Have We Met That “Pain Threshold” Yet?

The Trump administration rolled out a second round of farm subsidy to help farmers hurt by the trade war with China. The additional $16 billion subsidy brings the total aid from American taxpayers to $28 billion for agriculture. With the price tag increasing, the talk of “hysteria,” “pain thresholds,” and political attempts to downplay the real-world impacts of this trade war should be scoffed at. Yet, politicians and political organizations are attempting to continue and accomplish just that.

As the trade war with China first began to escalate Kevin Cramer questioned farmer’s “pain threshold.” Short-term pain for long-term gain was Cramer’s fall back talking point. All the questions highlighting whether the administration had a plan to be victorious in the “good and easy to win” trade war was deemed “hysteria.”

RELATED: HOEVEN PUSHES MISLEADING CLAIM ON TARIFFS. GETS FACT CHECKED

RELATED: ARMSTRONG ABSENT ON TARIFF TALK AND PROPOSED FARM SUBSIDY PAYMENT

A year and another multi-billion subsidy later, Cramer acknowledges the trade war is having real impacts on family farms. He “appreciates” the administration for recognizing the need to alleviate the pain in rural America. Apparently, farmers have met the “threshold.” Cramer also seems to believe a resolution is taking longer than he anticipated. It further justifies why we’ve asked if this administration has a plan. Welcome to reality, Senator.

Make no mistake, there are legitimate reasons that warrant attempts to correct trade with China. Yet, the way of which President Trump chose to go about it also warrants a debate. Pointing out that rather than going it alone, the administration should have rallied allies to apply collective pressure on China doesn’t make one unpatriotic.

Without question, there are many people still clinging to hope and are optimistic that the administration does have a game plan. They push back on commentary like this post saying “prices were already down!” As if that somehow justifies the administration’s actions that have harmed markets further impacting their bottom line. If it truly isn’t as serious as they’d like others to believe, and this trade dispute isn’t having the impact as has been claimed, then how can those same people justify the necessity for nearly $30 billion in taxpayer-funded subsidies specifically to offset the trade war impacts?

You may also like

0 comments