Ted Cruz’s crowd-pleasing RedState red meat

Atlanta Journal ^ | August 8, 2015 | Greg Bluestein

[DannyTN]

That’s interesting but they ranked Trump as Bad on trade, when Trump is the only candidate that understands how our so-called free trade deals has caused our high unemployment and our de-industrialization.

Nevertheless Trump still had 4 green dots to Jeb’s 0 dots.

[brothers4thID]

I make it a point to respond to all FReepers as if they are true conservatives. Trust but verify. After that... well, see my tag-line.

[Longbow1969]

Hi DannyTN, you’ve posted some thoughtful replies to me and I didn’t want you to think I was ignoring them.

I think protectionism is wrong for all manner of reasons. In my view we’d still be choosing from the same shabbily built cars the big 3 were churning out if protectionists had their way.

I think to compete in a globalized world, that is really and truly unstoppable at this point, we just have to be more efficient and also accept that a lot of low skilled jobs are going to go. There is really nothing that can stop some of that from happening.

Your posts deserve a better response, but I am multi tasking here at the moment and don’t have time to put everything I’d like to say in words. I will revisit your comments later.

Thanks.

[brothers4thID]

Actually, I’d like to know how Mr. Trump intends to lower taxes. He does understand that tax rates are set by Congress? That the only true economic powers of the Presidency lie in the power of veto and trade authorizations? That the Constitutionally stated job of the Presidency is not, in fact, to create jobs, protect existing jobs, or protect American companies?

I do not know about you, FRiend, but I’ve had about enough of imperial presidencies. Give me back my Republic.

[DannyTN]

If you listen to Trump on immigration, he repeatedly reminds us that we are a nation of laws and that’s it’s wrong for the president to override immigration law on a whim. I don’t think you have to fear an imperial president with Trump. He is going to be a strong personality though, and a tough negotiator, so he is likely to get his way, but through the appropriate legal channels.

Trump will lower taxes by putting forth the vision and the plan. But Congress will have to pass it. I expect that Trump will tie it to tariffs and use some of the tariff funds to offset the drop in income taxes. Trump will sell it to the American people and to Congress. He’ll use the bully pulpit and call them stupid if he has too.

But that’s true of any tax plan promoted by any candidate. Cruz advocates a flat tax, Huckabee a fair tax. Both have to go through Congress.

The harder question is can Trump really modify our trade agreements? We’ve given up a lot of sovergnty to the World Trade Organization. We’ve signed long term agreements. But if anybody can find the leverage to renegotiate, Donald Trump can. Reagan did. Reagan forced the Japanese to build in America. I fear that the president’s hands may be more tied now than ever. But if anybody can renegotiate, it’s the Donald. None of the other candidates even seem to recognize the problem. How could they hope to fix it?

Obviously a President is expected to act in the interest of America. The government sets the rules of the market. Whether it’s competition, regulations, taxes, international trade, those rules are defined and enforced by the government. Some rules are at the federal level, some are at the state level. But clearly the President has a role to play. That doesn’t have to be explicit.

[DannyTN]

If you listen to Trump on immigration, he repeatedly reminds us that we are a nation of laws and that’s it’s wrong for the president to override immigration law on a whim. I don’t think you have to fear an imperial president with Trump. He is going to be a strong personality though, and a tough negotiator, so he is likely to get his way, but through the appropriate legal channels.

Trump will lower taxes by putting forth the vision and the plan. But Congress will have to pass it. I expect that Trump will tie it to tariffs and use some of the tariff funds to offset the drop in income taxes. Trump will sell it to the American people and to Congress. He’ll use the bully pulpit and call them stupid if he has too.

But that’s true of any tax plan promoted by any candidate. Cruz advocates a flat tax, Huckabee a fair tax. Both have to go through Congress.

The harder question is can Trump really modify our trade agreements? We’ve given up a lot of sovergnty to the World Trade Organization. We’ve signed long term agreements. But if anybody can find the leverage to renegotiate, Donald Trump can. Reagan did. Reagan forced the Japanese to build in America. I fear that the president’s hands may be more tied now than ever. But if anybody can renegotiate, it’s the Donald. None of the other candidates even seem to recognize the problem. How could they hope to fix it?

Obviously a President is expected to act in the interest of America. The government sets the rules of the market. Whether it’s competition, regulations, taxes, international trade, those rules are defined and enforced by the government. Some rules are at the federal level, some are at the state level. But clearly the President has a role to play. That doesn’t have to be explicit.

[Isara]

Nevertheless Trump still had 4 green dots to Jeb’s 0 dots.

And, who got all green dots, but one yellow, in all 11 issues?

