The media recently had a brief feeding frenzy on Trump's announcement pertaining to the imposition of raised tariffs on imported products. I just stumbled onto this (from bbc.com) that shows Trump has lots of precedence for his decision - dating back to the beginning of U.S. government actions:

"But despite the outcry, Trump has pointed out that raising the economic drawbridge is thoroughly in keeping with his party's historical roots. It wasn't just McKinley who believed protectionism key to American greatness.

"Tariffs were the Republican creed from the Civil War to the Great Depression, and a fundamental doctrine of its preceding party, the Whigs.

"Going even further back, the first US Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, now a Broadway musical hero, pioneered tariffs to protect infant American industries from foreign competition. So did fellow Founding Father James Madison.

"Republicans from the mid-19th Century onwards continued to champion this fiscal firewall so northern manufacturers could compete with European imports, according to Charles Hankla, professor of political science at Georgia State University.

"Democrats, he says, espoused free trade as they were aligned with southern slave-owning plantations that exported cotton to British mills.

"It was Abraham Lincoln who inaugurated the Republican party's economic nationalism. Yes, the Great Emancipator was also the Great Protectionist. 'Give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest nation on earth,' he said in 1844.

"While Trump is sometimes accused of economic illiteracy, Abe himself once apparently exhibited a flimsy grasp of his pet policy while campaigning for Congress in Illinois.

"Tariffs would only be collected from 'those whose pride, whose abundance of means, prompt them to spurn the manufacturers of our own country and strut in British cloaks and coats and pantaloons', he insisted, according to a biography of him by David Herbert Donald.

"Lincoln didn't have a quick answer for why import tariffs would make things cheaper. A journalist challenged Lincoln on the stump to explain why he thought these duties would make everything cheaper for farmers. The candidate is said to have replied that he 'could not tell the reason, but it was so.'"

In a speech in Pittsburgh on February 15, 1861, Abraham Lincoln said, "The tariff is to the government what a meal is to the family." In the same speech, Lincoln also said, "Labor is the true standard of value."

The Republican Party Platform of 1860, Chicago, Illinois, May 16, 1860, included the following:

"That, while providing revenue for the support of the General Government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country; and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the working men liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence."

IMO, one of Lincoln's main reasons for his tariff support was he felt the government needed the income to do its business. There was no federal income tax when he said, "The tariff is to the government what a meal is to the family."

(08-09-2018 02:50 PM)L Verge Wrote:  "While Trump is sometimes accused of economic illiteracy, Abe himself once apparently exhibited a flimsy grasp of his pet policy while campaigning for Congress in Illinois.

That's crazy. Trump is a self-made billionaire. How could he be illiterate about the economy?

Trump believes in free trade without tariffs, or with minimal tariffs. He is using tariffs temporarily as leverage against countries that have an unfair advantage caused by some of this country's really stupid trade deals negotiated by past administrations.

(08-09-2018 03:13 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  In a speech in Pittsburgh on February 15, 1861, Abraham Lincoln said, "The tariff is to the government what a meal is to the family."

IMO, one of Lincoln's main reasons for his tariff support was he felt the government needed the income to do its business. There was no federal income tax when he said, "The tariff is to the government what a meal is to the family."

In the same speech, President Lincoln said the following:

"I have long thought that if there be any article of necessity which can be produced at home with as little or nearly the same labor as abroad, it would be better to protect that article. Labor is the true standard of value. If a bar of iron, got out of the mines of England, and a bar of iron taken from the mines of Pennsylvania, be produced at the same cost, it follows that if the English bar be shipped from Manchester to Pittsburg, and the American bar from Pittsburg to Manchester, the cost of carriage is appreciably lost. [Laughter.] If we had no iron here, then we should encourage its shipment from foreign countries; but not when we can make it as cheaply in our own country. This brings us back to our first proposition, that if any article can be produced at home with nearly the same cost as abroad, the carriage is lost labor."

What this country experienced decades ago was the Walmart model:

If labor in China to produce the same article plus the cost of shipment from China to the United States was less than the cost of labor of American citizens, then American manufacturers should move their factories making steel, furniture, clothing, etc. overseas to China. Yes, some Americans profited and all Americans had lower costs for these items manufactured in China. The Walmart family became some of the richest Americans and remain so. And, those Americans newly involved in the "carriage" sector transporting Chinese "cheap labor" goods to the American consumers also profited immensely and still do.

I remember a time when a foreign made car was unusual; it is not so anymore even with the additional "carriage" costs. I remember a time when generations of a family worked at the local GM plant or United States Steel plant and made a good living doing so (and, in turn, these American workers supported a local economy); it is not so anymore. Does anyone know where the "rust belt" is? Is it located in China or the United States?

