• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mexico wants U.S. tariffs scrapped before ratifying trade deal: minister

TU Curmudgeon said:
Because it "Protects The American Family Farm" (and, of course, buys votes).



An admirable attitude that doesn't take into account the thousands of votes that cancelling the subsidies would lose.



Well, if you are paying for it in taxes it really doesn't matter if you actually drink any milk at all - does it?



You are about 1900 years too late on that one.



And why should they remain farmers if they can't make any money out of farming?



Well, it most certainly encourages the status quo in voting patterns.
Click to expand...

Boo! I hate it when people break up responses like that as I typically use my phone and it is much harder to respond :p

Precisely, buying votes has essentially become what this nation is about through social welfare and corporate welfare. Rather than run on ideas they run on what the government can provide you at the expense of others.

Just because I am 1900 years too late, doesn't make the point any less valid.

They shouldn't, but there will always be profit in it as long as there is a market for it. The market may shrink and become less profitable but ultimately there will be a demand for milk and someone will supply it.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
One interesting theory is not to tax businesses at all on their income/profits as long as the businesses do not "distribute" the income/profits but to tax all of the "distributed" income/profits as income of the recipients (which means that the businesses would be required to "withhold" and forward to the government the taxes payable on that income. (Money sent out of the country would be deemed to have been "distributed" and taxed accordingly.)
Click to expand...

That does seem rather interesting, I'm curious if anyone has tried that and what are the drawbacks (or loopholes) that could be exploited in it.

I think this issue is largely a development coming from trying to pick and choose from different ideologies similar to the problem of having a social welfare state and open borders. Free trade alongside a free market is great for everyone as the inevitable result is a lower cost of living. However, free trade with a heavily regulated market will lead to businesses setting up in other countries and import their goods for free rather than go through extensive red tape and pay higher taxes. NAFTA was great for Mexico, Canada, and the American consumer, but for the American laborers it was devastating as companies see better opportunities in expanding in Canada and Mexico rather than stay in America.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
You could.

On the other hand, in 1914 Austria-Hungary handed Serbia a set of demands that they knew the Serbian government had no choice but to reject - and you know how that worked out.

And, in 1939 the German government handed Czechoslovakia a set of demands that they knew the Czech government had no choice but to reject - and you know how that worked out.

Now Mr. Trump is publicly on record as meaning to hand Canada a set of demands that he knows that the Canadian government has no choice but to reject (and he has also stated that he will ruin Canada if Canada does not do what he tells it to do) - how that will work out we shall have to wait and see.

Fortunately no one is going to believe that the Canadian army attacked an American radio station.

The saving graces for Mr. Trump's position are:

  1. the United States of America doesn't import a single thing from Canada that an American operation in the United States of America cannot produce more of (and cheaper);
  2. not a single American operation sells a single thing to a Canadian purchaser that it cannot immediately find an alternate buyer elsewhere;
  3. the Canadians are completely unable to find any other seller, anywhere in the world, that can sell them the stuff that they buy from American operations; and
  4. the Canadians are completely unable to find any other purchaser, anywhere in the world, for the stuff that they sell to American operations (even if those purchasers are buying the stuff simply to poke Mr. Trump in the eye with a sharp stick).

If those four things weren't true, then Mr. Trump would be taking quite a large risk in his trade negotiations.

When Mr. Trump says that he wants a "fair deal" in trade with Canada what he is really saying "I want the US to have an even BIGGER overall trade surplus with Canada.".
Click to expand...

I'm just glad we now have a seasoned negotiator handling the business and trade deals vital to our nation rather than a radical communist black activist community organizer with no business experience whatsoever.
 
Nap said:
Boo! I hate it when people break up responses like that as I typically use my phone and it is much harder to respond :p
Click to expand...

Sorry about that, Chief.

Nap said:
Precisely, buying votes has essentially become what this nation is about through social welfare and corporate welfare. Rather than run on ideas they run on what the government can provide you at the expense of others.
Click to expand...

Now that's a dangerous thought that threatens the very fabric of the American political process.

Nap said:
Just because I am 1900 years too late, doesn't make the point any less valid.
Click to expand...

1,900 is a bit too much, but I'll buy 200.

Nap said:
They shouldn't, but there will always be profit in it as long as there is a market for it.
Click to expand...

