[Hoot Gibson]

Was the tax rollout silky because it dealt only with the American people? The tariff apparatus which deals with a number of nations, many of whom having leaders with a sense of arrogance and even entitlement, was put in place to serve the same purpose as an employee disciplinary file. As in that case, eventual termination is up to the substandard employee. After all, the standards are already set and since it was his own choices that brought about the threat of termination, so too can his choices cement his position.

But America cannot negotiate with people who're used to laughing all the way to the bank, while our own leaders shrank back like snowflakes at the slightest sign of aggression or bravado. We let the situation get so far out of hand that it was our own timidity and lethargy which guaranteed us, that righting the ship would be painful. Another point I keep hearing is that Trump will piss everybody else off and they will retaliate. I believe this has to be done now because in putting things off even further things can only get worse as we just continue the slide. So I say bring it. We fly over middle America in more ways than one. Trump's point is that nobody gives a flip about a middle class that was once the backbone of America, to instead become an emaciated ghost of it's former self. How did that happen? Barack Obama and his fundamental transformation and redistribution of wealth. For example, in 1996 the labor participation rate was 83.8%, now it's 62.7%. And most home owners don't have enough equity left to do any more refi's. They're in hock up to their eyebrows.

Further, while cushy state retirement plans continue to rob tax payers of basics such as decent roads, most private pension plans are recovering from crisis status. But only thanks to a resurging stock market, increased wages and hundreds of thousands of new jobs each quarter. But the work is just started and frankly, where were all these economic geniuses who BTW backed Barack Obama's ridiculousness, when we were in free fall over the last 16 years? For my part unless or until I see actual mistakes come to fruition, I am content to let the man work.

The stock market and consumer confidence soared in response to Trump's tax reforms and regulatory roll-backs. Most reputable economists do not support high tariffs, so we can expect a steady stream of negative economic news from the media.

I believe that Trump should have given the economy time to gather a head of steam before he proposed a tax hike and stiff tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. IMO, Trump followed a couple of great plays with some unforced errors.

[Hoot Gibson]

And there it is folks, code for "Get used to it, it's the new normal." Sounds like something out of an Obama speech.
Still not a stab at a stab at a solution.nicker:

And there is your stab at deep thought.

[jetpilot]

The stock market and consumer confidence soared in response to Trump's tax reforms and regulatory roll-backs. Most reputable economists do not support high tariffs, so we can expect a steady stream of negative economic news from the media.

I believe that Trump should have given the economy time to gather a head of steam before he proposed a tax hike and stiff tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. IMO, Trump followed a couple of great plays with some unforced errors.

:igiveup:

[jetpilot]

And there is your stab at deep thought.

At least I took a stab. Still waiting on yours.

[jetpilot]

300 Ky jobs and $100 million investment in our state Trump brought back from the dead:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/08/century-...riffs.html

[Bob Seger]

Isn't politicians listening to these quote, unquote reputable economists the reason why we are in this mess right now.

Who determines which one is reputable when one says the exact opposite of the other? Yet both are reputable ?

It's kinda the same thing as reading the cliché "while scientists once thought" statement. Subtle way of saying they didn't know what they were talking about in the first place.

All of the "reputable pollsters" said, Hillary in a landslide, too.

[Hoot Gibson]

Isn't politicians listening to these quote, unquote reputable economists the reason why we are in this mess right now.

Who determines which one is reputable when one says the exact opposite of the other? Yet both are reputable ?

It's kinda the same thing as reading the cliché "while scientists once thought" statement. Subtle way of saying they didn't know what they were talking about in the first place.

All of the "reputable pollsters" said, Hillary in a landslide, too.

One of those economists, Gary Cohn, was the chief architect of Trump's tax reform program, which resulted in several large companies immediately announcing that they would be bringing billions of dollars back from overseas to reinvest here. He is leaving the adminstration because he vehemently opposes Trump's decision on tariffs. Three of Trump's own top economic advisers from his campaign co-authored the article that I posted in the OP.

Milton Friedman, Reagan's top economic adviser, was strongly opposed to tariffs. Reagan closely followed his advice and did a pretty good job of pulling the country's economy out of the ditch into which Carter, Ford, Nixon, and Johnson had driven it.

