Posted on 05/07/2016 5:55:33 PM PDT by stratboy
One of the major planks in Donald Trump’s campaign platform, if not the top priority, has been a stalwart insistence that voluntary commerce and trade with other countries weakens America’s economy and costs American jobs. Moreover, he insists that he knows best how to manage it all in the best interests of America. Indeed, Trump has not only proposed slapping a 45 percent tariff on all goods made in China, and massive tariffs on other countries like Japan and Mexico, but he repeatedly declares that he will personally impose punitive taxes on Ford Motor Company if it follows through with plans to build a manufacturing plant in Mexico. He has also threatened punitive penalties against Apple Inc. if it continues making iPhones in China. It would seem, like Barack Obama, Trump has his own autocratic pen and phone. - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/05/trump-the-globalist#sthash.ATV8Bnw9.dpuf
He’s right about the tariffs, and Trump is wrong... but Trump’s trying to get the union vote away from Hillary... so as usual, Trump says what people want to hear. If he actually did it, without doing what Levin and fiscal conservatives be they Republican or Libertarian know needs to done, the economy would tank further than it is now.
The problem is the regulations and minimum wage laws that drove companies overseas, and also the high taxes everyone pays that keep us from having much, if any, disposable income. Punishing the companies and US stockholders and small businesses reliant on inexpensive products to sell to overtaxed consumers with very limited disposable income... just to try to keep companies here by coercion... raises costs for everyone and hurts people who don’t have the option of magically increasing their earnings to match the skyrocketing prices needed to make products made by high-paid union labor profitable.
Levin has said Trump’s tax plan is good...so Trump is probably thinking of the real issues but not saying anything because as soon as you give details you just draw more fire. It’s just irritating to see a dumbed down message work so well because of what it says about the state of the country.
But Trump can’t talk about much or he’ll scare off the Democrats that are responding to him because they feel awkward with what their party has become.
That said, I don’t think Trump means most anything he says, but he still he has a few things going for him that Hillary can’t match:
He doesn’t have the “hate America” attitude that other libs have...[neither did any GOP candidate.]
His rules of engagement are going to be WAY better than hers or anyone else’s would be... let’s face it, if you have a soldier in the family the Trump ROE are likely to be the best thing since sliced bread. [True of all GOP candidates save maybe Lindsey Graham, or Huckabee, or Rand Paul.]
He can do that Bill Clinton wink and grin thing when he lies so long as he lies in a YUGE way, and people think it’s cute because he’s just a rascal, while Hillary just comes across as a grumpy witch.
And he’s impervious to political correctness darts.
[He’s pretty much the only guy impervious to those.]
But ideologically, and constitutionally, Levin is still right. If we’re really going to get the country turned around to small government, Trump’s not going to be the guy to do that. Problem is, you can’t explain ideas or the Constitution to world wrestling fans or people whose eyes glaze over while reading “long” tweets. So Trump’s hyperbolistic bullspit and popular conspiracy theories will have to do to break PC’s demoralizing and paralyzing grip .... and afterwards maybe we can get back to figuring out how to put more shackles on the federal government’s ability to bribe and coerce so we can restore power to the states and people, and sell that to formerly reluctant folks.
I listened to Levin for years from his early days on Saturday morning radio. He is finished. Time to get a real job.
Levin has been a major crybaby and quitter.
Instead of joining Trump and fighting for what he believes, his show has been a self-pity party with whiners calling in to say they will move aside for Hillary by not voting for Trump.
A disaster for international corporations in the short term. Long term tariffs will save American industry. It's a matter of who wins and who loses.
When does this useless pos just endorse Clinton or is he waiting for a 3rd party candidate to endorse?
These are such LIES. Trump is not “slapping a 45 percent tariff on all goods made in China, and massive tariffs on other countries like Japan and Mexico....”
The English language is hard for some people. It is the THREAT of tariffs that will accomplish his goals. He has actually said this.
Just like deporting millions of illegals. The THREAT of deportation will cause many to self deport.
Like Tommy Thompson’s welfare reforms back in Wisconsin, where all recipients had to re-register, YUGE numbers just quit the welfare roles.
