aren't you trying to force your beliefs on someone else even though in the eyes of the law you are wrong?

Here we go. Watch the 401k's today.

BEIJING/SHANGHAI (Reuters) - China urged the United States on Friday to "pull back from the brink" as President Donald Trump's plans for tariffs on up to $60 billion in Chinese goods moved the world's two largest economies closer to a trade war.

The escalating tensions sent shivers through financial markets as investors foresaw dire consequences for the global economy if trade barriers start going up.

Trump is planning to impose the tariffs for what he says is misappropriation of U.S. intellectual property. A probe was launched last year under Section 301 of the 1974 U.S. Trade Act.

"China doesn't hope to be in a trade war, but is not afraid of engaging in one," the Chinese commerce ministry responded in a statement.

"China hopes the United States will pull back from the brink, make prudent decisions, and avoid dragging bilateral trade relations to a dangerous place."

In a presidential memorandum signed by Trump on Thursday, there will be a 30-day consultation period that only starts once a list of Chinese goods is published. That effectively creates room for potential talks to address Trump's allegations on intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers.

Though the White House has said the planned tariffs were a response to China's "economic aggression", Trump said he views China as "a friend" and the two sides are in negotiations.

A Chinese commerce ministry official said both sides were in touch.

Still, it is unclear under what terms China and the U.S. are willing to talk, with Beijing adamant that the U.S. tariffs constitute a unilateral move that it rejects.

China has always said it will not hold talks with the U.S. within the framework of the Section 301 probe, Chen Fuli, director-general of the commerce ministry's department of treaty and law, told reporters.

"Currently, we are not looking to get in a negotiation again," a senior U.S. official told reporters in Beijing.

If China wants to avoid U.S. tariffs, it needs to start taking concrete action, the official said, adding that Washington has not given Beijing any to-do list to remedy trade ties.

READY TO RETALIATE

China showed readiness to retaliate by declaring plans to levy additional duties on up to $3 billion of U.S. imports including fruit and wine in response to U.S. import tariffs on steel and aluminium, which were due to go into effect on Friday.

The inevitable fall in demand from a full-blown trade war would spell trouble for all economies supplying the United States and China.

Feeling the chill, MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan fell 2.5 percent, tracking heavy losses on Wall Street. China's main indexes tumbled the most in six weeks, skidding up to 3.6 percent.

"Today's (U.S.) tariffs amount to no more than a slap on the wrist for China," Mark Williams, Chief Asia Economist at Capital Economics, wrote in a note. "China won't change its ways. Worries about escalation therefore won't go away."

Williams estimated that the $506 billion that China exported to the United States drove around 2.5 percent of its total gross domestic product, and the $50-60 billion targeted by the U.S. tariffs contributed just around 0.25 percent.

Trump, however, appears intent on fulfilling election promises to reduce the record U.S. trade deficit with China. A commentary published by the official Xinhua news agency said the United States had adopted a "Cold War mentality", and "panic" over China's economic rise was driving Washington's confrontational approach.

U.S. multi-nationals at a business gathering in Shanghai were warned by Stephen Roach, a Yale University economist, "to prepare for the worst" and make contingency plans until calmer heads prevail.

Roach said he could foresee "the Chinese government moving to restrict, in some form or another, the financial as well as the supply chain activities of American companies operating in this country."

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said China would not hold back in retaliating.

"It's impolite not to give as good as one gets," Hua told reporters.

LOW HANGING FRUIT

Alarm over Trump's protectionist leanings mounted earlier this month after he imposed hefty import tariffs on steel and aluminium under Section 232 of the 1962 U.S. Trade Expansion Act, which allows safeguards based on "national security".

On Friday, Trump gave Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Australia, Brazil and South Korea and the European Union temporary exemptions. China was not exempted even though it was a far smaller supplier than Canada or South Korea.

Also omitted from the exemption list was U.S. ally Japan, though a government spokesman said Tokyo would press to be included. And Finance Minister Taro Aso expressed empathy with Washington over protecting intellectual property.

China's retaliation against the U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminium appeared restrained.

China has drawn a list of 128 U.S. products that could be hit with tariffs if the two countries are unable to reach an agreement on trade issues, the ministry said.

Without giving a timeframe, the commerce ministry said China was considering implementing measures in two stages: first a 15 percent tariff on 120 products including steel pipes, dried fruit and wine worth $977 million, and later, a 25 percent tariff on $1.99 billion of pork and recycled aluminium.

