Reuters: US Chamber of Commerce going after Trump's trade war

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
nintendoboy16

41533

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 43

User Lists: 14

#1 nintendoboy16
Member since 2007 • 41533 Posts

Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Monday denounced President Donald Trump’s handling of global trade disputes, issuing a report that argued tariffs imposed by Washington and retaliation by its partners would boomerang badly on the American economy.

The Chamber, the nation’s largest business lobbying group and a traditional ally of Trump’s Republican Party, said the White House is risking a global trade war with its push to protect U.S. industry and workers with tariffs.

The group’s analysis of the harm each U.S. state could suffer from retaliation by U.S. trading partners painted a gloomy picture that could bring pressure on the White House from Republicans ahead of congressional elections in November.

For example, nearly $4 billion worth of exports from Texas could be targeted by retaliatory tariffs, the Chamber said, including $321 million in meat the state sends to Mexico each year and $494 million in grain sorghum it exports to China.

Trump has slapped tariffs on billions of dollars worth of steel and aluminum imports from China, the European Union, Canada and others, prompting retaliation against U.S. products. He is considering extending the levies to the auto sector.

The Chamber, which says it represents the interests of three million companies, had praised Trump for slashing business taxes in December, but mounting trade tensions have opened a rift with the White House.

“The administration is threatening to undermine the economic progress it worked so hard to achieve,” Chamber President Tom Donohue said in a statement. “We should seek free and fair trade, but this is just not the way to do it.”

Asked at a briefing about the Chamber’s report, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters: “The president is focused on helping protect American workers and American industries and create a fair playing field.”

The Chamber is expected to spend millions of dollars ahead of the November elections to help candidates who back free trade, immigration and lower taxes. It has already backed candidates who share those goals in Republican primaries.

Early last month, Mexico imposed tariffs on U.S. products ranging from steel to pork and bourbon, while the EU levied duties of 25 percent on 2.8 billion euros of U.S. imports, including jeans and Harley-Davidson (HOG.N) motorcycles.

Harley-Davidson, which dominates the heavyweight U.S. motorcycle market, subsequently announced it would shift some U.S. production overseas to avoid higher costs for EU customers. Trump slammed the company’s move, saying it was tantamount to surrender, and threatened punitive taxes.

Canada, a member of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with the United States and Mexico, on July 1 imposed retaliatory measures on C$16.6 billion ($12.63 billion) of American goods, including coffee, ketchup and whiskey.

Global equities fell on Monday as investors worried about an escalation of the trade disputes.

The Chamber based its state-by-state analysis on data from the U.S. Department of Commerce and government agencies in China, the EU, Mexico, and Canada.

(The story was refiled to correct the description of Chamber membership in paragraph 6)

*gets popcorn* Let's hope this leads to something. Sounds more like the Chamber should be more independent rather than lean with the GOP.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23032

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23032 Posts

But this is what they voted for.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts

Didn't Trump's campaign rally around protectionist rhetoric? Why are they surprised he's fulfilling these promises?

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178844

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178844 Posts

I think anyone but trump and his base knows these tariffs are bad for the US.

Avatar image for mandzilla
mandzilla

4686

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#5 mandzilla  Moderator
Member since 2017 • 4686 Posts
@LJS9502_basic said:

I think anyone but trump and his base knows these tariffs are bad for the US.

Yeah, they are bad for the whole world really. So needless.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#6 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts

I still think Trudeau's strategic response tariffs were a thing of brilliance. I've spoken with several dairy farmers in Wisconsin (one of his biggest win states) since Trudeau announced them, and they are in complete rage mode.

US manufacturing companies were in panic-buy mode since Trump announced his tariffs on imported steel. Little does that chimpanzee realize is that most steel used by American manufacturers comes from Canada.

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#7 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

I love how they mention their support for his tax cuts. "we love that he passed destructive economic legislation that benefits us, but are enraged that he passed destructive sanctions that harm us. Everything government does should benefit us and only us!"

Avatar image for judaspete
judaspete

7269

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#8 judaspete  Online
Member since 2005 • 7269 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

But this is what they voted for.

These guys will punch themselves in the dick for a tax cut, then have the gall to whine about their sore dicks.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23032

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23032 Posts

@theone86: "I love how they mention their support for his tax cuts. "we love that he passed destructive economic legislation that benefits us, but are enraged that he passed destructive sanctions that harm us. Everything government does should benefit us and only us!""

We should not be surprised. This is, after all, a group which advocates that greed is good and their only obligation is to their shareholders. The most shocking thing is that even as they've extolled these traits they've managed to convince people that giving them more will result in them sharing the benefits.

Avatar image for tryit
TryIt

13157

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#10 TryIt
Member since 2017 • 13157 Posts

I think its very simple.

A president has the authority to grant executive privilege for tariff if he declares it of national security.

I think it should be required that a president explain his reasoning that its related to national security in 100 words or more.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178844

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178844 Posts

@tryit said:

I think its very simple.

A president has the authority to grant executive privilege for tariff if he declares it of national security.

I think it should be required that a president explain his reasoning that its related to national security in 100 words or more.

Damn man be fair. Trump doesn't know 100 words.

Avatar image for tryit
TryIt

13157

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#12  Edited By TryIt
Member since 2017 • 13157 Posts
@LJS9502_basic said:
@tryit said:

I think its very simple.

A president has the authority to grant executive privilege for tariff if he declares it of national security.

I think it should be required that a president explain his reasoning that its related to national security in 100 words or more.

Damn man be fair. Trump doesn't know 100 words.

I was going to say 'and coherent' but often times I am not, so that would have also been unfair, even though he is a president and should be held to higher standards then me

Avatar image for Fuhrer_D
Fuhrer_D

1125

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 Fuhrer_D
Member since 2011 • 1125 Posts

Going after China is worth it, as it largely would hurt them more in the long run than it would the USA, possibly leveling the playing field, but other countries not so much to not at all.

Avatar image for tryit
TryIt

13157

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#14  Edited By TryIt
Member since 2017 • 13157 Posts
@Fuhrer_D said:

Going after China is worth it, as it largely would hurt them more in the long run than it would the USA, possibly leveling the playing field, but other countries not so much to not at all.

not sure how that is going to work.

Basically (as an example) all american cars get built in China using robots.

so how does a tariff basically against ourselves help?

http://money.cnn.com/2018/07/02/news/companies/auto-tariffs/index.html

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178844

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178844 Posts

@Fuhrer_D said:

Going after China is worth it, as it largely would hurt them more in the long run than it would the USA, possibly leveling the playing field, but other countries not so much to not at all.

Not sure where you came up with that but it's not beneficial to either.