Maybe all of the politicians (then and now) and those Americans that knew the Walmart model would make them rich should have thought much more about their fellow Americans when they had the opportunity to do so and to heed the wise words of Abraham Lincoln as quoted by Roger:

"Labor is the true standard of value."

And, this truism supplemented by another Lincoln observation:

"[W]hile providing revenue for the support of the General Government by duties upon imposts, sound policy requires such an adjustment of the imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interest of the whole country, and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the working men liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence."

Something worth reading about the dissimilarities between Lincoln and Trump:

At Carrier, the Factory Trump Saved, Morale Is Through the Floor

Another NYT article. Still reading the fake news, and believing it, I see.

People are so worried and depressed about losing their jobs at Carrier, that they don't even show up for work. That makes a lot of sense.

(08-12-2018 06:30 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  Another NYT article. Still reading the fake news, and believing it, I see.

People are so worried and depressed about losing their jobs at Carrier, that they don't even show up for work. That makes a lot of sense.

There were a large number of quotes in the New York Times article from people who actually work at the Carrier plant. Do you believe that those quotations were fake?

For example:

“People still don’t trust Carrier,” said Paul Roell, a group leader who has worked at the plant for 19 years. “They still have the warehouses and the factory in Mexico, and they can move down whenever. We all know that Carrier has the money to do whatever they want.”

On the worst days, according to one group leader, up to one in five workers are out. It’s true that the company has been running the factory hard — up to 60 hours a week with mandatory overtime, six days in a row — and some absenteeism could be due to sheer exhaustion, Mr. Roell allowed. But “bad blood,” as he put it, is at least as much to blame. “Workers feel like Carrier is going to leave,” he said, “whether we come to work or not.”

Kate, why does not Carrier not hire more workers in your opinion? I believe that there must be a lot of people available in the area for relatively good-paying jobs not requiring a college education. "The company has been running the factory hard — up to 60 hours a week with mandatory overtime, six days in a row."

Mr. Roell, the group leader, is also loyal, despite having to fill in frequently on the line. “I’m going to stay until I don’t have a choice."

Even before the closure announcement, he said, supervisors gathered people from the lines and pointed out, ominously, that their counterparts in Mexico missed fewer days. “I’m worried they will use the absenteeism as an excuse to shut the factory,” Mr. Roell said. “They aren’t doing anything to improve morale.”

The chief executive of United Technologies, Greg Hayes, said the company would invest in the Carrier facility, as it had promised Mr. Trump. But those funds were earmarked for automation, and would ultimately mean fewer jobs in Indianapolis, not more.

Kate, the only thing that I can say is that we both read the same article and drew different conclusions. You call it "fake news" and I call it the truth.

In a source equally as disreputable as the one you cite (David), there is this quote:

"The representatives also stated that the company was adding around 150 new jobs to the plant since Trump's deal to save the factory."

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/401361...ump-report

So if Carrier has added more jobs, but people are not showing up to work for a good-paying job, while at the same time complaining that they are not coming to work because they are so worried that their jobs will not be permanent, and this absenteeism is putting a burden of (perhaps) too much overtime on other workers, why don't the lazy, complaining nonworkers do what they are paid to do: WORK.

Makes no sense to me, and I have not seen this story in any reputable news source.

And in any case, (David), what does all this have to do with similarities between Lincoln and Trump?

(08-12-2018 06:30 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  Another NYT article. Still reading the fake news, and believing it, I see.

People are so worried and depressed about losing their jobs at Carrier, that they don't even show up for work. That makes a lot of sense.

I agree, Kate. That article is so typical of the NYT and its need to appeal to the nay-sayers and those with little knowledge or concern for what is really going on. To me, this isn't a government administration problem at Carrier -- it's the company's own employees not caring, not thinking about consequences, and working the system.

BTW: Does the Times realize that late-July and early-August (the time period that they decided to report on for absenteeism) is also the period that a high percentage of Americans choose to take their summer vacation? Perhaps it is a Carrier administration problem that they are approving too many employee requests for leave at the same time?

And finally, our American system of laissez-faire industry has always encouraged taking necessary means to achieve goals (which were usually based on making money by eliminating some costs). We are now in Trump's world of global economy -- not Lincoln's world of hometown economics.

Wonder what Lincoln's solution for the Carrier situation would be? I suspect that he'd be admonishing those lazy workers (if there truly are any) to get off their duffs and work at keeping their jobs, improving their company, and stop being spoiled Americans.

(08-12-2018 11:29 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  In a source equally as disreputable as the one you cite (David), there is this quote:

"The representatives also stated that the company was adding around 150 new jobs to the plant since Trump's deal to save the factory."

