Did Joe Biden and the Democratic National Convention Forget About Trump's Tariffs?

The last time an incumbent president was defeated, the fact that he'd raised taxes on Americans played a major role. Trump's done the same thing, but the DNC didn't talk about it.

At this year's Democratic National Convention, which wrapped up on Thursday night after more than eight hours of prime time political infomercials, organizers found only a couple of minutes in which to criticize Trump's tariff policies.

Rick Telesz, a soybean farmer from Pennsylvania, made a brief appearance via webcam on Monday night to say he voted for Trump in 2016 but wouldn't do so again. Trump's trade war, Telesz said, threatened the existence of his farm. As Reason has noted several times, soybean farmers have been hit particularly hard by the trade war—prior to 2018, China was by far the largest consumer of American soybeans, but China retaliated by sharply reducing those totals.

"Trade tariffs with China have just been horrible," Iowa farmer Dan Ryner said in a pre-recorded video segment shown during the DNC's broadcast on Wednesday night.

That's it.

Sure, highlighting the damage that Trump's trade war has done to America's farmers makes sense, but that's hardly the whole story. Farmers like Telesz and Ryner got whacked by China's retaliation against Trump's tariffs. But there are plenty of blue-collar Americans harmed directly by the tariffs—which have increased the cost of imported aluminum, steel, and thousands of other products used in just about every aspect of manufacturing. If the Biden campaign couldn't find them, they weren't looking very hard.

More likely, the decision to downplay the trade war was a deliberate one. Biden's acceptance speech tonight did not even mention the words "trade" or "tariffs" a single time. And that's coming from a politician who is just about the closest thing to an ardent free trader that you're likely to find in the Democratic Party. Biden supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which lowered tariff rates across the continent, when he was a member of the Senate. He was a lead cheerleader for the Obama Administration's ill-fated Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal that would have lowered tariff rates for trade between the United States and a dozen other countries around the Pacific rim.

Biden had attacked Trump's trade policies during the early stages of the primary campaign but has not emphasized them of late. Earlier this month, it appeared that Biden promised to scrap Trump's tariffs on Chinese imports, but his campaign quickly clarified that he hadn't meant it that way.

It's possible that Democrats don't see the trade war as a useful wedge issue, even in the key Rust Belt states they hope to take back from Trump this year. It's also possible that Biden and his team are hoping to avoid making the tariffs a major issue so they can use the now-greatly-expanded tariff powers that Trump will leave behind. Maybe they figure the mishandled pandemic and high unemployment are enough to sink Trump's reelection prospects.

Yet the last time an incumbent president was defeated, the fact that he'd raised taxes on Americans played a major role in the Democratic Party's pitch to voters.

About one in four voters surveyed by exit pollers in 1992 said President George H. W. Bush's decision to raise taxes was "very important" to their decision. "Of those, about two-thirds voted for" Bill Clinton, The New York Times reported at the time.

As Democrats try to unseat another incumbent president in 2020, they had an opportunity to pull a page from that same playbook. Tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump during his term have raised taxes on American consumers and businesses by about $57 billion annually.

The comparison between Bush's tax increases and Trump's tariffs is not a perfect one. Bush had promised not to raise taxes when he won his first term in 1988, while Trump had talked about using tariffs in the run-up to the 2016 election. The taxes Bush hiked—to help reduce a budget deficit that surged to the quaint level of $200 billion—were more visible than the cost of Trump's tariffs, which get passed along supply chains and don't show up on a tax return.

Regardless, Americans are missing out by not having a major party presidential candidate who makes the economically and historically sound argument for lower tariffs and more trade as a key to prosperity.

Comments

[Delroy]

Too local

[APandit]

Yes
http://jaipurparanthajunction.com

[aeeza trump]

●▬▬▬▬PART TIME JOBS▬▬▬▬▬●
 
I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience masses freedom now that i'm my non-public boss. that is what I do......
↓↓↓↓COPY THIS SITE↓↓↓↓

HERE►USA Girls Business

[online jobs]

…I basically make about $12,000-$18,000 a month online. It’s enough to comfortably replace my I was amazed how easy it was after I tried it .DFv This is what I’ve been doing old jobs income, especially considering I only work about 10-13 hours a week from home………….COPY HERE====►►Money90

[NOYB2]

The last time an incumbent president was defeated, the fact that he'd raised taxes on Americans played a major role. Trump's done the same thing, but the DNC didn't talk about it.

