Posted on 02/14/2011 4:16:43 PM PST by kbennkc
If Donald Trump is serious about seeking the Republican nomination for president, he may find himself running with little support from the party’s powerful economic conservatives.
Trump has been a vocal advocate in recent weeks for a 25 percent tariff on all Chinese imports, a proposal that influential conservative activist Grover Norquist calls “the worst kind of pandering.”
“The tariffs or the tax increases are what politicians call for when they’re expressing contempt for the American people’s intelligence,” Norquist, the founder of Americans for Tax Reform, told The Daily Caller. “Tariffs are not paid by Chinese people, they are paid by American people who buy Chinese products. It would raise the costs of everything you buy in the store. Most of those things you by from China and because you raised the price of one competitor, everybody else gets to raise their prices too.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
I’m still trying to understand why Trump was at CPAC along with a homosexual group which only advocates the queer agenda and then a radcial muslim telling us that the MB is not in America
As for Trump
He is such a phony , the man has told CNN is is more of a Dem, he;s given to Pelosi, Reid and most of his donations have gone to Dems.
Wow. That’s a painful article to read..
The trouble at CPAC & the real dividing line for conserving America
There is a lot of buzz in the conservative air this week, over what may be considered either corruptive or divisive in the ranks, at the current CPAC conference. From any moment to the next, it may be about one group's promotion of homosexuality, or another man's, Grover Norquist's, apparent Islamist activism, in conjunction with his Muslim wife.
Norquist has done much good, but his aims and influence are exemplary of what is has been harmful and corruptive in conservatism for a very long while. That is not because of his marital relations, but because he is married to unbalanced transnationalism. And though he is touted as a principal force for small government conservatism and big tent unity, he opens the door to the biggest government of all and thus becomes a very divisive factor, indeed. Not to worry though, this is not a personal diatribe. With your permission, a much broader point is to be made, featuring him only for the example.
Knowingly or not, Mr. Norquist is an operative for unifying conservatives to conserve the path to selling out America, by the century old, relativist, communitarian, and globalist model of the likes of Morgan/Rockefeller/H.Ford/Bush. And now, this plan is nearly complete, with George Soros, Maurice Strong, and Ban Ki-moon, two nation destroying Marxists and one more coy in his rhetoric, leading the way. (And as good Marxists, of course they have used their Soviet and Nazi trained Islamists among their many pawns, coincidentally for Norquist — Soviet link — Soviet link — Nazi links.) These globalist Marxists view small government transnationalists as dupes, because that is what they are. And that is so, because where national sovereignty is broken down, global governance is there, to fill the vacuum as if by physics, but please hold that thought.
The fact of Norquist's Islamist activism is just a toss-in, here (chronological links: 1, 2, 3, 4). To wrap-up the distastefully personal display of one man as a prime example of so many who place blind faith in the business is good business, wherever you find it model, still so prevalent in the Republican Party:
He is a longstanding member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which has ceased to be private about its goals of destroying national sovereignty in favor of global government.
While he does not lead with it, behind the curtains, he and his fellow brokers of grass-roots activists' power and twenty-five dollar checks, pull levers in favor of as many globalist trade agreements and policies for the fictitiously extranational status of American-licensed corportions as one can count. (Or, of formerly American businesses.) The excuse for transferring our nation's economic value overseas is always, of course, the big bad liberals' big bad taxes. How much better, when the straw man is a real villain?
Wealth and production dumping to China and favored nation status? Norquist has joked about how he channels the grass-roots stance against that, against itself.
Has he come out against the foreign welfare of Free Trade Zones on American land, as we deteriorate from First World status? One has Web searched and has not found it.
In keeping with the above, he is pro-amnesty for illegal immigrants, which, as James Simpson has explored, is in keeping with the Cloward-Piven model of overrunning the misguided generosity of American government and collapsing it.
How is this irrational habit pattern to be described?
Whether they realize it or not, operators such as this, functionally if not by ideology, are transnational progressives on the vanguard, wolves to herd the sheep. And their big tent is so huge, it stretches over a false vision of a unified yet somehow free world. Such conservatives find themselves supporting communitarians such as George W. Bush, who inadvertently (or by plan from the outset ) wind up supporting more and more suzerainty to world empire. But, if not the wolf and sheep allusion, does it smell fishy?
Transnationalism becomes communitarianism, becomes global communism, as the little fish nations are gobbled up by the manipulative, big fish seekers of absolute, New World Order power; all, while that ultimate power "corrupts absolutely." (If "communism" sounds extreme, just call it collectivism, neo-Marxism, or Marxofascism; it is the same. Or, if you don't like the more recently coined words, find the root and call it Babel.)
CPAC's Grover Norquist Joins Obama Push For Illegal Alien Amnesty - FR
CPAC's Grover Norquist Joins Obama Push For Illegal Alien Amnesty
CPAC/ACU/CAIR is run by David Keene
involved in Palin-bashing and Romney-care polishing.
""Palin-bashing CPAC/ACU Chair donated $2,000 to Arlen Specter, endorsed Romney""
""Exclusive: Conservative group offers support for $2M"
Because I am a secret mooslimb and I want to gay marry you, make you wear a burka and when you do our shopping you will pay 25% less for stuff at Walmart.
Then save the tumor and throw away the patient. The RINO ruling elite infested, spend and spend, TARP sucking, open borders, cowardly, disingenuous GOP can't die soon enough for me.
Trump is right. Tariffs are about the only genuinely constitutional form of revenue for the FedGov - and there’s a reason for that.
I love Adam Smith, but Smith lived in a day where currency was tied to a precious metal. Nation states could not artificially manipulate (read:devalue) their currency the way China does daily. Also, Smith lived in a era where there wasn't the regulatory inequality that is so ubiquitous today.
Lastly, Norquist's statement...
Most of those things you by from China and because you raised the price of one competitor, everybody else gets to raise their prices too.”...is, in addition to being grammatically awkward (kindly), it is not necessarily true. Price points are set by the market, that's a given. But, Norquist asserts that added cost to the Chinese import will allow the US manufactures to inflate their price on domestically manufactured goods. That's not entirely true. Even with a 25% baseline cost increase, the Chinese will still have (in many product categories) remarkably competitive prices relative to their US competitors - that's how much margin is built into the Chinese product. The down-ward pressure on US manufacturers will still be present, but not as pronounced as it is today.
Again, I'm not saying tariffs are the answer, but I do think we have to have honesty & candor when discussing the problem.
It won't. But since Norquist is already in the process of selling us out to the Islamoids, why not throw the Indians and Chinese in for good measure?
I am glad that someone, even if it is the ridiculous Trump, is raising the issue of tariffs. The ‘free trade’ crowd is quick to correctly point out that tariffs are a tax on consumers. No kidding. But all taxes have bad effects. An income tax results in there being less of the activity that generates income. A sales tax results in there being less sales. What I never see is the argument made in detail that, for example, the bad effects of an income tax are less bad than than, for example, the bad effects of a tariff. I don’t see a reason to hold tariffs to a different standard than other taxes, all of which ultimately reduce economic activity, and particularly so when the absence of tariffs seems to me to be closely linked to the destruction of the manufacturing sector in the US, with all of the obvious ill effects that flow from that.
Yes, originally that is accurate. Your point is, unquestionably, not without merit. Even men who founded a country to, in large part, celebrate free markets, understood that some tariffs were not only allowable, but in some instances, necessary.
Never trust a muslim.
That’s because they understood that free markets only really “work” when you have a more of less even playing field. Free trade between countries that are roughly even in cost/standard of living, wages, etc. works pretty well, and allows for the sort of efficient specialisation that Ricardo theorises. Free trade between us and Canada, the UK, Germany, etc. has and would continue to stimulate economic growth all around, as well as peaceful relations.
Free trade between countries with grossly disparate wage scales, however, always works to the detriment of the higher-wage nation. That’s why Britain losts its edge - it lost a good share of its manufacturing base in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, ironically, to its own colony in India.
“Free” trade between us and a nation like China that not only has a much lower cost of living and wage scale, but that also gets to push that scale down even more artificially lower through currency devaluation and, well, slave labour, is a recipe for disaster, economically. We cannot be so tied to the pretty theory of “free trade” that we blind ourselves to its realities.
Trump said the government could use the revenue collected from the tariffs to pay down the national debt and that it would give the current and future U.S. manufacturers a chance to effectively compete and provide jobs for Americans. It would enhance the quality and safety of the goods that we purchase and reverse the loss of our manufacturing companies.
It would give a resounding “HELL NO” to the NWO elites who are destroying our economy.
I guess Grover had to break away from his Islamic Terrorist friends to tell us how good Communism works...anyone still supporting Free Trade with Communist China is a Communist
Trump is right on tariffs on Communist China....and actually would be a winning issue against Free Trader Obama.
David Brooks, the token "conservative" for the liberal media, had a funny quip on Meet the Press. He said, "Now it seems that Trump has thrown his hair into the ring ...."
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.