U.S. wine exports to China last year were $79 million, according to the U.S. Wine Institute, which represents Californian wine makers.

Fruit growers in California, Florida, Michigan and Washington all stood to lose as China's list also included close to 80 fruit and nut products. The U.S. exported $669 million of fruit, frozen juice and nuts to China last year, and it was the top supplier of apples, cherries, walnuts and almonds.

"With the restrained response, China hopes Trump can realise his errors and mend his ways," said Xu Hongcai, deputy chief economist at the China Centre for International Economic Exchanges, a Beijing think tank.

"If we really want to counter, the strongest response would be to target soybean and automobiles. China is drawing its bow but not firing. We still have some cards to play."

Democrat Conor Lamb sealed his stunning upset in a special election for a Pennsylvania U.S. House seat that had been in Republican hands for 15 years with a concession from his Republican opponent, state Representative Rick Saccone, a week after voting ended.

“Just got off the phone with my opponent, @RickSaccone4PA, who congratulated me & graciously conceded last Tuesday’s election,” Lamb, 33, said in tweet Wednesday. The Associated Press also reported Saccone’s concession.

More from Bloomberg.com: Trump Hits Again at Mueller, Invoking Dershowitz's Support

Lamb’s narrow win, which still must be certified by the state, is an embarrassing defeat for President Donald Trump, who’d campaigned for the GOP candidate just before the election.

Lamb led Saccone by just 627 votes out of about 228,000 cast. The race remained unsettled for days after the March 13 vote as absentee, military and provisional ballots were counted. Republican officials took initial steps to prepare for a possible recount.

The victory by a Democrat in an area that Trump won by almost 20 points in 2016 is an ominous sign for Republicans looking ahead to elections in November that will decide control of Congress. It is the second time since December that a GOP candidate with the full backing of the president has lost a special election in a heavily Republican area, foreshadowing a potential Democratic surge that may flip control of the House.

The November election will be held amid a slew of retirements by Republicans in closely divided districts, Trump’s historically low approval ratings and polls showing voters favoring Democratic congressional candidates over Republicans. The GOP also is bucking historical trends. Before Tuesday’s election, Democrats needed a net gain of 24 seats, and the party holding the White House has averaged a net loss of 26 in midterm elections since the end of World War II.

Saccone leaned heavily on Trump and promised he’d help the president carry out his agenda. The president, Vice President Mike Pence and president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., all appeared on Saccone’s behalf. National conservative and GOP groups also stepped in to assist Saccone, spending more than $10 million on the race, much of it on TV ads bashing Lamb.

But Saccone, 60, didn’t capture the ardent support that Trump himself generates. He significantly trailed Lamb in fundraising. Unions, which had backed the Republican who previously held the seat, put their money and organizations behind Lamb.

Lamb by contrast distanced himself from national Democrats, saying he wouldn’t support Representative Nancy Pelosi of California as the party’s leader in the House. The Marine veteran backs expanded background checks for gun buyers but opposes major new limits on firearms ownership. He’s also largely avoided talking about Trump.

His mix of positions that weren’t always aligned with the national Democratic Party made it hard for the GOP to cast Lamb as a liberal who’s out of step with voters in the district. That and a focus on local issues was largely the same formula Democrat Doug Jones used to win a special election for the Senate in heavily Republican Alabama.

Democrats hadn’t even run a candidate for the House seat in the last two elections. The Republican who represented the district since the 2002 election, Tim Murphy, resigned last October amid a personal scandal.

The election will be the last in the district as a result of a redrawing of the Pennsylvania political map ordered by the state supreme court.

Posted by The Taint on 3/23/2018 8:40:00 AM (view original):
Here we go. Watch the 401k's today.

BEIJING/SHANGHAI (Reuters) - China urged the United States on Friday to "pull back from the brink" as President Donald Trump's plans for tariffs on up to $60 billion in Chinese goods moved the world's two largest economies closer to a trade war.

The escalating tensions sent shivers through financial markets as investors foresaw dire consequences for the global economy if trade barriers start going up.

Trump is planning to impose the tariffs for what he says is misappropriation of U.S. intellectual property. A probe was launched last year under Section 301 of the 1974 U.S. Trade Act.

"China doesn't hope to be in a trade war, but is not afraid of engaging in one," the Chinese commerce ministry responded in a statement.

"China hopes the United States will pull back from the brink, make prudent decisions, and avoid dragging bilateral trade relations to a dangerous place."

