By on October 30, 2019

The Trump administration has reportedly expressed an interest in deciding where and how automotive manufacturers do their business if they want to secure duty-free deals under the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) that’s positioned to replace NAFTA. According to Bloomberg, there’s currently a discussion taking place between administration officials, congressional staff, and domestic and foreign automakers regarding the context of the legislation that lawmakers will ultimately have to vote on. The White House is said to want highly specific language that would allow it to select production rules unilaterally.

Considering how messy things have gotten with China, it could be useful to have extremely clear trade language and some direct oversight of businesses with global interests. But critics are worried the strategy could bring U.S. trade policy closer to the rigid policies already in place in the People’s Republic — a country America has attempted to distance itself from due to its ludicrous levels of government intervention.

The real fear is that the government could use this to give one manufacturer better treatment than another — cutting it a sweet deal for building in a politically advantageous area, for example. While plausible, we can’t confirm something that’s largely speculative. 

What we do know is that the administration has hooked up a few U.S. companies with tariff exemptions in China in the past. Currently, the government bases those decisions on three factors — where the product is available, whether duties would cause severe harm to the company and/or U.S. economy, and if the product is strategically important or related to Chinese industrial programs. Some are fearful that additional rules could be applied to the USMCA, impacting local companies and regions in unexpected ways.

From Bloomberg:

The push comes amid Trump’s tariff-led assault on supply chains that run through China. It illustrates how much his administration has drifted from Republicans’ free-market ways and is willing to employ the sort of coercive tools used in command economies like China to force domestic production.

It’s also happening as the president’s tariffs on steel, aluminum and imported components from China have contributed to a slowdown in American manufacturing that has begun to cause the loss of factory jobs in some politically important swing states going into Trump’s 2020 reelection bid.

The negotiations over auto rules are taking place in parallel to discussions U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is having with House Democrats on changes the lawmakers are seeking to the new Nafta, or USMCA.

Officials from Lighthizer’s office for months have been meeting with auto-industry executives to talk through the firms’ transition plans. Those would allow for a grace period of as many as five years before they have to comply fully with the new rules in order to ship products across North American borders duty-free.

The reason this is supposed to be concerning is down to that grace period. The agreement signed between the Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. references transition plans as an “alternative staging regime” each nation can apply on a producer-by-producer basis. Bloomberg seems worried that gives the United States Trade Representative too much power.

Congress and automakers have asked Lighthizer to adopt to uniform rules so companies can make plans without fears of retribution for opening a facility in one country, only to piss off another, or embracing policies not supported by the dominant political party (be it now or three elections down the road).

However, the automotive industry seems to have taken a shine to the USMCA overall. While we imagine a lot of that has to do with wanting something in place after NAFTA, they’ve also stopped complaining about its stringent compliance rules. Those require 75 percent of a car to be made in North America to avoid tariffs. Vehicles also needs to contain 70 percent of North American steel and aluminum. A little less than half of the assembly process likewise needs to take place at facilities with average employee wages of over $16 an hour — which is either a good way to help the Mexican workforce, or a sly way of convincing manufacturers it’s a less appetizing region in which to build a factory.

Without more context as to the specific language the White House wants included in the USMCA, the report could simply be a partisan attempt to stall its approval in Congress. That said, we don’t want any gaps in the plan that would allow for isolated parties to effectively dictate the fate of an entire industry either. Companies routinely need a thump on the head, especially lately, but it shouldn’t be done dictatorially. This is America, baby.

Expect more on this as useful details emerge. For now, consider the darker aspects a what-if situation.

 

[Image: Orhan Cam/Shutterstock]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

79 Comments on “Trade War Watch: Report Claims White House Wants to Dictate Where Cars Are Manufactured...”


  • avatar
    Lokki

    Don’t worry, when Elizabeth Warren wins, she’ll have no problem with importing cars from China.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      I figured she would send them all to Cherokee, NC

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      When she wins, there will be no worry about buying cars. You will be focused on buying ammo

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        Yeah, us liberals will be buying cars and houses — and the conservatives will be buying ammo and building bunkers in their back yards.

