It appears that your posting at the top has been heavily edited/redacted. Now missing are key points of truth.

Read the article at the link that you posted. It does NOT match the text that you posted.

In the first sentence you call China a trading partner "China and other trading partners". The online version says "China and other countries".

Let me know and then you can proceed to tell me where the disagreement is.

I think what may have happened during the time your were clicking on the link is that ABC was posting another new story and the link got temporarily switched to the new story while they were editing. When ABC finished posting their new story, then the link in the sroty I posted lined back up.

I am guessing, but I am pretty sure that is what happened.

Not my fault of course, but I am sorry you had the problem.

Gatlin has been proven a liar by his own evidence. DONE!

He is the President of the Canary Clan.

That's the link that you posted, but the article is very different from the text that you posted along with it.

Your original link at the top works just fine to prove that you're a liar. There is NO problem accessing the link that YOU posted. Except that the story there does not match what YOU posted.

As a reused AP story, it can appear in various formats with different titles and authors listed or not listed.

Anyone interested in the truth without Gatlin censorship can go directly to the site he posted and read the FULL article (without tater hacking) for themselves.

- The Trump administration announced Tuesday it will provide $12 billion in emergency relief to ease the pain of American farmers slammed by President Donald Trump's escalating trade disputes with China and other countries.

However, some farm-state Republicans quickly dismissed the plan, declaring that farmers want markets for their crops, not payoffs for lost sales and lower prices.

The Agriculture Department said it would tap an existing program to provide billions in direct payments to farmers and ranchers hurt by foreign retaliation to Trump's tariffs.

Watch Now

VIDEO: Trump set to bail out farmers affected by retaliatory tariffs Trump set to bail out farmers affected by retaliatory tariffs With congressional elections coming soon, the government action underscored administration concern about damage to U.S. farmers from Trump's trade tariffs and the potential for losing House and Senate seats in the Midwest and elsewhere.

The administration said the program was just temporary.

"This is a short-term solution that will give President Trump and his administration the time to work on long-term trade deals," said Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue as administration officials argued that the plan was not a "bailout" of the nation's farmers.

But that provided little solace to rank-and-file Republicans, who said the tariffs are simply taxes and warned the action would open a Pandora's box for other sectors of the economy.

"I want to know what we're going to say to the automobile manufacturers and the petrochemical manufacturers and all the other people who are being hurt by tariffs," said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. "You've got to treat everybody the same."

Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said the plan would spend billions on "gold crutches," adding, "America's farmers don't want to be paid to lose — they want to win by feeding the world. This administration's tariffs and bailouts aren't going to make America great again, they're just going to make it 1929 again."

The program is expected to start taking effect around Labor Day. Officials said the direct payments could help producers of soybeans, which have been hit hard by retaliation to the Trump tariffs, along with sorghum, corn, wheat, cotton, dairy and farmers raising hogs.

The food purchased from farmers would include some types of fruits, nuts, rice, legumes, dairy products, beef and pork, officials said.

Trump did not specifically reference the plan during a speech to veterans in Kansas City, but asked for patience as he attempts to renegotiate trade agreements that he said have hurt American workers.

"We're making tremendous progress. They're all coming. They don't want to have those tariffs put on them," Trump told the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention. "We're opening up markets. You watch what's going to happen. Just be a little patient."

Agriculture officials said they would not need congressional approval and the money would come through the Commodity Credit Corporation, a wing of the department that addresses agricultural prices.

The officials said payments couldn't be calculated until after harvests come in. Brad Karmen, the USDA's assistant deputy administrator for farm programs, noted that the wheat harvest is already in, so wheat farmers could get payments sooner than other growers.

Soybeans are likely to be the largest sector affected by the programs. Soybean prices have plunged 18 percent in the past two months.

Trump declared earlier Tuesday that "Tariffs are the greatest!" and threatened to impose additional penalties on U.S. trading partners as he prepared for negotiations with European officials at the White House.

Later Tuesday, he tweeted: "I have an idea for them. Both the U.S. and the E.U. drop all Tariffs, Barriers and Subsidies! That would finally be called Free Market and Fair Trade! Hope they do it, we are ready - but they won't!"