In a presidential memorandum signed by Trump on Thursday, there will be a 30-day consultation period that only starts once a list of Chinese goods is published. That effectively creates room for potential talks to address Trump's allegations on intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers.

Though the White House has said the planned tariffs were a response to China's "economic aggression", Trump said he views China as "a friend" and the two sides are in negotiations.

A Chinese commerce ministry official said both sides were in touch.

Still, it is unclear under what terms China and the U.S. are willing to talk, with Beijing adamant that the U.S. tariffs constitute a unilateral move that it rejects.

China has always said it will not hold talks with the U.S. within the framework of the Section 301 probe, Chen Fuli, director-general of the commerce ministry's department of treaty and law, told reporters.

"Currently, we are not looking to get in a negotiation again," a senior U.S. official told reporters in Beijing.

If China wants to avoid U.S. tariffs, it needs to start taking concrete action, the official said, adding that Washington has not given Beijing any to-do list to remedy trade ties.

READY TO RETALIATE

China showed readiness to retaliate by declaring plans to levy additional duties on up to $3 billion of U.S. imports including fruit and wine in response to U.S. import tariffs on steel and aluminium, which were due to go into effect on Friday.

The inevitable fall in demand from a full-blown trade war would spell trouble for all economies supplying the United States and China.

Feeling the chill, MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan fell 2.5 percent, tracking heavy losses on Wall Street. China's main indexes tumbled the most in six weeks, skidding up to 3.6 percent.

"Today's (U.S.) tariffs amount to no more than a slap on the wrist for China," Mark Williams, Chief Asia Economist at Capital Economics, wrote in a note. "China won't change its ways. Worries about escalation therefore won't go away."

Williams estimated that the $506 billion that China exported to the United States drove around 2.5 percent of its total gross domestic product, and the $50-60 billion targeted by the U.S. tariffs contributed just around 0.25 percent.

Trump, however, appears intent on fulfilling election promises to reduce the record U.S. trade deficit with China. A commentary published by the official Xinhua news agency said the United States had adopted a "Cold War mentality", and "panic" over China's economic rise was driving Washington's confrontational approach.

U.S. multi-nationals at a business gathering in Shanghai were warned by Stephen Roach, a Yale University economist, "to prepare for the worst" and make contingency plans until calmer heads prevail.

Roach said he could foresee "the Chinese government moving to restrict, in some form or another, the financial as well as the supply chain activities of American companies operating in this country."

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said China would not hold back in retaliating.

"It's impolite not to give as good as one gets," Hua told reporters.

LOW HANGING FRUIT

Alarm over Trump's protectionist leanings mounted earlier this month after he imposed hefty import tariffs on steel and aluminium under Section 232 of the 1962 U.S. Trade Expansion Act, which allows safeguards based on "national security".

On Friday, Trump gave Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Australia, Brazil and South Korea and the European Union temporary exemptions. China was not exempted even though it was a far smaller supplier than Canada or South Korea.

Also omitted from the exemption list was U.S. ally Japan, though a government spokesman said Tokyo would press to be included. And Finance Minister Taro Aso expressed empathy with Washington over protecting intellectual property.

China's retaliation against the U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminium appeared restrained.

China has drawn a list of 128 U.S. products that could be hit with tariffs if the two countries are unable to reach an agreement on trade issues, the ministry said.

Without giving a timeframe, the commerce ministry said China was considering implementing measures in two stages: first a 15 percent tariff on 120 products including steel pipes, dried fruit and wine worth $977 million, and later, a 25 percent tariff on $1.99 billion of pork and recycled aluminium.

U.S. wine exports to China last year were $79 million, according to the U.S. Wine Institute, which represents Californian wine makers.

Fruit growers in California, Florida, Michigan and Washington all stood to lose as China's list also included close to 80 fruit and nut products. The U.S. exported $669 million of fruit, frozen juice and nuts to China last year, and it was the top supplier of apples, cherries, walnuts and almonds.

"With the restrained response, China hopes Trump can realise his errors and mend his ways," said Xu Hongcai, deputy chief economist at the China Centre for International Economic Exchanges, a Beijing think tank.

"If we really want to counter, the strongest response would be to target soybean and automobiles. China is drawing its bow but not firing. We still have some cards to play."

there are some negotiations behind the scenes.......to what degree will trump play hardball.......will he accept an offer to reduce the trade deficit even if it is not earth shattering.....china could severly hurt american farmers over soybeans and get them from brazil who have a surplus...once that happens they might get used to it.