        Exactly like what happened between 2008-2016.

        Somebody had to get jobs and buy stuff for there to be a decade of sustained economic growth.

        I personally benefit from globalization, because I work in IT — where the US is globally competitive.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Luke,

          I personally saw 2 countries where conflict was “impossible”. And yet, people killed each other. US is not exempt from this. This country can get on fire really quick. And money will worth nothing. Buy gold

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            I am guessing that those 2 countries did not have the long history of the rule of law and English common law principles that the USA has.

            Nations with short histories and little history of democratic governance are much easier to inflame.

            Remember that George Washington was the first modern Head of State to voluntarily and peacefully turn over power.

            If the USA dissolves into internal squabble then the Russians will have won the war, without having to engage in combat, and will once again dominate Europe and most of what might remain of ‘the free world’.

            It is almost like the USA elected a ‘Manchurian Candidate’.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            Art,

            “I am guessing that those 2 countries did not have the long history of the rule of law and English common law principles that the USA has.”

            So, by English common law America enslaved blacks, killed Indians and discriminated by segregation and other means… nice law. Don’t forget – people remember these things and it will come up if something happens. Just like fallen statues of Gen. Lee . .

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            Slavuta, true but that was over 100 years ago. And in comparison to every other nation on earth, with the exception of Great Britain, the USA does have the moral high ground regarding those issues.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            Art,

            disagree. Not 100 years ago. MLK fought these things into 60es. And OJ Simpson’s case uncovered that racial stuff was going on into 90es. Comparing to other countries – yea, in 1918 Bolsheviks started propaganda against religion but also for racial equality. Something US has achieved (somewhat) only 50 years later

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “If the USA dissolves into internal squabble then the Russians will have won the war, without having to engage in combat, and will once again dominate Europe and most of what might remain of ‘the free world’.”

            Coming soon to a theatre near you!

            Wars over, Soviets won. See: Golitsyn Thesis.

            “It is almost like the USA elected a ‘Manchurian Candidate’.”

            Been there, done that.

            “So, by English common law America enslaved blacks, killed Indians and discriminated by segregation and other means… nice law.”

            C’mon man the concepts of Common Law are a little more intricate than to be summed up as such.

            “the USA does have the moral high ground regarding those issues.”

            My cynicism has certainly increased over the years but there was a time twenty or twenty five years ago when I believed that but now it is simply no longer true. The US was once a very moral country, this has been slowly eroded in the past 80 or 90 years to become Sodom by the Sea. This was not by accident, but as I frequently say, do you own research and decide for yourself what you believe to be true.

            “OJ Simpson’s case uncovered that racial stuff was going on into 90es.”

            I realize you’re European but OJ wasn’t some sort of crusader out to right the wrongs of society. He was a known wife abuser who became a murderer and used his status, wealth, and connections to assemble a legal team who attempted to put everyone on trial but him. They largely succeeded in this and it happened to come at a time when national communication (cell phone, internet, fax) was growing by leaps and bounds. If this had happened in the 70s, I doubt the whole nation would have been up in arms about it as much as they were in 1995.

            “1918 Bolsheviks started propaganda against religion”

            This is a huge topic, and while the Bolsheviks and their heirs slaughtered many Christians -which is conveniently seldom discussed in the West- I fail to understand the relevance by your statement.

          • 0 avatar

            What rule of law? All I’ve seen since moving to US – no one gives a damn about law, including traffic code and including CA government.

            You want civil war? It already started – just look what is going on in Washington. Wait until inevitable onset of depression – it will be ugly this time. There is no respect left for office of President, Congress, mainstream media (which no one reds or watches), Supreme Court.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            This guy gets it.

    • 0 avatar

      Yeah, because she is a Free Market advocate, libertarian in sense.

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        Relevance is the contrast. Back then, in America – embrace of religion but rejection of race equality. Bolsheviks – race equality but not religion.

        • 0 avatar
          Arthur Dailey

          American capitalists have long played the ‘race card’ to keep the working classes (working class whites, blacks and now Hispanics) suspicious of each other. So that they don’t look at who is actually ‘oppressing’/keeping them down.

