Mike Pence Removes ALL Lobbyists From Trump Administration Transition Team!

Common Sense Evaluation ^

[Mr. Lucky]

Thank you, General.

[semimojo]

If you interdict trade with China, for example, you will have to withdraw into economic fortress America and we will simply spin off into a massive depression.

It surprises me how many FReepers think we can impose tariffs and block trade without destroying the US export economy.

[RFEngineer]

“But there is no debate about your solution if it goes awry. If you interdict trade with China, for example, you will have to withdraw into economic fortress America and we will simply spin off into a massive depression. Of that there can be no doubt.”

Nonsense. China restricts trade - our imports do not freely traverse into their markets - they are doing fine. Same with Japan as a couple of examples. Look at Mexico.

You can’t just focus on “tariffs” any interference with the free flow of goods is a tariff of sorts. China says “yes but” to our imports. You also have to look at structural regulatory costs in the US. I think it’s entirely fair to levy a tariff on goods that are more costly as a result of government regulation and interference.

I think you and I would agree that getting rid of government regulation and interference is a good idea - but if we’re not going to get rid of it (and we haven’t, and probably won’t) then we are making an irrefutable argument in favor of tariffs to equalize all the “good things” that government does for our industry and manufacturing so that they can be competitive with countries that don’t have the benefit of our governments help.

On IT - actually outsourcing IT to India is so last decade! Now we bring Indian IT folks here in droves, while still outsourcing those things that we can.

The only thing that is beyond debate is that your solution will decimate the middle class. The argument that “both sides prosper” does not reflect all costs to society when you close a plant and thousands of unemployed must be carried.

Therein lies the simplicity of economic arguments (even made by Nobel Prize winning economists) - simply declaring that both sides prosper with a wave of the hand and a tweaking of the ledger - ignoring long-term costs to society and culture that accrue to America as a result of losing the middle class because we force them to compete with the third world.

It’s a much bigger picture than any economist claims. They make broad assumptions because to do anything else interferes with tidy conclusions.

Economics are as simple as the economist. Nobody but an economist can believe that an average worker in Ohio should compete on price with a worker in India or China because the data drives them to that conclusion.

[RFEngineer]

“Pray that Trump in brandishing tariffs is actually aware of the downside risks and is only using tariffs as a negotiating ploy and has no intention of using them at all except as a last resort.”

I think that it’s easy to fall into the trap that Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing on trade. That’s all you hear everywhere - and you’ve fallen for it too, I think.

As I’ve said in previous replies - anything that restricts trade is a defacto tariff. Trump is 100% correct in that tools including currency manipulation, non-tariff restrictions, and protectionist regulations cause US exports to be limited (just like a tariff would do) in many countries when there are no such non-tariff restrictions in the US.

He is right to assert the threat - even the necessity for tariffs against some goods from some countries.

It is ultimately to the benefit of free trade to do so. Just because our trading partners aren’t used to fair play and are screaming doesn’t mean Trump doesn’t know what he is doing. I think he is right.

[JimRed]

Too bad Gov. Pence and President-elect Trump cannot keep the lobbyists away from the House of Representatives where they are enacting a cement tax complete with a new federal agency evidently lobbied by big cement.

Since lobbying has devolved into pay-to-play and the money involved is substantial, we need to fix that. I suggest that ALL political donations must be made ANONYMOUSLY. You can't sell influence if you don't know who is buying. Americans should be able to donate to any party, officeholder or candidate, in any amount they choose; that's FREEDOM. So is the right to ask for policies which benefit you or your business. But an agreement on an outcome in exchange for a donation is BRIBERY, a crime.

Any attempt to learn the source of a donation or to reveal the same should carry a prison sentence. A few lobbyists and politicians frogmarched off in cuffs will cure the problem.

Add term limits to the mix and you'll be rid of the self-serving political class, while those who are truly willing to SERVE will remain until their terms expire.

[nathanbedford]

Congress is moving to reinstate earmarks, the Majority Leader has just announced that term limits will never come to the floor, so I doubt that we will make much progress in the Congress toward your laudable goals which I share.

That leaves only Article V as a path toward obtaining the reforms we both want. Are you on board?

[jch10]

As a long term listener and short term tv viewer, I am well aware of where Levin stands. Even as a Cruz supporter for a very long time, I did not approve of the way Mark brutalized a fellow Republican. He lost me when he didn’t adhere to Reagan’s rule. I’ve tried to listen a few times since then but couldn’t last through the first hour. I’m surprised he hasn’t lost a large portion of his audience.

[central_va]

It amazes me how many don’t realize we pay duties to get into foreign markets like China yet our markets are virtually wide open. And they are OK with it.

[Owen]

I thought this thread was about elimination of lobbyists from the transition team.

Not lobbyist paid trolls diverting it to another subject.

[semimojo]

And we can impose huge tariffs on partners who buy hundreds of billions of our goods with no consequence.

What a magical place you live in.

[central_va]

How did America survive before 1980 when imports were rare and trade deficits almost nil? We have an $800B a year trade deficit. There will be pain. An escalating tariff of 3% increase per year until the deficit goes down to zero or a max of 35% is reached. It would work.

So did you vote for that tariff loving economic idiot Trump?

[central_va]

Free Traitors™ hijacked it.

[semimojo]

How did America survive before 1980 when imports were rare and trade deficits almost nil?

We got by but our economy was $10T smaller then, too.

Trade wars will send us back in that direction.

[central_va]

We are in a trade war now. Only a dolt could not see that.

[NorthMountain]

Do you ever voluntarily talk about reducing the size, scope, power and COST of government?

We don't have almost 20 trillion dollars of debt and more than 200 trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities because of 'insufficient' taxation.

[central_va]

Do you ever consider that with almost nil tariffs the progressives get a built in excuse handed to them to keep their income tax? You are being their “useful” idiot.