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/401361...ump-report

So if Carrier has added more jobs, but people are not showing up to work for a good-paying job, while at the same time complaining that they are not coming to work because they are so worried that their jobs will not be permanent, and this absenteeism is putting a burden of (perhaps) too much overtime on other workers, why don't the lazy, complaining nonworkers do what they are paid to do: WORK.

Makes no sense to me, and I have not seen this story in any reputable news source.

And in any case, (David), what does all this have to do with similarities between Lincoln and Trump?

I agree that this second story from another "equally disreputable news source" does not make much sense to me either.

In the other source which you cite (The Hill), there is this quote:

"Carrier, however, stated that absenteeism had not increased. A representative told The Hill in an email that the company is “proud" of the work that staff at the Indiana plant do for the company."

So, one disreputable news source (New York Times) says absenteeism is a problem; and another equally disreputable news source (The Hill) says it is not a problem.

The Hill story also noted that Trump's deal with Carrier cost Indiana taxpayers $700,000 per year for an undisclosed number of years:

"The company reached an agreement with Trump to keep the plant open in exchange for half a million per year in state income tax refunds and about about $200,000 a year to retrain workers from the state of Indiana."

One might think that only the Governor or the state legislature could make this kind of deal with Carrier that appears to involve concessions only being made by the taxpayers of Indiana. What exactly did Trump contribute to the deal?

And, what are the names of the "reputable news source(s)" that you say have not done a story on Carrier?

June 13, 2018 - Trump claims North Korea is "no longer a nuclear threat."

Since this statement is true, when does the transport of nuclear weapons from Korea to the United States for the confirmed destruction of these weapons begin? I am sure that one of your "reputable news source(s)" must have done a story on this important achievement of President Donald Trump. Please cite your source.

---

(08-12-2018 11:29 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  And in any case, (David), what does all this have to do with similarities between Lincoln and Trump?

Kate, you may have noticed that I am more focused upon the dissimilarities between Lincoln and Trump.

Laurie is the one who titled this thread. Please ask her to make the change. I have more contributions to make.

Wow. I sure have been put in my place. I can't begin to answer any of your questions, or even follow any of your logic. I concede total and utter defeat.

I'm just waiting to read what Laurie says when you, Kate, tell her to change the title of her thread because David wants to write something that doesnt really align with the topic.

(Sorry about intervening, its just that I couldnt resist it)

Reminds me of this:
http://www.shelbyvilledailyunion.com/new...ff1c0.html

(08-12-2018 10:13 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  Kate, you may have noticed that I am more focused upon the dissimilarities between Lincoln and Trump.

Laurie is the one who titled this thread. Please ask her to make the change. I have more contributions to make.

I can appreciate your passion for the subject, but I'm not sure this forum is the proper outlet for the direction that topic would take.

(08-13-2018 02:29 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  Wow. I sure have been put in my place. I can't begin to answer any of your questions, or even follow any of your logic. I concede total and utter defeat.

That's easier than I thought it was going to be.

I was waiting to post the following personally-perceived "dissimilarity" between Lincoln and Trump:

The petition of the women employees of the Philadelphia arsenal set forth:

“At the breaking out of the rebellion that is now deluging our land with blood, and which for a time threatened the destruction of the Nation, the prices paid at the U.S. Arsenal in this city were barely sufficient to enable the women engaged upon Government work to earn a scanty respectable subsistence. Since the period referred to, board, provision, and all other articles of female consumption have advanced to such an extent as to make an average of at least seventy-five per cent, while women’s labor has been reduced thirty per cent.”

President Abraham Lincoln referred the matter to Secretary Stanton with the following comment:

"I know not how much is within the legal power of the government in this case; but it is certainly true in equity, that the laboring women in our employment, should be paid at the least as much as they were at the beginning of the war. Will the Secretary of War please have the case fully examined, and so much relief given as can be consistently with the law and the public service."

July 27. 1864
A. LINCOLN

from The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 7, pages 466-467

I do not know for certain what President Donald Trump would do in a similar situation. [Trump's ordered treatment of migrant family children might be one good indication.] But I do know what President Abraham Lincoln took the time and thought to do during the American Civil War.

---

(08-13-2018 06:17 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Reminds me of this:
http://www.shelbyvilledailyunion.com/new...ff1c0.html

Pertinent to this discussion from Eva Elisabeth's referenced article is this:

"Let's just say that the openly, proudly partisan editors of the Lincoln era — Republicans like Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune and Democrats like Manton Marble of the New York World — would not be surprised at all that today's media outlets, like Fox and MSNBC, display the same kind of doctrinaire leanings, except (the networks of the 21st century) don't like to admit it," said Holzer.

"Partisanship was deeply embedded in the American press tradition, from the days of John Adams onward," [Holzer] said.



I am wondering if Fox is one of the "reputable" news sources to which Kate refers.