Trump 33: Making Norman Bates Look Like a Choir Boy

[AmazonGrace]

 

[Cartmann99]

1 hour ago, 47of74 said:

The devil made me do it....

I need to finish my chalkboard backsplash in the kitchen. The small chalkboards on the inside of the cabinet doors are fine for grocery lists and appointment reminders, but I definitely need  more space to express my growing rage about Trump.

[CTRLZero]

3 hours ago, Howl said:

"Also helping expand its reach: Amazon Flex drivers who use their own vehicles to deliver packages."

The Uberization of delivery services, and more gig economy. 

Yeah, I'm trying to piece together how this new industry is going to actually work.  My first thought was they would be contract workers, but then CNN has this:

Drivers will be full-time workers instead of contractors, and Amazon will require business owners to give them paid time off and other benefits. Amazon would not say if it was requesting a set minimum wage for the drivers.

This seems too good to be true, so who knows what's going on.  I bet Trump is happy that jealousy-inducing Amazon is exiting the USPS market, but I'm not sure he's going to be happy when he figures out the USPS lost its biggest customer.

[WiseGirl]

2 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

but I definitely need  more space to express my growing rage about Trump.

There is not enough room in my house to express my rage. Tonight I'm wondering if there will ever be a time when I will not be yelling obscenities at the president and other assorted elected officials on a daily basis.

[Howl]

3 hours ago, CTRLZero said:

Yeah, I'm trying to piece together how this new industry is going to actually work.  My first thought was they would be contract workers, but then CNN has this:

Drivers will be full-time workers instead of contractors, and Amazon will require business owners to give them paid time off and other benefits. Amazon would not say if it was requesting a set minimum wage for the drivers.

This seems too good to be true, so who knows what's going on.  I bet Trump is happy that jealousy-inducing Amazon is exiting the USPS market, but I'm not sure he's going to be happy when he figures out the USPS lost its biggest customer.

Let's see.  USPS workers are full-time employees with benefits.  I see USPS delivering on Saturday and Sunday, presumably for Amazon Prime customers.  I'm not getting why there need to be companies doing this..... 

......unless this is being done preemptively so Amazon doesn't end up being screwed by some weird Trump move with USPS. 

[AmazonGrace]

 

 

[JMarie]

I saw this on Carl Hiassen's twitter (I was seeing if he posted anything about his brother, who was killed in today's shooting)

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article213842889.html

Quote

In the first year of the Trump administration, Department of the Interior officials issued a rare, detailed letter warning Miami-Dade County that extending the Dolphin Expressway across sensitive wetlands could block part of the $16 billion, decades long effort to restore the ailing Everglades.

"The Department is concerned that placement of a 4- to 6-lane high-speed paved highway on these lands is in conflict with the legally mandated purpose for which these lands were acquired," read the letter, which was signed by a holdover from the Obama administration.

Three months later — with a new Trump appointee overseeing Everglades restoration — the federal agency signaled it was open to a U-turn on the prospect of paving protected wetlands. Just after Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos Gimenez announced plans to make the Kendall Parkway a top priority for his final term in office, Interior sent a second short, breezy and encouraging letter to expressway planners that the previous letter was under review.

"This administration is taking steps toward modernizing our nation's infrastructure and has pledged to scale back restrictive government regulations whenever possible," former Deputy Assistant Secretary Jason Larrabee wrote. "Please know that we are exploring all options for your proposed project and look forward to connecting with you."

A policy shift on wetlands and Everglades protection would seem to conflict with an earlier promise by candidate Donald Trump, who in October 2016 at a Collier County rally promised Florida voters to "work alongside you to restore and protect the beautiful Everglades."

The controversial 14-mile extension is expected to cost between $650 million and $680 million and has sparked fervent opposition and support, from frustrated environmentalists and smart growth advocates to weary South Dade commuters. Opponents worry that the project, which sits outside the Urban Development Boundary, will stand in the way of restoration and lead to more congestion. They also say it could jeopardize a county drinking water wellfield that relies on the wetlands to recharge the aquifer.

