[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions This Speech Just Broke the Internet This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God! The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’ The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: Poll: Farmers Support Tariffs On China Source: [None] URL Source: https://www.oann.com/poll-farmers-support-tariffs-on-china/ Published: Aug 15, 2019 Author: OAN Newsroom Post Date: 2019-08-15 07:44:34 by A K A Stone Keywords: None Views: 1942 Comments: 41 A survey conducted by Iowa State University has found that farmers in Iowa, Minnesota, and Illinois support President Trump’s tariffs against China. According to the study, nearly 60-percent of respondents in those states expressed support for the ongoing trade war, while 14-percent had neutral feelings on the matter. This comes after Beijing announced earlier this month it would be suspending purchases of all U.S. agricultural farm products in response to the Trump administration’s recent round of tariffs targeting $300 billion in Chinese imports. Although the heightened trade tensions between Washington and Beijing has resulted in a near $10 billion decrease in U.S. agricultural exports to China, domestic farm exports have continued to rise. This suggests other countries have started buying products that China has dropped. Nonetheless, farmers feel the tariffs have put pressure on their industry with nearly 80-percent of respondents saying they fear farmers will bear the brunt of the trade dispute. President Trump has been eager to address this fear. “Again, they’ve said this many times, they’ve said they’re going to buy farm products, so far they’ve disappointed me with the truth,” he stated. “They haven’t been truthful or let’s say they have certainly delayed this decision, but it’s their intention to buy a lot of farm products and we did, we had a very good call with China.” On Tuesday, the president announced he will be holding off on a number of tariffs scheduled for September, so consumers won’t be affected during the holiday season. “We’re doing this for Christmas season, just in case some of the tariffs would have an impact on U.S. customers, but so far they’ve had virtually none,” explained President Trump. “The only impact has been that we’ve collected almost $60 billion from China, compliments of China, but just in case they might have an impact on people, what we’ve done is we’ve delayed it so that they won’t be relevant for the Christmas shopping season.” Poster Comment: Real Americans support Tariffs. Fake Americans don't. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 30. #30. To: A K A Stone (#0) A survey conducted by Iowa State University has found that farmers in Iowa, Minnesota, and Illinois support President Trump’s tariffs against China. According to the study, nearly 60-percent of respondents in those states expressed support for the ongoing trade war, while 14-percent had neutral feelings on the matter. Well, that only covers 74% of the farmers, assuming they were truthful and it was a representative sample. Trump should worry a little (or a lot) over that other 26% who would be hostile toward tariffs. Real Americans support Tariffs. Fake Americans don't. The Constitution contains tariffs as the primary lawful means of federal taxation. Not income taxes, not property taxes, and not sales taxes. The Founders believed only in tariffs so as to encourage domestic manufacture and prevent an outflow of capital to financial rivals. Until they amended the Constitution in 1913 to institute a supposed very small and never-to-increase income tax paid mostly by the wealthy, there has been a steady expansion of all kinds of taxes and fees and such. Wiki: The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states on the basis of population. It was passed by Congress in 1909 in response to the 1895 Supreme Court case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 3, 1913, and effectively overruled the Supreme Court's ruling in Pollock. Prior to the early 20th century, most federal revenue came from tariffs rather than taxes, although Congress had often imposed excise taxes on various goods. The Revenue Act of 1861 had introduced the first federal income tax, but that tax was repealed in 1872. During the late nineteenth century, various groups, including the Populist Party, favored the establishment of a progressive income tax at the federal level. These groups believed that tariffs unfairly taxed the poor, and they favored using the income tax to shift the tax burden onto wealthier individuals. The 1894 Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act contained an income tax provision, but the tax was struck down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. In its ruling, the Supreme Court did not hold that all federal income taxes were unconstitutional, but rather held that income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were direct taxes and thus had to be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. For several years after Pollock, Congress did not attempt to implement another income tax, largely due to