Tariffs are taxes on imports. They are meant to protect domestic businesses and put foreign competitors at a disadvantage. But the taxes also exact a toll on U.S. businesses and consumers, which pay more for imported products.

The Trump administration has slapped tariffs on $34 billion in Chinese goods in a dispute over Beijing's high-tech industrial policies. China has retaliated with duties on soybeans and pork, affecting Midwest farmers in a region of the country that supported the president in his 2016 campaign.

Trump has threatened to place penalty taxes on up to $500 billion in products imported from China, a move that would dramatically ratchet up the stakes in the trade dispute involving the globe's biggest economies.

The moves have been unsettling to lawmakers with districts dependent upon manufacturers and farmers affected by the retaliatory tariffs.

Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., said the proposal was raised a month ago when senators visited the White House for a broad discussion on trade. He said the lawmakers told the president "that our farmers want markets, and not really a payment from government. And he said, 'I'm surprised, I've never heard of anybody who didn't want a payment from government.'"

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who has been critical of the president in the past, said the tariffs "are a massive tax increase on American consumers and businesses, and instead of offering welfare to farmers to solve a problem they themselves created, the administration should reverse course and end this incoherent policy."

Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, whose family operates a farm in eastern Iowa, said the administration's move was "encouraging for the short term" but farmers needed "markets and opportunity, not government handouts."

The Agriculture Department predicted before the trade fights that U.S. farm income would drop this year to $60 billion, or half the $120 billion of five years ago.

Mark Martinson, who raises crops and cattle in north-central North Dakota and is president of the U.S. Durum Growers Association, said the $12 billion figure "sounds huge" but there are many farmers in need. "I don't think this will cover us for a very long time — and it might not even buy me a tank of diesel. I think it will only put out the fire a little bit."

"We are just kind of being played," said Tom Giessel, who was cultivating his fields when he stopped his tractor to take a cell phone call from a reporter seeking his reaction to the plan.

Giessel, who grows wheat and corn near the western Kansas community of Larned, said he was "glad they are trying to be doing something, but I don't know when the day is over how much difference it is going to make. The underlying problem is still there."

The imposition of punishing tariffs on imported goods has been a favored tactic by Trump, but it has prompted U.S. partners to retaliate, creating risks for the economy.

Trump has placed tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, saying they pose a threat to U.S. national security, an argument that allies such as the European Union and Canada reject. He has also threatened to slap tariffs on imported cars, trucks and auto parts, potentially targeting imports that last year totaled $335 billion.

The president is meeting with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker on Wednesday. The U.S. and its European allies are meeting as the dispute threatens to spread to automobile production.

——

Associated Press writers Jill Colvin, Kevin Freking and Matthew Daly in Washington, James MacPherson in Bismarck, North Dakota, and Roxana Hegeman in Wichita, Kansas, contributed.

The Associated Press · Posted: Jul 24, 2018 11:47 AM ET | Last Updated: 8 hours ago The U.S. government announced a $12 billion US plan Tuesday to assist farmers who have been hurt by President Donald Trump's trade disputes with China and other trading partners.

www.newslocker.com/en-ca/...affected-by-tariffs/view/

A cached version of the page from earlier in the day. 11:47 AM ET

Your original link was recently changed to the more PC version. It said exactly what I quoted the many times I posted it. The same as above.

You must have posted around 15:00 AM ET, since whitey posted the first reply at 15:07. Somehow you got the PC version before it was posted on your abcnews.go.com link. How did that happen Special NWO Agent Gatlin?

President Trump needs to pull your Top Secret security clearance along with Brennan and the others, IMO. Loose lips, sink ships.

Attaboy! Just shut up and don't criticize your leaders ...

When ALL you do is heap “blah-blah” criticism and NEVER offer suggestions or take actions to make things better....yea, that’s right, just shut up.

It is easy to notice how you, hondo, Bucky and one or two others [all libertarians] never think twice before laying on criticism. In fact, you never think once before you just ignorantly shoot off your mouth. You all are forever showing that your tolerance level for ideas and actions from others that are different from your ideas is non-existent and it often times even makes you extremely argumentative and very easily angered.

