Donald Trump and maga Republicans ignore tariff war reality! Duh? Manufactureing in America will not bring any tariff revenues into the economy

Echo opinion letter published in the Grand Forks Herald a newspaper serving North Dakota and parts of Minnesota: Donald Trump's tariffs don't make sense (ya'think❓)

As we approach another (dumb❗) tariff deadline on August 1st, it’s made think about what the point of all this economic chaos could be❓

Tariffs are on; no, just kidding they’re off; actually they’re on, but they’re delayed and the whole world will hurt “bigly” unless they trade with us — or we might delay them again.

Certainly, there must be a reason. As far as I can tell, the administration has stated three main goals. (1) They want the tariffs to bring back manufacturing to the United States (okay, but "when"❓; (2) they want the tariffs to lead to better trade deals that are more favorable to the purchasing power of the United States (okay, but "how so", when these "partners" are finding other international customers❓; (3) and they want to balance the budget with the revenue from Donald Trump’s tariffs (all while the rich get richer with tax cuts that could have achieved this third elusive objective).

All three of these goals are mutually exclusive. If you want the tariffs to bring back manufacturing, then they can’t be bargaining chips, because dropping tariffs (as would be a possibility in a negotiation) would end the protection for domestic manufacturing. 

Likewise, they can’t be used to increase revenue for balancing the budget if we’re going to drop them when we get a favorable deal.🙄 They also can’t be used to increase revenue if the plan is to restore domestic production. The revenue for tariffs comes from the importer paying duties  (a.k.a. "taxes:) when the goods are brought into the country. If you onshore manufacturing, you’ll no longer be bringing in goods to be tariffed, meaning you won’t have that revenue to balance the budget. 

The Donald Trump trade war makes no sense.

From Tony Hollingsworth in Grand Forks

1

Donald Trump showsbsigns of cognitive impairmen and dangerous mental incompetnce

Echo opinion letters published in the Grand Forks Herald

Donald Trump and cognitive incompetence, an opinion letter:
Donld Trump is truly unfit to rule❗

He would come back to the same topic three or four times during the hour-long attempted conversation, repeating the same things. He changed his mind on things on a daily basis and often forgot what he had said.

During Trump's news conference, we sitnesses his incompetent clown car cabinet.

He did exactly the same and acted the same way. At several points he went back to his same old rally points, i.e. the press is corrupt; Russia, Russia, Russia; people who preceded him were idiots; other countries emptied out their insane asylums and sent them here; the planes that bombed were beautiful; Democrats hate America etc., etc., etc.

He is obsessed with illegal immigrants.

I fear he is going down the same path as my brother.

Is he fit to rule as our dictator issuing executive orders like the one that banned paper straws in favor of plastic ones?

From Lee Murdock in Grand Forks North Dakota

I fear he is going down the same path as my brother, who had Alzheimer's.

Letter to the editor, My brother died of Alzheimer's two years ago. During the last stages, even though I knew it was a futile effort, I tried to call and visit with him. No matter how hard I tried to keep him on a topic he would wander off onto related and often unrelated topics.

He would come back to the same topic three or four times during the hour-long attempted conversation, repeating the same things. He changed his mind on things on a daily basis and often forgot what he had said.

I watched Donald Trump's news conference with his (clown car) cabinet. He did exactly the same and acted the same way. 

At several points he went back to his same old rally points, i.e. the press is corrupt; Russia, Russia, Russia; people who preceded him were idiots; other countries emptied out their insane asylums and sent them here; the planes that bombed were beautiful; Democrats hate America etc., etc., etc.

He is obsessed with demonizing innocent immigrants.

I fear he is going down the same path as my brother.

Is he fit to rule as our dictator issuing executive orders like the one

 that banned paper straws in favor of plastic ones?

From Lee Murdock in Grand Forks, North Dakota

Republicans and soybeans

It makes no sense to me (Maine Writer) that North Dakota farmers would support Republicans who won't stand up to Donald Trump, when the trade policies initiated by Trump's harmful policies are causing harm to their well being and maybe to the future of agribusiness.

This echo article published in the North Dakota opinion page of the Grand Forks Herald by Rob Port.

A harbinger of worry for North Dakota....

Although the opinion is about soybeans, the issue expands, in my mind, to how this problem can eventually impact on the American food supply. It's about soybeans but it could be almost any crop. Eventually farmers will stop planting what does not sell unless Republicans do something to stop Donald Trump's irresponsible trade wars.

“Elevators in the eastern portion of the state have pulled their bids for soybeans,” Dr. Frayne Olson, a crop economics expert from North Dakota State University, tells the Williston Herald. “There is literally no price for soybeans.”

