The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: txradioguy on May 10, 2016, 02:03:32 PM
-
The Trump media surrogates have a quandary. They're not sure whether to compare their man Donald Trump to Ronald Reagan, distinguish him from Reagan, or dismiss Reagan. It depends on the day and the subject. So they spin, and spin, and spin. One area in which Trump can be nailed down is his overall view of trade. As I explained at Conservative Review, when it comes to Trump's own financial dealings, he is an unrepentant globalist, from which he has made a fortune. But these days, as he runs for president, the billionaire is a radical protectionist who has repeatedly declared his intention to impose massive tariffs aimed at the economies of other countries, such as Japan and Mexico, and a forty-five percent tariff on products from China. Such broad tariffs would most certainly result in retaliation by the targeted countries. This is a sure job-killer that would also drive up costs of everyday products to low- and middle-class Americans. The net result: economic misery, not just for those hard-working, tax-paying Americans who work in industries that rely on international commerce and trade, but mostly everyone.
This is not Reaganism but Herbert Hooverism. And besides the economic impact, this would lead to empowering further centralized government — politicians, courts, and bureaucrats — and weakening further the private sector and individual liberty. This is precisely what occurred during the Great Depression. The federal government always gets more powerful under these conditions, which is among the reasons constitutional conservatives resist it.
Trump has also threatened Ford Motor Company, should it move forward with building a plant in Mexico. He has warned Apple Inc. against continuing to manufacture iPhones in China. Should he become president, Trump does not have the constitutional authority to manage and control private companies as if they are his own. But the Hugo Chavez-like rhetoric alone should concern freedom-loving Americans.
None of this seems to matter to professional Trump media surrogates, including Julia Hahn at Breitbart. Not only does she ignore these stunning Trump proclamations, she insists, for now anyway, that there really is no light between what Trump is saying and proposing and what Reagan said and did. Her premise is so thoroughly preposterous and her "arguments" so thin, I thought it worth a brief examination. Indeed, the opposite is true. Trump's position on trade is more akin to socialist Bernie Sanders. As Trump explained to ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, "I'm going to get Bernie [Sanders] people to vote, because they like me on trade."
First, let's look at the bogeyman, the trilateral agreement with the United States, Canada, and Mexico known as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Trump has said, "We will either renegotiate it or we will break it." He has called it "a disaster." Not only was Reagan a powerful advocate for such a trade arrangement, he is credited with giving it birth when he announced his candidacy for president in 1979. Reagan called for a "North American accord." Indeed, in 1984, as a result of Reagan's efforts, Congress passed the Trade and Tariff Act, giving the president "fast-track" authority to negotiate free trade agreements. And in 1988, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the predecessor to NAFTA, was signed. (It has since been overtaken by NAFTA, which includes Mexico.)
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/05/trump-on-trade-more-sanders-than-reagan#sthash.xqFueUgq.dpuf
-
I get it. You don't like Trump. It's rather obvious, however, this race is going to be between Trump and Hillary.
Since you're so anti-trump, you want hillary?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
BTW, I normally don't argue politics, with either liberals or conservatives. My vote is my vote and I don't need to justify it to anyone.
Denigrating my position won't cause me to change my mind.
I have an exceptionally liberal older brother who, on facebook, posted a screed about how he'd never vote for Trump and listed a bunch of reasons.
I responded to him, (paraphrasing since I don't have facebook up in front of me), "You are so pro-military, yet you'll vote for the woman that allowed 4 people, including two Navy seals to die in benghazi, in an 8 hour firefight, when help was a mile away, yet they were told to stand down. Who issued the order?"
To date, no response.
-
The Right's 'Free trade' policy, supported as well by wealthy establishment Dems, has turned out to be about as successful for the country as the Left's headlong rush to conclude a nuclear treaty with Iran under the false dichotomy of 'It's either give away the farm or war tomorrow.' They have both proven to be horrible deals for us and great for everyone else...when the 'Mainstream' Conservatives talk about free trade, what they want is great for investment bankers and people steeped in the capital markets, but it's proven to be a pile of dog turds for the American middle and working classes. Great, we can buy all sorts of cheap stuff, but it's not so great that the only things some of our biggest trading 'partners' will let us sell on their turf are resources like lumber, coal, and grain, not manufactured consumer goods made here. Trump and Sanders are both chewing on somewhat different parts of this problem, while Hitlery, Snit Fit Mitt, the Bushies, and button-down fiscal-only Conservatives of the Forbes and National Review ilk want everyone to stop looking at it.
-
Denigrating my position won't cause me to change my mind.
My sentiments exactly.