Those pesky restrictive government regulations....

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

Any guesses as to which foreign spies have prank called him?

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Because of course he did: "Trump calls for another round of tax cuts, further reductions to corporate tax rate"

Spoiler

President Trump on Friday said he wanted to further lower the corporate tax rate, from 21 percent to 20 percent, as part of a second round of tax cuts later this year.

Trump, in an interview with Fox News to mark the six-month anniversary of the $1.5 trillion tax-cut law Republicans passed last year, said other parts of the new tax plan would be tailored to the middle class.

“One of the things we’re thinking about is bringing the 21 percent down to 20 and for the most part, the rest of it will go right to the middle class,” Trump said. “It’s a great stimulus.”

Trump said the tax plan would be ready by October, “maybe a little sooner than that.”

Trump’s interview with Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo is scheduled to air on Sunday, but the network released some excerpts on Friday.

In the excerpts, Trump did not give more details about what he had planned in terms of tax cuts for the middle class, but Republicans have said they want to bring up a bill that would make permanent tax cuts they passed in December for families and individuals. Those tax cuts are currently scheduled to expire in 2025.

In December, Republicans lowered the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. Lowering the corporate tax rate from 21 to 20 would result in an additional $100 billion in tax cuts over 10 years, according to most models.

Trump also didn’t say whether Republicans planned any other changes to tax policy that might offset these new tax cuts in a way that would prevent a further increase in the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office and other nonpartisan analyses project the tax law passed in December will add more than $1 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. The White House has argued these figures overstate the increase in the deficit, as administration officials generally believe cutting the corporate tax rate leads to tremendous economic growth, thereby creating enough revenue to minimize the fiscal impact.

It could not be immediately learned whether there is broad GOP support for further lowering of the corporate tax rate, and it’s possible some Republicans would block the effort to drop the rate to 20 percent. Since passing their tax law, Republicans have mainly talked about the importance of impressing on voters how the legislation will do more for workers, and they have not talked much about the need to provide more assistance for corporations.

Some Republicans in Congress however have already pushed for further cuts, calling the new package “phase two.”

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Tex.) said this week he expects to try to advance several bills to extend tax cuts before the November midterm elections.

“I expect to see the legislative outline released in early August with votes in the fall, depending on when leadership wants to schedule them,” Brady said Tuesday at an event hosted by The Washington Post. “I don’t see it as one bill. I see it as a package of two, three or four approaches with permanency [in the tax cuts for families and individuals] being one of them.”

Republicans passed the tax package in December using a parliamentary maneuver that allowed them to move the legislation with a simple majority of votes in the Senate, rather than the 60 votes typically required to beat a filibuster.

No Democrats voted for the tax bill, saying they believed it does too much for the wealthy and businesses and not enough for the middle class. Many Democrats also objected to the bill’s projected additions to the deficit.

Republicans have hailed the bill’s passage and said it is leading to a sharp uptick in economic growth, hiring and wages, though results have so far been mixed. A number of companies did announce a spate of one-time bonuses or wage increases because of the legislation, but this applied to a minority of workers.

Wages have generally continued to increase at the same pace they were rising before the legislation was passed. There has also not been a noticeable uptick in capital investment, compared with other countries, though a number of firms have announced immense stock buybacks that immediately benefit shareholders.

Public opinion polls show the majority of Americans still view the tax cuts relatively negatively, with many believing the wealthy and corporations are the biggest recipients of the benefits.

Still, holding a vote on further tax cuts in September or October could prove a thorny political problem for vulnerable Democrats running for reelection in November.

Trump originally wanted to lower the corporate tax rate to 15 percent, but congressional Republicans pushed him higher, constrained by budget rules that limited the scope of the tax cuts. Republicans could try to waive those rules for the second phase of a tax-cut package, though they would need support from Democrats to do this.