Herbert Hoover tried imposing high tariffs, despite his personal opposition to the, when he signed the Smoot-Hawley tariffs into law. The result helped get FDR into the Oval Office.

Not everybody who disagrees with some of Trump's policies is necessarily wrong. Trump is a successful businesssman, but he has gone bankrupt more than once. More successful businesssman than him - not all - disagree with him on tariffs.

[TheRealThing]

Gary Cohen may just have been the ideal person to transition US economic affairs from the globalist Bush and Obama administrations, to the America First policy. It would be hard to argue with the idea that he might have better understood Obama's economic policy, even better than Obama himself. And I can't imagine a smoother transition. But in interfacing the two economic concepts, Cohen's guidance was likely indispensable. At any rate Cohen is the consummate globalist and his split from the White House has been a foregone conclusion from the get-go from what I've heard.

Even with the tariffs in place though selectively enforced, I would expect somebody like a Stephen Moore to replace Cohen.

[jetpilot]

One of those economists, Gary Cohn, was the chief architect of Trump's tax reform program, which resulted in several large companies immediately announcing that they would be bringing billions of dollars back from overseas to reinvest here. He is leaving the adminstration because he vehemently opposes Trump's decision on tariffs. Three of Trump's own top economic advisers from his campaign co-authored the article that I posted in the OP.

Milton Friedman, Reagan's top economic adviser, was strongly opposed to tariffs. Reagan closely followed his advice and did a pretty good job of pulling the country's economy out of the ditch into which Carter, Ford, Nixon, and Johnson had driven it.

Herbert Hoover tried imposing high tariffs, despite his personal opposition to the, when he signed the Smoot-Hawley tariffs into law. The result helped get FDR into the Oval Office.

Not everybody who disagrees with some of Trump's policies is necessarily wrong. Trump is a successful businesssman, but he has gone bankrupt more than once. More successful businesssman than him - not all - disagree with him on tariffs.

I like all three of those guys, but like Cohn, they are globalists. They actually play the market crash card in that opinion piece, which always makes me skeptical to say the least. Market up nicely yesterday and today. I will pay more attention to them when they pen an opinion piece on what solutions they have for the trade deficit. I doubt it's coming. Their opinions are 90+% based on what they believe will bring the highest stock prices. You can side with them, I have faith in Trump. It's nothing personal Hoot, you are a smart guy. Lots of globalists are smart guys, they figure there is more money in it for them.

[TheRealThing]

Isn't politicians listening to these quote, unquote reputable economists the reason why we are in this mess right now.

Who determines which one is reputable when one says the exact opposite of the other? Yet both are reputable ?

It's kinda the same thing as reading the cliché "while scientists once thought" statement. Subtle way of saying they didn't know what they were talking about in the first place.

All of the "reputable pollsters" said, Hillary in a landslide, too.

In a very general sense, there are two kinds of people in this country Bob. They are the ones who're either in power or have been in power, which would include everybody from Bush and Rove, to Obama, Clinton, Holder and Jarrett, to The Tax Foundation, to Gary Cohn and the hundreds of radio and TV naysayers. Most of these guys think they know it all. And then there are the rest of America who just live and work here. And of course vote.

Only ideologues with an ax to grind or the ones who have been in power take offense at the efforts of the President. Most of the establishment take exception to being corrected and reproved by Trump, and they therefore hope he will fail. Like at work when somebody gets promoted around people who've been there longer, even much longer. And the contempt is thick enough to cut with a knife. They will not help their new boss in any way or for any reason. In fact they lie in wait to seize upon every perceived misstep and departure from the norm, as an opportunity to slam him as incompetent.

On the national scale however, those lying in wait are taking proactive measures to unseat Trump by means of DOJ witch hunts, committee witch hunts, and a propaganda campaign put on by the political establishment and the media that would make even Joseph Stalin blush.

[jetpilot]

I like all three of those guys, but like Cohn, they are globalists. They actually play the market crash card in that opinion piece, which always makes me skeptical to say the least. Market up nicely yesterday and today. I will pay more attention to them when they pen an opinion piece on what solutions they have for the trade deficit. I doubt it's coming. Their opinions are 90+% based on what they believe will bring the highest stock prices. You can side with them, I have faith in Trump. It's nothing personal Hoot, you are a smart guy. Lots of globalists are smart guys, they figure there is more money in it for them.

