What's new

Trump to provide U.S. farmers with $12-billion subsidies to ease trade pain

Jlaw

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
9,693
Reaction score
-22
Country
China
Location
Canada
The Trump administration on Tuesday said it would provide up to US$12-billion in aid for U.S. farmers to shield them from the repercussions felt by trade spats between the United States and China, the European Union and others.

China has targeted U.S. agricultural exports with tariffs in retaliation to those imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump, because the majority of voters in the farm states voted for him in the 2016 election. Republican candidates in the upcoming congressional elections in November, however, have expressed deep concern about their states’ farm economies.

Mr. Trump has been talking for months about finding ways to aid farmers as China, in particular, has cancelled orders for soybeans and other crops.


Sonny Perdue, secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, said the relief package will be financed through the USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation and thus will not require congressional approval.

The aid is intended to serve as temporary boost to farmers as the United States and China negotiate over trade issues.


“This obviously is a short-term solution that will give President Trump time to work on a long-term trade policy,” Mr. Perdue said.

The Commodity Credit Corporation has broad authority to make loans and direct payments to U.S. growers when prices for corn, soybeans, wheat and other agricultural goods are low.

In a speech in Kansas City, Mo., on Tuesday, the President aggressively defended his trade policies. “We have to do it,” Mr. Trump said, blasting both China and the European Union.

“But it’s all working out,” he said. Farmers would ultimately benefit from his approach, he pledged.

Later this week, Mr. Trump will visit Iowa and Illinois, two other farm-belt states, as he seeks to shore-up support for Republican candidates in those regions.


Federal subsidies for farmers, however, are likely to place congressional Republicans, who typically resist large-scale government assistance programs, in a difficult position of supporting the President, a fellow Republican, or distancing themselves.

Some were quick to denounce the proposal.

“This trade war is cutting the legs out from under farmers and the White House’s ‘plan’ is to spend $12-billion on gold crutches,” said Senator Ben Sasse, a Nebraska Republican who frequently criticizes the President.

“Tariffs are taxes that punish American consumers and producers,” Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul wrote on Twitter. “If tariffs punish farmers, the answer is not welfare for farmers – the answer is remove the tariffs.”

Tariffs are taxes that punish American consumers and producers. If tariffs punish farmers, the answer is not welfare for farmers — the answer is remove the tariffs.

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) July 24, 2018
Another Republican senator, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, said the aid package is “encouraging for the short term.”

“What farmers in Iowa and throughout rural America need in the long term are markets and opportunity, not government handouts,” Mr. Grassley said.


Democratic U.S. Representative Jackie Speier of California, a major agricultural state, challenged the President on Twitter. “OK @POTUS – you created this mess with your trade war and now you are going to spend $12 billion to placate the farmers that voted for you,” she tweeted.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...on-to-announce-aid-for-us-farmers-on-tuesday/
_______________________

The soy bean tariffs only kicked in on July 6th and already the US farmers are bleeding two weeks into this trade war.

@TaiShang @AndrewJin @Daniel808 @Kai Liu
 
. .
The Trump administration on Tuesday said it would provide up to US$12-billion in aid for U.S. farmers to shield them from the repercussions felt by trade spats between the United States and China, the European Union and others.

China has targeted U.S. agricultural exports with tariffs in retaliation to those imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump, because the majority of voters in the farm states voted for him in the 2016 election. Republican candidates in the upcoming congressional elections in November, however, have expressed deep concern about their states’ farm economies.

Mr. Trump has been talking for months about finding ways to aid farmers as China, in particular, has cancelled orders for soybeans and other crops.


Sonny Perdue, secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, said the relief package will be financed through the USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation and thus will not require congressional approval.

The aid is intended to serve as temporary boost to farmers as the United States and China negotiate over trade issues.


“This obviously is a short-term solution that will give President Trump time to work on a long-term trade policy,” Mr. Perdue said.

The Commodity Credit Corporation has broad authority to make loans and direct payments to U.S. growers when prices for corn, soybeans, wheat and other agricultural goods are low.

In a speech in Kansas City, Mo., on Tuesday, the President aggressively defended his trade policies. “We have to do it,” Mr. Trump said, blasting both China and the European Union.

