Trump imposes 30 percent tariff on solar panel imports

[nikcers]

MAGA


The move is a major blow for the $28 billion solar industry, which gets about 80 percent of its solar panel products from imports.

The Solar Energy Industries Association predicted the tariffs would increase prices and kill 23,000 jobs. The group represents manufacturers as well as installers, sellers and others in the field.

Suniva and SolarWorld Americas, the bankrupt companies which requested the tariffs, say tariffs would boost domestic manufacturing and add more than 100,000 jobs.

The tariffs unveiled Monday apply to all imported solar photovoltaic cells and modules, the main technology on panels that convert solar energy into electricity.

While the action is targeted at imports from China, Trump’s tariffs apply to all imports, since Chinese manufacturers have moved operations to other countries.

“The president’s action makes clear again that the Trump administration will always defend American workers, farmers, ranchers and businesses in this regard,” U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer (http://thehill.com/people/robert-bob-lighthizer) said in a statement Monday announcing the decision along with a decision to impose tariffs on imported washers.

SolarWorld Americas, a unit of a German company, said in a statement that it was grateful for Trump’s work, but it is still reviewing whether the tariffs are high enough. It had sought 50 percent tariffs.

[TheTexan]

Ya, fuck china, and fuck solar too!

#MAGA

[Ender]

MAGA

Making solar panels is a dangerous occupation as the process can be quite poisonous to the environment and the workers. That is the main reason they are not made in the US.

What this will do is kill solar companies in the US that install panels, as it will become too expensive to keep customers.

[timosman]

Buy TSLA?

[RonZeplin]

Burn natural gas, fuel oil, and coal when solar gets too expensive. Burn baby, burn! $$$$$$$$$$ Plug into the NSA/DHS power grid. :eek:

Is it true that Ronald Reagan ripped Jimiah Carter's solar panels off of the roof of the White House?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_ez4pVXUAAcqpk.jpg

[axiomata]

SolarWorld Americas, a unit of a German company, said in a statement that it was grateful for Trump’s work, but it is still reviewing whether the tariffs are high enough. It had sought 50 percent tariffs.

F Trump. F you SolarWorld, more.

[timosman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZXUR4z2P9w

[GunnyFreedom]

Credit where credit is due.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/26510/stable-genius-trump-jacks-tariffs-solar-panels-ryan-saavedra#



Trump Jacks Up Tariffs On Solar Panels. Here's How China Responded.
Manufacturing continues to boom under Trump . . .

ByRYAN SAAVEDRA January 30, 2018 319.8k views

Just one week after the Trump administration announced a massive 30% tariff on imported solar panels, one of China's largest solar panel manufacturers announced plans to open a manufacturing plant in the United States.

The company, JinkoSolar, said on Monday that they have received the green light from their board of directors to "finalize planning for the construction of an advanced solar manufacturing facility in the U.S." CNN Money reports:


The statement suggested Jinko's decision was tied to the new tariffs, saying that the company "continues to closely monitor treatment of imports of solar cells and modules under the U.S. trade laws."

... Read more. (https://www.dailywire.com/news/26510/stable-genius-trump-jacks-tariffs-solar-panels-ryan-saavedra#)

[goldenequity]

S. Korea should consider restricting imports of U.S. LNG: scholar
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2018/01/30/0200000000AEN20180130010051320.html?sns=tw

SEOUL, Jan. 30 (Yonhap) -- A law professor said Tuesday that South Korea should consider restricting imports of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) in response to U.S. safeguard measures.

Choi Won-mok, a law professor at Ewha Womans University, also said South Korea could move to impose higher tariffs on U.S. liquefied natural gas.

Currently, South Korea puts no tariff on U.S. LNG under their bilateral free trade deal, except for a 2 percent tariff during the October-March period every year, according to the Korea Customs Service.

Choi made the case in a round table meeting with economic experts on how to deal with U.S. safeguard measures.

The first shipment of U.S. shale gas arrived in South Korea last year under a 2012 deal between Korea Gas Corp. (KOGAS) and the Texas-based Cheniere Energy. The deal calls for South Korea's state-run gas supplier to bring in 2.8 million tons of liquefied gas annually until 2036.

KOGAS estimated its annual imports to be worth US$1 billion.

Last week, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a set of safeguard measures against foreign made, large residential washing machines and solar cells, including those from South Korea.