concerns that the Supreme Court would strike down any attempt to levy an income tax. In 1909, during the debate over the Payne–Aldrich Tariff Act, Congress proposed the Sixteenth Amendment to the states. Though conservative Republican leaders had initially expected that the amendment would not be ratified, a coalition of Democrats, progressive Republicans, and other groups ensured that the necessary number of states ratified the amendment. Shortly after the amendment was ratified, Congress imposed a federal income tax with the Revenue Act of 1913. The Supreme Court upheld that income tax in the 1916 case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., and the federal government has continued to levy an income tax since 1913. Notice that there was a temporary 1861 income tax which was repealed in 1872. Well, the Supreme Court was unlikely to tell Lincoln he couldn't have a federal income tax during a civil war when they'd already botched the Dred Scott case so badly. The Court would probably have otherwise struck that tax down too which they had a habit of doing. As originally constituted, the federal income tax was supposed to be progressive, mostly paid by business and the investor class. It was supposed to alleviate the heavier burdens the poor faced in paying tariffs for vital goods and was supposedly more fair. There is a genuine distortion in the modern application of the tax, particularly the tax deal that Republicans got Trump to pass. The new tax regime, unfortunately, undermines most of the fairness argument on income taxes to level the field mostly. But this was not a tax ever intended to be paid primarily by the middle class or working class. But since the states ratified the federal income tax, they have used that authority to run wild and run the rates through the roof or try to reduce them to almost nothing, depending on which party is controlling the Senate. The real problem, I think, is the refusal of either party to ever permanently cut the size and scope of government including the military. Maybe especially the military, given that we spend more than the next half-dozen other countries spend on their military combined. And with so much money involved, there is a lot of fraud, a scandalously bad procurement and research system, a lot of money to produce rather mediocre weapon systems. And pay the men who staff the military and risk their lives for it no more than a stipend. Increase it a fraction if they have families because the pols are afraid to exploit them too nakedly for fear of public backlash. We also need to limit income redistribution schemes far more. There are lot of people, maybe millions, on disability who aren't disabled at all. In fact, very large numbers of them have left their disability status and returned to work in the new Trump economy. We need to end the corporate giveaways, the farm subsidies, all the tax breaks given to non-profits, the phony charities that are just tax deductions for the hobbies and social events of the rich, all that crap. But who wants to elect pols who promise cuts and pain to various segments of the economy? No one except a few cranks like me. Our economy is so distorted by these various giveaways and protectionism that we scarcely know or can even understand the fairness of the system. We need, more than anything, to take away Congress' checkbook for anything other than minimal defense needs and keeping the interstates maintained, probably spending about half of what we currently spend. We have a real spending problem, not a taxation problem. Much as I like what Trump is trying to do, I'm not sure that his agreement to sign the GOP tax bill was wise. The deficits are high, even if the economy has responded. OTOH, he didn't get a 100 days of political honeymoon or the usual free rein that presidents get on spending. Hell, 0bama had no plan at all and was allowed to squander $1 trillion and almost double the federal debt in two terms. So I don't favor further expansions of debt as it is a hidden method of taxation that is extremely regressive and is only favorable ultimately to those institutions that are Too Big To Fail. It is otherwise extremely regressive, falling on working class and middle class families and the elderly and those without the means (or lobbyists) to get themselves exempted from the effects of such policies. We also need for everyone to have more skin in the game. The rich, the upper class, the middle class, the working class, the disabled, everyone. No more voting for free riders who just plunder the system at will, knowing they'll never have to pay but they'll get a lot for essentially selling their votes for a greater return. This is not what the Founders intended but I have to say that I think they expected it would happen. One of them called America "a democracy, if you can keep it". We've managed to live down to their worst fears, not their highest ambitions. Tooconservative  posted on  2019-08-15   9:58:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 30.         There are no replies to Comment # 30. End Trace Mode for Comment # 30. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com