          That is fairly common knowledge. We see it blatantly being used to manipulate working class people when certain persons blame ‘immigrants’ for their not being able to get a job, get ahead or for increasing crime rates.

          The USA still has ‘the rule of law’ in that everyone can get their say in a court that is not controlled by the ‘state’.

          Unlike in Putin’s Russia where nearly 100% of those arrested are convicted.

          And unlike in Putin’s Russia, the state cannot summarily lock you up and take away your property.

          And also unlike Putin’s Russia, in the USA you cannot be imprisoned for publicly criticizing the state, or its policies.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            “American capitalists have long played the ‘race card’ to keep the working classes (working class whites, blacks and now Hispanics) suspicious of each other.”

            That is so true and sums it up nicely because ANYONE who NEEDS to work becomes subservient to the capitalist system, even though they’re only a small cog in a very large machinery.

            And those who can, do! Like become self-employed, not waiting for someone to hire them.

            That’s why so many Americans loved the last guy’s welfare line of free money, free foodstamps, free Medicaid healthcare and free phones. And there are still ~ 6 million of those unemployed in America.

            But the unemployed with ambition, now those are the ones who jumped on President Trump’s job bandwagon and were moved from welfare to work/employment AND are paying taxes.

            That is pretty damn good, since the last guy told us that all those jobs the ‘crats outsourced to foreign nations, were gone for good and would never come back.

            Yet here they are.

            So, no matter where you go, there you are!

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            “Unlike in Putin’s Russia where nearly 100% of those arrested are convicted.

            And unlike in Putin’s Russia, the state cannot summarily lock you up and take away your property.

            And also unlike Putin’s Russia, in the USA you cannot be imprisoned for publicly criticizing the state, or its policies.”

            A lot of noise and little substance.

            Yea, right. In America you get impeached for criticizing public officials. You also get killed in jail, if you can say something about high figures. But you get released from responsibility of killing multiple people if you are affected by afluenza. And since you love Putin so much – in America, when you get phone call from Putin, you ignore it and get the Boston bombing.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        She was, but the message went nowhere. She switched to attract the party’s dominant left wing, but you can’t be sure what she really believes. Bernie Sanders is a genuine socialist, and while he’s been friends with her, he’s recently cslled her an outright capitalist. It makes you wonder what any of the candidates really believe.

  • avatar
    thelaine

    “The push comes amid Trump’s tariff-led assault on supply chains that run through China. It illustrates how much his administration has drifted from Republicans’ free-market ways and is willing to employ the sort of coercive tools used in command economies like China to force domestic production.”

    “Free markets” my as*. Free markets was the mantra of BOTH the dems and the repubs in their relations with China, because a prosperous China would democratize, they assured us. Ha! They never believed it. They never cared. They did it for the money. The Bloombergs of the world, and the rest of our political and corporate ruling class got rich while the working people and middle class got raped. Jobs fled overseas by the millions.

    It was obvious US workers could not compete. But the same people who want to keep the US borders open to cheap third-world labor like the idea of foreign slave labor even better. No one gave a sh*t about blue-collar US workers until this president came along.

    So much for “free” trade. It is a scam. China beat us like pack mule. They don’t recognize the concept of “cheating.” They do whatever they can get away with, and if you don’t stop them, they will assume you like it and proceed to give you more of it.

    The new hotness is “managed trade.” It is the perfect time for a competent deal-maker who looks out for the US and its workers, not the usual Clinton/Bush self-dealing kleptocracy. That is why the establishment left and right are trying to destroy him. Follow the money.

    Bloomberg can jump off a bridge.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      Agreed. This would be why I can build a factory in Communist China but can’t even go visit Communist Cuba or buy some Cohibas. (maybe I can now, but it is still a pain) Cuba had little to offer big business in the US while China has all that cheap labor.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      It’s still a mind bender that, after all of the Republicanz talk about free trade as some sort of high-minded American ideal, they just throw that value away when Trump comes along.