[Swordsmyth]

S. Korea should consider restricting imports of U.S. LNG: scholar
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2018/01/30/0200000000AEN20180130010051320.html?sns=tw

SEOUL, Jan. 30 (Yonhap) -- A law professor said Tuesday that South Korea should consider restricting imports of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) in response to U.S. safeguard measures.

Choi Won-mok, a law professor at Ewha Womans University, also said South Korea could move to impose higher tariffs on U.S. liquefied natural gas.

Currently, South Korea puts no tariff on U.S. LNG under their bilateral free trade deal, except for a 2 percent tariff during the October-March period every year, according to the Korea Customs Service.

Choi made the case in a round table meeting with economic experts on how to deal with U.S. safeguard measures.

The first shipment of U.S. shale gas arrived in South Korea last year under a 2012 deal between Korea Gas Corp. (KOGAS) and the Texas-based Cheniere Energy. The deal calls for South Korea's state-run gas supplier to bring in 2.8 million tons of liquefied gas annually until 2036.

KOGAS estimated its annual imports to be worth US$1 billion.

Last week, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a set of safeguard measures against foreign made, large residential washing machines and solar cells, including those from South Korea.

When you have a trade deficit as large as ours you have nothing to lose and everything to gain from a trade war.

[goldenequity]

When you have a trade deficit as large as ours you have nothing to lose and everything to gain from a trade war.

yeah... that's the old 'They need me more than I need them' mentality.

reminds me of the alcoholic, abusive 'family provider' who one day comes home to an empty house.

[dannno]

yeah... that's the old 'They need me more than I need them' mentality.

reminds me of the alcoholic, abusive 'family provider' who one day comes home to an empty house.

Meh, coming home to an empty house is better than coming home to an eviction notice and divorce papers.

[Swordsmyth]

yeah... that's the old 'They need me more than I need them' mentality.

reminds me of the alcoholic, abusive 'family provider' who one day comes home to an empty house.

It's more like getting rid of parasites.

[undergroundrr]

When you have a trade deficit as large as ours you have nothing to lose and everything to gain from a trade war.

http://blog.independent.org/2017/03/17/negative-balance-of-trade-so-what/


I place the balance of international payments data in the class of statistics for which the world would have been a happier place had the data never been devised, popularized (in a rough way), and used by policy makers. This last aspect is the crux of the matter because the balance-of-trade data in particular can scarcely help but serve as a rationale for pernicious policies, such as export subsidies and tariffs, quotas, and other official restrictions on imports. In short, the data help the government establish and maintain policies that enrich the privileged few at the expense of the unconnected many, including consumers in general and producers who rely on imported raw materials and components, as many do these days.

Although the topic may appear daunting, the essence of the matter is utterly simple. As a fair approximation, each international transaction, whether it be buying, selling, borrowing, or lending across a national border involves a willing party on each side—importers want to purchase goods from sellers abroad, lenders want to lend to borrowers abroad, and so forth. Each party to the transactions expects to benefit by entering into it. In a sane and just world, that would be the end of the matter. People would simply be left alone to make the transactions they wish to make in anticipation of benefiting thereby. If each transactor benefits, how can the nation as a whole suffer?

Of course, one might claim that because, for example, consumers wish to purchase imported products, the sellers of competing, domestically produced products suffer, but such parties have no defensible right to suppress consumers’ freedom of choice simply because the consumers have chosen to patronize alternative suppliers. After all, such losses of sales by domestic producers might have arisen just as easily from changes in consumers’ purchases that had nothing to do with imports (e.g., changes in tastes or the appearance of new, better, competing domestic products).

[Swordsmyth]

http://blog.independent.org/2017/03/17/negative-balance-of-trade-so-what/

Riddle me this batman:

What happens when all your manufacturing capacity is moved offshore and you have nothing but a consumer/service economy?
Where do your consumers get the money to buy the things made in foreign countries or pay for the services they provide to one another?
What happens when the foreign countries demand you submit to world government or be embargoed?
How do you ever re-build your manufacturing base if all the technology and skilled and experienced personnel are gone?


Politics is war by other means, Geopolitics doubly so.

The trade war has been going on for many decades, the foreigners started it and we either collaborated or did nothing, our economy is on the brink of destruction, it's time we started fighting back.

[undergroundrr]

Riddle me this batman:

What happens when all your manufacturing capacity is moved offshore and you have nothing but a consumer/service economy?
Where do your consumers get the money to buy the things made in foreign countries or pay for the services they provide to one another?
What happens when the foreign countries demand you submit to world government or be embargoed?
How do you ever re-build your manufacturing base if all the technology and skilled and experienced personnel are gone?