#NeverTrump
-
The Right's 'Free trade' policy, supported as well by wealthy establishment Dems, has turned out to be about as successful for the country as the Left's headlong rush to conclude a nuclear treaty with Iran under the false dichotomy of 'It's either give away the farm or war tomorrow.' They have both proven to be horrible deals for us and great for everyone else...when the 'Mainstream' Conservatives talk about free trade, what they want is great for investment bankers and people steeped in the capital markets, but it's proven to be a pile of dog turds for the American middle and working classes. Great, we can buy all sorts of cheap stuff, but it's not so great that the only things some of our biggest trading 'partners' will let us sell on their turf are resources like lumber, coal, and grain, not manufactured consumer goods made here. Trump and Sanders are both chewing on somewhat different parts of this problem, while Hitlery, Snit Fit Mitt, the Bushies, and button-down fiscal-only Conservatives of the Forbes and National Review ilk want everyone to stop looking at it.
I agree. It's time to stop pushing for "Free Trade", and start pushing for Fair Trade deals.
-
I agree. It's time to stop pushing for "Free Trade", and start pushing for Fair Trade deals.
The problem with the call for "fair trade" is that like with anything that is labelled or pitched as "fair" it never is. Imagine if a Liberal was talking about wanting fair (insert here)....that's how fair trade ends up...government controlled top down and there ends up being nothing fair about it.
We haven't had free trade in the U.S. for several generations. What we have is limited free trade with a great deal of crony capitalism tossed in.
-
I get it. You don't like Trump. It's rather obvious, however, this race is going to be between Trump and Hillary.
Two sides of the same coin. Either way America loses.
Since you're so anti-trump, you want hillary?
That is a simplistic answer pushed by simpleton sycophants who kiss Trumps ass despite everything pointing to the fact he's slightly to the right of Hillary.
Just because I oppose the Liberal ramblings of Trump does not mean I am for Hillary. If that statement was posted by a DUmmie you'd be mocking it to high heaven.
A simple yes or no will suffice.
<--- DU is that way. They are the ones that demand those kind of Stalinist answers.
BTW, I normally don't argue politics, with either liberals or conservatives. My vote is my vote and I don't need to justify it to anyone.
Says the guy who is forcing others to justify theirs with the whole BS of "Since you're so anti-trump, you want hillary?"
Denigrating my position won't cause me to change my mind.
And neither will insulting my intelligence.
I have an exceptionally liberal older brother who, on facebook, posted a screed about how he'd never vote for Trump and listed a bunch of reasons.
I responded to him, (paraphrasing since I don't have facebook up in front of me), "You are so pro-military, yet you'll vote for the woman that allowed 4 people, including two Navy seals to die in benghazi, in an 8 hour firefight, when help was a mile away, yet they were told to stand down. Who issued the order?"
To date, no response.
And to date none of you Trumpbots have an answer to any of the Liberal ramblings and back peddling Trump has done.
-
I get it. You don't like Trump. It's rather obvious, however, this race is going to be between Trump and Hillary.
Since you're so anti-trump, you want hillary?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
BTW, I normally don't argue politics, with either liberals or conservatives. My vote is my vote and I don't need to justify it to anyone.
Denigrating my position won't cause me to change my mind.
I have an exceptionally liberal older brother who, on facebook, posted a screed about how he'd never vote for Trump and listed a bunch of reasons.
I responded to him, (paraphrasing since I don't have facebook up in front of me), "You are so pro-military, yet you'll vote for the woman that allowed 4 people, including two Navy seals to die in benghazi, in an 8 hour firefight, when help was a mile away, yet they were told to stand down. Who issued the order?"
To date, no response.
(http://westworldwide.businesscatalyst.com/trumpdenied.gif)
-
The problem with the call for "fair trade" is that like with anything that is labelled or pitched as "fair" it never is. Imagine if a Liberal was talking about wanting fair (insert here)....that's how fair trade ends up...government controlled top down and there ends up being nothing fair about it.
We haven't had free trade in the U.S. for several generations. What we have is limited free trade with a great deal of crony capitalism tossed in.
Most trade deals favor corporations and consumers, but ignore the workers. Government regulations, taxes, rules and even unions make almost every deal unfavorable to US production of anything and everything.
-
Most trade deals favor corporations and consumers, but ignore the workers. Government regulations, taxes, rules and even unions make almost every deal unfavorable to US production of anything and everything.
Right. Exactly. Which is why I said we haven't had true "free" trade for several generations. It's crony capitalism.
-
Most trade deals favor corporations and consumers, but ignore the workers. Government regulations, taxes, rules and even unions make almost every deal unfavorable to US production of anything and everything.
I think I could get behind the notion of "fair" trade...if it involved things like reigning in the EPA...Interior Department and some of the other agencies that are crushing small business these days and stifling investment and job growth.