Presidential Candidates Comparison

He also got a green dot for Taxes, Economy & Trade issue while Trump got a red dot (bad).

[DannyTN]

Which just means that site doesn’t know squat about the economy or trade.

[brothers4thID]

I find this notation disturbing and would like to learn more about Mr. Trump’s reasoning. (I understand that you do not speak for the Trump campaign, I will do my own research on the matter.)

Trump supported the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of London, allowing public authorities to seize private land for economic development by private investors; Trump said, “I happen to agree with [the decision] 100 percent.” (National Review) This is no surprise given Trump’s attempt to use eminent domain in his own line of work. (Institute for Justice) - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates/candidates/donald-trump#article-9

[Isara]

Which just means that site doesn’t know squat about the economy or trade.

Of course.

[SmokingJoe]

“No, not joking at all. Trump is the only candidate that understands what our economy needs.”

Rubbish!

“Cruz is great in other aspects, but fails miserably when it comes to the economy.”

Actually, Ted Cruz understands how the economy works a heck of a lot more than Donald Trump does.

[DannyTN]

Ted Cruz tried to give Obama fast track authority to create even more job killing free trade agreements.

Cruz is an imbecile when it comes to the economy. He needs to spend 4 to 8 years under Donald’s tutelage before he will be ready to lead the nation.

[SmokingJoe]

Free trade is a fundamental pillar of conservatism. TPA was passed for previous Republican presidents by Republican congress. Trump supports single payer healthcare for crying out loud. That's understanding the economy?
Read this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/08/07/no-donald-trump-single-payer-health-care-doesnt-work-incredibly-well-in-canada-scotland/

Don't make me laugh.

[DannyTN]

Our founding fathers put in high import tariffs that served our country 180 years until we lowered them in the 60’s.

Since when did conservatism mean abandoning our own people to the food stamp line and employing millions of people in countries that don’t share our views on human rights, freedom and democracy?

[DannyTN]

Why Trump is a conservative

1. Pro life since at least 2011, wanted to ban partial birth abortion as far back as 2000.
2. Pro Traditional marriage. "Gay rights is not my thing."
3. Pro capital punishment "Capital punishment isn't uncivilized; murderers living is"
4. Hold Judges accountable
5. Opposes "Common core is a diaster" Teach citizenship, quit "dumbing down".
6. Anti education unions (2000)
7. For school choice
8. "Climate Change is a hoax"
9. "No Cap-and-Tax"
10. For drilling our own.
11. On Environment "GOod development enhances the environment"
12. Stressed the importance of a strong family & culture of life (2015)
13. Supports Israel
14. Opposes Iran deal and letting Iran obtain the bomb.
15. Wants to crush ISIS quickly.
16. Wants a military so strong no one will challenge us.
17. Against unbalanced trade deals that kill American jobs.
18. Against warrantless government surveilance of citizens.
19. Is against having a high national debt. Warns that $24T is a point of no return.
20. Againt gun control
21. For assault weapon ban but says the AR-15 shouldn't be considered an assault weapon.
22. Wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with market driven polices and increased competition among insurance companies.
23. Wants to increase military spending.
24. Will close the border to illegals
25. Will send the criminals and sponges back.
26. Will deport all illegals but will let the hard working ones go through the legal process to come back.
27. Against Anchor babies
28. Knows unemployment is much higher than official stats.
29. Will bring jobs back through better trade negotiation.
30. Attended military academy and Wharton Business School.
31. Stood up for Birthers and challenged Obama on his fraud.
32. Believes USA is "the greates force for freedom the world has ever known"
33. Wants to honor commitments on Social Security and Medicare, which we can afford to do if he gets the economy going full steam.
34. Wants to reduce the fraud in disability and other programs.
35. Against marriage penalties in tax code.
36. Wants to reduce income taxes and eliminate corporate tax.
37. Wants to rebuld our infrastructure.
38. Wants to apply welfare-to-work to 76 other welfare programs (2011)
39. Doesn't have time for political correctness.
40. Not afraid to call out either party or both when they are wrong.
41. Not a puppet to campaign donators.

Source for most of the above and the image below...OnTheIssues.com

[brothers4thID]

http://anewdomain.net/2015/07/23/donald-trumps-achilles-heel-eminent-domain-property-seizure/

“Donald Trump’s presidential platform mirrors almost perfectly the opinions of the Tea Party movement. But there’s one major difference between Trump’s views and those of conservatives: Trump supports broad application of eminent domain.”

[DannyTN]

Eminent Domain is nothing compared to the fix this economy needs. We’ve got 100 million Americans on food stamps. Eminent Domain didn’t cause that. Unbalanced trade deals did.
And Trump is the only candidate that even recognizes the problem, much less has the negotiating skills to fix it.