Politics is war by other means, Geopolitics doubly so.

The trade war has been going on for many decades, the foreigners started it and we either collaborated or did nothing, our economy is on the brink of destruction, it's time we started fighting back.

Dear Mr. Nygma,

Your penchant for blaming all this (if it were entirely true) on foreign countries is quaint. More economic freedom is an avenue toward better conditions. Less economic freedom punishes traders and consumers. Don't use trade deficit funny numbers to advocate corporatist special treatment for special interests at the expense of citizens at large.

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/a6/23/07/a62307a1811b364de244989ce1472829.jpg

[timosman]

Dear Mr. Nygma,

Your penchant for blaming all this (if it were entirely true) on foreign countries is quaint. More economic freedom is an avenue toward better conditions. Less economic freedom punishes traders and consumers. Don't use trade deficit funny numbers to advocate corporatist special treatment for special interests at the expense of citizens at large.


Your argument sounds good on paper but it fails to take into account the status quo. C- :cool:

[undergroundrr]

Your argument sounds good on paper but it fails to take into account the status quo. C- :cool:

So you're saying capitalism looks good on paper but it doesn't work.
My dad always used to tell me communism looked good on paper but it doesn't work.
I'm so confused.

[Swordsmyth]

Dear Mr. Nygma,

Your penchant for blaming all this (if it were entirely true) on foreign countries is quaint. More economic freedom is an avenue toward better conditions. Less economic freedom punishes traders and consumers. Don't use trade deficit funny numbers to advocate corporatist special treatment for special interests at the expense of citizens at large.

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/a6/23/07/a62307a1811b364de244989ce1472829.jpg

We don't have economic freedom in the world we have economic warfare, we can have economic freedom in our country but only if we have an economy protected from foreign predation.

You have absolutely no response to the practical problems I pointed out so you resort to abstract platitudes that presume conditions not present in the world at large.

[dannno]

So you're saying capitalism looks good on paper but it doesn't work.
My dad always used to tell me communism looked good on paper but it doesn't work.
I'm so confused.

What he is saying is that you are claiming we need the free market to get back to normal, which sounds great, but we don't have a free market and it isn't in the cards that we will have one any time soon. It is even LESS in the cards if Hillary had won.

Our market is so distorted it has been destroying our manufacturing and production jobs for decades.

This will help reverse that. It's not optimal, but it is far preferable to what we have now.

[timosman]

So you're saying capitalism looks good on paper but it doesn't work.
My dad always used to tell me communism looked good on paper but it doesn't work.
I'm so confused.

You should have listened to your dad. He was smart.

[Swordsmyth]

So you're saying capitalism looks good on paper but it doesn't work.
My dad always used to tell me communism looked good on paper but it doesn't work.
I'm so confused.

Capitalism works great in your country where you can prevent hostile government intervention in the market but it works lousy in the international arena when dealing with hostile governments that intervene in the market, they may destroy themselves but they destroy you first.

An armed society is a polite society applies to international trade, you can have relatively free trade once you achieve a standoff in the economic war but if you just disarm you will get eaten alive.

[undergroundrr]

We don't have economic freedom in the world we have economic warfare, we can have economic freedom in our country but only if we have an economy protected from foreign predation.

You have absolutely no response to the practical problems I pointed out so you resort to abstract platitudes that presume conditions not present in the world at large.

Okay, now you're saying our problems are because we don't have economic freedom? I thought it was foreigners.

The effects of economic freedom are not abstract. Other than special treatment handouts, economic freedom is the most concrete advantage one can have when negotiating life.

Keynesian economic meddling is abstract hocus-pocus that a purist idealogue uses to try to achieve his elitist wonkery.

Trade is not war. It's a free exchange that benefits both sides.

Trade is trade. War is war. And tariffs aren't trade. They're war, as Ron Paul repeatedly points out. Asking for tariffs is warmongering, except you're bringing the war to the doorstep of citizens. The other kind they can sit back and watch on CNN while they wave their flags and blame other countries.

[Swordsmyth]

Okay, now you're saying our problems are because we don't have economic freedom? I thought it was foreigners.

The effects of economic freedom are not abstract. Other than special treatment handouts, economic freedom is the most concrete advantage one can have when negotiating life.

Keynesian economic meddling is abstract hocus-pocus that a purist idealogue uses to try to achieve his elitist wonkery.

Trade is not war. It's a free exchange that benefits both sides.