There has not been much of a push from business groups since the tax legislation was passed for further reductions in the corporate rate. Rather, they have been mostly worried about the economic impact of the trade fights Trump has engaged in with a number of countries. But tax cuts remain popular with many business groups and they could be used as a way for the White House to get many companies to back down on their opposition to his trade agenda.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"We’ve Found $16.1 Million in Political and Taxpayer Spending at Trump Properties"

Spoiler

Since Donald Trump declared his candidacy for president in late 2015, at least $16.1 million has poured into Trump Organization-managed and branded hotels, golf courses and restaurants from his campaign, Republican organizations, and government agencies. Because Trump’s business empire is overseen by a trust of which he is the sole beneficiary, he profits from these hotel stays, banquet hall rentals and meals.

To arrive at the total, we compiled campaign finance reports from the Federal Election Commission; state government spending gleaned from dozens of state websites and portals; and federal agency expenditure records obtained by the Washington-based transparency organization Property of the People. For this project, Property of the People filed Freedom of Information Act requests with 15 federal agencies and sued four of them to obtain records. (The organization is also attempting to procure comparable records for the Obama era.)

The vast majority of the money — at least $13.5 million, or more than 84 percent of what we tracked — was spent by Trump’s presidential campaign (including on Tag Air, the entity that operates Trump’s personal airplane). Republican Senate and House political committees and campaigns have shelled out at least another $2.1 million at Trump properties. At least $400,000 has been spent by federal, state and local agencies. (For example, the Florida Police Chiefs Association held its summer conference last year at the Trump National Doral Miami.) The state and local tally appears to be a gross undercount because of the agencies’ spotty disclosures and reporting.

The use of taxpayer dollars at Trump hotels is under scrutiny in a closely watched lawsuit in Maryland federal court. The District of Columbia and the state of Maryland sued Trump, citing a venerable anti-corruption provision of the U.S. Constitution known as the Emoluments Clause. It prohibits any financial gift, or emolument, from benefiting a sitting public official, including the president.

The judge in that case, Peter Messitte, is expected to make a final ruling by the end of July. Last month, he allowed the case to proceed, concluding in his opinion that a trip to the Trump International Hotel in Washington by Maine Gov. Paul LePage “rather clearly suggests that Maryland and the District of Columbia may very well feel themselves obliged, i.e., coerced, to patronize the Hotel in order to help them obtain federal favors.” The nonprofit group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, which is co-counsel in the Maryland/D.C. case, is also the plaintiff in a separate emoluments suit, which was dismissed; an appeal of that decision is pending.

One of Trump’s lawyers, Sheri Dillon, has argued in the past that paying a hotel bill would never have qualified as an emolument when the Constitution was written; “instead, it would have been thought of as a value-for-value exchange.” (Countered Norman Eisen, chairman of CREW and a former ethics chief under President Obama, “all of these competing interests are openly and nakedly trying to buy off a president…. Obviously, the government spending, whether it’s federal, state, or local, is a domestic emolument.”)

The Trump Organization and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

There are few ways to avoid the implication that the use of Trump properties is endorsed by the federal government, said Don Fox, the former acting director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, which oversees the government’s ethics rules. One way to avoid the problem, Fox suggested, would be a public statement by Trump along the following lines: “Stay where you need to stay. Basically, do what’s best for the taxpayer.”

But Trump has sent a very different signal with his actions. In his 18 months in office, he has stayed at his hotels or Mar-a-Lago, his Palm Beach, Fla., estate and club, nearly a third of the time: 161 days and counting.

“Trump appears to be commandeering federal resources in order to maximize revenues at Trump properties, and he does this by visiting properties close to the White House,” said Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis and an expert in legal ethics. “And when he travels to the golf courses in Florida, Virginia and New Jersey, other agencies that are involved in supporting the president end up spending money.”

