Posted on 03/12/2018 7:06:15 PM PDT by Innovative
Media personality Larry Kudlow, a loquacious and energetic advocate of low taxes and free trade, has emerged as a leading candidate to replace Gary Cohn as director of the White House’s National Economic Council, people briefed on the process said.
President Trump has spoken twice in recent days with the longtime CNBC commentator about succeeding Cohn, according to three people familiar with the discussions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
While the phone conversations with Kudlow — one Sunday and another Monday — were favorable, Trump has yet to make a final decision about an offer, the people said. Still, Kudlow is now widely seen within the West Wing as a finalist for one of the most powerful economic posts in the administration.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Well, I think Kudlow has integrity and while he would give his honest opinion to Trump in private, he would not criticize him in public.
This speech was near the end of the campaign, when almost everyone else had jumped on board. The first thing he did was deny that he was involved with Trump’s campaign in any major way, which pleased all the diehard Cruz supporters and RINOs that he of course knew dominated the audience.
The middle was OK, but he ended with an emotional diatribe on CIVILITY, in which he mentioned the word at least a half dozen times. The point was clear. I felt like I had just heard Peggy Noonan.
But then I’m a crab who walked out on Michael Mukasey after his first twenty words in which he slyly derided candidate Trump for being a tough guy. Yes, I know, we love Trump for that, but this wasn’t said in a nice way.
Republican Party New York City. You can have it. If I hadn’t already left it when the Republican Congress was passing all Obama’s subversive legislation, I would have left it them.
then
it’s amazing what a ba in history from rochester and half an mba will get you.
The president’s revived interest in Kudlow to some extent reflects the White House’s limited options. Economists have widely panned Trump’s tariff decision, and some potential picks are hesitant to join an administration defined by chaos and facing an expanding special counsel investigation.
Thanks Innovative.
Kudlow is a slavic name. He is therefore Russian. Therefore, this is collusion. Hey! Get rid of that net. He’s a Russian spy, I tell you!/s
Was hoping Kudlow would run for Senate from Connecticut.
Kudlow is strongly against the tariffs. Ripped Trump on Twitter bigly.
Kudlow overall is a good man.
As a consevative, I support Trump’s tariffs for the same reason I support killing (in self defense), warfare (when our national security is threatened), and taking poison (chemotherapy - if I’m diagnosed with advanced stage cancer).
In other words, tariffs are not a good thing in principle. They are not in and of themselves good for the economy. They are economic weapons, and as with all weapons, they are essentially destructive. One uses weapons to inflict pain damage - in order to win a fight.
If the fight is good and morally justified, then the use of the weapon is good and justified.
I say this because although we need tariffs as a weapon to fight a trade war, we also need wise economists who have a correct understanding of the dynamics that drive the economy. Part of his understanding is the knowledge that tariffs are ultimately a destructive force in the economy.
Because if in our war footing, we reject the economists who speak the truth about tariffs being a necessary evil, a last resort, then we will make the mistake of leaving destructive tariffs in place long after their “wartime” usefulness.
That would be exactly like the post war periods of our history where wartime economic advisers, arguments and economic policies lingered for decades after the war was over, poisoning our geopolitical thinking.
When defense contractor lobbyists hold sway over the government, the economic advisors who are in fashion in DC are the ones who claim that war is good for the economy, and who see every corner of the world as a national security interest that needs to be controlled.
The truth about the economy, the idea that maximum freedom is the only true nurturer of genersl prosperity, is forgot to, because the economists who poses that piece of wisdom are not in favor and do not have “the King’s ear”.
Conservatives should remember that for many years, we have been the ones saying tariffs are bad, and for good reason: they almost always are.
I support Trump’s tariffs but I’d sleep easier knowing he will listen to economic advisors who understand what tariffs really are - a weapon of last resort.
You are historically challenged. Tariffs helped this nation become an industrial power house. You are FOS. Pres. Washington signed the tariff act of 1789. Thank God he did that.
Part of his understanding is the knowledge that tariffs are ultimately a destructive force in the economy.
Tariffs promote domestic industry and raise revenue without an icome tax. WIN - WIN.
“Tariffs helped this nation become an industrial power house.”
As I said, I support Trump’s tarriffs because he is using them correctly, as leverage, to negotiate a level playing field with our trading partners.
As Trump himself says, he would prefer not to have to use tarriffs, and is ready to rescind them as soon as our trading partners (adversaries) discontinue their abusive trade policies, i.e., barriers, tarriffs, currency manipulation and dumping.
Your childish insults and simplistic historical references do not address any of the finer points worthy of such a topic.
To you then historical facts are simplistic? Really? Did you even finish high school?.
“Did you even finish high school?.”
Yes, and college, and a Masters degree. With a concentration in finance and macroeconomics. Summa Cum Laude. What was your education?
You sound like a low IQ individual.
Adam Smith was an Utopian a$$.
Education? BSEE for me. I study a real discipline and not some pie in the sky economic theory that has failed the USA.
“I study a real discipline and not some pie in the sky economic theory that has failed the USA.”
BSEE is good, I applaud that education choice, but perhaps if you’d learned a bit more about macroeconomics, you’d find it easier to converse on the subject.
Also, if you had explored some of what you call the “pie in the sky” subject areas, such as philosophy, history of art, or macroeconomics, perhaps you wouldn’t have such a chip on your shoulder.
Have a nice day.
I find it very easy to “converse “ in economics. It’s you theoreticians that have a problem when faced with reality. It is a verifiable fact that the tariff helped the USA become the preeminent world industrial power and that the income tax(1913), which supplanted the tariff, was the beginning of the economic decline of the USA. Politics and economics are inextricably intertwined. But you’d disagree.
Add smaller government and reducing regulations and we have a winner.
Please God no.
He lost credibility with Kudlow and Cramer show.
“...and that the income tax(1913), which supplanted the tariff, was the beginning of the economic decline of the USA.”
Actually, I agree that the income tax(1913) was the beginning of the economic decline of the USA.
However, the income tax only “supplanted” the tarriffs if you buy the “fixed government expenditure fallacy”, namely, that one source of revenue (tarriffs) must not be reduced without replacing it with another (federal income tax).
We hear this same fallacious argument from the left every single time tax cuts are proposed. “How will you pay for this tax cut?” the leftists ask. “The tax cut must be revenue nuetral!” the leftists insist. This tax cut will cause massive deficits!” the leftists claim.
But it’s a lie - the over spending is what causes the deficits and the excessive taxes.
Raising revenue to pay for government, by any means, whether tariffs, income tax, sales tax, VAT - always takes a toll (pardon the pun) on the private economy, no matter how it’s done. The size of the government must be limitted or the government (the parasite) will eventually kill the private economy (the host).
Even vampire bats know they can’t bleed too much blood from the ankles of the cattle they feed on, but government knows no limits.
There is a reasonable, limitted size for government (which we surpassed a long time ago), which requires an amount of revenue that can be safely skimmed off the private economy without crippling it.
All I’m trying to get you to acknowledge is that regardless of HOW the revenue is raised, what matters is HOW MUCH. Too much tarriff is just as bad as too much income tax, or too much any kind of tax. The issue is too much.
If you justify tariffs as a source of federal revenue, without addressing the excessive government spending, then you are no better than the tax hikers.
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.