Trade is trade. War is war. And tariffs aren't trade. They're war, as Ron Paul repeatedly points out. Asking for tariffs is warmongering, except you're bringing the war to the doorstep of citizens. The other kind they can sit back and watch on CNN while they wave their flags and blame other countries.

I made a difference between THE WORLD most of which we don't control and is full of hostile government intervention in the marketplace and OUR COUNTRY where we can prevent it.

Tariffs AND subsidies are war, that is my point, other countries have been waging war on us with both and we have been collaborating or doing nothing, it is time we fought back.

[undergroundrr]

Capitalism works great in your country where you can prevent hostile government intervention in the market but it works lousy in the international arena when dealing with hostile governments that intervene in the market, they may destroy themselves but they destroy you first.

I've heard this before somewhere.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=38&v=Tmi8cJG0BJo


An armed society is a polite society applies to international trade, you can have relatively free trade once you achieve a standoff in the economic war but if you just disarm you will get eaten alive.

Trade isn't aggression. Aggression only hampers trade. Trade benefits both traders. Not trading is the process of economic collapse.

[Swordsmyth]

I've heard this before somewhere.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=38&v=Tmi8cJG0BJo

You can't abandon something that doesn't exist, other countries destroyed the international free market long ago, we have to defend ourselves in the war they started.



Trade isn't aggression. Aggression only hampers trade. Trade benefits both traders. Not trading is the process of economic collapse.
Tariffs and subsidies are warfare, we have to fight back.

[undergroundrr]

Tariffs AND subsidies are war, that is my point, other countries have been waging war on us with both and we have been collaborating or doing nothing, it is time we fought back.

Foreign subsidies and tariffs are a nation's war on their own people just like farm subsidies are here. Foreign subsidies in particular are the way Americans get cheap stuff so they can spend money on other things.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason some American industries are outcompeted by, say, China, is because China has become MASSIVELY more free market over time and we've gone the opposite direction?

https://mises.org/blog/why-us-has-lost-manufacturing-jobs


The basic story is that half the world had a labor force that was basically being thwarted by communist and similar repressive governments, and when the dam was burst and free market forces unleashed, giant equilibrating economic forces came into play.

I suggest you take a little time off vdare and visit mises.org for a while. Get your conservative side back. Capitalism works on paper and in the real world. Capitalism is why China is being successful.

[undergroundrr]

You can't abandon something that doesn't exist, other countries destroyed the international free market long ago, we have to defend ourselves in the war they started.

Every time a trader in one country and a trader in another country trade, a tiny little international free market is happening. No matter how hard your Keynesian manipulations try to stem it, trade will continue.

[Swordsmyth]

Foreign subsidies and tariffs are a nation's war on their own people just like farm subsidies are here. Foreign subsidies in particular are the way Americans get cheap stuff so they can spend money on other things.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason some American industries are outcompeted by, say, China, is because China has become MASSIVELY more free market over time and we've gone the opposite direction?

https://mises.org/blog/why-us-has-lost-manufacturing-jobs



I suggest you take a little time off vdare and visit mises.org for a while. Get your conservative side back. Capitalism works on paper and in the real world. Capitalism is why China is being successful.

LOL, you have really swallowed the China kool-aid, their economy is indistinguishable from their government, it's the same to a greater or lesser degree in most countries.

You were the one who referenced Ron Paul saying that tariffs were war on foreign countries, well the foreign countries wage war with tariffs and subsidies on us and we have to fight back.

[undergroundrr]

This will help reverse that.

Making the market less free will not free the market.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmi8cJG0BJo

[Swordsmyth]

Every time a trader in one country and a trader in another country trade, a tiny little international free market is happening. No matter how hard your Keynesian manipulations try to stem it, trade will continue.

So now you are claiming that government intervention and free trade aren't mutually exclusive?

[dannno]

Making the market less free will not free the market.

The market ALREADY isn't free. By making adjustments to a heavily regulated market, you can make it closer to what a free market would actually look like.

Not optimal, but in many cases preferable.

[undergroundrr]

well the foreign countries wage war with tariffs and subsidies on us and we have to fight back.

No, we really don't have to fight back. Tariffs are a cure worse than the disease. Except for the special interests that benefit from them.

If a country retains its own citizens' ability to trade freely (e.g. by not initiating, participating in, or fomenting trade wars), new avenues to prosperity will always present themselves.

[Swordsmyth]

No, we really don't have to fight back. Tariffs are a cure worse than the disease. Except for the special interests that benefit from them.

