Donald Trump for president 2012

[CAC1001]

Not according to Interbrand. He doesn't make their top 100, so they implicitly value his brand at less than $3.11 billion.

http://www.interbrand.com/en/knowledge/best-global-brands/best-global-brands-2008/best-global-brands-2010.aspx

Trump boasts he is worth around $5 or $6 billion, but I know Forbes Magazine estimates it more at $2 billion.

 

[CAC1001]

This just keep getting better. I just found out Trump even owns a pyramid scheme that markets scam weight-loss pills:

http://www.trumpnetwork.com/Products/QuikStik.aspx

Popular energy drinks that rely on loads of caffeine and sugar to give you a fake boost can leave you feeling empty and depleted. QuikStiks™ rely on botanicals and bionutrients—known to support energy levels and mood—to give you just what you need to get you going in the morning, pick you up in the afternoon, and help you relax in the evening. They're great tasting, fast acting, and so convenient to use. Just break open a QuikStik and mix with water.

How are these "scam weight loss pills" or am I missing something? Sounds like a decent-quality product.

 

[loseyourname]

Popular energy drinks that rely on loads of caffeine and sugar to give you a fake boost can leave you feeling empty and depleted. QuikStiks™ rely on botanicals and bionutrients—known to support energy levels and mood—to give you just what you need to get you going in the morning, pick you up in the afternoon, and help you relax in the evening. They're great tasting, fast acting, and so convenient to use. Just break open a QuikStik and mix with water.

How are these "scam weight loss pills" or am I missing something? Sounds like a decent-quality product.

That's only one of many products they sell, but the scam isn't necessarily the products. For all I know, they work, but I find it a little strange there's no apparent means of actually purchasing them linked to that site. Instead, you're simply encouraged to get in contact with a marketing agent to find out how you too can build a gigantic residual income stream selling this stuff.

 

[loseyourname]

I don't think anyone trusts him with their money, they will do projects with his brand in the hopes it has the kind of pulling power he claims.

I'd agree with this. More than half of his current net worth is tied up in name licensing for development projects he isn't actually affiliated with. His brand is worth more than his actual ability to manage these days.

Plus, the only person I know he was ever a personal financial advisor for was Mike Tyson, arguably the most spectacular case of personal bankruptcy in American history.

 

[mheslep]

Where has Obama proposed a tax increase on people making < 250K? How is he not keeping his pledge?

Unless something happened in the last few days that I haven't heard about, nothing that you've said about this makes any sense. In fact, to me it seems that you are being deceptive, so please clear this up.

As CRG and Russ say here and I've posted several times elsewhere:

I can speak for neither mheslep nor Gokul43201, but I think the point the latter was trying to make was that income tax will increase Jan 1 2011 for those making at least ~$34,000, depending on the exact cutoff for the tax brackets and filing status.

Of course, strictly speaking, this is not Obama but the current Congress.

My mind boggles to think that this is causing communication difficulty. The promise was that "no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase", and there's a fairly large tax increase for families making between $30,000 and $250,000 coming in just three months. What's not to understand?

His pledge was that no family making under $250k would see a tax increase under his plan and families under $250k will see a tax increase, so either his plan failed or he changed his mind. How is that difficult to follow?

I'm just guessing here, but it seems you and Gokul want to play a game with 'but it isn't his fault the tax cut is expiring...' Do you really think the voting public will go for that? ...

Clear enough?

 

[mheslep]

Nobody needs to tell US debtors about the risk of default, nor is any President or Treasury Sec going to change what they already know by telling them any kind of story .

 

[CAC1001]

I'd agree with this. More than half of his current net worth is tied up in name licensing for development projects he isn't actually affiliated with. His brand is worth more than his actual ability to manage these days.

Yup, that is his strategy these days.

Plus, the only person I know he was ever a personal financial advisor for was Mike Tyson, arguably the most spectacular case of personal bankruptcy in American history.

Keep in mind though that Tyson fell prey to some real predators, first Robin Givens, then Don King.

 

[Gokul43201]

His pledge was that no family making under $250k would see a tax increase under his plan and families under $250k will see a tax increase, so either his plan failed or he changed his mind. How is that difficult to follow?