You have repeatedly shown the only thing you all CAN do is constantly criticize. You groupies say that something is wrong, terribly wrong yet you NEVER bother to say why it is wrong....and of course you are completely incapable to suggest a better way to do things.

You need to work to change things for the better and not just constantly SCREAM criticisms that something is wrong. Positive suggestions are a far better way to go than just ALWAYS criticizing.

Think about it ...

... be a good 'mericun and STFU.

Nah, be a GREAT American and give positive suggestions to make things better instead of doing NOTHIING but constantly criticizing. If criticizing is ALL you can do, and I see that is ALL you are ever doing, then right....just STFU.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

You need to sit down, shut up...

In other words "Do not question or criticize Trump!"

Tariffs are so great that we have to create new government programs to compensate the victims of tariffs.

I served in the military, did you?

"While some people (like Gatlin) think that dissent is unpatriotic ...

Doubling down on your fascism?

I served in the military, did you?

Irrelevant.

Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. ~ Ronald Reagan.

Feel free to post “YES” at this time.

...it often times even makes you extremely argumentative and very easily angered.

Oh, the Irony!!

I thought I read somewhere that Trump was considering this bailout even before he imposed the tariffs on China, given that our farmers were being harmed by China's import tariffs on American crops.

The nice thing is, now out import tariffs will fund the bailout.

The entire quote is: In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. ~ Ronald Reagan. You don't think the nation is in crisis now jackass?

Reagan was never a fan of big government like you are wont to portray him you ignorant clown.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. ~ Ronald Reagan.

I was tailgating with my wife and two friends in the parking lot of Miller Park before a Brewers game yesterday, when a guy with a pasted-on, plastic, local-news- anchor smile approached our group. He wanted us to sign a petition to get his “buddy” on the ballot for state treasurer. Of course, the first question I asked him was which party his “buddy” belonged to, and the guy told us he was a Libertarian.

Poor guy, he didn’t realize he was approaching a liberal blogger and his progressive friends. Not an audience that was going to easily buy what he had to sell. I politely told him that I wouldn’t support a Libertarian candidate, and like a telemarketer dutifully and mechanically following a script provided to him to handle rejection, he asked why I didn’t support Libertarians. I explained that I did not harbor a dislike or distrust of government, and that I thought there were certain jobs that only government could do. Without removing the wooden smile from his face, he moved to the next page of his telemarketer script and asked me if he could have one minute to “rebate” what I had said, and he proceeded to tell us that the free market is perfectly efficient and the best way to solve problems. I started to laugh and told him that, yes, the financial collapse two years ago was a great example of the market solving problems. And also, another great example was the oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico. My wife and friends joined in the laughter, and our Libertarian guest could no longer maintain his fake smile. His voice and facial expression turned angry, and he stormed off to the next group of tailgaters, spitting out something barely intelligible at us as he left.

I thought this interaction perfectly encapsulated the anti-government, pro-market- solution obsession currently running through the right, especially among tea baggers and self-proclaimed libertarians. They love to cite Ronald Reagan’s line that the “nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” But I’m far more afraid of someone telling me, “I’m a Libertarian (or Tea Party member) and the market will save you.”

You would think from listening to the rhetoric that we have two choices in this country: Either you adopt the right’s notion of deregulation and an unfettered free market, or you are a socialist. There is no in-between. Which is, of course, patently false, but also maddeningly ignorant of recent American history. Taking the financial industry as an example, after the election of Franklin Roosevelt, Congress quickly enacted legislation, like the Securities Act of 1933, the Banking Act of 1933 (Glass- Steagall), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, meant to curb the excesses of an unfettered financial system, which had led to the stock market crash of 1929 and the depression that ensued. And for the next 45 years, the country was able to avoid any mass financial collapses.

Then, beginning with Reagan, and continuing through George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and reaching its peak with the ultimate deregulation messiah, George W. Bush, the government took down the post-Depression financial regulation structure brick by brick, following a mantra that deregulation helped the market to function freely, and a free market will produce the best results.

What did we get? The savings and loan scandal, the Enron-induced power outages in California, corporate fraud (Enron, etc.) and, ultimately, a financial industry run amok (arcane financial instruments, insanely risky investments that banks profited from regardless of their success, and credit rating agencies handing out AAA ratings like candy to keep customers, just to name some examples), all leading to a near financial collapse that plunged the country (and the rest of the world) into a job- sapping, deep recession.

