Montana farmers see Canadian trade dry up due to tariffs
Montana farmers see Canadian trade dry up due to tariffs
nbcmontana.com
Montana farmers see Canadian trade dry up due to tariffs
More farmers FOFA.
33 comments
-
Aw, those poor poor Trump supporters. What a terrible misfortune to have befallen them.
-
Looks like the 20 sane people in that state need to move immediately for their own safety and well being.
- https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/montana
There's less than 1k people in some of those deep red counties, and they are extremely isolated. I'm not excusing the fact that many of the voters here are republican, but much of the state doesn't even have cell phone service. They've never had a reason to change how they think, and yes it's disgusting to hear some of their views. I just wish I knew how to get people to open their eyes to more than the tiny towns their families have lived in for generations
-
-
Maybe don't vote republican next time, you mouth-breathing imbeciles.
-
But I thought the tariffs were going to be paid for by Canada? Right? Right?
How do these fucking twits believe anything that the Republicans tell them? If you bet against everything that comes out of their mouths, you'd end up as rich as they're trying to get.
-
*gestures vaguely at bootstraps.
-
Schweitzer said the Montana Farmers Union supports tariffs that are done strategically and targeted, but he adds that isn't the case with recent implementations.
Like so many Republicans, be didn't have a problem with what's being done, just with the way it's implemented.
However, a bipartisan bill could help manage more tariffs from being added. The Trade Review Act of 2025 would require the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of imposing or increasing a duty on imported goods, including an explanation and assessment of its impact on U.S. businesses and consumers.
A) That's not going to do anything; and B) the Republicans already signed a bill last month, saying that the entire rest of the year is one day long explicitly so they wouldn't have to do anything about the tariffs.
-
Yeah. They're fine with fucking everyone else over. It's when it's them that is being fucked they have a problem.
Too bad, so sad, get fucked.
-
Being pro-tariff can (and should) be like being pro-modern medicine. Targeted use saves lives, but the only difference between medicine and poison is the dosage and treatment vector. Tariffs should be used like every other regulation on the economy, but since Reagan the dosages of every regulation have all been way out of whack either way too low or way too high. There is a place for some protectionism, just not like this obviously.
-
-
B) the Republicans already signed a bill last month, saying that the entire rest of the year is one day long explicitly so they wouldn't have to do anything about the tariffs.
This is the first I've heard of this. Wtf?
-
Trump imposed tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China by declaring illegal migration and fentanyl constituted a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the National Emergencies Act. [Under] the NEA, Congress has the authority to move quickly to terminate that emergency declaration. [...] The section reads, "Each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025." Source
Which means that the only people (afaik) who could have ended the 'national emergency' that he's using for a lot of his declarations, signed that power away for this next year. Meaning he's going to spend this next year dismantling the rule of law and ensconce himself as emperor.
-
-
-
womp womp
-
Montana is redder than the devil’s dick, so fuck em. Try fentanyl.
-
#GOOD
-
Fuckem. From a patriotic American who wants to see trump voters fucking starve.
-
Unfoortunately, it says prices (presumably domestic) dropped though - that should be good for US consumers, all else equal.
I'd expect the people in Montana to have more/cheaper food in general at least in the short term. Farmers might make less profits, but even if they are making a short term loss - you'd expect them switch to a lower cost crop rather than stop production entirely.
In this case it is the Canadians that suffer lower food supply.
In the long run Montana food supply might suffer if their farmers struggle to get say fertiliser, pesticides, seed crops, bull semen, tractors and so on - that depends on their supply chain for those things.
Lower income might also impact the state's general ability to import other stuff, exotic foods and luxuries, but as far as domestic food is concerned I'd think they'd be ok.
-
-
I hope putin doesn't nuke us starting in Montana, that precious Gloryhole of wonder.
33 comments