It's not, and it's almost exactly the point I was making, with a further refinement: if you have no evidence that he changed his mind (the citation I have been asking for), the only option that remains is that his plan failed (or more accurately, is anticipated to fail).

1. There's a huge difference between being unable to implement a plan due to Congressional opposition (or whatever other reason), and actually contradicting a campaign pledge,

2. The take home political message, as always, will be about where the blame lies for this failure. Just as easy a political move as it may be to play a clip of the pledge, it might completely backfire, as the counter-punch - that the failure to keep taxes down on lower income brackets was directly due to Republican opposition - might do more damage than the punch.

EDIT: I have meanwhile found that Obama did, in fact, willfully contradict the pledge. The Health Care bill imposes a tax on indoor tanning parlors, and of course there's the penalty (starting 2014) for violating the insurance coverage mandate. The former is an indisputable violation of the pledge, but affects such a small group of people that it might be a hard sell, politically, to use that as the centerpiece of an "Obama broke his promise" campaign ad. The latter could be argued either way, but I think it will be more effective (in an ad attacking Obama's promises) than anything else.

 

[Evo]

His pledge was that no family making under $250k would see a tax increase under his plan and families under $250k will see a tax increase, so either his plan failed or he changed his mind. How is that difficult to follow?

I'm just guessing here, but it seems you and Gokul want to play a game with 'but it isn't his fault the tax cut is expiring...' Do you really think the voting public will go for that? The best he can hope for is that they will believe he was powerless to stop it and forgive him for making an unkeepable promise. I wonder if his 'Gitmo promise will work that way (and I'm still waiting for my nuclear waste report)...

Russ, are you referring to the Inheritance Tax cut Bush had in place?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2786366&postcount=61

If not, what are you referring to?

 

[Gokul43201]

If not, what are you referring to?

The big (primarily income) tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, both set to expire at the end of this year.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm just guessing here, but it seems you and Gokul want to play a game with 'but it isn't his fault the tax cut is expiring...' Do you really think the voting public will go for that?

Since, in your opinion, I'm really only playing a game here, why do you expect an honest response to your question?

Russ, I'm getting weary of your personal jabs.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Trump boasts he is worth around $5 or $6 billion, but I know Forbes Magazine estimates it more at $2 billion.

I was talking about his brand, not his net worth.

 

[CRGreathouse]

It's not, and it's almost exactly the point I was making, with a further refinement: if you have no evidence that he changed his mind (the citation I have been asking for), the only option that remains is that his plan failed (or more accurately, is anticipated to fail).

1. There's a huge difference between being unable to implement a plan due to Congressional opposition (or whatever other reason), and actually contradicting a campaign pledge,

Agreed -- I made the same point in post #27.

I have meanwhile found that Obama did, in fact, willfully contradict the pledge. The Health Care bill imposes a tax on indoor tanning parlors, and of course there's the penalty (starting 2014) for violating the insurance coverage mandate. The former is an indisputable violation of the pledge, but affects such a small group of people that it might be a hard sell, politically, to use that as the centerpiece of an "Obama broke his promise" campaign ad. The latter could be argued either way, but I think it will be more effective (in an ad attacking Obama's promises) than anything else.

There are also other minor examples -- an increased tax on tobacco, for example -- but I felt they were unimportant so I hadn't mentioned them.

 

[russ_watters]

I only have a limited understanding of CEO pay, but I believe the way it works is that it is like with an actor/actress in Hollywood. If you star in a movie and really bring the $$$ and viewership, your pay for each movie goes up. Now if you star in a movie and then it flops, then yes, for that movie you got paid a lot, but you will probably get a dent in your paycheck for your next film, and if that does only so-so, the pay adjusts accordingly.

I think CEOs are the same.

That's probably true, but Trump has mostly just been CEO of one company. He hasn't had to worry about impressing other boards to get hired. At the same time, he does need to get investors for his projects, but since they are real estate projects, a great many of the investors are ordinary people buying condos.

I really do not see him this way. He doesn't strike me at all as a caricature of the evil rich corporate elite. Just as a very rich guy with an oversized personality who loves attention.

Fair enough.

I don't think anyone trusts him with their money, they will do projects with his brand in the hopes it has the kind of pulling power he claims.

