It is not about "free trade" it is about "fair trade".  A world of difference even though the two seem to be conflated in discussions.

I'm looking at the tariffs in two ways.  First it is a negotiation tactic with the goal of reducing or eliminating tariffs on US goods or making them equal to what the importing country imposes on the same or similar items it exports to us.  Second a permanent tariff if that should happen would be much similar to a VAT only the money is collected on the front end rather than on the back end.  Getting it up front eliminates any need for a bureaucracy to administer a VAT program and is much more fair as the costs are included in any downstream activity.  I am against consumption taxes period as they mostly affect the poor and lower level wage earners disproportionately.  Give me a flat tax, too, but that is another story.  

We need to get things priced based upon their actual manufacturing expenses (true costs) without any subsidies or other forms of price manipulation.  Then we can figure out what to do next.  Among other things, making things ourselves keeps money in the country and recirculating to the benefit of the country as a whole.  Buying from outside the country sends our money away and we lose the benefit of recirculation.  The more money we can keep and recirculate internally the more our inherent overall national wealth grows.  Same with energy.  Drill, baby, drill and keep that money at home and from going into the hands of our enemies, making us stronger and them weaker without any military or political pressures involved.

It is not about "free trade" it is about "fair trade".  A world of difference even though the two seem to be conflated in discussions.

I'm looking at the tariffs in two ways.  First it is a negotiation tactic with the goal of reducing or eliminating tariffs on US goods or making them equal to what the importing country imposes on the same or similar items it exports to us.  Second a permanent tariff if that should happen would be much similar to a VAT only the money is collected on the front end rather than on the back end.  Getting it up front eliminates any need for a bureaucracy to administer a VAT program and is much more fair as the costs are included in any downstream activity.  I am against consumption taxes period as they mostly affect the poor and lower level wage earners disproportionately.  Give me a flat tax, too, but that is another story.  

We need to get things priced based upon their actual manufacturing expenses (true costs) without any subsidies or other forms of price manipulation.  Then we can figure out what to do next.  Among other things, making things ourselves keeps money in the country and recirculating to the benefit of the country as a whole.  Buying from outside the country sends our money away and we lose the benefit of recirculation.  The more money we can keep and recirculate internally the more our inherent overall national wealth grows.  Same with energy.  Drill, baby, drill and keep that money at home and from going into the hands of our enemies, making us stronger and them weaker without any military or political pressures involved.

Believing in the ideal of "free trade" is as naive as believing in the Communist ideal of common ownership.

Back to the current issue...the trump tariffs are making an already bad situation worse...running the economy into the ground while deficits balloon. 

What a couple of idiots; no muzzle awareness at all.

Don't forget private money in the electoral process.

Not true in general, and a bit of a cop out. Electoral College and gerrymandering put the government in other people's hands. Taking away the input of the majority of the people means you can't blame them for any of this.

Ultimately, that's it. The people get the gov they deserve. 

so could all of the voters

and the democrats propped up Harris after all the bubble wrap (lazy8) fell off biden.
Knowing trump was likely to win the primary, they have themselves to blame.
and no, time has come to stop all the nonsense and for the grown ups to return to the room. 

No, it's not in anyone's best interest. But we have protected people from the consequences of their actions for a long time and they have come to think it doesn't matter. Trump shouldn't have been allowed to run, but congress refused to do it's job. People think it's fine to vote for a bomb thrower because they think they will be insulated from the bombs and they like the noise. So let them feel some of the pain and they may realize that bombs are not good. Not sure how else to get through to them. People who say 'keep your government out of my medicare' need some life lessons. Unfortunately it appears we may all have to suffer with it.

Given what they are doing...that doesnt seem likely
and is it in the country's best interest for the democrats to sit this one out, especially since they contributed to getting us to where we are now (up until Jan 2025)?
Of course I prefer where things were pre-trump...but there were still mounting issues. 

The democrats have spent decades capitulating and enabling the bad behavior of the republicans. The republicans are now in control. They have the majorities, they have the guy in the big seat. They were told, repeatedly, that this would be the result of their actions. This is up to them to go fix.

Believing in the ideal of "free trade" is as naive as believing in the Communist ideal of common ownership.
As long as the main goal of our trade policies is maximizing corp profit, they are doomed to fail society. 

Back to the current issue...the trump tariffs are making an already bad situation worse...running the economy into the ground while deficits balloon. 
Republicans appear to be providing tacit support,
and the democrats messaging of "tariffs are bad" is not enough...as they appear to be sitting back and letting the shit show unravel, which is not helping its constituents one bit.
What is the answer to our trade imbalances and other issues, eg, sourcing/manufacturing of key goods like pharmaceuticals...

Well a robust FDA with a clear mission to ensure safe and effective medicines would be pretty swell.

Trump I's tarrifs (and trade policies in general) were bad. They started the undoing of decades of work by people who actually knew what they were doing to reduce trade barriers around the world. And more generally, by breaking those agreements, damaged the trust anyone could have had in any agreement we ever make, on any subject. His second term, by doubling down on that strategy, has absolutely wrecked the world's confidence in our ability to keep a promise. But I digress.

Trump's first term trade policies provoked retaliation against US agricultural products. This was felt so deeply and immediately that the Trump administration created additonal farm subsidies to offset that impact. We raised prices on ourselves and provoked a boycott on our goods, then borrowed more money to pay off the constituency that was most immediately affected.

I'm not looking for intellectual consistency, that's not going to happen in American politics. The incumbent parties are not driven by political philosophy or principles, they are coalitions of interests and grievances that are driven by expediency and appeasement. I'm looking for adults to enter the room and rein in the toddlers. And despairing.

WWGJD*? He first and foremost would recognize that the executive branch has constitutional restraints that need to be respected. One of the many problems of our democracy is that the legislative branch has ceded too much power to the executive. That's a problem one man, in one election, cannot fix. With that power we now have ample evidence that the problem is not symmetrical: one man in one election can make it much, much worse.

*What Would Gary Johnson Do

What is the answer to ...other issues, eg, sourcing/manufacturing of key goods like pharmaceuticals...