There are no rules barring federal employees from patronizing Trump properties. Employees can be reimbursed for expenditures according to federal travel regulations, including the cost of a hotel room or the price of a meal. There are limits to these per diems — employees cover any cost beyond the reimbursable amount — but rates at many Trump properties are within that range, reimbursement records show. (The General Services Administration provides a handy calculator to figure out what the per diems are depending on where an employee is traveling and when.)

But even if a stay at a Trump property falls within federal travel regulations, it’s hard to escape the fact that the president is personally benefiting from taxpayer dollars — and that federal employees have a potential incentive to curry favor with their ultimate boss.

Consider a trip last year by Matthew Snyder, who works for the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, in Colorado. Snyder traveled to Washington, D.C., for 11 days in April 2017 to attend managerial training. He stayed first at a Marriott in Gaithersburg, Md. (where NIST is headquartered), and then at the Trump International Hotel in Washington. Both rooms cost $242 per night, and both were covered by his per diem for lodging. (According to federal guidelines, $242 is the maximum nightly amount the government will reimburse for visits to the D.C. area in the spring season.)

The Trump International Hotel appeared to cultivate at least some federal business, offering a discounted rate for government employees at the time. (A hotel staffer told us that the Trump International no longer offers a government discount.) Snyder benefitted from such a lowered price. His receipt shows a “room type” code of SK1, which refers to a suite, and a rate plan listed as “DISGOV.” The typical suite at the hotel starts at $740, according to its website.

... < receipt >

Snyder said in an interview that he chose to stay at the Trump hotel because it was within walking distance of a conference he attended, and that its proximity allowed him to save the cost of renting a car.

But several hotels in a six-block radius provide cheaper rates, including the Hotel Harrington, which sits only a block north of the Trump hotel and charges $175 for a single room. And receipts show that Snyder rented a car and racked up $336 in valet parking charges during his stay at the Trump International.

When asked about cheaper nearby hotels and the parking costs, Snyder wrote in an email: “I could offer clarity, but I choose not to.” In the end, Snyder charged about $2,740 to a government charge card at the Trump International over five days, including room service and valet parking.

In response to questions, the Commerce Department said that records it reviewed “appear to show that a handful of career employees at the Department of Commerce who patronized Trump-owned properties complied with federal travel regulations.” Other Commerce Department employees asked about their spending at Trump properties explained that it was the most affordable option (in one instance involving a hotel in Las Vegas) or that the visit was made while off-duty (in the case of a trip to Los Angeles).

Other federal agencies offered a variety of responses. A statement from the Defense Department, whose employees spent nearly $150,000 at Trump properties between January and June 2017, said its staff are “free to choose where they stay, with the understanding that the government will reimburse no more than the lodging portion of the established per diem limit for the place of temporary duty. There are no plans to change or create guidance at this time.”

The Secret Service also patronized Trump properties while agents were protecting the president or his family. In March 2017, for example, the agency paid $27,724.32 at the Trump golf course and resort in Doonbeg, Ireland. The stay was to “support E. Trump Visit,” receipts note, which took place in April, when Eric Trump went to the resort for two days of business meetings, the Irish press reported at the time.

The State Department, which is listed as the federal agency reimbursing the costs of the Ireland trip, said the Secret Service is in charge of its own travel expenses when it relates to presidential security. For other stays at Trump properties, the State Department said it does “not afford the Trump Organization preferential treatment,” adding that its employees are “routinely counseled on federal ethics law and on the importance of avoiding even the appearance that department resources are misused for the benefit of any outside organizations or private interests.”

The State Department doesn’t receive any preferential treatment when employees stay at Mar-a-Lago, receipts show. For an April 2017 trip by then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, his chief of staff and another aide for meetings with Chinese President Xi Jinping, each room cost $546 per night, which was described by the Trump Organization as a “rack rate,” or a non-discounted, standard room. The spending was approved by State Department officials, who noted that the trip was to “meet with POTUS for a high level meeting.”