Isn't that "trusting him with their money?" Here's an example from the google I referenced:

Stephen and Linda Drake cast aside concerns about owning property in Mexico because they believed in Donald Trump.

The Southern California couple paid $250,000 down payment on a 19th-floor oceanfront condo in Trump Ocean Resort Baja in 2006 before the first construction crew arrived.

But admiration for the celebrity developer and star of “The Apprentice” has now turned into anger and disbelief as Trump’s luxury hotel-condo plan collapsed, leaving little more than a hole in the ground and investors out of their deposits, which totaled $32.2 million.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008824545_trump07.html

Though I'm not certain, I suspect Trump makes money from a deal like that whether the property succeeds or not - like a stock broker.

 

[mheslep]

On reflection, I believe I'll have to back up a little on Obama's tax pledge and admit the situation between the President and Congress complicates the issue, at least with respect to the pending Jan 2011 tax increases.

The significant history:
Again the '08 campaign pledge, repeated several times and places:

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

Then, from the http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/message.pdf" released earlier this year it appears Obama remained aligned with the pledge:

the Budget eliminates the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year and devotes those resources instead to [...]

Finally in the http://www.oliverwillis.com/2010/09/08/text-of-obama-speech-in-cleveland-on-the-economy/" in Sept:

Under the tax plan passed by the last administration, taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year. Now, I believe we ought to make the tax cuts for the middle class permanent.

So at least by pronouncement the President has remained aligned with his pledge.

Then again, public pronouncements are one thing and actions are another. He is the President with large party majorities in both houses, yet taxes on millions of taxpayers making less than $200/$250k will none the less increase as of Jan 1. It seems to me that if the President really wanted to make this happen, we would have at least had a vote on the matter in the House.

 

[russ_watters]

Since, in your opinion, I'm really only playing a game here, why do you expect an honest response to your question?

Russ, I'm getting weary of your personal jabs.

Well I'm weary of gamesmanship in here, Gokul. I feel like I'm being forced to combat it in way too many places in here and get irritated when people make veiled implications, don't explain them and force others to guess what they mean. The point mheslep made was very clear and you asked for a citation for a claim he didn't make and obliquily referenced a beef with the point but didn't explain it. That's gamesmanship. What I expect (and the forum rules require) is a straightforward response to a straightforward point: Ie, your post #78 should have been your post #9.

Anyway:

It's not, and it's almost exactly the point I was making, with a further refinement: if you have no evidence that he changed his mind (the citation I have been asking for), the only option that remains is that his plan failed (or more accurately, is anticipated to fail).

Both possibilities still exist and without the ability to see inside his head and without clear evidence, none of us are in any position to judge which it was. Obama has no obligation to tell us he changed his mind (in fact, it is often to a politician's benefit to do his best to hide it). This is not a 'if you can't prove he's guilty he must be innocent' situation. That's not an accusation of a flip-flop, just an analysis of the two possible options...which is why your request for citation is unreasonable/irrelevant.

Just speaking for myself here, but I don't really have an opinion on which is correct (or will become correct under the current path). Ultimately it doesn't even matter: he's a politician and will almost certainly do what benefits him most politically in responding or not responding to the issue. I'm just laying out the possibilities and analyzing the situation. So further development:

If the issue is pressed during the current election cycle (before the taxes actually go up)*, he has a pretty decent out: he can blame it on Congressional Republicans. But ultimately, Congressional Republicans can just hammer home the 'he said it wouldn't happen but it did' refrain and can take either tack and profit from it because neither are positive for Obama.

1. There's a huge difference between being unable to implement a plan due to Congressional opposition (or whatever other reason), and actually contradicting a campaign pledge.

Absolutely, but the difference is bigger if the sitting President has a Congress of the opposite party. Since he has a Democratic Congress, people will want him to explain why he couldn't get a Congress from his own party to implement a plan he wanted (or, at least, Republicans will needle him that it makes him look impotent).

2. The take home political message, as always, will be about where the blame lies for this failure. Just as easy a political move as it may be to play a clip of the pledge, it might completely backfire, as the counter-punch - that the failure to keep taxes down on lower income brackets was directly due to Republican opposition - might do more damage than the punch.