      Twenty years ago, I was a small business conservative. A lot has happened in those 20 years, and I’ve changed a lot of my political opinions as a result — and the Republican party has often zagged when I’ve zigged. But I’m still in favor of small businesses, and it’s pretty disconcerting that they gave that one up so easily.

      The Democrats really are better on *my* issues. Hillary Clinton was basically a 1990s Republican when it comes to economic policy (even though the Republicans hate her guts). Warren is far more liberal WRT consumer protections, but seems to learn from economists and other people who’ve studies the issues.

      Anyway, what’s happened to the Republican party over the last 20 years (and especially the last 4 years) is a real head-shaker for me. Most of their stated values have gone out the window (except for hating on abortion, liberals, LGBTQ folks, and the phrase “happy holidays”).

      • 0 avatar
        Daniel J

        Republican is a party, not an ideology. I really wish people would understand that.

        Trump is a populist, and while he ran with the republican party backing, he is not a fiscal conservative or a free market capitalist. Trump doesn’t represent all Republicans just like Elizabeth Warren doesn’t represent all democrats.

        I would argue what happened to the democrats in the last 20 years? They are miles farther left than Slick Willy.

    • 0 avatar
      Arthur Dailey

      @thelaine; You actually are correct regarding some aspects, but way off on others.

      The USA initiated free trade negotiations under the Republican President Ronald Reagan.

      Yes, Republicans were the initial supporters of free trade. The Democrats bought in later, but for the same reasons, the amount of money thrown around by lobbyists, big corporations, ‘superpacs’ etc.

      Nothing that Karl Marx did not predict.

      As for the current President ‘caring about the common man/worker’. Well tell that to all the employees, contractors, etc who got stiffed in his corporate bankruptcies. Or the undocumented workers employed at his properties. Not a lot of ‘caring’ or ‘protection’ for the working American citizen there.

      Removing free trade requires government action and protectionism. The very things that ‘right wingers’ complain about as being acts of ‘socialism’.

      And large shareholders, investment companies and corporate executives prefer free market globalization as it improves their bonuses and bottom line. And we know that they control too many politicians.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        Talking about what Trump did or did not do before he was president is irrelevant to the discussion of his attitude as president. His policies have been designed to help working people. The rest is just TDS.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      The Chinese still believe they can build a “socialist market economy”. The socialist part is antithetical to a market economy, but is necessary to sustain an authoritarian government.

      It’s the authoritarian part that makes running the world economy’s supply chain through China dangerous for us and the world. China’s neighbors have long experience dealing with China’s ham-fisted practices, with China’s attempted military takeover of the South China Sea as exhibit A.

      Trump’s action is not about trade or fair dealing, and definitely not trying democrtize China. It’s about extracting the world economy’s supply chain out of China so it can’t be used as a weapon, the way they used their dominant position in rare earths, banning exports to Japan.

  • avatar
    ravenuer

    “The Trump administration has reportedly expressed an interest in deciding where and how automotive manufacturers do their business……”.

    Hmm, trying to decide how to read that…..

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Also, now that Fiatsler and PSA have agreed to merge, as announced by the WSJ, will we see French cars made in the US of A?

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        We might see French designed cars made in the USA, with some French-sourced parts. More likely, we’ll see Dodges that are Peugeots underneath.

        But that depends on how the French government views the merger. The Renault-Nissan merger was upended by the French government’s refusal to provide financial backing for it. They may do the same to this merger, preferring to see Renault and PSA merge.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Strictly from capitalism perspective, it does smell foul. When government decides… But on the other hand, it has been like that. Who is the government? – lobby, corporations. So, corporations is the gov. in any case. And look at Russia. They said, you build your car here if you want to sell it here. And now every manufacturer has a factory there.

      It is not related but still, brought from my memory – Ronald Reagan’s worst nightmare:
      — knock knock
      — who’s there?
      — I am from the government and I came to help you

      • 0 avatar
        vvk

        Russia is an economic dwarf. Nobody cares what they do. 30% tax on imported autos? Here is a factory, hope you choke on it.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          This is temporary

        • 0 avatar

          “Russia is an economic dwarf.”