Right now Olson said there is only a small number of elevators in our region where this is a problem, but that he expects the problem to grow.

If he’s right, this is a real political problem for Republicans. Particularly the two Republicans running for Congress this cycle: U.S. House candidate Kelly Armstrong and Senate candidate Kevin Cramer.

For months now Democrats have invested themselves heavily in messaging critical of the Trump administration’s trade policies and the collateral damage they’ve caused to American businesses. Particularly in the agriculture industry.

While it’s fair to say that much of that rhetoric has been hyperbole, (Oh, paleeeze IMO too much cliche here!) there has been always been an element of truth to it as well.

Republicans, meanwhile, have been forced into a balancing act where they express concern about the side effects of Trump’s approach to trade while simultaneously expressing support for his overarching goals. That’s been their public messaging, anyway.

Privately I’ve had Republicans working on these campaigns tell me that if some of this uncertainty for agriculture isn’t cleared up – and by that they meant both the trade issues and the lingering debate over the farm bill – they’re going to have problems.

It seems, based on these reports about soybeans, the problems have arrived.

But how will that impact voting trends?

On one hand, voters are very much influenced by recency bias. Republicans can argue that short term turbulence in the commodities markets is the price of admission to making real progress toward better trade deals, but that probably comes as cold comfort to farmers staring down the barrel of real financial losses in the here and now.

On the other hand even Democrats acknowledge that the impetus for Trump kicking off this trade war – the idea that America has received the short end of the stick from trade partners like China – is real. And when asked what they’d do differently to solve the problem they admit is real they start running down a litany of approaches which have all been tried in the past.

Trump supporters – and there may be no other place in the country where Trump has more political support than North Dakota – voted for him because they wanted a new approach to persistent problems like trade and immigration. If those voters in North Dakota can keep the faith, even while some of them take a hit to the bank account, it will go well for Republicans.

If Democrats can successfully convince voters to pay attention to short term pain, instead of the possibilities of long term gains, it will go well for them.

Based on all of the publicly available polling data we have Armstrong has a commanding lead over Democrat Mac Schneider in the House race. This issue, even if it hurts him, probably won’t turn the election.

In the Senate race, while it’s clear that Cramer has the momentum in this moment, this issue could turn on him very quickly and throw victory to incumbent (and competent) Senator Heidi Heitkamp.

Echo on Trump's failed Helsinki performance

An echo opinion- editorial published in The Washington Post and reprinted in the Grand Forks Herald in North Dakota.

Poll: Americans give Trump negative marks for Helsinki performance

By wide margins, Americans give President Donald Trump negative marks for his conduct during a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week and for his casting doubt on U.S. intelligence conclusions that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.

But public reaction nationally appears more muted than in Washington, where Trump faced withering bipartisan criticism for appearing to side with Putin over U.S. intelligence agencies at a Monday news conference in Helsinki. Most Americans do not feel Trump went "too far" in supporting Putin, and while more Americans say U.S. leadership has gotten weaker than stronger under Trump, his ratings on this question are slightly improved from last fall.

The findings indicate that while Trump was judged critically for his summit performance, the event has not at this time proved to be a significant turning point in his presidency, despite the sharp criticism he received in the hours and days after the meeting and the multiple efforts by White House officials and the president to clarify his (double negative?) remarks in Helsinki. 

Unfortunately, the poll results suggest that overall attitudes toward the president have hardened on both sides and that major events like Helsinki produce only modest changes in his overall standing, if any.

The Post-ABC poll conducted Wednesday through Friday finds that overall, 33 percent of Americans approve of Trump's handling of his meeting with Putin while 50 percent disapprove. A sizable 18 percent say they have no opinion. A slightly larger 56 percent disapprove of Trump expressing doubts about U.S. intelligence agencies' conclusion that Russia tried to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. On both questions, those who say they "strongly disapprove" of Trump's performance outnumber those who say they "strongly approve" by better than 2 to 1.

Trump's ratings for handling the summit represent a weakened moment for him, but they are not markedly worse than ratings of his presidency overall in other recent polls. A Washington Post-Schar School poll earlier this month, for instance, found 43 percent approved of Trump's job performance while 55 percent disapproved, with strong disapproval outpacing strong approval by roughly 2 to 1.

The new Post-ABC poll finds 40 percent saying Trump went "too far" in supporting Putin, a criticism that was voiced by both Democrats and Republicans in Washington over the past week.

(Incredulously!) ~ However, almost as many - 35 percent - say Trump handled Putin "about right," while another 15 percent say he did not go far enough to support Putin. The rest have no opinion. Democrats, liberals and college graduates are the only groups in the poll among whom a majority say Trump went too far in supporting Putin.