If a country retains its own citizens' ability to trade freely (e.g. by not initiating, participating in, or fomenting trade wars), new avenues to prosperity will always present themselves.

Only after the global collapse, sometimes the disease IS worse than the cure, economic pacifism works no better than military pacifism.

[undergroundrr]

Only after the global collapse, sometimes the disease IS worse than the cure, economic pacifism works no better than military pacifism.

Oh. What should we do with our nukes, destroyers and bombers then?

[CCTelander]

The market ALREADY isn't free. By making adjustments to a heavily regulated market, you can make it closer to what a free market would actually look like.

Not optimal, but in many cases preferable.


So ... the problem is that we lack economic freedom, and in order to correct that situation, at least in part, we need to restrict economic freedom even further?

What the fuck Bizarro World have I found myself in?

"Liberty movement"? What a fucking sick joke.

[timosman]

So ... the problem is that we lack economic freedom, and in order to correct that situation, at least in part, we need to restrict economic freedom even further?

What the fuck Bizarro World have I found myself in?

"Liberty movement"? What a fucking sick joke.

I am not even going to read this shit. Home team advantage.

[CCTelander]

I am not even going to read this shit. Home team advantage.


Apparently, logic isn't your strong suit. Unfortunate.

[dannno]

So ... the problem is that we lack economic freedom, and in order to correct that situation, at least in part, we need to restrict economic freedom even further?

What the fuck Bizarro World have I found myself in?

"Liberty movement"? What a fucking sick joke.

Uhh, no, that's bullshit.

I said optimally we would switch to a free market.

But since that is not in the cards, and we have a heavily regulated market, making adjustments to said market may be preferable in some cases.

For example - immigration - If we continue on our current path where we have a big government welfare state and open immigration, we will bring in a buttload of illegal immigrants, 80% of whom want bigger government compared to 42% of the current population who want bigger government. That will result in our country becoming a socialist shithole.

On the other hand, if we restrict immigration, even though restricting immigration in and of itself is not a liberty oriented plank, we will have substantially more liberty on the whole because our country won't have nearly as many socialist voters and welfare users. Obviously the best option would be to get rid of big government, but since that isn't in the cards, what we can do is restrict immigration in the mean time to ward off the horrible results of what big government is giving us now.

If we send all of our manufacturing overseas because of big government, that is not good for our economy in the longrun. If we make some adjustments that will bring back manufacturing, it will give us the ability to be more sustainable and thus give us more liberty on the long run.

There is still a big battle to fight, the goal is that we are in the best position to fight it as possible.

If we just do what you are saying and let all the immigrants in and turn our country into a socialist shithole and gut our manufacturing capability, we will NOT be able to have any semblance of freedom in the future. That I can tell you.

[axiomata]

Protectionist tariffs are bad. Ron Paul knows this. Why doesn't RPF anymore?

[specsaregood]

Protectionist tariffs are bad. Ron Paul knows this. Why Durant RPF any more?

Uhm, there has always been a division on this topic on RPF, ever since its origin. Not everybody here is an anarchist. If you look some of the oldest members of this site are pro-tariff. I like free trade in theory, but it simply can't exist when one side has a global fiat currency. In our current environment I am pro-protectionist tariffs and have been since pretty much as long as this site has existed.

[timosman]

Apparently, logic isn't your strong suit. Unfortunate.

And yours is?:cool:

[CCTelander]

And yours is?:cool:


At least sufficiently so to realize that you can't increase freedom by further restricting it.

[timosman]

At least sufficiently so to realize that you can't increase freedom by further restricting it.

Can I use my option?:eek:

[axiomata]

Uhm, there has always been a division on this topic on RPF, ever since its origin. Not everybody here is an anarchist. If you look some of the oldest members of this site are pro-tariff. I like free trade in theory, but it simply can't exist when one side has a global fiat currency. In our current environment I am pro-protectionist tariffs and have been since pretty much as long as this site has existed.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?300500-Do-you-support-the-removal-of-all-trade-barriers-with-other-nations

In 2011 only 12% disagreed with removing ALL tariffs. 72% were in favor of unilaterally and unconditionally removing all tarrifs. Now we have maybe a majority cheering increasing tarrifs. In case its been forgotten. Tarriffs are taxes on American consumers.

[specsaregood]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?300500-Do-you-support-the-removal-of-all-trade-barriers-with-other-nations

In 2011 only 12% disagreed with removing ALL tariffs. Now we have maybe a majority cheering increasing tarrifs.

