Forums

In short, he in one sense went too far. In another sense, he has not spoken clearly. The idea is right, but the execution is wrong. Apparently, he's listening to the wrong advisors (Lutnick, Navarro) rather than the right ones (JD Vance, Suzie Wiles and Scott Bessent).  

i still dont understand why the demonrats feel it is ok for foreign countries to impose 20,30,nd 40 % tariffs on american exports, but it is the end of the world as we know it for america to impose tariffs on those same countries imports into america.

I'm all for gutting large portions of the federal government and eliminating all the waste fraud and abuse. Heck, I would probably support eliminating non fraudulent and abusive sections of federal government. Its an absolute disgrace what it has become in terms or usefulness and wastefulness. at $36 trillion in debt it is obviously completely insolvent and Congress and Presidents refuse to take any meaningful action on it. THE only reason this asinine amount of debt hasn't become a crisis yet is because the US Dollar is the world's reserve currency, which is starting to come under threat but that is a topic for a different discussion. I'm very confident the United States' national debt could be reduced to 50% of GDP by year 2050 and the average citizen would not know the difference. However, since Congress refuses to take action, and on the contrary, actually doubles down on even larger budget deficits year after year you get what you have now. Trump in there with a chainsaw. Fine. Who cares. If that's what its going to take then so be it. Both parties and Congress going back at least 50 years only have themselves to blame for letting it get to this point. I would say Trump is doing the correct thing by employing auditors to go in a slash all this trash this corrupt government has been building for decades.  With that said I think Trump is very dangerously playing with fire with regards to implementing tariffs of this quantity and magnitude as well as his handling of international relations with extremely close allies and neighbors. I'm not an economist. This is only my opinion based on some limited economics education and studying of history and trade policies since WWII. When implemented like this, tariffs pretty much always have an overall negative consequence, especially for the tariffing country. A tariff is a tax, and with any business tax, it is paid by the consumer. Businesses never pay tax, they only collect them. The only way prices don't increase is if the business takes a loss on their profit which is possible if there is a US competitor. But realistically speaking how may US based competitors are there for essentially every single thing coming into this country? The USA has not been a manufacturing country for decades. To think that is going to suddenly reverse course in a few years is simply daft. Moreover, I just don't see any overall alignment on this among political parties, politicians, or even economists for that matter to last any longer than this administration. And the election cycle and balance of power in this country is too fickle. in 3.5 years there will be a different president elected and if these tariffs are still in place they will most likely be all walked back. My guess is most offshore manufacturers will ride it out and sell at a smaller profit (if there is an a non-tariffed competitor here in country) and wait and see for 3.5 years. All the while the average citizen and retail investor will be getting hammered. This is akin to a brain surgeon using a chainsaw to remove a patient's brain tumor. I don't think this is the proper way to undo decades worth of offshoring. I would welcome anyone to find a reputable left or right leaning economist who thinks this is a good plan. I'll remain somewhat open minded and hope this is a strategy to "strongarm" other nations into negotiating a more favorable, long term trade deal with the USA but I don't have high hopes. At best everything is going to get more expensive, and we will slog on until the tariffs are eventually lifted, and we are back to where we started. At worst this will set off an all-out global trade war with the USA. I personally want neither. 

More tender words...to quote from Convoy"tell'em like it is Pig Pen,you got it,yes sir....But your right.No way is that a 45g truck.its a resto project.. Paul

I deleted the brackets on my B73 and put the exhaust on a late model support arm. The later L cabs only seem to have had two brackets, one near the top below the louvers. The lower one was mounted to the lower internal cab frame in the corner. There were spacers inside the lower mount to make up the gap between the skin and the frame. I saved my two brackets, but they were pretty rusty and had been modified by previous owners. Let me see if I can locate them. Here's a picture on the corner of the cab with the skin removed. The upper bracket is still in place on mine. The two lower, short brackets below are for the grab handle. Then the lower frame of the cab. Second picture is after I painted it, but before I put two polished stainless bolts in the threaded holes as place holders. I left the bracket as it stiffens the area and if someone in the future wanted to add the bracket back.  I've seem the schematic you posted before. The four bracket arrangement may have been for the heavier LJ-X versions like yours. I don't think regular LJ's had that type of arrangement. 

And yes, that shade was very common on the older Mercury cougars

I pulled 170K through a 14" organic coupled to a engine that was was over 425hp and 1400 lb/ft torque. Never wore out an organic clutch, the closest I came was when the pressure plate failed, spilling all its fingers and springs into the bell housing.

I have actually had a couple of cougars in my day chasing me when I was a lot younger