          Yeah that beat unified Europe badly in WWII and kept America scared to death for 50 years after that. Even today Washington is scared of Russia.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            “Washington” is not scared of Russia. The orange guy whose business is utterly reliant on Russian cash is scared of Russia.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            The left is the only once’s scared of Russia, they see Putin behind every street corner apparently. Big change from 8 years ago when Russia was a foreign policy issue of the 1980s. Continue supporting the notion that Trump gives a darn about Russia, it’s clearly not based on any fact but it is very entertaining.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            I smell a fool in the house. And his name does not include neither “inside” or “out”

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            And why should Washington not worry about Russia?

            Russia’s geopolitical goals have not changed since the time of the Romanovs. Russia needs unfettered access to warm water ports, as both the Baltic and Black Seas have ‘pinch points’ controlled by Russia’s historic enemies.

            Russia needs the Ukraine to feed its people.

            Russia wishes to have European property and populations to balance its Asiatic peoples.

            Russia wishes to control or dominate the other Slavic nations/peoples as their ‘protector’.

            And Russia requires a weak, divided Europe, so that it can threaten, rather than be threatened.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            Art,

            you are total disaster. Russia don’t need Ukraine to feed no one. Russia is the biggest producer of grain as of now. Their agriculture totally took off after they banned western food supplies in response to sanctions. Ukraine on the other hand feeds Europe. I visited Ukraine this year. Corporations taking over the land and use cheap Ukrainian labor to grow stuff over there. You see these endless fields growing something and none of it belongs to Ukraine.

            As far as “Russia’s geopolitical goals” – looks like you’ve got stuck. In fact, they have neglected Ukraine so much that they totally missed the coup in 2014, haha. Yea, bad news for you. USSR is back. They are finalizing Union State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_State
            with Belarus this year. And I believe, some other countries are aligned to join. Enjoy.

  • avatar
    ToddAtlasF1

    It’s gotten to the point where the anti-Trump traitors’ only argument is that we should intentionally sentence our children to short, brutal lives of despair on principle. Think about that.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      I can buy in to the “Make Them in America” push of the current administration because the last administration stood for “Making Them Outside of America”, and they did.

      But I would like to see them made in the Southern States, away from UAW influence, using more robotics and automation.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        But isn’t the government controlling the means of production in such a manner textbook Socialism?

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          It probably is, Art, but then, we live in unconventional times since the Nov 2016 election.

          And as long as the US economy cooperates, the stock market remains profitable and the Fed keeps tighter tabs on rates, even this may work out for the current administration. Consumer have got to keep optimistic and keep on buying.

          But whether it does, or not, there already have been some major directional shifts if all aspects of the US economy.

          The only thing that bugs me is the major increase in sub-prime lending. To me, a fiscal conservative who champions re-investment over cashing-out, sub-prime lending is a “Mother Of All Bombs” or MOAB, to the US economy.

          It was in 1992-2008, and it will be again when these loans turn into losses.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            I dunno @HDC…I’m mot a fan of Socialism no matter if it is Trump, Warren, or Hugo Chavez pushing it. A bad idea is a bad idea. Jesus Christ couldn’t even get it to work. Here he is pulling fish and bread from thin air and making sure everyone’s needs are met but Ol’ Judas just had to have a little more…

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            I feel the same way you do, but if this Trump version of socialism succeeds in moving more Americans from the welfare line to work, a lot of taxpaying Americans will give him some leeway.

            I was born in America and have witnessed first-hand its decline since the late sixties. But what President Trump has done for America since Nov 2016 is totally rad, in my opinion.

            The sad part is, these great times are only temporary, for the duration of the Trump-era.

            The next ‘crat that comes into office will once again flush America down the toilet.

            So now is the time to get your act together and your financial ducks lined up, to weather the next economic downturn when the ‘crats resume their destruction of America at taxpayer expense.

            My outlook for 2020 is very positive with only the US auto sector seeing a decline, but otherwise no economic recession, no economic depression, no economic slowdown.

            And America’s economic future depends on the outcome of the general elections in Nov 2020.

