Mark, your check is in the mail!
Posted on 05/14/2016 6:07:44 PM PDT by Rockitz
Last week, Donald Trump met with the family members of Sarah Root, a beautiful, beaming 21-year-old girl slaughtered by an illegal alien in Nebraska the day after graduating from college with 4.0 GPA. Later that day, Trump warned, “Crooked Hillary Clinton wants completely open borders.”
Indeed, a review of Clinton’s campaign website reveals that her immigration plan is even more radical than that of Barack Obama, who completely suspended enforcement of America’s immigration law and printed hundreds of thousands of work permits for illegal aliens.
However, a much more pressing topic seems to have triggered the passions of radio host Mark Levin who, along with Jamie Weinstein, is one of the most vocal members of the #NeverTrump movement. In the course of two days, Levin penned two lengthy denunciations of Trump’s trade platform and Breitbart News’s coverage of it.
In a story featured on this website, Levin emotionally warns conservative Americans that Trump’s effort to boost American manufacturing represents a kind of existential threat to conservatism. Levin is seemingly unconcerned with the prospect that his energetic Trump-bashing could help place Hillary Clinton in a position to add millions more Third World migrants to America, who almost certainly will not support Levin’s vision of smaller government conservatism nor tune in to his radio show where he espouses the same.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Levin is quite simply insane in his hatred for the GOP nominee.
So sad.
Hello? Is anyone home? Where did you learn history from a comic book?
Let me try to educate you. The USA from 1789 to 1913 had no income taxes with the temporary exception of 1863-65 in the North. The federal government was funded entirely on tariffs an other user fees. The USA became an economic super power house under that taxation system for 125 years until the disastrous 16th amendment came along. NOW YOU KNOW.
Harley Davidson is exhibit A.
Was George Washington a fascist then? Hmm? Hello?
Mark, your check is in the mail!
Here we go again. The lights are on but nobody’s home. Tariffs used for tax purposes to fund the government is entirely different than thinking tariffs solve economic problems caused by the government.
Contrary to your confused, mad arguments, socialism does not cause less socialism and freedom is not socialism.
Why am I talking to someone with such nutty ideas.
Bye bye, again va_central. Rots a ruck with your confusion.
We have 12,000 tariffs already in place in this country and our economy continues to suck wind. Only the blind would think that prosperity is just another tariff away. But here they are. It's interesting and elucidating that they argue for more government control of the economy, and higher taxes for all Americans, rather than reducing regulation, taxes and litigation. Smaller government would solve a lot of the problems they identify but they're too busy pleading with government to save them to realize it. They aren't even aware that we don't have a free trade agreement with China.
I heard him proclaim himself #nevertrump with my own ears.
I have never heard him recant that position.
The line being drawn now isn’t between conservatives and liberals—it is between nationalists and globalists.
It’s clear to me that the globalists are the money men. Thus, they control both parties (via donations) and media figures like Levin (via direct payments).
Whether Levin understands that he no long fights for conservatism, but rather globalism is anyone’s guess. Heck, he might actually think conservatism and globalism are the same thing.
It’s plain as day though, that someone has payed this piper Levin to play their tune.
The country was up to 95% funded, at the entire federal level, off of tariffs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history
We had no income tax for business or individuals. We made as much stuff as we could here and it employed everyone that had a job. We had no welfare, unemployment, and far less crime than we have today. Jobs do that.
Tariffs are simply a tax and all taxes are penalties. Why is it better to tax income over a penny on imports (which paid none of our taxes)?
There is nothing special about tariffs over these other taxes. It is a tool to penalize something to fund government, just like sales, income, and property tax.
Would you rather disincentivize income, sales, or things built elsewhere?
You and Levin are apparently the ones who are “economically illiterate.”
I stand corrected. I see on April 8th, Levin said so after Roger Stone slimed him.
I’m for a government small enough to be entirely funded from a 20% tariff.
I think this is what is one of the many things driving them crazy is nobody (at least signigicant decrease in numbers) cares what they (Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Ben Shapiro, and even Rush) think.
Further they backed the wrong horse and loudly. Very pointedly wrong, consistently for an extended period of time.
I think it makes them mad the FR largely was way ahead of the curve on all this.
You are right...I know each of them have received much criticism for their comments against who the people have chosen...I won’t ever have the view of them that I once had...
Repealing the 16th Amendment isn't ever going to happen. That's just wishful thinking. It is important to realize, though, that the federal income tax was inflicted upon the U.S. by republicans eager to do whatever they had to do to get another tariff passed (Payne-Aldrich). It is the ignorant pursuit of tariffs that gave us the federal income tax in the first place. Something to think about as you advocate so enthusiastically for more and bigger taxes, and for greater government control of the economy.
All taxes are penalties. I have no problems with tariffs as a part of our penalty burden, if those taxes reduce income disincentives (income tax).
Do you?
You?
>I have a problem with government that refuses to live within its means and will not do so no matter how much money of ours it confiscates. I also prefer less government influence over the economy, not more.
Protectionism is one of the few state planning functions that actually work. And it works because it creates incentives for more free market innovation.
Instead of arguing for bigger government and higher taxes through protectionist policies, you should be demanding lower corporate taxes, the slashing of regulation especially from the EPA and OSHA, and the reigning in of plaintiff's attorneys. Then industry would flourish here and insourcing would become the trend.
Or, you could go on preaching that when it comes to trade, government instantly becomes responsible, capable and reliable, and that government bureaucrats will be able to determine which businesses deserve protection and the proper amount and type of protection to be offered. Increasing the power of the state won't result in greater cronyism like it does for everything else because, as you claim, government behaves differently when it comes to trade. Statism is good for trade. Higher prices are good for middle class families when it comes to protecting unions and politically connected industries. It's better that the middle class pay higher prices to protect the cronies than it is for them to get more bang for their dollar at the grocery store, or save for their kid's education, or plan for their retirement. Government has only our best interests in mind.
Protectionism worked pretty well for the first 120 years of the republic. It’s worked wonderfully for Japan, China, Germany, and Korea.
If you’re going to blindly follow the will of the free market, then you may want to consider that there are markets for murder for hire, markets for abortions, and markets for prostitution. But hey, we should probably keep the government out of those markets, right?
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.