Since Congress is Democratic, I'd be surprised if the counterpunch carries that much weight and as I said before, it opens up two more avenues for counter-counterpunchs:
1. Why did you make an unkeepable promise?
2. How are you so powerless that you cannot get a Democratic Congress to do what you want?

But it is the tendency for politicians to go negative, so I suspect you're right that he'll go with that counterpunch if he feels the need to respond. Perhaps he can give republicans a negative on the issue while taking his double-negative. I think the strategy's flawed, but it seems like it's the way politicians like to go. (If an issue is twice as negative for you as for the other guy, I think it is better to downplay/ignore than respond.)

EDIT: I have meanwhile found that Obama did, in fact, willfully contradict the pledge. The Health Care bill imposes a tax on indoor tanning parlors, and of course there's the penalty (starting 2014) for violating the insurance coverage mandate. The former is an indisputable violation of the pledge, but affects such a small group of people that it might be a hard sell, politically, to use that as the centerpiece of an "Obama broke his promise" campaign ad. The latter could be argued either way, but I think it will be more effective (in an ad attacking Obama's promises) than anything else.

I'm not sure what "it" is, but I agree that the tanning parlor thing is not going to be politically useful. I really think most people understand/believe the promise was about income taxes.

*If/when the issue comes up for his re-election, he can reasonably blame Congress in general, but obviously cutting his own party off at the knee carries its own risks.

 

[Proton Soup]

This just keep getting better. I just found out Trump even owns a pyramid scheme that markets scam weight-loss pills:

http://www.trumpnetwork.com/Products/QuikStik.aspx

i'd have to know what's in them before i made a judgment. the plain old caffeine and ephedrine combo really does work, and can be sourced botanically.


but back to serious matters... can we please forget this silly trump nonsense and get busy amending the constitution so that schwarzenegger can run in 2012?

 

[CRGreathouse]

but back to serious matters... can we please forget this silly trump nonsense and get busy amending the constitution so that schwarzenegger can run in 2012?

New thread?

 

[Proton Soup]

New thread?

please, no.

 

[Gokul43201]

Russ, that's particularly unfortunate timing - coming right on the heels of mheslep's post.

Well I'm weary of gamesmanship in here, Gokul. I feel like I'm being forced to combat it in way too many places in here and get irritated when people make veiled implications, don't explain them and force others to guess what they mean. The point mheslep made was very clear and you asked for a citation for a claim he didn't make and obliquily referenced a beef with the point but didn't explain it.

While I don't particularly feel inclined to explain myself to you, the two people on this sub-forum that I have a lot of respect for are mh and CRG. I have no intention of yanking their chains.

That's gamesmanship. What I expect (and the forum rules require) is a straightforward response to a straightforward point: Ie, your post #78 should have been your post #9.

If I violated a forum rule, then report my post and give me an infraction. As I've mentioned before, I don't care much for your psychoanalysis.

Edit: Looking back through my posts to see where I could have been engaging in "gamesmanship" ...

That's not the citation that I said was missing. I guess I wasn't being clear enough.

Wow! Admitting I may have been unclear in my previous posts. So much for "making veiled implications".

 

[CAC1001]

On reflection, I believe I'll have to back up a little on Obama's tax pledge and admit the situation between the President and Congress complicates the issue, at least with respect to the pending Jan 2011 tax increases.

I think if President Obama directly said to Congress, "Extend all the tax cuts for now," that Congress would probably have gone along.

 

[mheslep]

I think if President Obama directly said to Congress, "Extend all the tax cuts for now," that Congress would probably have gone along.

All the tax cuts? I can't see Pelosi/ Reed ever going along with that after years and years of bashing Bush, the 'rich', and the kitchen sink for not 'sharing the burden'.

 

[Gokul43201]

All the tax cuts? I can't see Pelosi/ Reed ever going along with that after years and years of bashing Bush, the 'rich', and the kitchen sink for not 'sharing the burden'.

You don't exactly need Pelosi and Reid, if you have the entire Rep side voting in favor. You just have to convince enough Dems from the more conservative states to join in. And if you propose something like a 2-year extension, I think that can be sold without a lot of trouble.

