Tax all remittances, eliminate foreign aid.
Posted on 08/31/2016 7:27:42 PM PDT by NoLibZone
Contradicting Trump, Mexican president says he made it clear Mexico will not pay for a border wall
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Listen well. I am following Trump very closely on this issue. Tariffs are only ONE possibility and I am NOT against tariffs. They exist for a reason and have assisted this country very well in the past. Unfortunately for you, I give credit to Trump for his intelligence which you don’t. Get off the Clinton talking points and LISTEN to what Trump REALLY says. He knows what he is doing and he doesn’t need any pointers from a Jr. Varsity joe like you.
To which I absolutely answered: because they are as confused as we are. Protectionist tariffs are like shooting yourself in the foot. - that although tariffs have the appearance of fixing something or retaliating, they do neither.
Dunno where we go from here. Arguing is part of the shtick here, but I thought this was going to be more of a discussion. It's OK with me either way even though I prefer an open discussion.
Tariffs are the only thing he has substantively talked about when pressed on how Mexico will pay. The rest is your own surmising.
Trump should have the IRS fine the Clinton Foundation, and use that money to pay for the wall.
Do you sell INSURANCE? You sound like someone trying to peddle some kind of insurance guaranteeing that the wall with be built according to your specifications or will not be built at all. I have news for you. You have passed the point of boredom. Tunnel vision people add nothing to the conversation. Get lost.
Please quit wasting my time with your non-sequiturs, ad hominems, and incoherent answers. Go away.
You can even target it on benefits which they claim, a tax on legal services and remittances home, just for three quick examples.
If I can get taxed to provide benefits to the slackards, then why can't the slackards get taxed to help pay for some of those benefits too?
>>>That’s true for all taxation.
Yep and tariffs are another tax and another way to give more control over the economy to politicians.
>>>”No it isn’t. Jobs leaving the US decreases living standards.
You want politicians to decide which jobs need bailouts and which don’t? Wanna increase the cost of business for everyone and give the benefits to a few -depending on politicians?
Did the auto bailouts make GM make better cars? Is Japan the reason GM makes less valuable autos? Want government to make cars more expensive for everyone?
>>>I only mentioned it because so many “conservatives” are “freetraders”.
It’s called Freedom and Liberty. Big government, political control of economy, choosing winners and losers... Not conservative.
Tariffs cost jobs from the many, ‘protect’ jobs for the few.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zk3ruapRQZk
It’s a form of collectivism.
Tax all remittances, eliminate foreign aid.
So your answer is that Nabisco is motivated to stay because the higher tariffs will further reduce their already depleted profit margin.
So the way to keep Nabisco and other companies from leaving is force a reduction in their profit margin through tariffs which force higher prices.
But tell me how tariffs attack the root cause(s) causing Nabisco and other companies for wanting to leave in the first place. Don’t we want to address the root causes businesses are fleeing our country in the first place? Is it enough to simply slap them and, therefore, the American consumer, with a big-government fine so to speak?
I would argue that special interests have really corralled the argument, the American People have been snookered, and, at least for now, Trump is going along with it. The losers are the American consumer, who you NEVER hear about and many non-special-interest businesses that are struggling to remain competitive with forced higher costs mandated by the feds.
Back to Nabisco and other companies. They have to deal with the burden of high costs forced by the feds somehow. The only choice of many will be to cut back. That means LESS jobs and a shrinking economy. Many certain special interest sectors like manufacturing might temporarily be helped by tariffs but the overall economy and many other businesses PLUS the American consumer AND the economy suffer. And the root-cause problems have remain untouched. You only have the appearance of a solution which itself actually adds to the root cause problems.
I know that if people understood this, they would not be for it. I don’t think you would be for it. Many haven’t thought this thing through.
The are free to sell at pre tariff price. They were making a profit baking in the USA.
For those "born yesterday" Marx was a free trader too. You can free trade's destructive handy work in the USA. We are on the verge of socialism not because of Democrats, they are just the vehicle, but because of a foolish race to de industrialize the USA. Only an ideological idiot refuses to see that.
And "Free Trade" interferes with political reality and hastens socialism. Free Trade is a political theory as well as an economic theory. You arm chair Adam Smiths should try reading a history book every now and then.
I will defer to the latest article by Pat Buchanan:
“Do NAFTA, the WTO, MFN for China, the South Korea deal and TPP advance the “well-being of the American people”? Or do they serve more the interests of foreign regimes and corporate elites?
Some $12 trillion in trade deficits since George H.W. Bush gives you the answer.”
The other countries may be confused, but they have our $12 trillon dollars.
The mother of all non-sequiturs. Nobody said anything about products produced here. The threat of tariffs is your point and I’m agreeing with you as far as that goes. There’s much more to be said about this which I laid out on my previous post which you summarily ignore or dismiss.
You people don’t reason to well do you.
Not much meaning there as far as I’m concerned. Isolationist Pat Buchanan’s economics don’t impress me. “Trade deficits” is another inflammatory term which few examine rationally.
>>So the the founding fathers, who were all patriots, installed tariffs as the first act of the first congress “collectivists”? I see history is not your strong suit.
History is my strongest suit. That and the constitution.
It’s not the same word, economy, government, tax system of 1790.
Include in your tariff proposal the repeal of the income tax, and then get back tome.
Ok?
Deal?
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.