Perhaps Americans just aren't buying the "punitive tariffs on China are taxes on Americans" nonsense? Perhaps Americans and Democrats recognize that China is actually a threat?

[CE]

who do you think pays the tariff?
why would Americans want to pay more for stuff they need?

[Just Say'n]

The same reason why people don't flood out of CA when taxes are raised.

This belief that "tariffs" are any voter's top priority is a pretty farcical idea

[Just Say'n]

Also the same reason why ideas like minimum wage increases are so popular with voters.

[Sangelica]

I basically make about $12,000-$18,000 a month online. It’s enough to comfortably replace my I was amazed how easy it was after I tried it .MNg This is what I've been doing old jobs income, especially considering I only work about 10-13 hours a week from home........

===========► Click here

[Dude24]

They don't leave when taxes or minimum wage are raised, but they leave when the consequence of those (higher cost of living) hits them. Which is why California has been losing population to other states for the last decade.

Now, I know most voters don't connect A (taxes and regulations) to B (higher cost of living). But that doesn't mean they're right. And that's why we're here for: to educate them.

[Nardz]

A combination of exporters, importers, retailers, and consumers

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

lemme spell it out for you. It;s real basic. You can understand if you put just the slightest effort into it.

Tariffs raise domestic prices on the imports, and domestic producers raise prices too, because the entire goal of tariffs is to boost domestic producers.

But because consumers now spend $100 more on washing machines, car, clothes, or whatever the tariffed products are, they have $100 less to spend on other products. So domestic manufacturing actually produces fewer goods, because it now takes more dollars to buy the same products.

Still with me?

The same amount of money has been spent, but on fewer goods. Fewer goods means fewer workers are needed to produce them, so some workers get laid off. Possibly even some companies go out of business.

The domestic producers in competition with the tariffed imports also produce fewer goods, because the price rise means fewer are sold.

You've heard of supply and demand, I hope.

So to sum up .... some domestic workers make more money. Some domestic workers are laid off because the domestic cronies don't produce as many goods. Other domestic workers are laid off because consumers don't have as much money left over for what they used to buy. The US government collects a little more tax revenue from American consumers. The foreign producers sell a little fewer products.

And liberty suffers because the government meddles in their trades. American consumers get fewer choices. They have to spend more to pay for the tax increase.

Is that actually anything useful?

[NOYB2]

Tariffs raise domestic prices on the imports, and domestic producers raise prices too, because the entire goal of tariffs is to boost domestic producers

Tariffs on China are designed to punish China and get people to but from somewhere other than China, not to raise domestic prices or boost domestic producers.

[Jerryskids]

Tariffs on China are designed....

That's called "good intentions". It doesn't (or shouldn't) matter what the fuck you were "intending" to do when the unintended (but entirely foreseeable) consequences are so bad. It's exactly the same as raising the minimum wage - you "intend" to give low-paid workers better pay, the unintended consequences are that you just cost a bunch of them their jobs. You "intend" to punish China, you punish American consumers even more.

[NOYB2]

We are a country with very high taxes and very high regulatory burdens. The consequence of low-tariff trade with China is loss of jobs for American workers, a massive trade deficit, the destruction of essential American industries, high taxes for productive workers, and increasing political and economic influence of a communist regime in the US. That is the reality.

What "punishes" American consumers is the high taxes and regulatory burdens in the US. Adding low-tariff trade with hostile, communist, low-wage nations like China into the mix just compounds the problem.

You're absolutely right: It doesn’t (or shouldn’t) matter what the fuck you were “intending” to do when the unintended (but entirely foreseeable) consequences are so bad. You think that you are helping American workers with the policies you advocate, yet you are actually destroying them and our economy.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

That is all nonsense. Learn some basic economics.

Calling it a "trade war" makes it feel like a real war, but is wrong. Calling it the correct "war on trade" shows what a bankrupt policy it is.