“But it’s all working out,” he said. Farmers would ultimately benefit from his approach, he pledged.

Later this week, Mr. Trump will visit Iowa and Illinois, two other farm-belt states, as he seeks to shore-up support for Republican candidates in those regions.


Federal subsidies for farmers, however, are likely to place congressional Republicans, who typically resist large-scale government assistance programs, in a difficult position of supporting the President, a fellow Republican, or distancing themselves.

Some were quick to denounce the proposal.

“This trade war is cutting the legs out from under farmers and the White House’s ‘plan’ is to spend $12-billion on gold crutches,” said Senator Ben Sasse, a Nebraska Republican who frequently criticizes the President.

“Tariffs are taxes that punish American consumers and producers,” Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul wrote on Twitter. “If tariffs punish farmers, the answer is not welfare for farmers – the answer is remove the tariffs.”

Tariffs are taxes that punish American consumers and producers. If tariffs punish farmers, the answer is not welfare for farmers — the answer is remove the tariffs.

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) July 24, 2018
Another Republican senator, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, said the aid package is “encouraging for the short term.”

“What farmers in Iowa and throughout rural America need in the long term are markets and opportunity, not government handouts,” Mr. Grassley said.


Democratic U.S. Representative Jackie Speier of California, a major agricultural state, challenged the President on Twitter. “OK @POTUS – you created this mess with your trade war and now you are going to spend $12 billion to placate the farmers that voted for you,” she tweeted.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...on-to-announce-aid-for-us-farmers-on-tuesday/
_______________________

The soy bean tariffs only kicked in on July 6th and already the US farmers are bleeding two weeks into this trade war.

@TaiShang @AndrewJin @Daniel808 @Kai Liu
These subsideies are all tax-payer's money. They pay the price.
 
. .
The Trump administration on Tuesday said it would provide up to US$12-billion in aid for U.S. farmers to shield them from the repercussions felt by trade spats between the United States and China, the European Union and others.

China has targeted U.S. agricultural exports with tariffs in retaliation to those imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump, because the majority of voters in the farm states voted for him in the 2016 election. Republican candidates in the upcoming congressional elections in November, however, have expressed deep concern about their states’ farm economies.

Mr. Trump has been talking for months about finding ways to aid farmers as China, in particular, has cancelled orders for soybeans and other crops.


Sonny Perdue, secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, said the relief package will be financed through the USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation and thus will not require congressional approval.

The aid is intended to serve as temporary boost to farmers as the United States and China negotiate over trade issues.


“This obviously is a short-term solution that will give President Trump time to work on a long-term trade policy,” Mr. Perdue said.

The Commodity Credit Corporation has broad authority to make loans and direct payments to U.S. growers when prices for corn, soybeans, wheat and other agricultural goods are low.

In a speech in Kansas City, Mo., on Tuesday, the President aggressively defended his trade policies. “We have to do it,” Mr. Trump said, blasting both China and the European Union.

“But it’s all working out,” he said. Farmers would ultimately benefit from his approach, he pledged.

Later this week, Mr. Trump will visit Iowa and Illinois, two other farm-belt states, as he seeks to shore-up support for Republican candidates in those regions.


Federal subsidies for farmers, however, are likely to place congressional Republicans, who typically resist large-scale government assistance programs, in a difficult position of supporting the President, a fellow Republican, or distancing themselves.

Some were quick to denounce the proposal.

“This trade war is cutting the legs out from under farmers and the White House’s ‘plan’ is to spend $12-billion on gold crutches,” said Senator Ben Sasse, a Nebraska Republican who frequently criticizes the President.

“Tariffs are taxes that punish American consumers and producers,” Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul wrote on Twitter. “If tariffs punish farmers, the answer is not welfare for farmers – the answer is remove the tariffs.”

Tariffs are taxes that punish American consumers and producers. If tariffs punish farmers, the answer is not welfare for farmers — the answer is remove the tariffs.

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) July 24, 2018
Another Republican senator, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, said the aid package is “encouraging for the short term.”

“What farmers in Iowa and throughout rural America need in the long term are markets and opportunity, not government handouts,” Mr. Grassley said.


