What is the Democratic Party position on "tariffs"?

[kentuck]

Is there an official position?

I have heard several Democratic Congressmen support the idea of tariffs. However, I do not know if that was in the plank of the last Democratic Platform?

However, the news media mostly talk about the Republicans that are against it. Even Paul Ryan has spoken out against the idea of "tariffs". Maybe the first time he has opposed Donald Trump on anything?

It's a basic philosophy of free trade that Republicans generally have supported in the past.

[MissMillie]

1. a tarrif might be ok

if the people in this country actually made some money.

My car is 11 years old. If I could make a decent wage, I might be able to buy a new one.

If the price of cars goes up, and my wage doesn't....

[Demsrule86]

7. He didn't protect autos which means autos and other manufacturing will go up in price and be less

competitive with foreign competitors since they will pay higher prices for steel. He should have tariffed autos from Germany, Japan and Korea...Also American plants that make things in cheap third world countries should pay the Tariff as well...like Apple for instance. I have not problem with tariffs but like everything Trump does, he did it stupidly. Our market are pretty much open, but Europe, Japan,China and especially Korea ( there are others) which bans American motorcycles 100% are not. Jobs are the most important issue facing America and we need to protect our industry and empower it.

[FarCenter]

2. The word "tariff" does not appear in the 2016 Democratic Party Platform

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

Page 13 has a section titled "Promoting Trade That Is Fair and Benefits American Workers".

Democrats acknowledge that for millions of Americans, global trade has failed to live up to its
promise—with too many countries breaking the rules and too many corporations outsourcing
jobs at the expense of American workers and communities.
Over the past three decades, America has signed too many trade deals that have not lived up to
the hype. Trade deals often boosted the profits of large corporations, while at the same time
failing to protect workers’ rights, labor standards, the environment, and public health. We need
to end the race to the bottom and develop trade policies that support jobs in America. That is
why Democrats believe we should review agreements negotiated years ago to update them to
reflect these principles. Any future trade agreements must make sure our trading partners
cannot undercut American workers by taking shortcuts on labor policy or the environment. They
must not undermine democratic decision-making through special privileges and private courts
for corporations, and trade negotiations must be transparent and inclusive.
Democrats’ priority is to significantly strengthen enforcement of existing trade rules and the
tools we have, including by holding countries accountable on currency manipulation and
significantly expanding enforcement resources. China and other countries are using unfair trade
practices to tilt the playing field against American workers and businesses. When they dump
14
cheap products into our markets, subsidize state-owned enterprises, devalue currencies, and
discriminate against American companies, our middle class pays the price. That has to stop.
Democrats will use all our trade enforcement tools to hold China and other trading partners
accountable—because no country should be able to manipulate their currencies to gain a
competitive advantage.
While we believe that openness to the world economy is an important source of American
leadership and dynamism, we will oppose trade agreements that do not support good American
jobs, raise wages, and improve our national security. We believe any new trade agreements must
include strong and enforceable labor and environmental standards in their core text with
streamlined and effective enforcement mechanisms. Trade agreements should crack down on the
unfair and illegal subsidies other countries grant their businesses at the expense of ours. It should
promote innovation of and access to lifesaving medicines. And it should protect a free and open
internet. We should never enter into a trade agreement that prevents our government, or other
governments, from putting in place rules that protect the environment, food safety, or the health
of American citizens or others around the world.
These are the standards Democrats believe must be applied to all trade agreements, including the
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

[kentuck]

3. Thanks Far Center!

[FarCenter]

6. Both parties have their protectionist and free trade wings.

The Democratic Party protectionist wing is pretty weak, probably due to the collapse of the industrial unions. Unions today are mostly public employee unions, who have jobs that aren't threatened by trade. With the emphasis on product safety, starting with Nader, and on environmentalism, etc. the Democratic party is more of a "consumer" party than a "worker" party.

[kentuck]

8. I think that is mostly correct.

Although most consumers consider themselves "workers" to a large degree, the "worker" environment has changed over the years, as have both political Parties.

[FarCenter]

11. People opposed to business now do so for other reasons than wages and working conditions.

People who oppose business do so on the basis of unsafe products, pollution, CO2 emissions, unhealthy foods, unsafe drugs, discrimination against classes of worker or customers, production of guns, etc.

This is a lot different than addressing the hard core issues of unemployment and worker income. Even product safety is more of an issue than worker safety.

[kentuck]

12. In your opinion, is that good or bad?

Has there been too much emphasis on "product safety" and things such as our "environment" over the safety of workers?

[FarCenter]

14. In the absence of effective collective politics, people fall back on rugged individualism

Hence the growth of the Tea Party.

[kentuck]

15. How much is just angry populism?

A sense of unfairness.