        • 0 avatar
          Daniel J

          Art, It would be closer to communism.

          I’d argue that all government trade deals are in some way artificial influencing the markets. In a perfect libertarian world, there would be zero tarrifs across all countries, but that will never happen.

          I don’t nee this any differently than when we opened our doors to China. One is indirect and the other direct.

      • 0 avatar
        Daniel J

        Luke,

        The real problem is that the money never gets to the poor or when it does, it’s pennies on the dollar. Spending money on the military is at least Constitutional.

    • 0 avatar
      Mike Beranek

      Funny how climate change denial and deficit spending- two pillars of the Republican platform- are the things that will “sentence our children to short, brutal lives of despair”.
      And, believe me, those children know who is doing it to them and will vote accordingly.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        This whole thread is everything wrong with political discourse today. The gest seems to be “If the other side wins, you and your children will die painfully”

        I have now lived through several Presidents from both parties that their opposition claimed would literally be the end of this nation as we know it. Yet here I am.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Exactly, Art. People lived through Stalin, Mao and concentration camps. And these snowflakes telling us about death from new US policy – hahahaha

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            When one’s attention span is that of a Facebook post, combining critical thinking skills with a knowledge of real history is difficult. Evidently.

        • 0 avatar
          Arthur Dailey

          Art: Yes ‘but you used to have a lot more hair’.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            That is true, sadly.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            Art,
            rich will get their money one way or another. My friend is happily leasing to those poor by section 8 program. Section 8 doesn’t pay top money for the property rent but it guarantees government check. Other lessees in the areas he operates might rent today and stop paying next month. And eviction is somewhat money-losing procedure.

        • 0 avatar
          Jon

          Art, you sir are correct.

          Seems to me like Republicans want money while Democrats want control and they both use political power to get what they want. Too bad neither side is interested in freedom any more.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            No, they both want the same money and control…They just want to spend the money on different things and tell you different things you can and can’t do.

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            @Jon:

            That’s an old model of the political parties.

            After 9/11 the Republicans became the fear party.

            It became clear that the Republicans wanted to pick my pocket to find their war in Iraq (which based on shaky pretenses from the beginning, was fought by my high school and college friends, lasted longer than Vietnam, and eventually created the power vacuum filled by ISIS).

            The Democrats wanted to pick my pocket so that poor people can eat and go to the doctor.

            When I realized this, had a good long look in the mirror and switched political parties.

            Since that time, the Republican Party has morphed into the “we hate Obama” party, and now the Trump Party. I’d still rather be compelled to give money to poor people than be associated with that.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            “ The Democrats wanted to pick my pocket so that poor people can eat and go to the doctor.”

            Thanks for the good laugh.

            I’m sure you immediately changed your mind and flip flopped back when Obama started entering us into more wars, and later, when Trump defeated ISIS and pulled us out of wars.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            Luke,

            worst thing you can do is to give money to poor people.
            1. they will multiply and soon will take all your your money
            2. they will quickly spend your money and rich will get your money via selling items to poor people
            3. always better give money to rich – they create jobs. Either by creating businesses, investing into stocks or simply by hiring landscapers, painters, plumbers. Have you ever see one poor guy living on welfare in project apartment to hire a landscaper to come once per week to maintain the property?

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            When Trump defeated ISIS and Obama got us into more wars? Jesus Christ Hummer you can’t possibly be that dense.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            I noticed you did not refute me.

            According to Obama, ISIS would take a generation to defeat, 4 years later they control no territory and leaders #1+2 are dead. The only remaining question is what happened to our pallet of money.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            @Slavuta: You don’t give them money. What you do is ensure that they have a roof over their head, food on their table, good, healthcare and free/subsidized schools for their children to attend. You do this through federal taxes and federal government programs, not private charities or a hodge-podge of programs like food stamps and municipal welfare/housing.

            Then you make them do something for it. Work, community activities, attending school, etc. That keeps them busy and gives them some self esteem. It also provides an example for their children, watching them get up and go off every day/morning to contribute. And enough of their children will want ‘more’ that they will finish their education and/or work hard enough to move up the social/economic scale.