Democratic U.S. Representative Jackie Speier of California, a major agricultural state, challenged the President on Twitter. “OK @POTUS – you created this mess with your trade war and now you are going to spend $12 billion to placate the farmers that voted for you,” she tweeted.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...on-to-announce-aid-for-us-farmers-on-tuesday/
_______________________

The soy bean tariffs only kicked in on July 6th and already the US farmers are bleeding two weeks into this trade war.

@TaiShang @AndrewJin @Daniel808 @Kai Liu

Last time i checked China had more cash then U.S and the USA owed China about 20 trillion so if that's the game Trump wants to play he will lose badly.
 
.
Last time i checked China had more cash then U.S and the USA owed China about 20 trillion so if that's the game Trump wants to play he will lose badly.

where is that money kept ? in american banks i hope .
 
.
where is that money kept ? in american banks i hope .

Your right, surely China dosn't have a National Bank or a treasury. So they must keep all their cash in American banks.
 
. .
Farm handout signals damage of Trump tariffs
The Editorial Board, USA TODAY
Published 1:14 p.m. UTC Jul 26, 2018

When the Trump administration announced Tuesday that it would spend $12 billion to aid farmers harmed by its trade polices, the outrage was palpable. Lawmakers of both parties called it welfare, a bailout and other derogatory terms.

The announcement seemed to encapsulate the damage and costs of President Donald Trump’s misguided trade wars, which are inviting retaliatory tariffs that harm exporting industries.

Farmers need "emergency" government assistance to deal with an emergency of Trump's own making. Iconic American companies such as General Motors and Harley-Davidson are warning that tariffs will harm their earnings.

In part to deal with the pushback, Trump on Wednesday announced an effort to reach a broad trade agreement with the European Union, a deal that could prove difficult given the EU's divergent views on data privacy, antitrust, genetically modified organisms and a host of other issues.

What the announcement does not do is undo the harm Trump is doing on trade. Eighteen months into office, Trump has turned productive farmers into supplicants, pushed government deep into the business of picking winners and losers, and shamelessly politicized the process of spending taxpayer money.

“This is becoming more and more like a Soviet-type of economy here,” complained Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis. “Commissars deciding who's going to be granted waivers. Commissars in the administration figuring out how they’re going to sprinkle around benefits."

But Johnson and other Trump critics in the GOP offer only words. Words are fine. They make sounds and convey meaning. But in politics, they are a pale imitation of actions.

If the Republican-controlled House and Senate are truly upset with Trump's trade policies, they can do something about it. All of Trump’s tariffs — those on steel and aluminum and those on a wide array of Chinese goods — have been imposed under congressional authority.

What Congress grants, Congress can take away.

The Founding Fathers put tariffs on the same level as taxes as important congressional powers. But over the years, Congress has run from those responsibilities, passing laws transferring the power to levy tariffs to presidents.

Its handiwork includes the Trade Act of 1974 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. But its biggest one is the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which gives presidents the power to act in the case of national security threats, which Trump defines to mean just about anything, including imported automobiles.

Congress could pass a law now that rescinds the Trump tariffs and narrows or eliminates the powers Trump claims. This would require a veto-proof majorities in both chambers. But if lawmakers are half as concerned as they claim to be, that should not be a problem.

The time for lobbing words at Trump is over. If his approach to trade is so bad — which it is — it is time to bring about its end.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opini...e-trump-tariffs-editorials-debates/837327002/
 
.
Oh , so trump complain about others providing subsidiary on other hand he provide subsidiary ,interesting.
 
.
These subsideies are all tax-payer's money. They pay the price.

Tariffs will pay for subsidy now. Once imports are sourced from other countries, tariff become tax. This tariff & EU mending trade issue, is a warning shot to China to submit to USA.

USA is negotiating with EU,Mexico&Canada. I expect all of them to submit except Mexico will get away withit (sicne they are poor & friendly neighbour). China better blink. Already Chinese stock is down 23% from peak, whereas US stock market is at all time high. China better tread carefully.

China stock is cheap and good time to buy, if it is able to resolve Trade war with USA. Trade wars are bad for every one, but worst for exporter country who exports to USA is 5% of GDP, directly and I suspect at least 20% of GDP indirectly.

Chinese Shanghai index
SSEC_chart.jpeg




US S&P 500
========
SPX_chart.jpeg


US Nasdaq :
=======
IXIC_chart (1).jpeg
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom