It’s because they have a very simple problem: they are inconsistent on their messaging on tariffs
Depending on who you talk to, it does one of two things and it can’t be both by definition: either they are a negotiating tactic to squeeze better deals out of nations that they (incorrectly) believe are taking advantage of us, OR it’s the new way of doing things because they want to stop globalism and make America self-sufficient (can’t put the genie back in the bottle but won’t stop them from trying).
Everyone in his admin/surrogate/etc. has a slightly different answer hinging on one of those two contradictory explanations.
Three actually. The admin has also consistently claimed that they’re a new source of revenue that will offset tax cuts (in some versions this removes income taxes entirely).
And yes, as you said (and I’ve made this point more than a few times on here myself), each version of what the tariffs do is mutually exclusive with the others. If they’re a bargaining tactic, they cannot be a source of revenue or a permanent change to manufacturing, because a bargaining tactic requires the offer of the tariffs being removed. Even if they’re not actually a bargaining tactic and are in fact intended to be permanent, they can’t be both a source of revenue and a way to rebuild American manufacturing. For the tariffs to be a source of revenue, imports have to continue at their existing levels. If manufacturing repatriates, the revenue disappears.
It’s because they have a very simple problem: they are inconsistent on their messaging on tariffs
Depending on who you talk to, it does one of two things and it can’t be both by definition: either they are a negotiating tactic to squeeze better deals out of nations that they (incorrectly) believe are taking advantage of us, OR it’s the new way of doing things because they want to stop globalism and make America self-sufficient (can’t put the genie back in the bottle but won’t stop them from trying).
Everyone in his admin/surrogate/etc. has a slightly different answer hinging on one of those two contradictory explanations.
Three actually. The admin has also consistently claimed that they’re a new source of revenue that will offset tax cuts (in some versions this removes income taxes entirely).
And yes, as you said (and I’ve made this point more than a few times on here myself), each version of what the tariffs do is mutually exclusive with the others. If they’re a bargaining tactic, they cannot be a source of revenue or a permanent change to manufacturing, because a bargaining tactic requires the offer of the tariffs being removed. Even if they’re not actually a bargaining tactic and are in fact intended to be permanent, they can’t be both a source of revenue and a way to rebuild American manufacturing. For the tariffs to be a source of revenue, imports have to continue at their existing levels. If manufacturing repatriates, the revenue disappears.
Very good point, though I kind of tied that up with “we’re making America self-sufficient.“ but you’re right it could be seen as a 3rd one