 

[turbo]

Donald Trump is the US's version of Maine's Les Otten. Otten led his investors into financial ruin again and again while reaping a nice personal fortune for himself. Want to invest in the purchase and expansion of ski areas in New England, with its spotty weather, high-cost snow-making, and lousy boiler-plate ski surfaces? Les is the guy to sell it to you. Want a nice (EXPENSIVE) condo on the lower slopes that you can stay in a few weekends a year and ski to lower lifts and ski back down home every day? That sounds like heaven to a skier. How about trying to rent out such over-built and under-used condos to short-term renters, and have to pay for the damages done by irresponsible jerks who don't give a crap about your property? There is a lot of money to be made in such enterprises, but it is not to be made in the prime thrust of the public offering. Repairs, maintenance, rental-brokering are the hot profit-makers.

Creeps can always accumulate fortunes, once they get established. The more inventive and secretive they are, the longer they can pose as investment "mavens" while fleecing the idiots that trust them. Otten's latest enterprise (apart from a failed run at governor) is the wood-pellet business. You'd have to be an idiot to buy a wood-pellet stove if you live in Maine. If things get bad, the price of bagged wood pellets will only go up. If things go bad, there are thousands of Mainers with chain saws that will sell you all the wood you want at competitive prices, so you can stay warm all winter.

 

[drankin]

Donald Trump is the US's version of Maine's Les Otten. Otten led his investors into financial ruin again and again while reaping a nice personal fortune for himself. Want to invest in the purchase and expansion of ski areas in New England, with its spotty weather, high-cost snow-making, and lousy boiler-plate ski surfaces? Les is the guy to sell it to you. Want a nice (EXPENSIVE) condo on the lower slopes that you can stay in a few weekends a year and ski to lower lifts and ski back down home every day? That sounds like heaven to a skier. How about trying to rent out such over-built and under-used condos to short-term renters, and have to pay for the damages done by irresponsible jerks who don't give a crap about your property? There is a lot of money to be made in such enterprises, but it is not to be made in the prime thrust of the public offering. Repairs, maintenance, rental-brokering are the hot profit-makers.

Creeps can always accumulate fortunes, once they get established. The more inventive and secretive they are, the longer they can pose as investment "mavens" while fleecing the idiots that trust them. Otten's latest enterprise (apart from a failed run at governor) is the wood-pellet business. You'd have to be an idiot to buy a wood-pellet stove if you live in Maine. If things get bad, the price of bagged wood pellets will only go up. If things go bad, there are thousands of Mainers with chain saws that will sell you all the wood you want at competitive prices, so you can stay warm all winter.

Please cite examples at least.

 

[turbo]

Here you go.

http://www.sunjournal.com/node/809974

While American Skiing’s stockholders were taking a bath, Otten’s compensation remained healthy.

SEC filings and newspaper reports show, for example, that his salary went as high as $400,000 with a bonus of $23,000 in 2001. At that point, his salary had grown 16 percent since 1997, while the company’s losses were pegged at $130 million.

Additionally, at that time, Otten’s wife, Christine, was paid $54,000 to run the company’s retail purchasing and had the option to buy stock well below the market value, as did Otten.

An investor who had bought the stock when it first went on the market would have seen a $1,000 investment shrink to $83 at the time of the 2001 SEC filing.

Brad McCurtain of Maine Securities followed the company closely during that period, and he told Edward Murphy of the Maine Sunday Telegram, “When you look at the year that they had now — they lost $52 million and the stock price is down — what is the justification of paying someone a bonus? What’s the justification for handing out stock options? What are these people doing for you?”

A July 2003 SEC filing reveals that as part of the Otten separation agreement with American Skiing the company paid him and his executive assistant $480,000 (Otten’s share is not broken out) and transferred ownership of a vehicle worth about $20,000 to Otten.

 

[drankin]

Here you go.

http://www.sunjournal.com/node/809974

I'm not seeing a comparison between Otten to Trump. Otten has only owned a single publicly traded company that was eventually delisted when it became obvious it was a sham. And he failed at it. He is what I would call a wanna-be CEO. Trump has always been the real deal.

Trump has enormous successes and enormous failures. No question, but he stays in the game. You got to give him that. He deals in risky ventures but that's the kind of business he apparently likes.

That being said, maybe Trump being the President isn't the kind of risky venture that the US would want.

 

[drankin]

This morning, an interview with Donald Trump on Good Morning, he is again voicing his consideration of running for President. Possibly challenging Palin as a candidate.

 

[BobG]

This morning, an interview with Donald Trump on Good Morning, he is again voicing his consideration of running for President. Possibly challenging Palin as a candidate.

This is the famous DiFelice effect.

For those that don't know, Mark DiFelice is a pitcher for the Milwaukee Brewers that only has one pitch - an 82 mph fastball. This guy should get slaughtered by opposing hitters! Instead, he strikes out 8.7 batters per 9 innings. Granted, he only has a 5-1 career won-loss record, because he's a middle reliever - no manager in his right mind would put someone that slow and with only pitch on the mound as a starter.

Still, every game he pitches, every drunk Brewer fan in the stands lines up outside the Brewer's locker room after the game asking for a job. Even the Italian Sausage asks for a chance to pitch (but she was once hit in the head, so that might have something to do with that). If a pitcher like DiFelice can succeed, anybody can succeed!

Palin attracts the same sort of response. In the latest Pew Research poll, she, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee are virtually tied as the leading Republican candidate for 2012. If Palin can be a front runner, then any American that has ever been on TV for at least 30 seconds feels like they have a chance to be President.

I know I'm looking for eyewitness News reports hoping for the chance to stand around in the background while the reporter gives his on the spot story. I want to be President, too!

 

[mheslep]

This is the famous DiFelice effect.

For those that don't know, Mark DiFelice is a pitcher for the Milwaukee Brewers that only has one pitch - an 82 mph fastball. This guy should get slaughtered by opposing hitters! Instead, he strikes out 8.7 batters per 9 innings. Granted, he only has a 5-1 career won-loss record, because he's a middle reliever - no manager in his right mind would put someone that slow and with only pitch on the mound as a starter.

Still, every game he pitches, every drunk Brewer fan in the stands lines up outside the Brewer's locker room after the game asking for a job. Even the Italian Sausage asks for a chance to pitch (but she was once hit in the head, so that might have something to do with that). If a pitcher like DiFelice can succeed, anybody can succeed!

I take the moral of that story to be any hack sports writer can publish. DiFelice is apparently an average talent for the sport, but nevertheless he is a pitcher in Major League Baseball. The drunks, the sports writers are not and can not be. Maybe there's a bit more to pitching at that level than the speed of his fastball. One does not get there because of who your daddy knows, because you can give a good speech, or because of where you went to college. Likewise, maybe there's more to being at the top of the Manhattan real estate game through boom and bust than most people know, or think they know because of Trump's annoying self-promotion. Trump acquitted himself well in the interview, I think.

 

[MATLABdude]

As seen on Conan, another page has been taken out of the reality TV playbook, and The Donald has a website trying to survey the will of Americans (and/or build up a grassroots):
http://shouldtrumprun.com/

Apparently, it was started by his lawyer "unbeknownst to his boss":
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/11/18/Will-Donald-Trump-run-for-president/UPI-34461290126952/

 

[mugaliens]

Apparently, it was started by his lawyer "unbeknownst to his boss"...

While that's possible, just that comment alone raises doubts of his and/or his team's integrity.

 

[turbo]

While that's possible, just that comment alone raises doubts of his and/or his team's integrity.

Any Trump underling that does anything that could affect the Trump "brand" in the public eye is doing it with the Donald's full knowledge and approval. You can be sure of it.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/10/trump.presidency/index.html?hpt=Sbin

The Donald would impose a 25% chinese tax. What do you think?

 

[MATLABdude]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/10/trump.presidency/index.html?hpt=Sbin

The Donald would impose a 25% chinese tax. What do you think?

My first thought was, "How out to lunch is The Donald that he thinks the WTO would allow for protectionistic tariffs, or that withdrawal from the WTO would be a simple no-impact decision?"

Then I Googled, and it appears that there may be a loophole or few:
http://www.economicpopulist.org/con...ency-manipulation-amendment-senate-tax-bill-i
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/wto-rejects-chinese-complaint-against-u-s-s-anti-dumping-tariffs-on-tires.html

But across the board 25% hike, revocation of MFN status (which would probably have to occur for these measures to take place), or use of this as anything but another dog-whistle? I'll believe it when I see it.