Put another way, they are globalists because there is more money in it for them, not for people like the 300 families going back to work in one Kentucky factory alone.

[hitter]

I think if a country charges us we should charge them

[hitter]

We need a flat tax so everybody pays the same amount no matter what you make. We need to outlaw lobbyists which is just a legal way to buy a vote. We need to do something about pharmaceutical companies price gouging and doctors and hospitals for overcharging.

[TheRealThing]

Well it's October 1, 2018 and this is truly another beautiful fall day. The stock market is up 170 points, WE HAVE A BRAND NEW 'NAFTA AGREEMENT' WITH MEXICO AND CANADA, the EU has sided with President Trump, and at 10 this morning Larry Kudlow will take a victory lap for the administration. Tariffs anyone?

Rather incredible when one considers all of this is happening in the face of what has been absolutely historic resistance from the opposition party, the media and the deepstate. :rockon:

[Hoot Gibson]

It is way too early to declare tariffs an economic victory. Ditto for the new trade deals. It will be interesting to see whether Republicans pay a political price for driving up the cost of consumer goods with tariffs and trade deals.

As Milton Friedman often said, there is really no such thing as a free lunch. When governments interfere with free trade, they create winners and losers. Tariffs are taxes, as are artificially high costs for consumer goods, and somebody has to pay those direct and indirect taxes. No country has ever taxed its way to prosperity.

Trump's deregulation and tax rate cuts are fueling our improved economy. If Trump goes too far down the tariff road, economic growth will be restrained.

[TheRealThing]

Most existing trade agreements are the result of US good will, born in the post WW2 spirit of helping the countries of the world rebuild following WW2. And that includes the odious and festering thug ring we like to call the United Nations, and NAFTA, and more recently FAFSA BTW. Call me hard hearted but I'd say we've more than fulfilled any moral call to help our enemies rebuild. And MR Trump's America first policy wasn't implemented one moment too soon. America was on her knees when he was elected and I guarantee Obama et-al were very clear eyed in their ability to see that, as well as cheering their heads off about it. At any rate, it was high time to end the world welfare which the middle class of the US was asked to pay for BTW.

Comparably, the middle class of this land serves the same sort of vital role and are as important to the function of America's well being, as the great oceans to the earth serve to the health and well being of the entire planet. America IS the middle class, but foolhardy Democrat giveaways (which have discouraged the spirit of self sufficiency and besmirched the soul of the middle class) along with Obama's wealth redistribution schemes had managed to nearly vaporize the middle class. The hard earned savings of working folk that once drew interest in bank accounts has now been spent. And as I have mentioned vast numbers of middle class home owners had to refi, (that is borrow on their equities), which are unfortunately are now held by home mortgage companies. There went the kid's inheritance. But things were much worse than that. I believe owing to Trump's victory in 2016, pension funds, annuities, 401k's and other forms of retirement income plans were literally snatched out of the jaws of bankruptcy, brought back from the dead thanks to the resurgent US Stock Market. Trump did that, not Obama.

But tariffs have been in place on US made goods for decades, while we on the other had have looked the other way and encouraged the import of goods which were and are nearly tariff free. And those countries have gotten so used to the trade welfare we've provided for 70 years, their leaders most of whom were born long after the hard lessons of WW2 were learned, consider the one way trade imbalances their just due. THEY are the ones who've developed an addiction to the free lunch, not the US. No, we've just served the free lunch for perpetuity. US citizens born into the above described bondage, are evidently too brainwashed to figure that out.

If there is to be a trade war I say bring it. But these hand wringing modern day economists who are so worried about starting a trade war, ought to wake up or otherwise open their eyes and see the one they were born into.

[TheRealThing]

^^ I should clarify one point from the above. Of those nations with which we have been so benevolent in granting low or no tariff trade restrictions on the goods they send here to the US, they are at the same time imposing substantial tariffs on goods that US traders would like to send to them. That is a big part of what DJT refers to as unfair.