Besides the problem with Eminent Domain is who gets to decide that a project is or is not in the public interest? Is it not the very elected officials who get to declare eminent domain? Conceptually I agree, that taking lands and turning them over to a private developer sounds like an abuse. But is it always?

I think we attacked that problem from the wrong perspective. I think we should have focused on the fair compensation for the property. If they can’t buy the property for the value offered, then why do we consider that price fair?

[brothers4thID]

You keep quoting that number: 100 million Americans on food stamps. Care to back that up with actual data? Because this is what I have:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/food-stamp-beneficiaries-exceed-46000000-38-straight-months

Furthermore, can you give me your argument for why free trade is the reason that the majority of those 46 million are on food stamps?

I tell you that my experience, and a substantial amount of sociological and economical data supports this , is that at least 1/3 of Americans are on food stamps because of endemic generational poverty in inner cities and in Appalachia. Now my personal experience is with Appalachia, where folks grow up, (maybe) graduate from high school, start having kids and go on WIC, then food stamps, when they realize that the job at the Dairy Queen or the local Stop & Shop won’t put food on the table for all those new little mouths. More often than not they are not married, they’ve never been more than 100 miles from the town in which they were born and it has never, WILL never occur to them to leave.

Which would be well and good if there were jobs to be had. But Appalachia farming never really produced much (except hemp and, well...) and Obama’s war on coal just continues a decades long decline in the coal industry. We’re a clannish lot, we folks from Appalachia, and we like to stick together in our insular communities. Johnson’s War on Poverty and the TVA had government men coming around with handouts so that we never HAD to leave— even when economics and plain common sense should have told us there were too many people living in the hills for the land to support.

So now we’re on our fourth or fifth generation of kids growing up in Appalachia who not only don’t associate anything wrong with taking government hand-outs instead of moving to find better opportunity, but they think it’s perfectly normal.

Please understand this is not everyone from or in Appalachia or even everyone in Appalachia on assistance. But I’m trying to give you an example of how we have folks on food stamps that does not in any way correlate to free trade. The next President and Congress can enact whatever protectionist tariffs they wish, it will not change the situation I just described one iota.

Need another example of folks on food stamps not related to free trade? Enlisted service members and their families. Free trade didn’t take their jobs. Quite often they’re trying to raise families on one (shamefully meager)salary due to constant reassignments that hinder the spouse’s ability to hold down long-term employment. Or the service-member is deployed so often that the spouse is effectively a single parent and, unable to afford daycare/after school care, cannot work outside the home.

[DannyTN]

101M Get Food Aid from Federal Gov’t; Outnumber Full-Time Private Sector Workers

Okay so it turns out there are 17 different food assistance programs and I should be using the term "Food Assistance" instead of "food stamps" which is just 1 of the 17 programs.

[DannyTN]

"Furthermore, can you give me your argument for why free trade is the reason that the majority of those 46 million are on food stamps?"

It's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that unemployment is a lot higher than the official rates, and that those same people are likely to be taking advantage of the food assistance programs. Thus if they had jobs, they wouldn't be on the programs. Obviously not every one are on the programs because they are able bodied and unable to find work, but many of them are.

If you look around, we've all seen a lot of plants shut down and go overseas. Those were jobs. You walk through walmart and look at how many consumer products are now made overseas. And those are jobs too. Imagine how much demand for labor there would be if just 80% of the products in Walmart were made in America?

And when there is sufficient demand for labor, employers will start seeking out areas of high unemployment. It's entirely possible that jobs will come to your Applalachia scenario without them having to leave to find work.

And finally it's backed up by the trade deficit numbers. Our imports are equivalent to 20% of our GNP. And that 20% was made with extremely cheap overseas labor and thus would represent a higher porportion of our economy if those jobs were still here or came back.

Now if we actually traded goods worth an equal amount, then you could say that the export jobs offset the import jobs. But you can't because we don't export nearly as much as we import.

If China used the dollars from the sale of their cheap imports to buy American goods, I wouldn't have as much of an issue. But China collects the dollars from the sale of their imports and uses it to buy our debt and our equities instead of trade goods. And they can do this because their State controls many of their firms and then they have high taxes as well.

I'd still have some issue with it, because it's just not wise to become so dependent on other countries. Especially countries like China that don't share our respect for human rights and freedoms.

It's safe to say that we could put a lot of people to work if we renegotiated our trade agreements to make them balanced, or imposed tariffs until they became balanced.

Now the other argument is that automation is replacing labor, and that is true. However, that is all the more reason to bring the manufacturing processes back to America so that when they are automated, it's the U.S. that controls the processes and has the expertise in automation not competing nations.