Unilateral free trade has been shown to be better than any managed trade. Dollars out have to equal dollars in, unless someone is burning dollars or passing counterfeit ones. There is no such thing as the "trade deficit" except in accountants cooked imaginations.

Lower prices mean more things can be bought and sold, employing more people to make and sell them, increasing both imports and exports; the idea that you can increase or decrease one out of sync with the other is nonsense; dollars out have to equal dollars in -- thinking otherwise is possible is as ludicrous as believing the tide can go out but not come back in.

American manufacturing, dollar-wise, is at an all-time high. That it takes fewer workers to make more goods is how we progress. Those freed-up workers shift into new jobs doing new things. If it were otherwise, we'd still be 90% farmers. Or would you rather bring back bank tellers and gas jockeys, telephone and elevator operators? We could mass produce cars using 1950s technology and double or triple their cost.

If you don't want to buy communist-made products, that is your right. It is not your right to stop me from doing so. I happen to believe that trade with the communists not only reduces tension and the chances of war, it also undermines communist governments and will lead to their demise, just as reality undermined the USSR. But I do not pretend to have the right to force you to deal with communists.

Where do you get the moral authority to control my business, my trades, my life? You don't. You have no such moral authority. You can spout "national security" til you are blue in the face; it won't make it so. The trade embargoes with Cuba and Iran and North Korea have done nothing to hurt those countries, but have provided damn fine propaganda for those regimes to show their people how much the world hates them and give them every excuse they could possibly want to justify their restrictive regimes.

[NOYB2]

Unilateral free trade has been shown to be better than any managed trade.

Under what conditions? Better for who? Better by what measure?

Those freed-up workers shift into new jobs doing new things.

No, they don't. Labor force participation rate is down overall, and it has massively decreased among men. Manufacturing sector jobs have collapsed massively, and the jobs that have increased are often unproductive service jobs.

Where do you get the moral authority to control my business, my trades, my life? You don’t.

Where do you get the moral authority to take 50% of my earnings?

I'll be happy to support zero tariffs with the entire globe as soon as we reach zero taxation and near zero regulation.

The fact is that we live in a non-libertarian social welfare state. And within that arrangement, you can't pick-and-choose to adopt libertarian policies that server your interests while telling other people that they are SOL.

[Roberta]

Do you mean service jobs generally are unproductive? Or do you refer only to certain service jobs as unproductive, i.e. positions in regulation compliance and the like?

[carole]

I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job.VCf Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website.

This is what I do......, Click here

[Roberta]

If embargoes don't hurt countries, how can their own tariffs?

[Dude24]

What about tariffs on Canada?

Donald just like his stupid tariffs, and "punishing China" is just the excuse his supporters keep telling themselves. But The Donald himself will slap a tariff on anything if he could.

[NOYB2]

What about tariffs on Canada?

Tariffs on specific countries are not per se protectionist.

Donald just like his stupid tariffs

Trump only uses tariffs as a tool for political negotiations. In fact, he isn't using them enough: as long as US companies and workers are so highly taxed and regulated, we actually should have tariffs to compensate for the difference.

[Dude24]

The "political pressure" is part of it, like he did with Mexico. But what annoys Trump the most is trade imbalance, which he views as the other country "ripping us off" (as if the domestic buyers didn't know what they were buying). That's why Canada is included in his protectionism.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

"per se" does not make you sound intelligent. It means you don't know what you are talking about and rely on Latin jargon to cover up your nonsensical position. Tariffs are protectionist from the ground up, by intent, by design, by practice, by results, by the dictionary.

This "political negotiations" crap was old millenia ago. Hitler and Stalin had political negotiations. Your trade ignorance is appalling. If you didn't have Trump's tweets to tell you what to think, you wouldn't even know what tariffs were, or "trade negotiations".

Now go back and read my original answer to you, and try rebutting that instead of just spouting the same crap over and over.

[NOYB2]

“per se” does not make you sound intelligent. It means you don’t know what you are talking about and rely on Latin jargon to cover up your nonsensical position.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of the fact that actually being able to read and write Latin after several years of study made me sound unintelligent. I will give your feedback all the importance that it deserves.

