Posted on 05/05/2016 5:15:32 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Thursday he would scrap a slew of federal regulations that he said are even more of a burden on American business owners than high taxes.
"We're lowering taxes very substantially and we're going to be getting rid of a tremendous amount of regulations," Trump said in an interview with CNBC.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Timing and target is key. My problem with tariff raising is the TRUE economic condition of the nation. We know a lot of the data over the past 8 years has been fraudulent. In a scenario primed for growth, we could see benefits, as we did in the 80s. When the situation is the opposite, you can get a tipping point like Hawley-Smoot.
This is a step in the right direction to help in bring the conservative voters back in the fold (such as myself).
Lower taxes, smaller government and less regulation are tantamount in turning the economy around, spurring growth of both new and existing businesses.
I hope his approach is across the board, and not picking “winners and losers” with the tax and regulation codes, which how it is being done currently.
Unfortunately, this article, like others, lacks specifics, which I think has been a legitimate criticism during this campaign.
Let’s hope when the specifics come out, they match our expectations.
Al in all, a positive step in the right direction.
What? Corporations don’t want that. That is their best foil to justify international labor arbitrage and offshoring. Why this would remove the fig leaf.
Newsflash: the USA collects 1% duty on all imported goods. We have a virtual open market for any country to dump on, which they do.
Smoot-Hawley causing the Great Depression meme is a globalist propaganda talking point.
I didn’t say it caused it. The conditions were already there. Its goal was to increase employment or at least stabilize the increasing rate. It didn’t.
Great. All in the start to help America business recover.
Trump for President.
I hate what has happened to US blue collar jobs, the US economy, the corporate greedheads behind it all, but tariffs are not the solution.
Imagine that Japanese automakers have cut deeply into American auto production and that American auto plants have shut down, taking some verrrrrry good paying jobs for blue collar workers down with them. It isn't hard to do. BTW, the price of new American automobiles is already quite excessive due to the "need" of upper level executives who have trouble running competent manufacturing operations for a personal income to make many Arab oil sheiks weep with envy. If we tariff eac incoming vehicle say $4,000, the US corporate greedheads will immediately raise the price of their overpriced and underperforming cars by $3000 or so. The consumer gets screwed, blued and tattoed (as usual), not one American job is created, our standard of living takes yet another hit, unless, of course, we are top auto execs which, ummmm, most of us are not.
The American auto industry came to be when Henry Ford, rather an airhead liberal in his political views, designed and built the Model T, offered America's best mechanics a daily pay equal to what they had earned in a week toiling for other employers all over the country. He made good on his vow that the men who made his Fords would be able to afford to buy them and drive them. Ford put America on wheels. It worked so well that GM and Chrysler emerged as permanent competitors and hundreds of smaller companies came and went as competitors as well. We need another Henry Ford.
In Ford's spare time, his political enemy FDR asked him to build fighter planes for the coming WW II at a little place called River Rouge, bought the land, cleared all political pecksniffs out of Ford's way and gave him the resources to build an enormous manufacturing plant. FDR offered the deal in June, 1941 when there was nothing at River Rouge but land. Before December 7, the plant had been built and was fully operational and rolling a fighter plane off the assembly line every half hour for the duration of the war.
That kind of Henry Ford attitude, rather than the spoiled Rich as Croesus entitlement mentality of upper level corporate leeches and coupon clippers is what built American industry. Nothing less is required to restore and expand it. The blue collars have been generally flat on their backsides economically for more than forty years. If innovative would be manufacturers display some promise and preliminary competence and look out for their workers as well, they will find those workers very willing to be eager and enthusiastic participants in successful cooperation.
BTW, I would love to scrap all the trade deals and most other treaties, withdraw the US from the UN, and most international treaty commitments by which our idiot "leaders" have committed us to treat an attack on about 100 other countries, including a few that most of us have never heard of, as though they were attacks on Nebraska but sometimes the word "globalist" seems to mean someone who believes the Earth is approximately round.
Trump said this Wednesday, which does give me pause:
When asked by CNN whether he would support an increase in the federal minimum wage, Trump replied, “I’m looking at that, I’m very different from most Republicans.” He added, “You have to have something you can live on.”
While I would agree that Smoot-Hawley didn’t cause the Great Depression, it certainly didn’t help it, and I believe it made a bad situation worse.
But the socialists will always be there to tell you that the NEXT socialist, or the next 5-year plan will be the one to get everything straightened out, and paradise on earth will be at hand.
Obama akbar!
This is why Trump will beat Hillary, it’s the (Obama recession) economy stupid.
Agree. Trump is leaning toward Bernie Sanders on the minimum wage instead of Milton Friedman.
Well said sir!
As far as winners and losers, Trump has said that the welfare of the common man I. E. middle class, will be his primary decision point. That seems about right to me.
No, I don't read comedy. The concept that Smoot-Hawley caused the worst depression in US history is laughable.
First of all, I make no claim to expertise in matters economic. A five decade member of the conservative movement, I simply tend to take its positions as my default position on many issues.
You say you do not read comedy. That is simply a editorial comment Then your next sentence is another editorial comment. You may well have specific reasons for your conclusions but you have not shared them. If Wanniski's thesis is laughable, you must have reasons for saying so. What are they?
I don't uncritically support Wanniski. He was the east end of a westbound horse on foreign policy and on Islam (cozying up to Calypso Louis Farrakhan who was probably behind the assassination of Malcolm X because Malcolm X, having gone on his Hejira to Mecca had discovered and was preaching that Islam was a religion not merely of blacks but also of people of just about every race and nationality).
That preaching was intolerable to race hucksters like Elijah Muhammed and Calypso Louis whom he sent to NYC immediately before the assassination of Malcolm X by some nobody with a name like Herbie 5X Brown. Farrakhan, within a few days demanded tat the widow Betty Shabazz and Malcolm X's children vacate the parsonage that was attached to his ministry at Muhammed's Mosque #7 in Harlem.
Nothing in Wanniski's background suggested his great weakness for the likes of Farrakhan or Islam. His father was a Polish itinerant butcher who became a bookbinder and his mother was a Scottish book keeper in Pennsylvania and then in NYC. the father of one of his parents was a communist who gave Wanniski a copy of Marx's Das Kapital for his high school graduation gift in about 1954. Whatever his future track record, he was never a communist.
Wanniski made a fool of himself and just about killed his career by bitterly denouncing Bush the Younger over the Second Gulf War and actually endorsing John Kerry in 2004.
Back to economics, his actual area of expertise, Wanniski apparently coined the term "supply side economics" which has been quite a useful concept. He was also a mentor to the late Jack Kemp whom I, at least, hold in high esteem.
So, like most of us, Wanniski was a mixture of good and bad elements. He laid out his theories of supply side economics and of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff triggering the Great Depression at length in published books. His assertions might be wrong but they deserve full rebuttal (at least the executive summary) not cursory editorial rejection.
If I, as a Catholic, would like to vomit over the present pope's forays into religiously irrelevant areas like "global climate change," support for the European Union, support for waves of Islamic immigration making large areas of Europe uninhabitable, moral relativism and so forth, I do not have to reject his all too rare pro-life statements. Likewise as to Wanniski, his foreign policy and Islamophile deviations from common sense do not compel a conclusion that he must therefore be wrong on economics and the effect of Smoot-Hawley. I want to hear your reasoning.
Meanwhile, may God bless you and yours! As conservatives, we need to regain and practice the habit of arguing our case for what we believe in the public square with due regard for the opinions of others. I usually agree with your posts and I look forward to your evidence and arguments for disagreeing with Wanniski.
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.