It is ironic, isn't it? I think that if you look at other products that are manufactured in China and other countries are often tied to U.S. companies. Many of them are joint ventures with the Chinese government and U.S. companies. It doesn't make much sense that the U.S. government would levy taxes on U.S. companies who are manufacturing products abroad.

Sure it does. The Democrats have been complaining for years about the Republicans supposedly "shipping our jobs overseas," and now they are in a position to do something about it.

If they were smart, they would couple this with tax incentives to convince these companies to return their production to the United States, thereby eliminating the tariffs, and eliminating the reason they left in the first place. But we all know that won't happen.

Some of the reasons these companies left in the first place involved over taxation, EPA issues and unreasonably high wages and benefits demands by some of the big labor unions. If the democrats really want to attract business back to the U.S. they could start by lowering taxes and getting rid of the EPA. The government actually encouraged many companies to leave in the first place with things such as tax incentives, etc.,

Corporate taxes
EPA compliance
EMPLOYEE'S BENEFITS

The last one is a big issue. The worker's health insurance often costs the company big time. Twenty five years ago, if it cost you $20/hr to keep the production going, you had to charge $40/hr to the customer. Today, that's up to $80/hr. The reason is the insurance benefits and liability coverage you MUST have. And, no... The Dems won't be doing anything about that because the insurance execs are among the biggest supporters of any of the members of both political parties. That's why the insurance industry is about the only industry in this country that is set up so that it can not lose money. Example... My car insuance in the State of Florida has an extra assessment added on to help cover the costs of Katrina damage in MIssissippi. Public Utilities have to have increases approved by a Public Utility Commission, but who gives insurance companies approval to put on increases?

Those three items at the top are what drive companies to move to other countries and insurance is a very big part of it. For a number of years now, companies have been jockeying with employee's health insurance in order to keep their costs down, and the insurance companies have a CAPTIVE AUDIENCE. Car insurance, for example. 50 years ago, in a very large area of the country, you were not required to have car insurance. Today, I know of 2 states where you can maintain your driver's license without having car insurance (at least until you have an accident). And, in both of those states, insurance premiums are between 25% and 30% in price of premiums compared to neighboring states that will pull your license if your car is not insured. We're cutting our own throats by giving insurance companies that "CAPTIVE AUDIENCE" environment. And, it's not just car insurance, but other areas as well.

My car premiums were much less before my state required it. Many of our traffic laws are on the books due to the insurance companies lobbying our representatives. Seat belt laws are a good one that comes to mind. While they may be a good idea, it should not be a law for us to use them.