Tariffs are protectionist from the ground up, by intent, by design, by practice, by results, by the dictionary.

Well, there is something that makes you sound unintelligent.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

You may as well say an arsonist intended to keep warm, he didn't mean to start a fire.

You may as well say a book banner only meant to ban a bad book, not force people to buy other books.

You may as well say Charles Manson meant to kill Sharon Tate, he didn't mean to make studios hire other actors.

[NOYB2]

Yeah, and that's what people who argue against tariffs with China in the name of "free markets" and "free trades" are guilty of.

Forcing Americans to comply with an oppressive regime of regulation and taxation and then opening up the US market to a communist regime that uses slave labor is unjust and reprehensible.

[Echospinner]

The point of “punishment” is to get the other party to change their behavior in some desirable way. Do you see that happening? If anything China is more aggressive.

If you keep kicking your dog what kind of dog are you going to end up with?

[NOYB2]

The point of “punishment” is to get the other party to change their behavior in some desirable way. Do you see that happening?

Yes.

If anything China is more aggressive.

And how is that a bad sign?

If you keep kicking your dog what kind of dog are you going to end up with?

China is run by totalitarians intent on restoring China's former glory. To them, Europeans and Americans are a bunch of dirty savages. And they are using capitalism and liberalism against us: using slave labor to create trade deficits, buying influence in politics and academia, buying corporations. Their "gifts" (cheap goods, cheap services, direct donations) are a Trojan horse and part of a strategy.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Forcing Americans to make their own decisions! My god what a horror! Instead let us have Saint Trump make our decisions for us because He Knows All.

[NOYB2]

Forcing Americans to make their own decisions! My god what a horror! Instead let us have Saint Trump make our decisions for us because He Knows All.

Even Adam Smith understood that tariffs are necessary to compensate for domestic taxes and regulations.

That's even more important when dealing with a hostile foreign power like China.

So, Trump indeed knows better than you in this case.

[Nardz]

Are you disputing what I wrote, or just regurgitating (high school) freshman econ because your feelz?

[dchang0]

I know firsthand that Americans pay the tariff.

When I placed an order for parts for my business, it said right there on the invoice: 10% tariff recovery fee.
When Trump raised the tariff later, that fee jumped to 25%.

Since we are unable to pass the price increase on to our customers (price elasticity), we opted to stop manufacturing that product.

YAY, TARIFFS!

[NOYB2]

Or you could have purchased from some other supplier.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Who would also have raised their prices.

[NOYB2]

Why would they? Equilibrium prices in a world-without-China shouldn't be substantially different than in a world-with-China. China has no obvious comparative advantage over the entirety of the rest of the world.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Because, you nitwit, the domestic producers were screaming bloody murder that cheap competition was driving the out of business!

Because the whole point of the tariffs is to shield domestic producers from cheap competition so they could raise their prices and stay in business.

[Echospinner]

They do. It costs a great deal and takes time to build a steel mill or energy plant for example. They already have them. China also has big advantages in transportation, materials, and both skilled and unskilled labor. Also since their economy has vastly improved there is money to invest. Their government, bad as they are, is more stable than many other places. Plus China is really really big which gives it other comparative advantages.

They have spent decades building this up.

[NOYB2]

They do. It costs a great deal and takes time to build a steel mill or energy plant for example. They already have them.

Correct. And that's why these tariffs need to stay in place, so that other countries can make the capital investments to compete with China.

China also has big advantages in transportation, materials, and both skilled and unskilled labor.

Yes they do. And why do you think that is? Free market arguments don't apply to China: they don't have a "comparative advantage" in the economic sense, they have a totalitarian government that prioritizes external political and economic power over the welfare and preferences of their citizens. China's government intends to restore China to its former glory, dominate the West, and impose Chinese values on the world.

They have spent decades building this up.

I agree. The Chinese government plans for the long term, and they are good at it. That is what makes them such a threat.

[Agammamon]

If they have no obvious comparative advantage then why do they have an advantage?

Just because *you* can't see it doesn't mean its not there.

[NOYB2]

If they have no obvious comparative advantage then why do they have an advantage?