 

[GreyhoundFan]

In Chicago: "Why won't retailers move into Trump Tower?"

Spoiler

Republican donors may have shelled out $1 million among them to eat lunch Tuesday with Donald Trump at Trump Tower in Chicago — but getting retailers to move in there has been harder.

Seven years after the tower bearing the braggadocio's name was completed with postcard-worthy views, the presumptive Republican nominee has not managed to lease out even one of his huge riverfront retail spaces at Trump Tower.

Now the agent marketing the two floors of glass-fronted, vacant space below street level for Trump says progress is imminent. Just don't expect anything before the November election.

"The interest level has been growing," insisted Anthony Campagni, vice president of agents RKF, who declined to name any prospective tenants. "We should see something in late 2016 or early 2017."

Campagni predicted that the construction of a flagship riverfront Apple Store just east of the Trump Tower will "open up the gates" and draw other businesses to the water.

Restaurants, bigger grocers and co-working office space firms are all being targeted for the 70,000 square feet of space on the building's bottom two floors, Campagni said, adding that "the Trumps are very busy with the campaign" and have not had time to devote themselves to the riddle of their unused retail space.

While many wealthy residents of the Trump Tower told the Tribune in December that Trump's policies targeting Mexicans and Muslims made them embarrassed to admit they lived in a building bearing his name, and a slew of Trump's business partners broke ties with him over his campaign rhetoric, problems leasing the retail space both predate and appear unrelated to his presidential campaign.

First floor, street-level space — most visible from a more heavily used pedestrian path on the side of the building facing the river — was converted to meeting and event rooms last year, leaving the only retail space on lower levels.

Campagni denied that Trump was holding out for too much money but acknowledged that the spaces are "very unique" and require tenants "who want the branding and exposure of being in the Trump Tower, but don't need such easy access from the street."

Form an orderly queue.

 

[fraurosena]

3 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Because of course he did: "Trump calls for another round of tax cuts, further reductions to corporate tax rate"

  Hide contents

President Trump on Friday said he wanted to further lower the corporate tax rate, from 21 percent to 20 percent, as part of a second round of tax cuts later this year.

Trump, in an interview with Fox News to mark the six-month anniversary of the $1.5 trillion tax-cut law Republicans passed last year, said other parts of the new tax plan would be tailored to the middle class.

“One of the things we’re thinking about is bringing the 21 percent down to 20 and for the most part, the rest of it will go right to the middle class,” Trump said. “It’s a great stimulus.”

Trump said the tax plan would be ready by October, “maybe a little sooner than that.”

Trump’s interview with Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo is scheduled to air on Sunday, but the network released some excerpts on Friday.

In the excerpts, Trump did not give more details about what he had planned in terms of tax cuts for the middle class, but Republicans have said they want to bring up a bill that would make permanent tax cuts they passed in December for families and individuals. Those tax cuts are currently scheduled to expire in 2025.

In December, Republicans lowered the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. Lowering the corporate tax rate from 21 to 20 would result in an additional $100 billion in tax cuts over 10 years, according to most models.

Trump also didn’t say whether Republicans planned any other changes to tax policy that might offset these new tax cuts in a way that would prevent a further increase in the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office and other nonpartisan analyses project the tax law passed in December will add more than $1 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. The White House has argued these figures overstate the increase in the deficit, as administration officials generally believe cutting the corporate tax rate leads to tremendous economic growth, thereby creating enough revenue to minimize the fiscal impact.

It could not be immediately learned whether there is broad GOP support for further lowering of the corporate tax rate, and it’s possible some Republicans would block the effort to drop the rate to 20 percent. Since passing their tax law, Republicans have mainly talked about the importance of impressing on voters how the legislation will do more for workers, and they have not talked much about the need to provide more assistance for corporations.