Uhm, I see 28% disagreed, a sizeable chunk of the site. "Conditionally" doesn't mean agreement.

[juleswin]

MAGA

Didn't you hear, China just announced that they will now move on of their solar plants to the US. That is results you small govt people cannot deny. The result we see is the job and who gives a fuck about the unseen results of this move.

Govt is good and does bring job and pay to the people. If you cannot be convinced by results then you are suffering from trump derangement syndrome :rolleyes:

[Danke]

Didn't you hear, China just announced that they will now move on of their solar plants to the US. That is results you small govt people cannot deny. The result we see is the job and who gives a fuck about the unseen results of this move.

Govt is good and does bring job and pay to the people. If you cannot be convinced by results then you are suffering from trump derangement syndrome :rolleyes:


Never go full retard.

[timosman]

Govt is good and does bring job and pay to the people. If you cannot be convinced by results then you are suffering from trump derangement syndrome :rolleyes:

Pretty much. Make them make better deals. These bitches work for you.:cool:

[Danke]

Protectionist tariffs are bad. Ron Paul knows this. Why doesn't RPF anymore?


Key word, “Protectionist”. How do you think our national government should be funded? Not at all? If we have common ground that it needs to be funded, a flat tariff that doesn’t favor one industry over another may be a good start.

[timosman]

The applauding seem excessive. Even Jerry Springer doesn't get this much. :cool:

[timosman]

Tame the challenge. Sorry democrats.

[axiomata]

Key word, “Protectionist”. How do you think our national government should be funded? Not at all? If we have common ground that it needs to be funded, a flat tariff that doesn’t favor one industry over another may be a good start.

Flat tariffs may be a good way to fund a minimal government. Or it may not. We can have that reasonable debate later.

First we must discuss the protectionist tariff supported by many in this thread.

[Zippyjuan]

Flat tariffs may be a good way to fund a minimal government. Or it may not. We can have that reasonable debate later.

First we must discuss the protectionist tariff supported by many in this thread.

To fund government at its current size, you would need a 200% tariff on everything imported- including oil and foods. That would triple their prices.

[oyarde]

Uhm, there has always been a division on this topic on RPF, ever since its origin. Not everybody here is an anarchist. If you look some of the oldest members of this site are pro-tariff. I like free trade in theory, but it simply can't exist when one side has a global fiat currency. In our current environment I am pro-protectionist tariffs and have been since pretty much as long as this site has existed.

I too believe in free trade . Not gonna happen .

[oyarde]

To fund government at its current size, you would need a 200% tariff on everything imported- including oil and foods. That would triple their prices.

So if you slash govt in half and everything cost twice as much and no taxes ? I guess there would be people for and against that . I would have to be against it unless it was restricted to Article One Section Eight govt . , then I would probably have to support it .

[nikcers]

I too believe in free trade . Not gonna happen .

Not with that attitude, we should never give up on freedom, it's not free but we are selling ourselves short here. We don't live in Russia where you don't have any options. We aren't there yet but with that attitude we will soon be given the same choice, dictator or chaos. I for one say no, I will always presume freedom, freedom is only gone when we give up on the idea of the good.

[Zippyjuan]

So if you slash govt in half and everything cost twice as much and no taxes ? I guess there would be people for and against that . I would have to be against it unless it was restricted to Article One Section Eight govt . , then I would probably have to support it .

You gonna try to cut Social Security in half? (Even Ron Paul wouldn't touch that one- he only suggested "letting the young people opt out" while "honoring our commitment to those who have qualified".

[axiomata]

To fund government at its current size, you would need a 200% tariff on everything imported- including oil and foods. That would triple their prices.

Why would I want to fund government at its current size?

[Zippyjuan]

Why would I want to fund government at its current size?

What size would you suggest? How would you get there? What to cut and how much? (If you are an elected official you probably want to stay away from Social Security, Medicare/ Medicaid and Defense- otherwise risk being voted out of office)

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/pres_budg_total_spending_pie.png

[axiomata]

Medicare and social security should be voluntary or privatized and taken out of income like any other retirement and insurance program. Military could be cut by two thirds. Debt should paid off by selling public lands and properties. What's left is a small portion of the budget but much of it is unconstitutional, so we can cut that which is unconstitutional. Are we there yet?

[nikcers]

Isn't the government taking care of religion and healthcare part of the communist manifesto? I didn't see it in the constitution...

[Swordsmyth]

Oh. What should we do with our nukes, destroyers and bombers then?

Keep them.