The number of people who start a commercial enterprise with the intention of NOT making a profit is much smaller than the number of people who start a commercial enterprise and DO NOT make a profit.

Nap said:
The market may shrink and become less profitable but ultimately there will be a demand for milk and someone will supply it.
Click to expand...

Indeed, there are still people who manufacture buggy whips.
 
Nap said:
That does seem rather interesting, I'm curious if anyone has tried that and what are the drawbacks (or loopholes) that could be exploited in it.

I think this issue is largely a development coming from trying to pick and choose from different ideologies similar to the problem of having a social welfare state and open borders. Free trade alongside a free market is great for everyone as the inevitable result is a lower cost of living. However, free trade with a heavily regulated market will lead to businesses setting up in other countries and import their goods for free rather than go through extensive red tape and pay higher taxes. NAFTA was great for Mexico, Canada, and the American consumer, but for the American laborers it was devastating as companies see better opportunities in expanding in Canada and Mexico rather than stay in America.
Click to expand...

I doubt if it has ever been tried, but it could well work.

Not only that but the tax could be set at a single level for ALL "income" (taxed at the "gross income" level).

That, however, would be disproportionately harsh on those with marginal incomes as the taxation level would have to be higher than at present.

On the other hand, if that "flat tax" were to be increased to a level where everyone would be receiving a fixed, per capita, monthly payment, that tax level wouldn't be unduly harsh on any level of income and could even be set to that anyone below (let's say $65,000 per year [with a family of four]) would actually have more disposable income than at present. Naturally those with an annual gross income of more than $65,000 (again with a family of four) would end up having less disposable income than at present.

Looking only at extremes, a family of four with a gross income of $10,000 would pay $5,000 in taxes but would receive around $24,000 in their monthly payments and so would have a disposable income of around $29,000 while the same family with a gross income of $100,000 would have a disposable income of around $74,000 and one with $1,000,000 would have $524,000. [Tax rate set at 50% of gross income and monthly payments set at $500 per capita]

Of course the displacement of tax lawyers, tax accountants, social workers, welfare workers, disability pension workers, and the like would be just too horrendous to contemplate.
 
Nap said:
I agree, but that same logic applies to taxes on domestic businesses as well.
Click to expand...



”I agree, but that same logic applies to taxes on domestic businesses as well.”

That same logic applies to real human beings, not just business. There should be a deduction against taxes of necessities, like food, fuel, shelter and clothing, that is equal to the minimum necessary to maintain livable condition. Fine, raise taxes to cover the difference for what is determined as being more than is necessary. It’s always about where the line is drawn. Why should I be taxed for putting food on the table to feed who are and will be the workers needed to make corps and the rich wealthy? People are taxed for putting gas in their cars to get to their job and work for the man. It’s not a vacation.

Any break in taxes to business should not be put on the backs of the average family. That’s what has happened and is happening with the Trump tax plan. The regular family got zip. The rich and corps got it all. Where do you think that money comes from and how is it going to be paid?
 
bluesmoke said:
”I agree, but that same logic applies to taxes on domestic businesses as well.”

That same logic applies to real human beings, not just business. There should be a deduction against taxes of necessities, like food, fuel, shelter and clothing, that is equal to the minimum necessary to maintain livable condition. Fine, raise taxes to cover the difference for what is determined as being more than is necessary. It’s always about where the line is drawn. Why should I be taxed for putting food on the table to feed who are and will be the workers needed to make corps and the rich wealthy? People are taxed for putting gas in their cars to get to their job and work for the man. It’s not a vacation.

Any break in taxes to business should not be put on the backs of the average family. That’s what has happened and is happening with the Trump tax plan. The regular family got zip. The rich and corps got it all. Where do you think that money comes from and how is it going to be paid?
Click to expand...

Any increase in taxes for businesses is going to be paid for on the backs of the average family. When Democrats put taxes on Soda or Tobacco, it isn't Philip Morris or Coke paying it, it is disproportionately the poor that is stuck with the bill.

Let's do what many Democrats want and drastically raise taxes on businesses, you won't have to worry about being taxed as you won't have a job. Even after the Trump tax cut, Canada and still have a lower effective corporate tax rate. Why would any business stay and pay ridiculously high taxes here, when they can move to Canada/Mexico and have substantially higher profits by shipping their products in without any tax paid to the US.
 
bluesmoke said:
”I agree, but that same logic applies to taxes on domestic businesses as well.”