[FarCenter]

16. If the company you work for ships the tools and equipment to China, you probably think it unfair

pop·u·lism

- support for the concerns of ordinary people.
"it is clear that your populism identifies with the folks on the bottom of the ladder"

- the quality of appealing to or being aimed at ordinary people.
"art museums did not gain bigger audiences through a new populism"

I would think that the Democratic Party would want to support the concerns of ordinary people.

[kentuck]

17. Most people like the idea of supporting the ordinary man...

Even if they may not be ordinary themselves, they support the underdog.

[FarCenter]

18. Therefore most people are populists.

[Hortensis]

19. No. Kentuck's right. Populism is a resentful blame directed at

an amorphous "establishment," whether it deserves it or not. Btw, it's a rare populist "movement" that doesn't also manage to identify some usefully vulnerable minority group or groups to also blame and attack for their problems. Populism is always much larger on the right than left, but this goes for left-wing populism also.

The kind of people who blame their lender when they can't make their mortgage payments and then vandalize their property out of angry spite are likely to similarly blame "the establishment" for their jobs disappearing, regardless of the real reasons.

Populist angers of course typically arise from real problems; but if anyone calls you a "populist" instead of an angry, concerned citizen, be insulted. It's not a compliment.

[FarCenter]

21. So the western-style liberal democracies are controlled by the establishments that populists oppose.

[Hortensis]

22. Always. Governments of, by and for the people are

vulnerable to destruction by their own people because of their lack of strong centralized authorities that are not removable by the people. Like Russia's and China's.

Note that Germany's Democratic Socialist (extreme right wing in spite of its name) takeover was made possible by the uniting of massive left and right populist anger behind a strong man who literally promised them to make Germany great again. Of course, what came next was militant fascism.

Btw, liberals are mankind's strongest anti-fascists. But Germany's were greatly outnumbered when their conservatives united with those on the left, mostly the far left, who were carried away by populist angers and/or the opportunity for destruction and takeover that extremists always want.

[FarCenter]

24. Which happens when establishment politician cater to the elites and abandon the ordinary people.

[Hortensis]

25. Well, my thought on that collection of hackneyed phrases

(WHERE did they come from, btw?) might be taken as an insult. Maybe watch out, though. Trump is not in a position to cut our power and turn our tanks on us, but then Hitler wasn't in the beginning either, until his populists empowered him to.

It is suddenly scary-appropriate to take what Germany's right and left wing populists and extremists, assisted by their own conforming moderate conservatives, did to their nation as a serious object lesson. We now know it could happen here.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. I don't know if there's a plank on it or if it just kinda floats around, but...

Democrats have generally supported tariffs when they pushed as pro-labor.

[kentuck]

5. I think unions have supported the idea of tariffs to protect American jobs?

And, as a general rule, the Democratic Party has supported tariffs, also, in the past.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. Pretty much so, but nobody supports tariffs in general, just specific tariffs, like...

the one Trump is proposing.

Tariffs and embargoes are universally seen as last resorts, ultimately causing price rises and instability in markets. Tariffs as punishment or for purely political purposes are the worst, and the WTO and most economists see them as useful to challenge dumping, but not much more.

[kentuck]

10. I don"t think "tariffs" can work if there is another country...

.... that can produce the product being protected by the tariff. It is my understanding that we do not get a lot of steel from China? But mostly from Canada? Is that correct?

[TreasonousBastard]

13. That's what I've heard. One popular number is 2% of imported steel is Chinese. But...

many products that we import have some Chinese steel in them, so it's impossible to tell for sure. GM builds stuff all over the world, and who knows where the steel in them originally came from.

And does the tariff include the steel in the Buick Envision, which is actually built in China?

[NCTraveler]

20. My thoughts on tariffs are pretty simple.

I'm for intelligent tariffs as a part of a larger package.

What Trump has done is protectionism and makes little to no sense when looked at as a whole. Including them in trade deals increases our clout across the globe and should be designed to protect our workers and raise the standards for other workers.

Tariffs should be used in larger trade deals in order to bring world standards up. That is a win for everyone.

I know that doesn't directly answer your question. I still tried to share my thoughts on the secondary point.

[Bradical79]

23. Don't know, but they're just a tool

And like any tool, you have to use it intellegently and carefully.

[LonePirate]

26. I look at it through a moral lens. Does it help or hurt people?

While the tariffs proposed by 45 may help the US steel and aluminum industries, numerous other industries may suffer. Is it OK to help 10,000 steel workers if 10,000 workers in other industries are hurt by it? Do we or should we be playing favorites? Are their alternatives to tariffs that help these industries without hurting others or is that not even a possibility?

Given that the EU plans to enact tariffs on several products from the US (with Asian nations likely following suit), I am struggling to understand how these tariffs are good for the overall economy. In general, it is safe to oppose anything 45 supports.