            Finally, once they have permanent employment you stick them with a mortgage. That means that they have something to keep working for, and to hand down to their children.

            And remember that the two major causes of economic problems in the USA are single parent families and bankruptcies due to medical bills.

            What you don’t do, is make them continually compete with others for jobs. Make them work multiple part-time or temporary jobs and have to juggle these at the expense of their family and their health. Get rid of them when their body breaks down from age or hard work. Lay them off when there are others willing to do their job for less money. Or allow mass immigration, legally or illegally in order to artificially keep wages low.

            Oh wait, that paragraph above is exactly what free market capitalists get rich off of.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            “Trump defeated ISIS”. Not even in his wettest dreams.

            ISIS was stopped by the Kurdish militias. They turned the tide of that ‘war’. It was the Kurds who engaged in ground combat. Who stopped the ISIS advances and retook territory from them.

            And then the current POTUS gave Turkey the OK to ‘wipe them out’.
            Even though the Turkish armed forces could have eradicated ISIS within a matter of a few weeks, if they had wanted to.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Oh please, ISIS would completely control the area now if it weren’t for the US.

            Last week the news ran article after article on how ISIS was going to come back full force because the Kurds couldn’t fight them off, now this week after #1+2 are dead the narrative has changed to ISIS being stopped by the Kurdish military? Please dude.

            Now that the threat of a resurgence is over the Kurds are happy to have control and more power to them. As far as I’m concerned US needs to pull 100% out of the Middle East, they’ve been fighting for 1,600 years and we aren’t going to stop that.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            Hummer, by your logic, you need to give Obama credit for “ending” Al-Qaeda. After all, if Trump can be credited for killing ISIS by the killing off it’s leader, then Obama, by killing BinLaden, “killed” Al-qaeda.

            Entering us into more endless wars? How many did Obama start? Oh, yea right…

            You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled your own facts.

            And if you think we would have made the progress we did without the Kurds, you are fooling yourself. They helped us greatly and we abandoned them to be destroyed. America should hang her head in shame.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            Oh, ISIS. Ok, ISIS wasn’t defeated by only by US, Kurds or Syrians. US armed Kurds, Kurds fought ISIS. Syrian army also fought ISIS. Although, they were fighting not only ISIS. Russian air force enabled them. So, ISIS was fighting on all fronts and couldn’t concentrate on one enemy. It was truly a collective victory but thanks for anti-Trump propaganda, we can’t even mention that yes, Russians also had big impact on fighting ISIS. Russia had flown 39,000 sorties while US coalition reports 44,000.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Bombardier Barry oversaw new conflicts in:

            Libya
            Ukraine
            Syria
            Northern Iraq

            …the first being the overthrow of a *legitimate* government ruled, albeit by a dictator, but in a *peaceful* country…

            Who himself claims: “Obama’s claim, in his own words, was “I’m really good at killing people.” ”

            https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/07/11/the-obama-wars/

            and in 2016:

            “According to the New York City-based think tank, 26,171 bombs were dropped on Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan during the year.”

            https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-bombed-iraq-syria-pakistan-afghanistan-libya-yemen-somalia-n704636

            Who championed drone strikes:

            “One bombing technique that President Obama championed is drone strikes. As drone-warrior-in-chief, he spread the use of drones outside the declared battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, mainly to Pakistan and Yemen.”

            and

            “In 2016, US special operators could be found in 70% of the world’s nations, 138 countries – a staggering jump of 130% since the days of the Bush administration.”

            https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy

            “The paradox is that Obama, the supposed peacemaker, turned out to be a mirror image of Bush on foreign policy.”

            “In truth, Obama, like Bush, paid little heed to international law — or even American law — when it came in the way of his overseas military operations.”

            https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/01/18/commentary/world-commentary/obama-war-peace/

            But… “Peace” Prize.

            Up is down, black is white, hot is cold, but at least ignorance is strength.

            #didit4thelulz

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            “ Entering us into more endless wars? How many did Obama start? Oh, yea right…”

            Is this a trick question? I hope your not serious?

            ——-

            “ You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled your own facts.”

