He called her a LIAR:
Low Energy...
She's been SCHLONGED! 
Said she belongs in prison...
She's out of touch...
Her own husband doesn't want her...
I can't wait until he goes after her drunkeness...
So many angles of attack...
Posted on 02/28/2016 11:26:28 AM PST by Innovative
Emboldened by her South Carolina landslide, Hillary Clinton is shifting her focus to Republican front-runner Donald Trump as her party seeks consensus on the best ways to challenge the billionaire’s unpredictable nature in a general election.
Among the likely options: Questioning Trump's qualifications and temperament to be president, scrutinizing his business practices and bankruptcy filings, and re-airing his inflammatory statements about women and minorities who will be central to the Democrats' efforts in November.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Ah, but you are thinking the worst case. You probably believe Trump will raise tariffs on Chinese goods by 45% (reported by media, but denied by Trump). The fact is that some negotiated elements will be applied but these can be done without the worst case effect on the economy.
Trump has pointed out that monetary policy being applied by China is part of the problem.
I do understand how a higher price for overseas goods could be caused. For example, France supports their soybean production by adding a tariff on US soybeans. The result is that every Frenchman pays more for soybean products than is necessary. This is apparently what France wants. So why can’t the US level the playing field with our low labor cost trading partners?
The strongest arrow in the trade quiver right now is the US corporate tax rate. If we lower this, then our companies will experience costs that are more competitive. We will still lose to the labor intensive products markets but may increase the tech and robot product lines balance. What Trump is saying is that better negotiations can improve things for Americans and obviously raising prices in the USA is something to be avoided. Right now we have a severe number of workers out of the labor force. They might prefer a job to the present situation, even if trade were affected as you indicate. Only don’t go totally to the worst case scenario. Good negotiation does not mean giving the store away.
He called her a LIAR:
Low Energy...
She's been SCHLONGED!
Said she belongs in prison... She's out of touch...
Her own husband doesn't want her...
I can't wait until he goes after her drunkeness...
So many angles of attack...
He’s said 45%, 25%...
He’s on tape for the 45%:
“I would tax China coming in — products coming in. I would do a tariff. And they do it to us. We have to be smart. I’m a free trader. I’m a free trader. And some of the people would say, ‘Oh, it’s terrible.’ I’m a free trader. I love free trade. But it’s got to be reasonably fair. I would do a tax, and the tax — let me tell you what the tax should be. The tax should be 45 percent.”
>>>The fact is that some negotiated elements will be applied but these can be done without the worst case effect on the economy.
That’s encouraging, he’ll only do the bad case. :)
>>>>why can’t the US level the playing field with our low labor cost trading partners?
Because it would hurt our economy greatly. Tariffs hurt the country that imposes them. It’s like blockading yourself and devaluating your currency at the same time.
>>>>They might prefer a job to the present situation, even if trade were affected as you indicate.
That is taking from the many to give to the few. Trust politicians to decide who gets taxed how much to protect companies in their districts. And a much bigger role of government in the economy.
The whole basis is government saying citizens are choosing correctly, we’re gonna help them choose right by raising prices: to consumers, to businesses, to exports.. But government’s hand will be perfect and balance all this out, fine tune it, you can trust in government run economies..
>Trump has pointed out that monetary policy being applied by China is part of the problem.
They’re devaluing their currency, keeping two sets of books and have forced to stop trading on their stocks. China’s policy is a problem to China.
>>>Good negotiation does not mean giving the store away.
It sounds like Trump will be negotiating thus: “If you don’t stop hurting your economy with tarriffs, we’ll shoot our own.
Donald is woefully inept in his economics. His policies have a much better chance of tanking the economy than of doing good.
Hillary is not going to be the nominee.
L
Auto Bailout or UAW Bailout? Taxpayer Losses Came from Subsidizing Union Compensation
Unions ended up with money and big ownership stakes - at the expense of non-union workers.
Some folks who constantly complain about RINOs support the biggest RINO in the race, perhaps the yugest RINO that ever existed. :)
>>>Admit that you are exactly like Trump, a scumbug who is a bad guy because he spends money that goes to the mob eventually.
Might be a tad bit more that went on:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/memory-lapse-trump-seeks-distance-advisor-past-ties/story?id=34600826:
While the Trump SoHo project was considered a success, four other Bayrock projects were either never built or were finished by others. Some of them resulted in lawsuits from unhappy investors. In each case, Trump was not the actual developer of the project and was, instead, paid a fee to license the use of his name and potentially operate the hotel projects.
During this period, Trump and Bayrock also collaborated on a proposal for the 600,000-square-foot Trump International Hotel and Residences, Phoenix, that was to include a spa, swimming pools, “exquisite gardens,” and “a world-class celebrity chef restaurant.”
The project never got off the ground, however, and in a 2007 lawsuit filed in state court against “the Trump/Bayrock Organization,” the plaintiff alleged that Sater threatened one of the Arizona partners in the deal, a man named Earnest Mennes. Sater was alleged to have told Mennes he would call in a relative to “electrically shock Mr. Mennes’ testicles, cut off Mr. Mennes’ legs, and leave Mr. Mennes dead in the trunk of his car.”
And, lest we forget, Trump gave $100,000 to $250,000 to the Clinton Crime Family.
:)
I agree that Trump could have the effect that you and other Free Traders indicate, but why do you think that is his goal? Are you for a continuation of the present policy? What has that done?
There is a trade off here and you know it. The balance between being able to buy cheap stuff at Wal Mart and the ability to buy stuff because you have a job that contributes to the economy need to both be satisfied. I know education is a big factor, I am in the tech field and I have never wanted for work. But if I made Carrier HVAC equipment I would be wondering where to go for help. Trump has worked in the past to have his hotel business buy American products to keep jobs in this country. I would expect that he will bring pressure on companies planning on moving operations overseas to find another way.
Trump can do this because of his position as a not for hire politician. And I am not afraid that Trump does not know the basic economics of international trade. He has been doing it for decades.
Open up a little, there may be a better way to handle the imbalance with our low wage international competitors. It is tied up with tax reform and overseas banking laws, and repatriation of funds. I would bet that Trump will find a way to improve American jobs without “tanking the economy”. And a little hard negotiation may be the ticket.
>>why do you think that is his goal?
It’s not his goals, but his methods that will tank the economy.
>>Are you for a continuation of the present policy? What has that done?
I’m not for going from bad to much worse. There are many things we can do to improve our economy, trade barriers are not in that list.
>>The balance between being able to buy cheap stuff at Wal Mart and the ability to buy stuff because you have a job that contributes to the economy need to both be satisfied.
Trumps solution is government is in control of that balance. What you are proposing is hurting the many, taxing, for the benefit of the few, protected industries.
It becomes politics and government making decisions for the marketplace - because us citizens aren’t making the right choices according to government.
>>>>I would bet that Trump will find a way to improve American jobs without “tanking the economy”.
Then you’re betting he’s not going to do what he says he is. You’re betting that he knows better than what he claims he will do.
I think that’s a very bad bet, scary bad for jobs and the economy.
Thanks for your considered reply.
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.