Because they have a totalitarian government and are willing to sacrifice the well-being of their citizens for achieving the objectives of the Chinese leadership. That is, they are enslaving their citizens and destroying their environment in order to sell stuff to the West at what is effectively a loss; they use the dollars and euros they get to buy power, influence, and resources in the West and in third world nations.

[NOYB2]

Nobody pays the tariffs since supply chains shift.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Goddam, that's some good logic there, Lou.

[NOYB2]

So your logic is that China has a comparative advantage over the entirety of the rest of the world? That nobody can supply goods as cheap as China? And that therefore, there is no possible substitute for goods from China? Why would that be?

And if so, how is the US becoming dependent on a criminal communist regime employing slave labor possibly a good idea?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

You ought to read up on comparative advantage before you start slinging it around incorrectly.

"over the entirety of the rest of the world" -- where do you get this nonsense?

You know why Chinese labor is so much cheaper than American labor? Because Chinese workers are not as productive as American labor. American business organization, American factories, American worker skills, all are better on average than Chinese. Why do you want skilled and expensive Americans producing cheap products expensively when they can produce expensive products that Chinese can't begin to make? Would you rather skilled factory workers were bank tellers or cranked out trinkets?

Dependency works both ways -- if we are dependent on Chinese products, they are dependent on ours. Those iPhones that are made in China -- did you know that all they do is assemble them and add a few simple parts, that most of the parts come from other countries, like Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and even the US -- that US-made parts make up the most expensive parts that no one else can produce? Who is more dependent on whom -- the Chinese who make very little and only supply the cheap assembly labor, or Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and the US, who all supply the expensive parts the China can't make?

If you followed any of the Huawei news, you'd have learned that TSMC is making 7nm parts and will be sortly producing 5nm parts, while the best the Chinese can do is 14nm parts. Who is dependent on whom? Who produces the expensive parts, who produces the cheap parts?

Your ignorance is appalling.

[NOYB2]

You know why Chinese labor is so much cheaper than American labor? Because Chinese workers are not as productive as American labor.

If Chinese labor is both cheaper and less productive than US labor, then that doesn't amount to a comparative advantage.

Why do you want skilled and expensive Americans producing cheap products expensively

It's your delusion, not mine, that tariffs on China exist to bring low end manufacturing back to the US. I see the purpose on tariffs on China as shifting supply chains to places like Vietnam, Taiwan, Thailand, and South America.

In addition, there is a large number of unskilled Americans who are priced out of the labor market by US regulations, and on top of that subsidized by US tax payers for not working. That's the system you are implicitly defending.

[TJJ2000]

"who do you think pays the tariff?" --- EXACTLY the same people who EXPECT USA taxpayers to subsidize their shipping costs...

"why would Americans want to pay more for stuff they need?"
No, people like to steal by gov-guns; that's been the writing on the wall ever since DC decided to go communist - but that doesn't make it fair, just or correct.

[TJJ2000]

... but lets just skip right to the supreme law... IT'S RIGHT THERE the very TOP of the enumerated powers. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises"

Imposts - taxes levied by the government on imported goods.

What is concerning is how Congress has flipped this authority entirely to the President.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Yes, several of you Trumpistas have assured us that tariffs are not taxes, that tariffs are paid by the Chinese, that they decrease the US federal deficit, and all sorts of wondrous contradictions.

I want to believe. I clap for Tinkerbell. But for you, no, sorry.

[NOYB2]

Tariffs on products are taxes. Tariffs on products coming from one country are not taxes.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

That's a new one. Which one country is it whose taxes are not taxes? Don't keep it a secret, we'd all like to know.

[BYODB]

Maybe because there isn't just one nation that produces everything? If there is a tariff on nation A but not nation B you still have the option not to pay the tariff.

[NOYB2]

If you put tariffs on just one or a few countries, people can buy from other countries. That's why prices shouldn't go up substantially once the market settles again. Since prices don't change, the argument that those tariffs amount to taxation doesn't hold.

Clear enough? Or do I need to draw you a diagram?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Not clear at all because it is nonsense. Competition is good, except real competition that lowers prices and provides real alternatives. Competition is good when you say so, and not when you say not.

Who gave you the moral authority to control my business and decide when my business if your business?