Some Republicans in Congress however have already pushed for further cuts, calling the new package “phase two.”

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Tex.) said this week he expects to try to advance several bills to extend tax cuts before the November midterm elections.

“I expect to see the legislative outline released in early August with votes in the fall, depending on when leadership wants to schedule them,” Brady said Tuesday at an event hosted by The Washington Post. “I don’t see it as one bill. I see it as a package of two, three or four approaches with permanency [in the tax cuts for families and individuals] being one of them.”

Republicans passed the tax package in December using a parliamentary maneuver that allowed them to move the legislation with a simple majority of votes in the Senate, rather than the 60 votes typically required to beat a filibuster.

No Democrats voted for the tax bill, saying they believed it does too much for the wealthy and businesses and not enough for the middle class. Many Democrats also objected to the bill’s projected additions to the deficit.

Republicans have hailed the bill’s passage and said it is leading to a sharp uptick in economic growth, hiring and wages, though results have so far been mixed. A number of companies did announce a spate of one-time bonuses or wage increases because of the legislation, but this applied to a minority of workers.

Wages have generally continued to increase at the same pace they were rising before the legislation was passed. There has also not been a noticeable uptick in capital investment, compared with other countries, though a number of firms have announced immense stock buybacks that immediately benefit shareholders.

Public opinion polls show the majority of Americans still view the tax cuts relatively negatively, with many believing the wealthy and corporations are the biggest recipients of the benefits.

Still, holding a vote on further tax cuts in September or October could prove a thorny political problem for vulnerable Democrats running for reelection in November.

Trump originally wanted to lower the corporate tax rate to 15 percent, but congressional Republicans pushed him higher, constrained by budget rules that limited the scope of the tax cuts. Republicans could try to waive those rules for the second phase of a tax-cut package, though they would need support from Democrats to do this.

There has not been much of a push from business groups since the tax legislation was passed for further reductions in the corporate rate. Rather, they have been mostly worried about the economic impact of the trade fights Trump has engaged in with a number of countries. But tax cuts remain popular with many business groups and they could be used as a way for the White House to get many companies to back down on their opposition to his trade agenda.

 

The stable genius thinks simply mentioning ‘tax cut!’ will benefit him in the midterms. Note how he pointedly states he believes it will be realised in October. The presidunce is going to find out the hard way that exactly the opposite will be acchieved.

[AmazonGrace]

 

[fraurosena]

It's petty, but this makes me giggle.

 

[AmazonGrace]

We simply can't figure out why the moron we serve did an idiotic thing. 

 

[Howl]

@AmazonGrace, I think we're on the same wavelength re: Trump and Putin. The extent to which Trump is working on implementing Russia's global foreign policy objectives is shocking. Again, it's not subtle or hidden in any way.  Like all things Trump, from simple obnoxious malfeasance to outright treason, it's right up front and brutally in our faces.  

And note that I don't use the word treason lightly or for dramatic effect.  What's going on is so antithetical to the interests of the US and our Allies that I can't think any other word suffices.  

[AmazonGrace]

 

[Smoochie]

3 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

LOL Just saw that tweet too ... this has been under discussion for days, it was talked about on our news last week (oil being one of our big stories due to our production), CNBC had an article up on 21June re OPEC talking about this.   Dude swoops in at the last minute and takes credit!

Pretty much par for the course though.  Really not much different than stating he took over a depressed economy, etc.  unemployment numbers were bogus under Obama, but correct under him ... he's dropped it by 1.0 since he took office, yet Obama dropped it by 3+ (up to almost 6) points as it continued to drop after he took office during the recession.

Lather.Rinse.Repeat. story after story!

[AmazonGrace]

 

[fraurosena]

I heard the Trade War is going well. Oh, wait... 

 

[Howl]

@fraurosena, there's so much winning with the trade wars that it's hard to keep up with so darn much winning. 