[Hoot Gibson]

I put more faith in the theories of Milton Friedman, who was Ronald Reagan's go to economist, than I do TV economic experts, even though Dr. Friedman has been dead for quite awhile. Trade wars are not winnable. One side in a trade war may emerge less damaged than the other, but that does not make them a winner.

I have no issue with Trump using the threat of and limited application of tariffs as a negotiating tool, but tariffs have the potential to cripple our own economy and trigger high inflation rates if used to excess.

The "bring it on" attitude of some Trump supporters when it comes to trade wars should worry all of us. We started trade wars during the early years of the Great Depression and the impact was devastating. The tariffs were quickly reduced or eliminated.

[TheRealThing]

Depending on whom one may choose to listen, Leo Strauss and Milton Friedman supposedly were the twin financial towers of the Bush W Administration. The left thinks they are the two guys most responsible for the economic collapse of 2007.

I don't agree with that, in fact I disagree. I say the Bush W Administration was bushwhacked by Barney Frank and other merry midgets of the day, who being steeped in the politically correct special interest mania, encouraged and in some cases forced lending institutions to hand out palatial estates to people who could in no way begin to afford them. Now, though it certainly was Frank et-al pushing the stupidity until it festered into the housing bubble, the weak or otherwise spineless Republicans of the time were complicit too, because they were too afraid to stand up to Dems on the matter. Thank God for Trump's 'outing' of the insanity of political correctness! And of course there are several other contributing factors especially attributable to US social weaknesses, but why belabor the thought? The post 2007 world is still awash in the red ink which comprises the dismal financial outlook created by unfunded liabilities. We've evidently learned exactly nothing as the result of 2007.

The US according to Ben Carson, presently has more than 211 Trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities. The annual US economy is only somewhere around 20 Trillion. That means if the Federal Government stopped paying everything except our unfunded liabilities and the 310 billion (interest only) payment owed on our federal debt each year, it would take the next 20 years just to pay those two items. And at the end of 20 years, by that measure, we would yet to have paid one dime on the principle of those federal loans we keep making. I believe the point MR Trump is trying to make is as follows; the US is no longer, (not that we ever really were) in a strong enough financial position to continue helping the other nations of the world get financially better. From NATO deadbeats, to NAFTA, to the wrongheaded trade arrangements of the past 75 years. The madness has to stop. And I say he's right about that.

Tariffs are a tool to get our trading partners off the free lunch bar. Now, they may not all comply, but if they do not then we have to either slow down, or stop trading with them altogether until they get the necessary attitude adjustment. I mean, no amount of frugalness could ever offset US giveaways. Not to mention the fact of the top secret US Military intellectual property China has stolen, and has given them a clone military presence in the world that we must ironically now contend with. Along with the 500 billion dollar trade deficit they enjoy at US taxpayer hands. Milton Friedman and DJT I believe, would agree that 2+2 still equals 4. At any rate, I'm not on board with an assessment which argues that Friedman and Trump are all that far apart on their financial opinions.

[Hoot Gibson]

Depending on whom one may choose to listen, Leo Strauss and Milton Friedman supposedly were the twin financial towers of the Bush W Administration. The left thinks they are the two guys most responsible for the economic collapse of 2007.

I don't agree with that, in fact I disagree. I say the Bush W Administration was bushwhacked by Barney Frank and other merry midgets of the day, who being steeped in the politically correct special interest mania, encouraged and in some cases forced lending institutions to hand out palatial estates to people who could in no way begin to afford them. Now, though it certainly was Frank et-al pushing the stupidity until it festered into the housing bubble, the weak or otherwise spineless Republicans of the time were complicit too, because they were too afraid to stand up to Dems on the matter. Thank God for Trump's 'outing' of the insanity of political correctness! And of course there are several other contributing factors especially attributable to US social weaknesses, but why belabor the thought? The post 2007 world is still awash in the red ink which comprises the dismal financial outlook created by unfunded liabilities. We've evidently learned exactly nothing as the result of 2007.

The US according to Ben Carson, presently has more than 211 Trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities. The annual US economy is only somewhere around 20 Trillion. That means if the Federal Government stopped paying everything except our unfunded liabilities and the 310 billion (interest only) payment owed on our federal debt each year, it would take the next 20 years just to pay those two items. And at the end of 20 years, by that measure, we would yet to have paid one dime on the principle of those federal loans we keep making. I believe the point MR Trump is trying to make is as follows; the US is no longer, (not that we ever really were) in a strong enough financial position to continue helping the other nations of the world get financially better. From NATO deadbeats, to NAFTA, to the wrongheaded trade arrangements of the past 75 years. The madness has to stop. And I say he's right about that.

Tariffs are a tool to get our trading partners off the free lunch bar. Now, they may not all comply, but if they do not then we have to either slow down, or stop trading with them altogether until they get the necessary attitude adjustment. I mean, no amount of frugalness could ever offset US giveaways. Not to mention the fact of the top secret US Military intellectual property China has stolen, and has given them a clone military presence in the world that we must ironically now contend with. Along with the 500 billion dollar trade deficit they enjoy at US taxpayer hands. Milton Friedman and DJT I believe, would agree that 2+2 still equals 4. At any rate, I'm not on board with an assessment which argues that Friedman and Trump are all that far apart on their financial opinions.

Friedman would never have suggested imposing a 40 percent tariff across the board as Trump did during the campaign. Trump's own economic advisers did not believe he was serious when he made those threats. Tariffs are paid by consumers in the country that impose them and when countries subsidize the cost of production, then they either must borrow the money to pay for the subsidies or tax their own citizens to pay for them.

As for the theft of intellectual property, I join you in your condemnation of China. In fact, I don't think Trump has gone far enough to punish China. I would set the quota for Chinese immigration at zero and revoke the visas of all of their high tech workers already in this country.

China has been spying and engaging in intellectual property theft with our own federal government's apparent consent for far too long. To his credit, Trump is the first U.S. president since Nixon "opened the door" to China to actually confront them in any meaningful way.

If the statute of limitations has not expired for all of the illegal campaign cash that Bill Clinton and his crooked spouse took from China and Russia, I would also launch a criminal investigation while they are still able to comprehend prison life. I never expected Trump to pursue criminal charges against the Clintons, but it is a shame that they will most likely die with no criminal records.

[TheRealThing]

Friedman would never have suggested imposing a 40 percent tariff across the board as Trump did during the campaign. Trump's own economic advisers did not believe he was serious when he made those threats. Tariffs are paid by consumers in the country that impose them and when countries subsidize the cost of production, then they either must borrow the money to pay for the subsidies or tax their own citizens to pay for them.

As for the theft of intellectual property, I join you in your condemnation of China. In fact, I don't think Trump has gone far enough to punish China. I would set the quota for Chinese immigration at zero and revoke the visas of all of their high tech workers already in this country.

China has been spying and engaging in intellectual property theft with our own federal government's apparent consent for far too long. To his credit, Trump is the first U.S. president since Nixon "opened the door" to China to actually confront them in any meaningful way.

If the statute of limitations has not expired for all of the illegal campaign cash that Bill Clinton and his crooked spouse took from China and Russia, I would also launch a criminal investigation while they are still able to comprehend prison life. I never expected Trump to pursue criminal charges against the Clintons, but it is a shame that they will most likely die with no criminal records.

Hard to argue any of your points here. Hence my down the drain analogy still applies. From the White House to the poor house, national lawlessness and godlessness, (which are essentially one in the same) along with the specter of our impossible indebtedness, loom large.

Keynesians be they Democrat or Republican, all think that the US' ability to print money essentially neuters the debt problem. So while they're talking themselves into borrowing money from other nations like there ain't no tomorrow, (about 1 million dollars per minute according to Rand Paul) the US Bureau of Engraving and Printing keeps the presses hot. But the two concepts of being able to print any amount of money and at the same time expecting to be able to borrow one's head off, are mutually exclusive notions which any reasonable economist with a basic understanding of credit and commerce would reject out of hand. If we do not keep the Dems at bay this November, especially considering their socialist bent, fiscal sanity in government is lost.

With regard to the Clintons. Trump must secure his own government before he can worry about going after anybody. Once that is finally in place as the result of successful midterms, he likely needs to go after Sessions and Rosenstein first, and the rest will fall into place. Here's hoping.