            Please take your own advice here.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            Slavuta actually got it right.

            How many American boots were on the ground fighting ISIS?
            How many American casualties were there?

            ISIS filled a power vacuum. Using misguided radicals and refugees from Hussein’s army.

            They were fought to a standstill and then pushed back by the Kurds.

            Once the Syrian (dictatorship) government put down their rebels, they turned their attention to what remained of ISIS and with Russian assistance helped finish the job.

            A job that the Turkish military, the 2nd largest in NATO, could have completed in a matter of a few weeks. If they had tried, or wanted to.

            And as Art Vandelay has posted, both American political parties want power and your money. Both largely serve the same ‘masters’.

            The difference being that the current group of Republicans seem more willing than the Democrats to sell out their nation and its democratic principles.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            Hummer, I never said that Obama didn’t engage in military actions, or even start them – he sure did. Sometimes military action is the correct response. What I am saying is that I don’t recall him starting a “war” that put boots on the ground that stayed indefinitely like the war in Iraq and Afganistan. Or one that consisted of endless bombing raids even if no troops were on the ground. Bombing raids, cruise missile strikes, covert ops, killing terrorists, etc. with a timeline are not “starting wars”. There is a huge difference between military action and a war. IIRC he engaged in military conflicts in 7 or 8 countries. If there are ongoing “endless” wars started by Obama please point them out to me.

  • avatar
    PandaBear

    I’ll probably just buy all Japanese made cars instead of anything made in USA then.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      What “Japanese” cars sold in the US are still actually made in Japan? I think it has become a rather small list.

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        You will be surprised – Even made in Japan RAV4 is easy find, unless it is Adventure – CA. 4Runner, Corolla, Prius. Most Mazdas. Some if not most Lexuses. Fiat Spider, Subaru Crosstrek, Mitsubishis, Nissan Armada, Rogue sport, Some Infinities… they are still out there

  • avatar
    jkross22

    It is a shame that congress continues their trajectory of abdicating their responsibility on issues like this. We’re supposed to be a republic, not a monarchy. Whether you like Trump or can’t stand him, he’s not supposed to be a king.

    The description of politicians as little more than snakes works on many levels, one of which is the lack of backbone.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Not suppose to be king yet Trump admires the fact that the Premier of China is appointed for life. I am sure if the Republicans had a majority in both Houses they would grant him lifetime leadership to be succeeded by either Don Jr. or Eric. The Republican Party does not exist anymore it is the party of our President and no Republican representative dare speak out against our President or they incur his wrath. A choice between a monarch or a socialist. As for the car industry they have to adapt to what leadership is in control at any given time. I doubt GM and Ford are so eager to develop EVs as much as they are preparing for a future where they are not allowed to make ICE vehicles.

  • avatar
    Whatnext

    LOL, I thought the last thing conservatives wanted was government dictating business decisions, and yet here they are all tripping over themselves in a tizzy to defend this.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      If you think more about it, there is nothing new in government dictating things to business. When it comes to national security gov. has full mandate to do things to provide this. If this case, providing jobs to Americans is important to national security because masses without jobs and future have tendencies to overturn the government and bring country into chaos. Also earners help collecting taxes to pay for military.

      Gov dictates many things like that. For example, military corporations can’t sell certain equipment to other states. Government can tax certain business more than other. A special tax on medical device for example. Tax on cigarettes, alcohol, casino. Gas guzzler tax.

      In Israel gov. made a rule – no egg or chicken can enter the country because chicken is their strategic food.

      When it comes to weapons, gov requires certain % of gun parts to be made in USA. Basically, we’re already there.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Whatnext: Pug ugly.
  • dal20402: Not so much a matter of style as a matter of using what was on hand. My Highlander is the only car in the...
  • ToddAtlasF1: Ford and Tesla are the only domestic automakers at the moment.
  • gtem: I’ve always run naked steelies, if I’m not able to find a decent set of cast off OEM alloys. Guess...
  • 28-Cars-Later: “kind of casts doubt on the profitability of those wonderful sedans” Doubtful as Honda...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States