All evidence would seem to point to the need for some regulation to keep the banks from running amok, but the right still clings to its mantra of deregulation and unfettered free markets.

I also thought it was not a coincidence that not once, not twice, but three times during his two-minute pitch to us, our Libertarian petitioner talked of having the opportunity to “rebate” what I had said about his cause. (Not “rebut” or “debate” or whatever else he actually meant, but “rebate,” which had me secretly hoping he had a way to refund to us some of our time he had wasted.) It was fitting because so much of the right wing/Tea Party/libertarian anger is based on false notions (much of it, no doubt, a product of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the right wing media misinformation machine), and the urgency of his words was not supported by a basic ability to use the English language to make an argument, leaving the content of his claims even more suspect.

I can already hear the complaints now: I’m an elitist snob for chiding someone for making a mistake. If I was pointing out that, say, the guy who scanned our tickets at the Miller Park gate had been less than smooth with his words, I would deserve the criticism (that didn’t happen, it’s just an example). But here was a guy who was so sure of his beliefs, he not only gave up a Sunday to walk around a baseball stadium parking lot to collect signatures (admirable commitment), but he felt empowered to tell everyone there that he was right and they were wrong. And if you are going to take such a position and hold yourself out as an authority, it is fair to question the knowledge and intelligence underlying the strong assertions.

Our Libertarian petitioner’s certainty isn’t just simplistic, it is a real impediment to solving our country’s problems. The alternative to unfettered free markets is not socialism, but rather, it is free markets with basic regulations in place to prevent abuse, just like the financial regulation architecture that protected the country after the Great Depression. (Somehow, I don’t think we were living in a socialist state when Eisenhower and Nixon held the presidency.) I know subtlety is a lost art in modern politics, but if we are to survive, we will have to recognize that there are more than two extreme choices. These same right wingers don’t seem to mind when the government subsidizes the oil industry, and I doubt that they want to shut down the libraries, public schools, fire departments, and highway maintenance departments, all of which are run by the government (and would not exist if left to a private, free-market model). Conservatives, tea baggers and libertarians want you to think it’s a simple dichotomous choice: free markets or socialism, or no government or all government. But such a reductionist view fails to account for how complicated and integrated the relationship between public and private actually is. (Yes, I know, asking for nuance rather than black-and-white distinctions is tragically 20th century.) Let’s remember the angry town hall attendees last summer telling members of Congress to keep their government hands off of their Medicare. Even they liked a government program, but they didn’t even know it.

There was one aspect of our Libertarian petitioner’s approach that especially rang true to me: The false smile covering his real anger. Tea Party leaders are quick to say there is no place in their movement for racism, but at those same rallies you see racist signs about President Obama. Let’s not forget the March Harris poll that revealed that 57 percent of Republicans think Obama is a Muslim, and 45 percent think he wasn’t born in the United States. Somehow, I doubt these people would be concerned about the religion or place of birth of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, let alone John McCain, Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani. When right wingers talk about taking “their” country back, it’s hard to see “their” as meaning anything but a system in which power rested in white, male, Christian hands. When tea baggers put a happy, smiley face on the movement, I can’t help but be wary of the angry snarl underneath. So I wasn’t the least bit surprised when our Libertarian petitioner’s plastic grin quickly devolved into an angry scowl when he realized that he didn’t have the ammunition to win over someone who was even marginally informed.

These are not merely philosophical questions. Late last week, financial reform legislation was watered down at the last minute to ensure its passage. After what happened in 2008, opposing real reform in areas like derivatives and the so-called “Volcker Rules” defies logic. With unemployment hovering around 10 percent thanks to a recession precipitated by a near financial industry collapse, I don’t agree with Ronald Reagan. I’m not scared of the government trying to help. But I am terrified of an unfettered free market allowing industry leaders, whether they be in the financial industry or the oil business, ruled by greed, putting the country at risk to unfairly further line their already bulging pockets.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell- bard/reagan-was-wrong-the-nine_b_628022.html