Trump warns of ‘retribution’ if companies move jobs out of U.S.

[Rey C.]

Love him or hate him, one thing that's for sure, Trump's populist stance on trade does not sound like any Republican that has held high national office in my lifetime.

President-elect Donald Trump on Sunday issued a dramatic warning to companies that they would face “retribution” in the form of tariffs if they move American jobs overseas, setting up a collision with corporate America and the free-market wing of the Republican Party.

In a string of early-morning tweets, Trump said he intends to keep jobs in the United States by lowering taxes for companies and slashing regulations, two key components of his economic agenda. But he also warned that companies that send jobs offshore would face a 35 percent tariff on goods sold back to the United States.

“Any business that leaves our country for another country, fires its employees, builds a new factory or plant in the other country, and then thinks it will sell its product back into the U.S. . . . without retribution or consequence, is WRONG!” Trump wrote on Twitter.

 

[Jack Davenport]

The so called ", conservatives" of the past 30 years running things created this populist/nationalist environment.

Sarah Palin has called Trump out for meddling in businesses. Trump's agenda is to stop illegal immigration, kill terrorists and creating jobs and growth. I think he will succeed.

Burn it down.

 

[bodie54]

omg I can readily imagine the reaction if Obama had said/done this lol

:Flame: :Flame: :Flame: :Flame: :Flame:

 

[acenipplelicker]

trump will create jobs and an extra helping in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania for re-election efforts.
paul ryan could come out smelling like a rose in 8 years.
no ones moving anywhere especially in those states.

 

[Jack Davenport]

How actually said "consequences" not retribution.

 

[Jack Davenport]

omg I can readily imagine the reaction if Obama had said/done this lol

:Flame: :Flame: :Flame: :Flame: :Flame:

Good point.

People like myself may have actually cast a vote for him.

 

[xfire]

I always bash people for voting on single issues, like abortion. I'm guilty of voting for Trump singularly because of the policies he put forth on trade and rhetoric like this is red meat for me and others that might not have voted for him otherwise.

 

[Rey C.]

omg I can readily imagine the reaction if Obama had said/done this lol

:flame: :flame: :flame: :flame: :flame:

You know, I suspect that you are right. Had the TEA Party types within the GOP not been so totally obstructionist on fiscal policy matters, we would/should have been able to develop a productive fiscal policy over the past 8 years and not remained stuck in the mud. IMO, they get half the blame for our current slow growth position. There were too many ideologues on both sides and the republic suffered because of it.

As for Trump, I know that the Chamber of Commerce and Club for Growth wing of the GOP is opposed to what he's said so far, in regard to tariffs and punishing companies that outsource. From the primaries to now, Trump has said some things that would put him to the left of Bernie Sanders - which I figure is one reason that he called for Bernie's supporters to get behind him. I think that's a big part of his populist support (on fiscal matters, not social issues). He's not getting universal support from the GOP though. But the Chamber of Commerce and Club for Growth wing (which had been a major force within the GOP up to now) has to be very careful in how it reacts to Trump, because of his aggressive nature. More so than with Obama, Trump will threaten a bitch slap... and seems prepared to deliver it if he's challenged by the establishment Republicans. I think that he could replace their legislative support with that of some Democrat legislators in rust belt states if they buck on him.

These are strange times. Maybe time for my girlfriend, Michele Bachmann, to give her Hoot-Smalley speech again.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Care to point us to the Tea Party leadership in congress that obstructed Obama?

Half of those that ran as Tea Party enthusiasts were anything but. Nikki Haley and Jeff Flake for example.

What fiscal initiatives did Obama put forward the the mean old GOP thwarted? You seem to like Bob Corker IIRC, the guy that surrendered the treaty clause and made the Iran deal possible.

You have been anti-Tea Party for as long as I can remember you posting here.
Even if you have to make their nefarious deeds up.

 

[Rey C.]

I would point to the TEA Party Caucus in the House and the Senate, and the role that the House caucus played in the debt ceiling crisis of 2011 and 2013. That foolishness led to a downgrade in our credit rating - which raises the cost of funds to the government, which increases the burden on taxpayers over time. I didn't so much oppose their goal or reasoning. I opposed their method... which was fiscally harmful.

I don't like or dislike Bob Corker. I agree with him on certain issues and disagree with him on others - not unlike my feelings on many politicians.

You are correct, I have been anti-TEA Party pretty much from Day 1. While I have seen merits in some of their broad fiscal positions from time to time, their short-term focused methods and an inability to advance productive legislation has most certainly contributed to the fiscal stall in which we now find ourselves. Can you point to any grand fiscal packages that they were able to push through which has contributed to GDP expansion??? One thing that I thought that they and Obama could have agreed on (that I saw with my own two eyes that WORKED) was continuing tax credits for plant and equipment after the ones in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 expired. This was basic supply side economics 101. But Obama didn't push and they didn't get off their hands - so it died. And here we are, still slogging along. The nuclear deal with Iran had little to nothing to do with fiscal policy, although I agree that it was bad legislation that should have been opposed.