Posted by The Taint on 3/23/2018 8:44:00 AM (view original):

Democrat Conor Lamb sealed his stunning upset in a special election for a Pennsylvania U.S. House seat that had been in Republican hands for 15 years with a concession from his Republican opponent, state Representative Rick Saccone, a week after voting ended.

“Just got off the phone with my opponent, @RickSaccone4PA, who congratulated me & graciously conceded last Tuesday’s election,” Lamb, 33, said in tweet Wednesday. The Associated Press also reported Saccone’s concession.

More from Bloomberg.com: Trump Hits Again at Mueller, Invoking Dershowitz's Support

Lamb’s narrow win, which still must be certified by the state, is an embarrassing defeat for President Donald Trump, who’d campaigned for the GOP candidate just before the election.

Lamb led Saccone by just 627 votes out of about 228,000 cast. The race remained unsettled for days after the March 13 vote as absentee, military and provisional ballots were counted. Republican officials took initial steps to prepare for a possible recount.

The victory by a Democrat in an area that Trump won by almost 20 points in 2016 is an ominous sign for Republicans looking ahead to elections in November that will decide control of Congress. It is the second time since December that a GOP candidate with the full backing of the president has lost a special election in a heavily Republican area, foreshadowing a potential Democratic surge that may flip control of the House.

The November election will be held amid a slew of retirements by Republicans in closely divided districts, Trump’s historically low approval ratings and polls showing voters favoring Democratic congressional candidates over Republicans. The GOP also is bucking historical trends. Before Tuesday’s election, Democrats needed a net gain of 24 seats, and the party holding the White House has averaged a net loss of 26 in midterm elections since the end of World War II.

Saccone leaned heavily on Trump and promised he’d help the president carry out his agenda. The president, Vice President Mike Pence and president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., all appeared on Saccone’s behalf. National conservative and GOP groups also stepped in to assist Saccone, spending more than $10 million on the race, much of it on TV ads bashing Lamb.

But Saccone, 60, didn’t capture the ardent support that Trump himself generates. He significantly trailed Lamb in fundraising. Unions, which had backed the Republican who previously held the seat, put their money and organizations behind Lamb.

Lamb by contrast distanced himself from national Democrats, saying he wouldn’t support Representative Nancy Pelosi of California as the party’s leader in the House. The Marine veteran backs expanded background checks for gun buyers but opposes major new limits on firearms ownership. He’s also largely avoided talking about Trump.

His mix of positions that weren’t always aligned with the national Democratic Party made it hard for the GOP to cast Lamb as a liberal who’s out of step with voters in the district. That and a focus on local issues was largely the same formula Democrat Doug Jones used to win a special election for the Senate in heavily Republican Alabama.

Democrats hadn’t even run a candidate for the House seat in the last two elections. The Republican who represented the district since the 2002 election, Tim Murphy, resigned last October amid a personal scandal.

The election will be the last in the district as a result of a redrawing of the Pennsylvania political map ordered by the state supreme court.

I would have voted for Lamb as well.

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/23/2018 7:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dino27 on 3/23/2018 12:46:00 AM (view original):
cars would be cheaper if there were no seatbelts but seatbelts are mandated and wearing them is the law...you have to buy a helmet and wear it to ride a mc....you have to pay into soc. sec.......you do not have control over where your tax money goes.....
the mandate is many faceted in objectives.....forcing people to be responsible to themselves and society is correct......i have no wavering on that.
you have to buy car insurance..another example.

This is the stupidest post you've ever posted. I don't have to buy the motorcycle. I don't have to buy a car. Social security is ridiculous. I could take that same money and get much, much better returns in other investments, so I wouldn't brag about such a stupid program. Forcing people to be responsible is not correct. You libs just don't give a crap about freedoms, which need I remind you, is what our country was founded on. Guess what, I don't have to buy car insurance. I have the option of not driving. Terrible example. You're smarter than Dino. You've proven it many times. Don't get sucked into the liberal stupidity by repeating stupid talking points.

this goes to an entire philosophy of living in an organized state and whether the state through laws decided by the representative legislature can impose certain conditions upon the individual to protect the general society.
when i read strikeouts comments including what he initially said about the risks you take just by being on facebook....what shines through is FU consumer....FU consumer...FU anyone that complains about getting screwed........it is a conflicted anti authority mindset......corporations can get away with murder...govts should be hated because they have the gall to put conditions on natural rights of the individual.
i like the line...this is the stupidist post you've ever posted--------pure steven miller.
when you say social security is ridiculous..that is kind of a 1920s mindset.
we are surely not going to get into discussions of the value of social security and medicare and the like........