That same logic applies to real human beings, not just business. There should be a deduction against taxes of necessities, like food, fuel, shelter and clothing, that is equal to the minimum necessary to maintain livable condition. Fine, raise taxes to cover the difference for what is determined as being more than is necessary. It’s always about where the line is drawn. Why should I be taxed for putting food on the table to feed who are and will be the workers needed to make corps and the rich wealthy? People are taxed for putting gas in their cars to get to their job and work for the man. It’s not a vacation.

Any break in taxes to business should not be put on the backs of the average family. That’s what has happened and is happening with the Trump tax plan. The regular family got zip. The rich and corps got it all. Where do you think that money comes from and how is it going to be paid?
Click to expand...

Your post reminded me of an old quote, "if you want more of something subsidize it, if you want less of something, tax it". It does seem to certainly apply to humans beings as well. I would imagine if you took the birth rates and aligned it with the amount of taxes paid that the higher you go up (probably up to around $200k) the lower the birth rate and conversely those whom were receiving money rather than paying in likely have the highest birth rate.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From Global News

Mexico wants U.S. tariffs scrapped before ratifying trade deal: minister
​

Mexico wants to end to a tariff dispute over steel and aluminum with the United States prior to signing off on a reworked trade agreement with its northern neighbor, Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo said on Thursday.

“Now, what are we going to do here? A deal before we get to signing, to clearly get rid of all these … tariff-related aggressions,” Guajardo said on Mexican television after referring to the steel and aluminum dispute.

Mexico and the United States last week said they had reached a deal after more than a year’s negotiations to revamp the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Canada, the other NAFTA signatory, is still locked in discussions with Washington to see if it can join the accord.

COMMENT:-

And Mr. Trump wants a deal before he will agree to remove the tariffs (without promising not to reimpose them whenever he feels like it).

Someone (everyone?) wants the pianos delivered before they pay for them.
​
Click to expand...

The US is still bound by the NAFTA agreement and they've slapped tariffs on the countries they've agreed to free trade with. Nobody can trust them anymore. Any agreement with the US isn't worth the paper it's written on. If the mood in the country changes next summer, or someone decides a page of the agreement was a mistake the whole thing can be trashed.
Me, I wouldn't have the patience. Not worth the aggravation. I'd say turn our backs and walk away and let the chips fall where they will.
The US President has said he'd bring about the ruination of Canada. How do you deal with that?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From Global News

Mexico wants U.S. tariffs scrapped before ratifying trade deal: minister
​

Mexico wants to end to a tariff dispute over steel and aluminum with the United States prior to signing off on a reworked trade agreement with its northern neighbor, Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo said on Thursday.

“Now, what are we going to do here? A deal before we get to signing, to clearly get rid of all these … tariff-related aggressions,” Guajardo said on Mexican television after referring to the steel and aluminum dispute.

Mexico and the United States last week said they had reached a deal after more than a year’s negotiations to revamp the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Canada, the other NAFTA signatory, is still locked in discussions with Washington to see if it can join the accord.

COMMENT:-

And Mr. Trump wants a deal before he will agree to remove the tariffs (without promising not to reimpose them whenever he feels like it).

Someone (everyone?) wants the pianos delivered before they pay for them.
​
Click to expand...

I suggest they just put the elimination of the tariffs in the deal and when it's signed they stop immediately.

Groundwork and informing necessary enforcement people can of course be done before the signing, so that those tariffs stop when it is signed.

Probably a good idea to put something in about not putting slightly different tariffs in place right after, because this is the Trump administration, they'd backstab you in a second on a whim.
 
Nap said:
Any increase in taxes for businesses is going to be paid for on the backs of the average family. When Democrats put taxes on Soda or Tobacco, it isn't Philip Morris or Coke paying it, it is disproportionately the poor that is stuck with the bill.

Let's do what many Democrats want and drastically raise taxes on businesses, you won't have to worry about being taxed as you won't have a job. Even after the Trump tax cut, Canada and still have a lower effective corporate tax rate. Why would any business stay and pay ridiculously high taxes here, when they can move to Canada/Mexico and have substantially higher profits by shipping their products in without any tax paid to the US.
Click to expand...