[fraurosena]

@Howl, I know, right? Just look at this case in point:

Canada announces billions in retaliatory tariffs against U.S.

Quote

Canada announced billions of dollars in retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. on Friday in a tit-for-tat response to the Trump administration's duties on Canadian steel and aluminum.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government released the final list of items that will be targeted beginning July 1. Some items will be subject to taxes of 10 or 25 percent.

Trudeau and President Donald Trump spoke late Friday, in what may have been their first direct conversation since Trump tweeted that Trudeau was "weak" and "dishonest" after leaving the G-7 meetings in Quebec earlier this month.

"As he has said in past conversations and in public, the Prime Minister conveyed that Canada has had no choice but to announce reciprocal countermeasures to the steel and aluminum tariffs that the United States imposed on June 1, 2018," Trudeau's office said in a statement.

"The two leaders agreed to stay in close touch on a way forward."

Trudeau also spoke to Mexican President Enrique Pena Neito and updated him on Canada's response to the U.S. tariffs.

The taxes on items including ketchup, lawn mowers and motor boats amount to $12.6 billion.

"We will not escalate and we will not back down," Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland said.

Freeland said they had no other choice and called the tariffs regrettable.

Many of the U.S. products were chosen for their political rather than economic impact. For example, Canada imports just $3 million worth of yogurt from the U.S. annually and most of it comes from one plant in Wisconsin, the home state of House Speaker Paul Ryan. The product will now be hit with a 10 percent duty.

"This is a perfectly reciprocal action," Freeland said. "It is a dollar for dollar response."

Another product on the list is whiskey, which comes from Tennessee and Kentucky, the latter of which is the home state of Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell.

Freeland also said they are prepared if Trump escalates the trade war.

"It is absolutely imperative that common sense should prevail," she said. "Having said that our approach from day one of the NAFTA negotiations has been to hope for the best but prepare for the worst."

Trump has explained the steel and aluminum tariffs by saying imported metals threatened the United States' national security — a justification that countries rarely use because it can be so easily abused. He is also threatening to impose another national security-based tariff on imported cars, trucks and auto parts. That threat could be a negotiating ploy to restart talks on the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Freeland said there are no grounds for further U.S. tariffs in response to Canada's actions.

Canadians are particularly worried about auto tariffs because the industry is critical to Canada's economy. Freeland said such tariffs would be "absurd" because the North American auto industry is highly integrated and parts made in Canada often go to cars manufactured in the U.S. and then sold back to Canadians. "Any trade action is disruptive on both sides of the border," Freeland said.

Freeland said an "intensive phase" of NAFTA renegotiations will resume quickly after Sunday's elections in Mexico.

"I don't think we'll see any reaction from the Trump administration. They are prepared for this," said Dan Ujczo, a trade lawyer in Columbus, Ohio. "Candidly, the Canadian retaliation is a drop in the bucket compared to the retaliation that we're going to see from China and elsewhere."

Ujczo doubts Trump will announce auto tariffs because that would be a "red line for the U.S. Congress" before the midterm election.

The U.S. Department of Commerce is holding hearings on auto tariffs in late July and will subsequently release an investigative report about whether they threaten national security.

"I don't think Congress right now is expected to get engaged until after the midterm election. They've given the president a long leash and will continue to do so. The auto tariffs would disrupt that. It would change the calculus," Ujczo said.

The Canadian government also announced $1.5 billion in subsidies for Canada's steel and aluminum industries.

 

[ALM7]

On 6/25/2018 at 8:15 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

Junior put a humor hashtag on this post, but since neither he nor Dumpy seem to have an actual sense of humor, I'm wondering if he's sending up a test balloon for the BTs or distracting from everything else going on:

 

I am going to assume, considering their grasp of history, the Trump clan believes Mt. Rushmore is one of the Natural Wonders of the World. Trump's image will surely appear miraculously!

Spoiler

Hmm, I think I like this one ...

Spoiler