Posted by The Taint on 3/23/2018 12:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/22/2018 11:53:00 PM (view original):
What facts?

1. We have a strong economy.
2. He did away with the Obamacare mandate (now I'm not forced to buy a product I don't want)
3. He got our corporate taxes rate closer to being in line with the rest of the world.
4. Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
5. He cut regulations for small businesses. I know you're not a business owner. But the regulations were killing us.
6. He declared Jerusalem the capital.
7. He has gotten ISIS under control. Something Obama couldn't do.

His resume looks pretty go so far. Now give me your "facts" as to where he has not done a good job.

1. Our economy has been strong for years.
2. I'm torn on the mandate, but I'm not sure why people don't want to buy medical insurance. One case of cancer without insurance(and even with) and you are financially ruined.
3. There was nothing wrong with our tax rates. What the rate was and what the effective rate was, were two entirely different beasts. Until we do something to lower our wages to what a lot of the foreign countries pay, jobs aren't coming back
4. LOL...he gets no credit for a nomination to the Supreme Court. That was highway robbery and everyone knows it. If you support the move the Republicans made, then you don't support our constitution.
5. He's also cutting regulations that were put in place to prevent financial meltdowns like we saw in 2009. Rolling back consumer protections for the good of the corporation. The latest is financial services providers no longer having to look out for their clients best interest. He's rolled back environmental protections against drilling in places we don't need to drill....of course he gives Florida an exemption when he finds out there will probably be drilling off Mar-A-Lago.
6. Big ******* deal
7. Isis was becoming more and more under control and it was just a matter of time. he basically used the same strategy that Obama did. He gets little to no credit for that, just like Obama gets little to none for ending the Iraq War. He just went with the same playbook that was being used.

#1) No. The economy was improving but corporate inversions were killing us, the rates were kept artificially low for years and the stock market was over inflated. Seniors could not get any return on their savings accounts or CDs and those who understood had to go to equities while others just struggled. Business were nervous about CAPEX spend, M&A and expansion because BHO was such an unfriendly business President. Regulations were choking banks.

#2) Because it is your choice. If I am 22 and fairly healthy I may be OK risking not having insurance. Now if I break my arm I am screwed for like $5k but I should not be forced into it. I would have been OK supporting nationalized insurance but under the ACA, insurance companies generated the highest profits in their history. I find that abhorrent.

#3) Again corporate inversions were killing us. Companies moving HQ to Ireland and Singapore. You only need to move 20% of ops to reclassify your HQ. So a lot of services companies moved to save on taxes. Such as pharmas. Now there is no need and more cash will stay in the US and we will have more foreign investment here. I understand your POV in that it lowers our income. So we need to give it time and see how it plays out.

#4) Semantics. He ran on this and he put it through.

#5) No no no Dodd Frank and alike went haywire and really punished the banks unfairly. Imagine you are in a class with 30 students and one student cheats on a test and now every day every student in the entire school not just class has to strip to their boxer shorts for every test and quiz and take a lie detector test that they did not cheat. Excessive. This is how we in banking have been choked because of some bad moves by a few people and the rating agencies dropping the ball. In the end the consumer suffers because we just raised our rates and fees. There should be regulations but they went way overboard. Compliance people outnumbered business generators 3 to 1. It was insanity. Absolute insanity. I can discuss this for days because it personally impacted me. The costs to the banks we in the 10s of millions.

#6) It is a big deal to many.

#7) According to a client of mine who in the defense space what strikeout said is correct and what you said is only partially correct. It took Obama too long to recognize the danger of ISIS and by the time his administration started taking them seriously they had spread very far and became very strong. He should have put out that fire sooner.

Taint, what is your view on sanctuary cities?

It's an issue for the state's.

Posted by The Taint on 3/23/2018 9:34:00 AM (view original):
It's an issue for the state's.

Similar to marijuana? Ha ha

Yup

How much did the banks cost our country in 2009?

How can banks get away with opening 10,000's of fake accounts in real peoples names?

We should have just let everyone fail who was poised to fail.

Are you personally for or against them?

Posted by The Taint on 3/23/2018 9:39:00 AM (view original):
How much did the banks cost our country in 2009?

TARP was paid back 100% with interest