Partisans split in their ratings of Trump's meeting with Putin, but Republicans are less united in support for Trump than in other recent polls about his presidency. Among Democrats, 83 percent disapprove of Trump's handling of the meeting, while among Republicans, 66 percent approve of Trump's performance. By way of comparison, in the Post-Schar School survey, 87 percent of Republicans said they approved of Trump's overall job performance as president.

A bare majority of Republicans in the new poll - 51 percent - approve of Trump expressing doubts about U.S. intelligence conclusions on Russian election interference. But a smaller 31 percent disapprove, with 18 percent offering no opinion. Among Democrats, 78 percent disapprove of what Trump said about U.S. intelligence findings, as do 59 percent of independents.

Independents lean negative on Trump's handling of the summit overall, with 33 percent approving and 46 percent disapproving. Self-identified "moderates" are particularly negative, with 64 percent disapproving of how Trump handled the meeting, nearly as high as 73 percent among liberals. A smaller 58 percent majority of conservatives approve of Trump's conduct at the summit.

The Post-ABC poll finds that 47 percent say that under Trump, America's leadership in the world has gotten weaker, versus 30 percent who say it has gotten stronger. That is an improvement on last November, when the margin between those who said weaker versus those who said stronger was 27 percentage points.

Despite Republicans' lukewarm support for Trump's Helsinki performance, they express growing confidence in his ability to project U.S. strength around the world. A 74 percent majority of Republicans say American leadership has "gotten stronger" under Trump, up from 53 percent last November and 61 percent last July. By contrast, 80 percent of Democrats currently say Trump has weakened U.S. leadership around the world.

On this question, independents lean more negatively than positively, with 22 percent saying America's leadership has gotten stronger under Trump, 47 percent weaker and about one-quarter saying it has stayed the same.

College graduates had a much sharper negative reaction to Putin's summit than those without college degrees - college grads are 18 points more likely to disapprove of Trump's summit performance (62 percent vs. 44 percent). Those without college degrees are nearly three times as likely to say they have no opinion of Trump's performance.

In contrast to many surveys about the president and politics, the Helsinki poll produced only modest gender differences. Men were slightly less disapproving of the president's handling of the summit than women, but the gap was not statistically significant.

Young Americans - those under age 40 - gave Trump lower marks for his overall handling of the summit than did those over 40. But younger and older Americans tended to offer similar assessments to other questions.

The Post-ABC poll was conducted by landlines and cellphones from July 18 to 20 among a random national sample of 464 adults. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of 5.5 percentage points, which is larger among subgroups.

Health care costs for patients with a cancer diagnosis

This opinion letter to the editor is an echo published in the Grand Forks Herald a Minnesota  newspaper.

To the editor,

No one wants to hear the words "you have cancer." 

For some of us, that fear has been realized, for others, we face increased risk. If that day comes, having access to affordable, adequate health coverage may be the difference between life and death.

American Cancer Society research shows individuals who do not have health insurance are more likely to be diagnosed with cancer at a later stage when it's costlier to treat and more difficult to survive.

When the health care law was enacted, it established patient protections in health coverage plans to ensure individuals with a health history or those who may be diagnosed in the future don't lose coverage because of their illness. But those protections are now threatened by a proposed rule from Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar. The proposal would allow short-term plans to be offered on a more long-term basis. These plans skirt the critical patient protections other health plans must cover. 

Not only does this mean more plans could once again deny people coverage based on their health history, but it could divide the marketplace and that instability could drive up premiums of more comprehensive plans to unaffordable levels.

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, Sen. John Hoeven, and Rep. Kevin Cramer, we need you to stand up for these critical patient protections, and help ensure cancer patients, survivors and all at risk of developing the disease have access to the health coverage we need. Please urge Secretary Azar to stop this flawed regulation from moving forward to ensure patients don't lose access to affordable, meaningful coverage.

Nicole Streich, Grand Forks, Minnesota

Children of immigrants are Americans - protected from deportation

A majority of Americans agree with protecting the immigration status of children, under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), by preventing their deportations, just because cruel Donald Trump and his Trumpzi administration wants to please the right wing political base. 

Regrettably, I get the impression that Donald Trump and the Trumpzi cult would just as soon put all of who are children of immigrants on deportation airplanes. Indeed, if the Trump administration can deport children of some immigrants, what's to stop them from doing the same to all of us?

Here's a letter to the editor published in the North Dakota, Grand Forks Herald written by Bruce W. Furness ~ Fargo

Letter: Saving DACA should be a priority in U.S.

To the editor,

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Act, which allows children who entered the U.S. to request permission to remain here for school, university attendance, or work, was (sadly and wrongly!) terminated in September, by Donald Trump (and the Trumpzi)  administration.