It was a cool gig while it lasted, but when they thought they might get caught, they just QUIT.
When you are the opposite of a girly man, metro-sexual, pussified, weak, president like Barack Obama, people believe you will actually follow through.
When Trump draws a line in the sand, everyone knows he won’t be moving it backwards. If anything, he will move it TEN FEET forward.
You don’t tug on superman’s cape
You don’t spit into the wind
You don’t pull the mask off that old lone ranger
And you don’t mess around with The Donald
Just curious to see if you know the answer to these three questions:
Who pays the tariff tax?
Who collects and spends the tariff tax?
Why not just ban an import rather than putting a tariff on it?
You need to relax and speak to me like a human being.
“Proposes amendments to the Constitution” = “opens up (constitution)”. Like opening up a contract for negotiation.
And yes, ratification and all of that. It may surprise you that I know history and I talk to those here on FR as though they do too. These people who would attend and “ratify” such “proposed amendments to the Constitution” can’t be trusted to do so.
I would love to answer your question as a person, next time don’t come at me sideways, looking for a fight. thanks.
Tariffs don't, AFAIK, create inflation. Tariffs simply raise the price you and I pay for iPads and iPhones and such. Our standard of living goes down immediately when tariffs are imposed.
So who benefits from tariffs?
The U.S. Federal Government - Increased tax revenue.
Any U.S. company that gets to raise it's prices due to the reduced competition.
Who loses from tariffs?
You and me an every American consumer.
So what is the argument in favor of tariffs?
Long term growth in employment in the U.S.
More happy Freepers.
My problem is that I just don't buy the employment growth argument and the short term and (I believe) the long term loss of buying power for Americans will be the reality.
But I'm open to some proof that I'm wrong. Freepers who agree with Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump on trade and tariffs should present their PROOF that these guys are right. I haven't seen it. But I'm very, very patient.
Rush is hesitant. He has been on the party establishment on free trade, NAFTA, etc. That is part of the attraction for Trump, he ‘represents’ the other side, the Perot and Buchanan side of politics. Part of which Rush has always been against.
Who is "our"? If Apple opens a new production facility in the USA and employees a 1000 people does their standard of living going down? If the trade deficits and federal deficits are zeroed out thru tariff revenue and interests rates naturally go up then do savers benefit? Your myopic arguments ring hollow.
In case you didn't know the definition of inflation is " too many dollars chasing to few goods".
Proof: Look at China, behind a wall of protectionism they went form dung burning rice peasants to an industrial power in 40 years. How much more proof do you want?
Free Traitors™ have been brainwashed by Limbaugh et al. They will never change their minds. The sooner Rushbo hangs up the mic the better for the USA.
Raise the price of your next iPad by $100. You lose. That's who the "our" is. It's you and me.
Multiply this by the tens or hundreds of thousands of items that Trump/Sanders would tax and you will see who "our" is. It's everyone.
Who would benefit: 1000 new Apple employees and Washington DC. True enough.
Who would lose: Everyone else.
Temporary increase. Once domestic manufacturing comes on line the price will return to previous levels.
The tariff would balance the budget and help reduce trade deficits, benefiting the taxpayer. The 1000 people would be off public assistance and again the taxpayer benefits.
IMO A lot of senior citizens don't care about the trade deficit or budget deficits they greedily want their "supposedly" cheap crap until they kick off. They just want to run out the clock. I hope I am never like that.
My hope is the Republican Party returns to it's protectionist roots before the USA goes socialists.
From the 1924 Republican platform:
The Tariff
We reaffirm our belief in the protective tariff to extend needed protection to our productive industries. We believe in protection as a national policy, with due and equal regard to all sections and to all classes. It is only by adherence to such a policy that the well being of the consumers can be safeguarded that there can be assured to American agriculture, to American labor and to American manufacturers a return to perpetrate American standards of life. A protective tariff is designed to support the high American economic level of life for the average family and to prevent a lowering to the levels of economic life prevailing in other lands.