Who gave you the wisdom and knowledge to know when my business is better off following your rules?

[BYODB]

So, moving goal posts already? Two different arguments.

[NOYB2]

Competition is good, except real competition that lowers prices and provides real alternatives

Competition in a free market is good.

Competition between a highly regulated and highly taxed US market and a totalitarian foreign regime using the economy as a weapon for world domination is not good.

Who gave you the wisdom and knowledge to know when my business is better off following your rules?

Same place US voters get the authority to take 50% of my earnings. I'd say taking 50% of my earnings is a lot worse than a few percent increase in prices for the Chinese crap you buy.

It's either libertarianism for everybody or for nobody; your selective use of libertarianism and free market arguments is dishonest and absurd.

[Echospinner]

No because once again there are comparative advantages from one place to another. Also certain goods are specialized. American whiskey which was hit by a counter tariff is one example. It is in high demand overseas. So price is not the only factor.

Say I make cutlery from German steel. People buy my brand because they want “German steel” which is a prestige brand. If you raise the price with a tariff I either lose my market advantage or raise the price.

[NOYB2]

No because once again there are comparative advantages from one place to another.

China can produce stuff cheap than the US because China's rulers oppress their citizens and use cheap exports as a means of gaining political power abroad, and because the US imposes high taxes and regulations. That is not a "comparative advantage" in the free market sense.

Say I make cutlery from German steel. People buy my brand because they want “German steel” which is a prestige brand. If you raise the price with a tariff I either lose my market advantage or raise the price.

The case where the country of origin directly influences the value of the product is an unusual special case; it has no bearing on the point about tariffs on China.

[SQRLSY One]

"I clap for Tinkerbell."

Now Tinkerbell has the clap! I'll have to stop fucking her, for fear of me getting it, too!!! Thanks a LOT, Dude!!!

[buybuydandavis]

Reason prefers taxing American workers over the CCP.

[online jobs]

job opportunity for everyone! Work from comfort of your home, on your computer And you cAn work with your own working hours. You cAn work this job As A pArt time or As A full time job. You cAn eArn from 65$ An hour to 100$ A dAy! There is no limitAtions, it All depends from you And how much you wAnt to eArn eAch dAy….… CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS

[Nail]

clearly the answer to 'did Joe Biden forget ___' is yes.

[darkflame]

beat me to it

[What's that smell?]

Well, China and Ukraine are touchy subjects for ole Quid Pro Joe.

[CE]

most voters are ignorant economically and like the tariffs on China. that's why the Dems didn't bring them up.

[Moderation4ever]

This is a really good point. It is not easy to explain how tariffs are taxes and if you can not explain it in a a few words it probably not worth the trouble. The place to sell this argument is with farmers and business people with a more directed message.

[Earth Skeptic]

Most voters are ignorant.

FIFY

[Its_Not_Inevitable]

You said it. And the Dems want those voters back. Can't alienate them anymore than they already have, no matter how wrong they might be.

[JeremyR]

Ross Perot played a big role in GHWB losing to Clinton.

[NashTiger]

When will Reason mention Kevin Clinesmith, Stefan Halper, Steven Schrage, Durham - the idea that tarrifs are on anyone's Top 10 list during the lockdowns and riots is laughable

[Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2]

Nor has Reason mentioned Steve Bannon and the rest of the Trump crime family indictments and convictions.

[Earth Skeptic]

(yawn)

[What's that smell?]

Don't forget Clinesmith's guilty plea in falsifying evidence submitted to the FISA court allowing Biden and Barry to spy on then candidate Trump.
I wonder if they'll cover the events AFTER Clinesmith rolls as part of the plea deal.

[What's that smell?]

Pedo Joe and Willies Ho 2020

[kate byner]

I look forward to seeing your new posts every day. i think many people like your post. thanks for sharing these remarkable things. rate my company

[online jobs]

●US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started……….COPY HERE====►►Money90

[Wanderer]

I am certain that free trade with China is the winning issue democrat can leverage to attract independent voters. Sure, let them burn campaign dollar on this winning platform.

[Dude24]

It is for those disillusioned with / hurt by Trump's trade war, and for the non-partisan libertarians in the middle who favor trade liberalization. Enough of those two groups combined could credibly swing the vote without alienating the progressive vote who hate Trump too much to let that upset their (D) vote.