“When Democrats put taxes on Soda or Tobacco”

Why do you say “Democrats”? It was a heavily dominated Republican Congress that passed the first tobacco excise tax in 1862 (a few years later it was the leading government revenue source). Iowa was the first state to pass a tax on tobacco in 1921, when the Governor and 95% of the State Senate and House were Republican. There is no federal or state tax on “soda”. Just a number of what look like Democrat dominated cities.

“Let's do what many Democrats want and drastically raise taxes on businesses, you won't have to worry about being taxed as you won't have a job.”

Who said anything about “drastic”? Not me. Just bring them back up to where they were before the Trump tax plan. That’s what Clinton did after the Reagan tax plan and unemployment then went down, after the Reagan tax plan overloaded the debt. Obama did the same thing following the Bush tax plan with the same effect. The facts say otherwise than what you claim.

“Why would any business stay and pay ridiculously high taxes here, when they can move to Canada/Mexico and have substantially higher profits by shipping their products in without any tax paid to the US.”

What do you mean “substantially” higher profits? If that were true, which you have no evidence to support, why haven’t they all left?

For one thing, US corps pay a lower % tax on profits than in Mexico, tax and profits being your expressed concern. You might want to drop Mexico off the list. If your logic were true in practice, businesses would be rushing to Brunei, Timor and Qatar. Or even Kosovo and Lesotho. But businesses look for a lot more than taxes to decide where to locate. The countries I listed are way down the list of “business-friendly countries”. Canada is like #16. The US is #6, and #4 in granting credit. Can’t do much business without capital.

You’re pretty much just talking off the top of your head. No research. You can’t back up much of what you say. Note that while the US is a little higher in the % business taxes to profits than the average of OECD and EU countries, we are way worse than they are in wealth disparity. Overall, as a country, our government is at the bottom of government revenues from taxes as a % of GDP. So, who's paying less in taxes, really? We’re not too good in social spending either (20th out of 35 OECD countries).

BTW, a tariff is a tax. A company in Canada or Mexico would, unlike what you say, be paying taxes on their exports to the US if Trump imposes tariffs on those countries. Not a good time to move to Canada or Mexico.
 
bluesmoke said:
“When Democrats put taxes on Soda or Tobacco”

Why do you say “Democrats”? It was a heavily dominated Republican Congress that passed the first tobacco excise tax in 1862 (a few years later it was the leading government revenue source). Iowa was the first state to pass a tax on tobacco in 1921, when the Governor and 95% of the State Senate and House were Republican. There is no federal or state tax on “soda”. Just a number of what look like Democrat dominated cities.

“Let's do what many Democrats want and drastically raise taxes on businesses, you won't have to worry about being taxed as you won't have a job.”

Who said anything about “drastic”? Not me. Just bring them back up to where they were before the Trump tax plan. That’s what Clinton did after the Reagan tax plan and unemployment then went down, after the Reagan tax plan overloaded the debt. Obama did the same thing following the Bush tax plan with the same effect. The facts say otherwise than what you claim.

“Why would any business stay and pay ridiculously high taxes here, when they can move to Canada/Mexico and have substantially higher profits by shipping their products in without any tax paid to the US.”

What do you mean “substantially” higher profits? If that were true, which you have no evidence to support, why haven’t they all left?

For one thing, US corps pay a lower % tax on profits than in Mexico, tax and profits being your expressed concern. You might want to drop Mexico off the list. If your logic were true in practice, businesses would be rushing to Brunei, Timor and Qatar. Or even Kosovo and Lesotho. But businesses look for a lot more than taxes to decide where to locate. The countries I listed are way down the list of “business-friendly countries”. Canada is like #16. The US is #6, and #4 in granting credit. Can’t do much business without capital.

You’re pretty much just talking off the top of your head. No research. You can’t back up much of what you say. Note that while the US is a little higher in the % business taxes to profits than the average of OECD and EU countries, we are way worse than they are in wealth disparity. Overall, as a country, our government is at the bottom of government revenues from taxes as a % of GDP. So, who's paying less in taxes, really? We’re not too good in social spending either (20th out of 35 OECD countries).

BTW, a tariff is a tax. A company in Canada or Mexico would, unlike what you say, be paying taxes on their exports to the US if Trump imposes tariffs on those countries. Not a good time to move to Canada or Mexico.
Click to expand...