In the history of the nation the protective tariff system has ever justified itself by restoring confidence, promoting industrial activity and employment, enormously increasing our purchasing power and bringing increased prosperity to all our people.
The tariff protection to our industry works for increased consumption of domestic agricultural products by an employed population instead of one unable to purchase the necessities of life. Without the strict maintenance of the tariff principle our farmers will need always to compete with cheap lands and cheap labor abroad and with lower standards of living.
The enormous value of the protective principle has once more been demonstrated by the emergency tariff act of 1921 and the tariff act of 1922.
We assert our belief in the elastic provision adopted by congress in the tariff act of 1922 providing for a method of readjusting the tariff rates and the classifications in order to meet changing economic conditions when such changed conditions are brought to the attention of the president by complaint or application.
We believe that the power to increase or decrease any rate of duty provided in the tariff furnishes a safeguard on the one hand against excessive taxes and on the other hand against too high customs charges.
The wise provisions of this section of the tariff act afford ample opportunity for tariff duties to be adjusted after a hearing in order that they may cover the actual differences in the cost of production in the United States and the principal competing countries of the world.
We also believe that the application of this provision of the tariff act will contribute to business stability by making unnecessary general disturbances which are usually incident to general tariff revisions.
” So, now “NeverTrump” Levin is not only a lawyer, he’s a self appointed expert on Trade. This should be a clarion call to anyone who takes this twerp seriously. He is in all for Hillary.”
Face it, if Trump gets in and fixes this mess that Levin’s RINO’s got us into, what does he talk about?? How does he sell his faux conservative books? The big money in immigration and BAD trad deals owns Levin. He is a lobbyist owned shill.
Sorry, but that is not the natural sense of the words “open up.”
The natural sense of the words is that the Convention would meet behind closed doors, “open up” the Constitution, and then emerge to show the public the CHANGED Constitution. This is what the ONLY “Constitutional Convention” in our history did.
If you resent being addressed like an ignoramus, then don’t call an Article V a “Constitutional Convention.” There has been one Constitutional Convention, and there is never going to be another, because there is no authorization in the Constitution for another.
You should have made yourself clear in the first place: You are opposed to ANY Constitutional amendments, whether proposed by Congress or by an Article V convention.
Tariffs are fundamentally destructive, however Trump is NOT wrong.
Let me explain with an analogy. Nuclear weapons are fundamentally destructive. Their purpose is to create as huge an explosion as scientifically possible, and to destroy all structures, industrial capacity, and even life within its range. No conservative will deny that fact, but yet they support the Reagan Doctrine of “peace through strength”, and would never unilaterally disarm on the spurious basis that such weapons are destructive, and morally ‘wrong’. Conservatives are not that stupid when it comes to military strength.
That is all Trump is saying about trade. Yes, free markets are ideal, and tariffs that interfere with market transactions are far from ideal. But if our trading partners are imposing restrictions at their end, or putting their thumbs on the scale with currency manipulation, there must be retaliatory consequences -or at least the credible threat thereof. Otherwise, we are unilaterally disarming when it comes to trade.
Similarly, we can’t impose strict environmental regulations within our borders, without taking into consideration what our trading partners are doing. If our environmentalists unilaterally try to ‘save the planet’ by limiting US carbon emissions, the factories (and jobs) are relocated to China, and, by the way, no world reduction of carbon emissions is achieved, it is just happening elsewhere on the planet.
So, “Peace through strength” applies to trade, borders, terrorism, foreign aid, military protection, taxation, and environmental regulation as well as weapons of mass destruction.
Trump understands that we are losing our shirt as a nation, because we are taking the moral high ground. It has to stop. We can’t continue to let ourselves be taken to the cleaners on everything.
That is why he wants NATO reevaluated, that is why he wants to put tariffs back on the table, that is why he wants to put water boarding back on the table - that’s why he wants to put “walking away from a bad deal” back on the table. That’s why he wants to put eliminating entire federal departments back on the table. That’s why he wants to put being unpredictable back on the table. That’s why he wants to put saying “you’re fired” back on the table.
Everything should be on the table.
It’s not “protectionism” it’s pragmatism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.