[darkflame]

nonpartizan libertarians aren't going to vote Dem, man. On one hand, you have Trump, who is bad on trade, but is actually trying to end the constant wars and police actions, and has shown himself willing to compromise if it gets shit done. He's a mixed bag, and arguably the best (from a libertarian view) candidate either side has had for decades. And on the other, you have a bunch of democrat authoritarians who are supporting violent riots, censorship and throwing out the constitution if elected. Hell, De Blasio and Garcetti already have thrown out the constitution in NY and LA. Not voting for Trump is your choice, but you are lying to yourself if you think you're a libertarian but you vote Democrat.

[Dude24]

As a mostly-GOP-voting libertarian, I'd say you're sort of preaching to the choir. I strongly dislike Trump's trade policy, but he cut taxes, deregulated industry, didn't touch gun rights, and showed good instinct on spending cuts in his first budget proposal which he's likely to act on if he gets a Republican Congress again. So on balance, I'd say he's been a slight net positive towards liberty.

But plenty of libertarians (and voters in general) aren't as likely as I am to pinch their noses on his character issues, trade, and immigration. And those are the ones who generally abstain from voting unless one side is really compelling enough.

[Dude24]

He probably just doesn't want to alienate the anti-trade progressives in his party.

Also, the left in general doesn't mind tax increases.

[ecerv]

I agree. Remember when she was still running, Elizabeth Warren said she'd be tougher than Trump on China.

[Commenter_XY]

The comparison between Bush's tax increases and Trump's tariffs is not a perfect one.

True. They are completely different. But what do you expect from Birdbrain Boehm?

[lura]

STAY HOME AND STARTING WORK AT HOME EASILY... MORE AND MORE EARNING DAILY BY JUST FOLLOW THESE STEPS, I am a student and i work daily on this site and earn money..HERE? <a HERE? Read More

[OpenBordersLiberal-tarian]

Don't worry. I guarantee Biden will be better for our benefactor Charles Koch's net worth than Drumpf has been, even if he didn't specifically mention tariffs.

#VoteBidenToHelpBillionaires

[Dude24]

How so? Biden wants to raise the top income tax rate.

[What's that smell?]

#StayathomesoJoedoesn'thavetoanswerquestions

[Moderation4ever]

Biden does not need to make the case here. Boehm and Reason has done that for him. The smartest politician uses his surrogates, the willing and the unwilling (assume Reason fits here).

[Terry Anne Lieber (Don't Feed Tony)]

"Did Joe Biden... forget... ?"
Yes.

[Smith_ken]

Every month start earning more cash from $20,000 to $24,000 by working very simple j0b 0nline from home. I have earned last month $23159 from this by just doing this 0nline w0rk for maximum 3 to 4 hrs a day using my laptop. This home j0b is just awesome and regular earning from this are much times better than other regular 9 to 5 desk j0b. Now every person on this earth can get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow instructions on the given web page......Click here.

[Rich]

The last time an incumbent president was defeated, the fact that he'd raised taxes on Americans played a major role.

At least we can look forward to a *one-term* Biden presidency.

[Dude24]

Obama did raise taxes -- several times -- and was reelected.

https://www.atr.org/full-list-ACA-tax-hikes-a6996

Democrats and independents don't care much about taxes, and don't punish their representatives for it.

[Jerryskids]

Joe Biden didn't forget the tariffs, he's planning on raising them exponentially. The government is desperate for revenue, it's not like they can cut spending anywhere, so as far as Joe is concerned, any tax is a good tax.

[Spiritus Mundi]

"soybean farmers have been hit particularly hard by the trade war"

Then grow corn or wheat or tobacco or cotton or anything else dumbass.

[Dude24]

Or, better yet, scrap the damn tariffs and let people grow whatever they grow best.

[Echospinner]

I am not a farmer but soybeans are often grown as a crop rotation because they return nitrogen to the soil. So if you can’t sell the soybeans you lose money those years.

[Idle Hands]

Are you people for real?

[Art Kumquat]

It's revealing that you think this is 1992.