I said Democrats because in the modern era they are typically the ones calling for more and more taxes. Cigarettes in New York are like $10 per pack which. I looked it up and was actually shocked to see that they aren't heavily taxed in California.

I work in car manufacturing for a global company. Whether or not you get to keep a car/truck line or new lines added to your plant is largely determined by price per unit. Trump's tax cuts and the possibility of tariffs on foriegn made vehicles are a major bump in job security for me.

Edit: I'm curious as to where you get your numbers from on the US being #6 as business friendly. I rarely ever see them ranked that highly.
 
Last edited:
bluesmoke said:
”I agree, but that same logic applies to taxes on domestic businesses as well.”

That same logic applies to real human beings, not just business. There should be a deduction against taxes of necessities, like food, fuel, shelter and clothing, that is equal to the minimum necessary to maintain livable condition. Fine, raise taxes to cover the difference for what is determined as being more than is necessary. It’s always about where the line is drawn. Why should I be taxed for putting food on the table to feed who are and will be the workers needed to make corps and the rich wealthy? People are taxed for putting gas in their cars to get to their job and work for the man. It’s not a vacation.

Any break in taxes to business should not be put on the backs of the average family. That’s what has happened and is happening with the Trump tax plan. The regular family got zip. The rich and corps got it all. Where do you think that money comes from and how is it going to be paid?
Click to expand...

One result of the tax cuts for businesses was

  1. to allow large businesses to buy back large blocks of their own stocks;
  2. this resulted in a decrease in supply;
  3. this decrease in supply resulted in an increase in price;
    • (That's the way that 'The Law of Supply and Demand' works.)
  4. this increase in price resulted in an increase in the DJIA;
  5. this increase in the DJIA "proved" that the US economy was improving;
  6. thus, the tax cuts on businesses resulted in the US economy improving.

Can you see the logical error in the above?
 
Grand Mal said:
The US is still bound by the NAFTA agreement and they've slapped tariffs on the countries they've agreed to free trade with. Nobody can trust them anymore. Any agreement with the US isn't worth the paper it's written on. If the mood in the country changes next summer, or someone decides a page of the agreement was a mistake the whole thing can be trashed.
Me, I wouldn't have the patience. Not worth the aggravation. I'd say turn our backs and walk away and let the chips fall where they will.
The US President has said he'd bring about the ruination of Canada. How do you deal with that?
Click to expand...

The latest(ish) "revelations" are that Mr. Trump wanted to announce the end of NAFTA to celebrate his 100th day in office and was only dissuaded from doing so when some of the adults in the room showed him that that would be disastrous for the US economy.

Fortunately, for Mr. Trump, most of those AITR are no longer a part of "Team Trump".
 
The Mark said:
I suggest they just put the elimination of the tariffs in the deal and when it's signed they stop immediately.

Groundwork and informing necessary enforcement people can of course be done before the signing, so that those tariffs stop when it is signed.
Click to expand...

That's an absolutely great idea.

Of course, on the day after that Mr. Trump will announce NEW tariffs which, since they are not the OLD tariffs, can be implemented without violating the agreement.

True, the Canadian government will be able to take its case to the US government for a binding determination on whether the US government did something that the US government wasn't allowed to do, but it might take years for the US government to decide (if it ever does) whether the US government did something that the US government wasn't allowed to do - and, even then, the US government won't be required (by the US government) to return any money that the US government extracted by doing something that the US government wasn't allowed to do.

The Mark said:
Probably a good idea to put something in about not putting slightly different tariffs in place right after, because this is the Trump administration, they'd backstab you in a second on a whim.
Click to expand...

The US government would never agree to such terms. To do so would be to "infringe on the national sovereignty of the United States of America" and the very idea that the US government would do such a thing is an "insult to the integrity of the US government" which would be so severe as to "absolutely require the imposition of sanctions against the offending country".
 
Nap said:
Your post reminded me of an old quote, "if you want more of something subsidize it, if you want less of something, tax it". It does seem to certainly apply to humans beings as well. I would imagine if you took the birth rates and aligned it with the amount of taxes paid that the higher you go up (probably up to around $200k) the lower the birth rate and conversely those whom were receiving money rather than paying in likely have the highest birth rate.
Click to expand...


