to , renders history utterly useless as a learning tool.

So, what is your favorite color? Cause anything else, variables.

You picked a singular event in human history, the industrialization of the world thanks to the invention of machines that could do what no human ever could, and attributed the whole ******* thing to tariffs. The concept of a tariff is a definable thing. It seeks to suppress demand by artificially raising costs. So there is less incentive for the producer to create, and less incentive for the consumer to buy. Wealth successfully destroyed.

So China has a Tariff, takes 25% of non-Chinese company profits and pays their workers $13.00/day.
You sure you're Liberal.
Or just a greedy ass sociopath?

I'm not a liberal on most economic matters because a lot of those liberal ideas are stupid. Like your idea that the Chinese government pays workers $13 an hour paid for by tariffs. That's very stupid.