[darkflame]

I know that the #1 thing on everyone's minds right now is trade tariffs on soy.

Not the constant rioting and anarchy in Democrat cities, not the blatant constitutional violations in said cities, or the fact that thanks to said Democrats many people are out of work and not allowed to put food on the table, but antifa and BLM can do whatever they want without punishment. Not China meddling in our country or Covid, it's the goddamn SOY that everyone's worried about.

Boehm is as tone-deaf as the rest of the Democrats.

[Dude24]

Lockdowns and law and order are state and local matters. Take that crap to your next mayoral and gubernatorial conventions

Federal politics -- which is what this Convention is about -- is about the more boring stuff: Trade policy, foreign policy, the budget deficit, healthcare policy, and taxes (TARIFFS INCLUDED).

And how is "China meddling in our country"? Russia has probably tried to meddle more, and nobody on the right cares about it.

[Dawg3]

The Harris - Biden - Pelosi ticket is off to a poor start. and will go even further downhill after this weekend's live interviews.

[The Supremacy Of Classical Music]

Eric Boehm....where did Reason find this idiot? Silly question as the Reason editorial staff is full of idiots.

[Warner]

Start making cash right n0w.... Get m0re t!me with your family by d0ing j0bs that 0nly require for y0u t0 have a computer and an internet access and y0u can have that at y0ur h0me. Start bringing up t0 $8668 a m0nth. I've started this j0b and I've never been happier and n0w I am sharing it with y0u, s0 y0u can try it t00. Y0u can check it 0ut here...

==========================➤ReadMore.

[Echospinner]

There is a candidate for president who is opposed to tariffs and trade restrictions.

Why not give her some support? Maybe the idiots in DC will get the message.

[What's that smell?]

Congratulations to Joe BIden! You were able to successfully deliver a prepared, weekslong practiced speech as you read it from a teleprompter and repeated what you heard in your earpiece! Kudos! And even though there were moments of severe slurring of words and a consistent, confused, "deer in the headlights" look about you, YOU DID IT! Way to go! Truly the high water mark of your campaign!

Kamala the Chameleon 2020!

[assiza]

I am making a good pay from home 1900 Buckets/week, that is brilliant, beneath a year agone i used to be unemployed amid a monstrous economy. I pass on God consistently i used to be invested these bearings, and at present, I should pay it forward and impart it to everyone..check my site
.

[Agammamon]

They didn't forget about them - they understand that using the power of the state to force other Americans to give money to other Americans (while they pocket their cut) is both very profitable and very popular among the group of Americans on the receiving end of that 'largesse'.

They're not going to piss off unions this close to the election.

[Agammamon]

And remember - gaining and holding power is not about having a consistent governing philosophy. Its about doing whatever you need to do to get the support of whoever's support you need at the moment. Even if you were vilifying that group only days before.

[Truthteller1]

Voters don't give a fuck, but nice bash piece by Eric the progressive shill.

[Gregdn]

Possibly Biden did not want to be seen as defending China, which is of course unpopular now.

[RichS63]

Are you really so stupid you don't know the difference between tariffs and taxes? Trump cut regulations and gave a tax cut to almost all Americans as well as corporations. Biden didn't mention Trump raising taxes because he didn't. Pretty sad when Dementia Joe is sharper than the folks writing about how great he is.

[voluntaryist]

"...Americans are missing out by not having a presidential candidate who makes the economically sound argument...", you fill in the blank.
Special interests whose only occupation is short-term theft made possible with political pull, bought & paid for with their profits, is the way coercive govt. functions. It's the way the USSR Mal-functioned, until it collapsed. Hamilton helped bankers rob the holders of war bonds by getting the Whiskey Tax passed, causing the Whiskey Rebellion and the federalization of state militias who put down the tax protest by killing/arresting protesters who went to prison.
This system of business & govt. is called fascism. It's been slowly killing capitalism for 200 years. And blaming the economic boom/bust cycle on capitalism. Fascism destroys much more wealth than it steals. It preys on its patsy, capitalism. This isn't sustainable.

[[e-mail]]

Most Handsome Boy In Nepal 2020 https://www.pinterest.com/pin/643451865501774961/