It's fine to propose legislation that is fiscally irresponsible. But in doing so, you also have to propose (workable) legislation that both meets your standards... AND can get passed. And that is where they typically fell short.

And feel free to point out anything that I've "made up". I may get things wrong (being that I'm human). But I try not to make things up.

 

[Jack Davenport]

I would point to the TEA Party Caucus in the House and the Senate, and the role that the House caucus played in the debt ceiling crisis of 2011 and 2013. That foolishness led to a downgrade in our credit rating - which raises the cost of funds to the government, which increases the burden on taxpayers over time. I didn't so much oppose their goal or reasoning. I opposed their method... which was fiscally harmful.

I don't like or dislike Bob Corker. I agree with him on certain issues and disagree with him on others - not unlike my feelings on many politicians.

You are correct, I have been anti-TEA Party pretty much from Day 1. While I have seen merits in some of their broad fiscal positions from time to time, their short-term focused methods and an inability to advance productive legislation has most certainly contributed to the fiscal stall in which we now find ourselves. Can you point to any grand fiscal packages that they were able to push through which has contributed to GDP expansion??? One thing that I thought that they and Obama could have agreed on (that I saw with my own two eyes that WORKED) was continuing tax credits for plant and equipment after the ones in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 expired. This was basic supply side economics 101. But Obama didn't push and they didn't get off their hands - so it died. And here we are, still slogging along. The nuclear deal with Iran had little to nothing to do with fiscal policy, although I agree that it was bad legislation that should have been opposed.

It's fine to propose legislation that is fiscally irresponsible. But in doing so, you also have to propose (workable) legislation that both meets your standards... AND can get passed. And that is where they typically fell short.

And feel free to point out anything that I've "made up". I may get things wrong (being that I'm human). But I try not to make things up.

The downgrade was essentially the equivalent of an individual's score dropping from 850 to 820. We went from a AAA rating to a AA+ rating. Standard & Poor's CEO resigned shortly thereafter. As it was unnecessary and congress wanted to investigate their role in the economic crisis of 2008.

We have in office a president that has no problem in doubling the debt of the 43 presidents before him.

You're blaming the almighty Tea Party caucus when in fact they should have given Obama push back and held their ground.

They were eventually crushed, I' d say pointing the finger of blame at them is one example of making things up.

 

[Johan]

Will Trump's companies outsource jobs from China back to the US ?

 

[Jack Davenport]

Will Trump's companies outsource jobs from China back to the US ?

If you are going to say stupid things like this, at least make it relevant to the argument you are trying to make.

Short of picking up the sod at his overseas golf courses and moving them here or sending his buildings back on barges, how do you suggest he does this?

Another consideration, his children will be running the Trump Organization after this month.

The question should be directed at them.

 

[Johan]

If you are going to say stupid things like this, at least make it relevant to the argument you are trying to make.

Short of picking up the sod at his overseas golf courses and moving them here or sending his buildings back on barges, how do you suggest he does this?

I was refering to the factories producing all the Trump marketing stuff. You know, the ties, the clothes, etc...

Another consideration, his children will be running the Trump Organization after this month.

The question should be directed at them.

You don't seriously believe he won't be the one making the final decision on wether or not Trump stuff factories will be re-implemented in the US ?

 

[Jack Davenport]

I was refering to the factories producing all the Trump marketing stuff. You know, the ties, the clothes, etc...
You don't seriously believe he won't be the one making the final decision on wether or not Trump stuff factories will be re-implemented in the US ?

You are the same one that said only the tinfoil hat wearers considered Hillary to be co-president.

 

[acenipplelicker]

did he use the word retribution- do not like the word
if so he should have used the word tariff or penalty
retribution sounds too much like revenge

they should be free to move- just if you want to sell the stuff back there will be a day of reckoning and an impetus to move back or not move in first place

business works on choices financially and making it healthy for them to choose to stay

 

[Rey C.]

The downgrade was essentially the equivalent of an individual's score dropping from 850 to 820. We went from a AAA rating to a AA+ rating. Standard & Poor's CEO resigned shortly thereafter. As it was unnecessary and congress wanted to investigate their role in the economic crisis of 2008.

We have in office a president that has no problem in doubling the debt of the 43 presidents before him.

You're blaming the almighty Tea Party caucus when in fact they should have given Obama push back and held their ground.

They were eventually crushed, I' d say pointing the finger of blame at them is one example of making things up.

So the President passes budgets now? I believe 'tis you who is now making things up. :hatsoff:

And if the TEA Party should have received no blame, why come they got "crushed", as you say? :dunno: