September 8, 2013:100 Years After Woodrow Wilson, Mark Levin Pens A Brilliant Response100 years afte

Forbes ^ | September 8, 2013 | Peter Ferrara

[nopardons]

That's the way he has ALWAYS been, here. Don't bow down before him and kiss his arse, and he went after you, just as you said he did recently, and worse. The fact that I fought back, refused to be cowed/stop, infuriated him even more. He is a stupid, vile, nasty little man!

LOL re Wilson; how true! I have been trashing him since I was a teen and learned all about him. :-)

[nopardons]

With no deductibles, HOW would most people have “more” money in their pockets?

[Golden Eagle]

Levin’s position is we already have over 12,000 import tariffs, that increasing tariffs will likely lead to a trade war, and that if increasing demand for US products is the goal then slashing government regulations is by far a better way to stimulate economic growth than tariffs.

Trump's position is that we are already in a trade war, and need to finally respond in kind. Trump believes in targeted tariffs, just as Ronald Reagan implemented, which Levin conveniently fails to mention every time he invokes Reagan's name, which is every 3 minutes on his show.

Trump has also said he plans to significantly reduce government regulations, which of course Levin never mentions on his show, so if you only listen to Levin's show you wouldn't know how disingenuous his attacks on Trump are. Levin even went so far on Tuesday to say that tariffs shouldn't even be allowed, even though the founders put them into the Constitution as the primary revenue source for the government. But according to Levin, since we now have an income tax placed on our own citizens, tariffs against foreign governments are now obsolete and shouldn't be used under any circumstance. At least according to his supposed "strict constitutionalist" opinion (I hope you're seeing the pattern of mistrust).

[x]

The Founders specifically forbade direct taxes in the Constitution, and that clause has never been repealed.

Got 16th Amendment?

I know, some people say it wasn't legally ratified.

Good luck with that.

Some of the arguments are just loopy.

Even if they were substantive, who do you think the courts are working for?

In any case, the government has cleverly drafted the tax laws to get around most of the objections (if Wikipedia is right).

[x]

[S]omething is missing that gives the reason for the post.

I don't see "tariffs" in the article.

That must be in reference to something Levin said on the radio.