Though not receiving a great deal of attention in North Dakota, the DACA program has allowed nearly 100 young people to come forward, pass background checks and live and work legally in our state. DACA helps these young people thrive economically and educationally.

Across our nation, DACA has changed the lives of nearly 800,000 young people who have lived in the United State since their childhood, allowing them to better contribute to their families and communities.

This month, 100 top business executives sent a letter to leaders in Congress asking them to quickly resolve this situation and to stop the deportation of the young 'DREAMers', 91 percent of whom are working and contributing to society. Failing to resolve this issue could lead to a $215 billion reduction in the U.S. gross domestic product.

The arrival of people with new accents, new ideas and new ways of doing things are part of what fueled the growth of Fargo while I served as its mayor. 

In fact, in Fargo, we welcomed people from all parts of the U.S. and the world to help grow our economy and fill job openings. With nearly 13,000 openings in North Dakota today, we can look to the Dreamers to help keep our state's future economy strong and vibrant.

Besides the economic impact, there is an emotional impact on these young people who have only known life in America.

Contact Sen. Hoeven, Sen. Heitkamp and Rep. Kevin Cramer, to gain their support for the re-establishment of DACA (including a provision for their right to a path to citizenship!). 

We need quick restoration, not only to strengthen the economy, but because it's the right thing to do.

Bruce W. Furness,  Former mayor of Fargo

Donald Trump is good for Democrats - says North Dakota

Democrats can appreciate one aspect of the failed Donald Trump executive "non-leadership".

In fact, Trump's unpopularity is so pervasive, that he is providing energy to Democrats who might otherwise be unable to win elections, if Secretary Hillary Clinton had become the president.

Here's what the North Dakota newspaper Grand Forks Herald had to say about the re-election prospects of their Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp:

Senator Heidi Heitkamp is a Democratic senator from North Dakota; born in Breckenridge, Minn., October 30, 1955; graduated University of North Dakota, B.A., 1977; graduated Lewis & Clark College, J.D., 1980; lawyer, Environmental Protection Agency 1980-1981; lawyer, Office of the North Dakota 1986-1992; attorney general of North Dakota 1993-2000; unsuccessful Democratic candidate for governor of North Dakota in 2000; elected as a Democrat to the United States Senate in 2012 for the term ending January 3, 2019.

Trump has greatly helped the Senate career of Sen. Heitkamp ~ by Jim Shaw

North Dakota Republican Rep. Kevin Cramer's decision not to run for the U.S. Senate was a wise one.

Cramer wasn't going to defeat incumbent North Dakota Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp. 

Heitkamp has raised lots of money, and has effectively positioned herself as a popular moderate in conservative North Dakota. She has bucked her party on issues such as guns and energy, much to the chagrin of her liberal supporters, but much to the delight of most North Dakotans.

Now Cramer can run and win his safe House seat, rather than have to look for a job in the private sector. 

Cramer had to reject President Trump's arm twisting to run for the Senate, but Trump had nothing to lose. If Cramer ran and lost to Heitkamp, another Republican would have come along to replace him. In fact, that's how Cramer ended up in the House to begin with. In 2012, North Dakota Republican Rep. Rick Berg ran against Heitkamp for the Senate and lost, opening the door for Cramer to win the House seat. 

It's likely Cramer learned from Berg's defeat that running against Heitkamp was a trap.

My guess is Cramer really wants to be a senator. Every member of the House wants to be in the Senate, and every senator wants to be president. 

North Dakota has a long history of representatives becoming senators. In recent history, Democrats Quentin Burdick and Byron Dorgan moved from the House to the Senate as did Republican Mark Andrews. Berg had good reason to think he could make the jump too, before Heitkamp's surprising victory.

Some say Cramer would have won because of President Trump's popularity in North Dakota, with Cramer being one of his most loyal and devoted supporters. After all, Trump won the state in 2016 by 36 points over Hillary Clinton. 

Don't be fooled by that. Much of Trump's big win in North Dakota is because he's a Republican and Clinton was a flawed and disliked candidate. 

Remember, North Dakota hasn't voted in favor of a Democratic Presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson in 1964, but in those 52 years it has elected Democratic Senators Burdick, Kent Conrad, Dorgan and Heitkamp.

In 2016, Trump's coattails were a major factor in the re-election of Republican senators in North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. 

Nevertheless, that was then and this is now. With his crude and unfit performance as president, Trump has turned from an asset to a liability. The recent elections in New Jersey, Virginia, Alabama and Wisconsin were a direct rebuke of Trump. The reality is if Hillary Clinton was elected president, Heitkamp would have no chance to be re-elected, as she would have been linked to Clinton. Trump might be a disaster for the country, but he's greatly helped the Senate career of Heitkamp.