Donald Trump Slams Globalism in Trade Speech

originally posted by: nwtrucker
"Sanctions of sovereign investments or holdings"....please cite an example or two....

Sovereign nations often have holdings in various private institutions. You can sanction those.

This link provides how constrained corporations were after the revolution. No 'Free Trade'? Really? The only way politicians 'gained', as you say was monetarily. Either while still in office or following it.

Which was the point.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

I am not making Trump versus Hillary comparisons in my post, I am making Trump versus what Trump says comparisons. He is making a lot of 'do as I say not as I do' statements and had admitted as much.

And so there is no confusion I think they are both vile scumbags.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


Without those sovereign nation retaliating? That has the same potential as any I suggested.

That was the point?? Really? We went from a heavily controlled....apparently distrusted concept of Corporations by the Founding Fathers
to a bought Congress that is controlled by TPTB and somehow you want even less controls/taxes from the U.S.?

One that results is the departure of what few remaining industries are left?

I'll pass on that one thanks....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Without those sovereign nation retaliating? That has the same potential as any I suggested.

Our debt/holding exposure is mostly confined to our country.

That was the point?? Really? We went from a heavily controlled....apparently distrusted concept of Corporations by the Founding Fathers
to a bought Congress that is controlled by TPTB and somehow you want even less controls/taxes from the U.S.?

The Founding Fathers were not very keen on taxes themselves if you recall. We kind of had our own Brexit over them. Additionally, how does corporate taxation exert control over companies when the end user is paying them?

Companies would not leave the United States if we had significantly lower taxes, it would be the contrary.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


Actually, taxation without representation. The Founding Fathers had no problem with taxing, tariffs and other revenues as long as it wasn't directed to the citizen. (As you well know.)

You also avoid the fact of that the corporations have far more influence on gov't- at least the big boys- than was ever intended by the Founding
Fathers.

Our taxation of corporations is balanced by low individual tax rates when compared to other countries. Address the international inequities by addressing those corporations that have moved out, purchased corporations outside the U.S. for the express purpose of avoiding our taxes, and those nations that are indirectly subsidizing their own corporations.


Do you really think lowered federal tax would alter the movement of manufacturing firms outside the U.S.? They'd find some other excuse to move....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Actually, taxation without representation. The Founding Fathers had no problem with taxing, tariffs and other revenues as long as it wasn't directed to the citizen. (As you well know.)

Taxation for representation is directed to the citizen. The Founding Fathers were, for the most part, pro-progressive taxation which would completely alleviate taxation on a large portion of the citizenry. Regardless, we are veering off topic.

You also avoid the fact of that the corporations have far more influence on gov't- at least the big boys- than was ever intended by the Founding
Fathers.

That is attributable to lobbying and legislation, not taxation.

Our taxation of corporations is balanced by low individual tax rates when compared to other countries. Address the international inequities by addressing those corporations that have moved out, purchased corporations outside the U.S. for the express purpose of avoiding our taxes, and those nations that are indirectly subsidizing their own corporations.

When you factor in state and local taxes they are not nearly as low.

Do you really think lowered federal tax would alter the movement of manufacturing firms outside the U.S.? They'd find some other excuse to move....

I do, it would result in profit being invested more heavily domestically instead of being held overseas.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Your last comment says it all. No problems, pr0fit-wise by GM, Ford, Boeing or Carrier.


All investing outside the U.S.. I, for one, would not reward corporations such automakers who benefitted from bail-outs-what other country would have done that? Certainly not China or Mexico.- and then merely to increase the profit margin, move those jobs elsewhere. That is betrayal to the nation that spawned them.


Help them, politically? Even tariff-wise? Yes. Cut their taxes? NOPE.


Agree to disagree is 'our' option....

Where did I ever bring up bailouts (which I am against)? I am for zero bailouts, zero loopholes.

A low corporate tax rate helps the private citizen who is paying that tax.