All that you say is, as you say, imaginary. You have no evidence to either back up your “quote”nor what follows without refutation. Actually, your quote is a “saying”, which reminds me of an old saying, "a saying is an expression of advice or wisdom so often said as to have become meaningless".

I could “imagine” that those in lower income have a much higher infant mortality rate than those in the higher income levels. But, I don’t. I know. However, the burden of proof is on you, the claim-maker, to provide the evidence to make your point. You can prove your limited claim of lower income females having higher birth rates. But you can’t then disprove the fact of higher infant mortality rates among lower incomes. You know. To survive, there has to be more births than deaths.

Still, you don’t quite get my drift. “The same logic applies to real human beings” also means that in our tax system, if business is allowed to deduct expenses to operate, so should persons be allowed to deduct necessities to operate themselves. Food, shelter, clothing to say the least.
 
bluesmoke said:
All that you say is, as you say, imaginary. You have no evidence to either back up your “quote”nor what follows without refutation. Actually, your quote is a “saying”, which reminds me of an old saying, "a saying is an expression of advice or wisdom so often said as to have become meaningless".

I could “imagine” that those in lower income have a much higher infant mortality rate than those in the higher income levels. But, I don’t. I know. However, the burden of proof is on you, the claim-maker, to provide the evidence to make your point. You can prove your limited claim of lower income females having higher birth rates. But you can’t then disprove the fact of higher infant mortality rates among lower incomes. You know. To survive, there has to be more births than deaths.

Still, you don’t quite get my drift. “The same logic applies to real human beings” also means that in our tax system, if business is allowed to deduct expenses to operate, so should persons be allowed to deduct necessities to operate themselves. Food, shelter, clothing to say the least.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is, I don't even disagree with this. I doubt it would get passed though.
 
bluesmoke said:
All that you say is, as you say, imaginary. You have no evidence to either back up your “quote”nor what follows without refutation.
Click to expand...

"There is a clear maxim of government, if you want less of something, tax it, if you want more of something, subsidize it."
Sen Brownback, Congressional Record 05 AUG 99, page 19796, Col 3.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
"There is a clear maxim of government, if you want less of something, tax it, if you want more of something, subsidize it."
Sen Brownback, Congressional Record 05 AUG 99, page 19796, Col 3.
Click to expand...
Which is why we need to subsidize healthcare and education more.


And why we have so much corruption in politics.
 
The Mark said:
Which is why we need to subsidize healthcare and education more.
Click to expand...

But, but, but ... wouldn't that make them "Entitlements" and aren't "Entitlements" just another word for "Socialism" and isn't "Socialism" just another word for "Communism"?

The Mark said:
And why we have so much corruption in politics.
Click to expand...

That isn't "corruption" that is simply "the normal operation of the unrestrained, free-market, capitalism". I mean, some people (read as "politicians") have things (read as "votes") that other people (read as "the wealthy") want and if those other people are willing to pay the sale price for those things, isn't that what made America Great?

Hasn't Mr. Trump promised to make America great again?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
But, but, but ... wouldn't that make them "Entitlements" and aren't "Entitlements" just another word for "Socialism" and isn't "Socialism" just another word for "Communism"?



That isn't "corruption" that is simply "the normal operation of the unrestrained, free-market, capitalism". I mean, some people (read as "politicians") have things (read as "votes") that other people (read as "the wealthy") want and if those other people are willing to pay the sale price for those things, isn't that what made America Great?

Hasn't Mr. Trump promised to make America great again?
Click to expand...
Trump believes in a past america of like 30 years ago that was better for some (maybe him?), but worst for most, and going back there will be bad.

We need to move forward, not try to backtrack into territory that is no longer tenable.
 
The Mark said:
Trump believes in a past america of like 30 years ago that was better for some (maybe him?), but worst for most, and going back there will be bad.

We need to move forward, not try to backtrack into territory that is no longer tenable.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't believe the spin and hype. It simply makes you wrong.

Trump doesn't want to take America back 30 years. He wants to revive the manufacturing economy to where it was 30 years ago...to where it was before the globalists decided that manufacturing would be done elsewhere and that America would be a service economy and a bunch of consumers.

And, you know what? He's doing it. That's why he is getting so much opposition.

As always...it's about money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom