President Trump Interview Discussing China, Mexico, Tariffs and The U.S. Chamber of Commerce…

Earlier this morning President Donald Trump called in to CNBC to discuss a variety of subjects including: the ongoing trade negotiations with China; the threat of tariffs on Mexico over illegal immigration; the federal reserve; the status of the economy; the duplicity of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; collusion by democrats; the upcoming G20 summit in Japan, and much, much, more.

During the interview President Trump directly calls out the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for their anti-American position and self-interested advocacy for Wall Street multinational corporations. Additionally, President Trump pushes back against the claim that tariffs lead to higher U.S. prices, citing examples of China subsidizing their exports and low U.S. inflation.  Must Watch:

.

(LOL… POTUS Trump chomping-at-the-bit to get tariffs on the EU.)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Auto Sector, Big Government, Budget, China, Decepticons, Deep State, Donald Trump, Economy, Election 2020, European Union, G20, G7, Illegal Aliens, India, Japan, media bias, Mexico, NAFTA, President Trump, Trade Deal, Uncategorized, United Kingdom (UK) and Great Britain, US Treasury, USA, USMCA. Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to President Trump Interview Discussing China, Mexico, Tariffs and The U.S. Chamber of Commerce…

  1. Nick the Deplorable says:

    EU tariffs are coming. DOW has almost recovered all its losses from the china tariff announcement.

    Liked by 9 people

    • SAM-TruthFreedomLiberty says:

      I agree. Totally fits the timing.
      EU has to open up their market.
      UK power figures sucking up to Trump.
      They know they either go down with the EU or get a good deal.
      And the EU wont resist like China knowing how far the President will go.

      Liked by 4 people

      • SwampRatTerrier says:

        Can’t wait for HIGH Tariffs on the PU.

        Please make them high high high – higher than all that Middle East hashish (and money) their PU bureaucrats are high on now.

        Like

  2. bertdilbert says:

    “(LOL… POTUS Trump chomping-at-the-bit to get tariffs on the EU.)”

    I think he wants to make an example out of China first.

    Liked by 5 people

  3. Perot Conservative says:

    My hunch is this: USMCA passed into law; trade deal signed with Japan; then tariffs on the EU.

    Liked by 5 people

    • rmnewt says:

      Another step on the path to Norm Augustine’s inevitable single defense company getting all the budget for just one airplane.
      Law Number XVI: In the year 2054, the entire defense budget will purchase just one aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3-1/2 days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day.

      Liked by 3 people

    • oldguy05 says:

      When will they merge with and take over pharmaceuticals. They will then rebrand as ‘The Umbrella Corporation’ Seems like we truly have a Resident Evil.

      Like

  4. iPack_45 says:

    While I agree with the President’s view on trade, all of it, including his “Deal with Mexico,” is unsustainable. He’s playing a short-term game.

    We have two problems that, if addressed properly, will take care of the rest of our problems including trade and immigration policies.

    #1: Deep State. It’s impossible to accomplish or effect any changes and reverse the decades of bad policies when lawmakers, judges, and policy makers at the state and federal levels are being spied on and blackmailed by a corrupt group of people inside the DOJ, FBI, and CIA.

    #2: Lobbying. The origination of U.S. legislation outside the system is a gigantic problem that prevents any pro-American piece of legislation. Just watch the so called conservative, traditional GOP donors (Kochs) announcing their plans to support pro-Amnesty, pro-China, openly anti-American Democrats in 2020.

    Like

    • ristvan says:

      You cite two big among several ‘structural’ problems including trade and immigration. PDJT is working on them all. He just called out USCoC for having only its members rather than the Country’s interests at heart.

      He can and is taking down Deep State via his ‘never again’ pledge and Barr/Durham, plus his VA accountability, his deregulation that minimizes deep state bureaucratic power, and forcing the Uniparty to reveal its true self in the likes of Flake and now Romney.

      He is prohibiting ex gov from lobbying for 5 years. But lobbying per se is protected by 1A and Citizen United and is not all bad at the micro level, because lobbyists also provide real info to Congressional staffs that they would not have otherwise. I know, because Mot’s DC lobbying organization (25 people) was one of my direct reports and I spent a day a quarter minimum with her and her team. FCC, spectrum, industry standards, FRAND licensing litigation….

      Liked by 9 people

      • jnr2d2 says:

        Dereg is great. But it is as bad at the state and local level.
        I develop land. My state uses the state/corp-of- engineers waters of the US and wetland definitions, and mitigation rules, plus some others like “tree save rule,” providing workforce discounted housing, adequate public facilities etc. Driving up the cost to develop — and thus the cost of housing. Most people pay about 1/3 of their income for yearly housing cost.

        Liked by 3 people

        • This is absolutely true. And in many cases, there are multiple overlapping government entities which require different hearings, paperwork, permits, etc. We know from personal experience in Chesapeake Bay area–working to remediate major Hurricane Michael damage to our waterfront. Unbelievably lengthy, expensive, dense and in some cases contradictory requirements.

          Liked by 1 person

    • highdezertgator says:

      Abraham Lincoln “Lincoln argued that a tariff system was less intrusive than domestic taxation: The tariff is the cheaper system,”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history#Andrew_Jackson

      FTWiki
      President Abraham Lincoln declared, “Give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest nation on earth.” Lincoln warned that “the abandonment of the protective policy by the American Government… must produce want and ruin among our people.”

      Lincoln similarly said that, “if a duty amount to full protection be levied upon an article” that could be produced domestically, “at no distant day, in consequence of such duty,” the domestic article “will be sold to our people cheaper than before.”

      Additionally, Lincoln argued that based on economies of scale, any temporary increase in costs resulting from a tariff would eventually decrease as the domestic manufacturer produced more.

      Lincoln did not see a tariff as a tax on low-income Americans because it would only burden the consumer according to the amount the consumer consumed. By the tariff system, the whole revenue is paid by the consumers of foreign goods… the burthen of revenue falls almost entirely on the wealthy and luxurious few, while the substantial and laboring many who live at home, and upon home products, go entirely free.

      Lincoln argued that a tariff system was less intrusive than domestic taxation: The tariff is the cheaper system, because the duties, being collected in large parcels at a few commercial points, will require comparatively few officers in their collection; while by the direct tax system, the land must be literally covered with assessors and collectors, going forth like swarms of Egyptian locusts, devouring every blade of grass and other green thing.[74]

      Liked by 18 people

    • ooicu812 says:

      There was a time when the US had a $200 billion dollar surplus because of tariffs.

      Liked by 8 people

      • Dutchman says:

        Put another way, before income tax, corporate and personal, was collected (before 1915, IIRC) the ONLY $ the U.S. Government took in, was thru tariffs.

        So, we paid the financial cost of WW1, the Louisianna purchase, etc.,…all of the government spending, from 1776 to 1915, from tariffs!

        Liked by 2 people

    • jeans2nd says:

      Sounds like you are advocating for us to stand down and sit here quietly and obey our masters while waiting for our country to fall unimpeded.
      Not.Gonna.Happen
      Watch and learn, iPack

      Like

  5. emet says:

    Something to keep in mind when the CoC and others wail about tariffs and how the president is misusing them. Our tariff code was set up with a provision to allow presidents to punish any nation he chooses. This is column 2 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUSA). Rates in this column are so high it vittually guarantees that very little will be imported into the US from those countries. Currently only Cuba and Cambodia are in column 2, but I recall under previous presidents the number was as high as about a dozen.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Steven Edwards says:

      The problem with this logic is that the Constitution doesn’t allow for Congress to delegate its powers. The tariff laws letting a President arbitrarily level them, is a delegation of the Congress taxing authority. It never should have happened and just because Trump is the one doing it, doesn’t make it right according to the Constitution.

      It was unconstitutional when they delegated their legislative authority with the line-item veto without a Constitutional Amendment, and it is the same with the tariff abdication to the Executive, but why the courts have never ruled on it I don’t know. Maybe they have just never said anyone has standing to bring the suit.

      But whatever, no one cares about Constitutionality when it is there guy in charge.

      Like

      • ristvan says:

        The Constitution does allow delegation of ‘details’ to the executive branch. Otherwise nothing would get accomplished because Congress would be overwhelmed by minutia.

        The interesting con law question is what constitutes legislation versus execution ‘details.
        And that is precisely why SCOTUS says Congress can only ‘investigate’ in two circumstances: inquiry into making, modifying, or eliminating legislation pursuant to express A1§8 powers, and legislative oversight of the executive implicit in its delegation to it.of ‘details’.

        Liked by 9 people

        • Steven Edwards says:

          Sorry but using that logic, the President should be able to arbitrarily mess with the ‘details’ of the Tax Code and lay taxes or adjust the ‘details’ of the rates on whatever good/service he wants.

          The Executive doesn’t have that power according to Article 1 Section 8.

          Like

          • ristvan says:

            Very poor and completely wrong example, because the tax code is a very detailed piece of legislation (in normal print, over 1000 pages and >6000§). The executive branch IRS can only administer it. It cannot change it at all.

            Consider the Clean Air Act, where Congress delegated to the EPA it created what was a pollutant and what level was acceptable, specifying a detailed public process the EPA has to follow in making those delegated detailed decisions. And that is also exactly why Congress has Constitutionally implied legislative oversight. AND courts are saying EPA went too far with CPP and WOTUS regulations.

            Liked by 6 people

            • Steven Edwards says:

              So your argument is: Congress can’t do minutiae, except for when it can…

              Seriously, you are saying that Congress COULD delegate all of its various Article 1 powers, as long as it says: ‘We want to punt this to an Executive Regulatory Framework’

              That is the entire problem we have had for one hundred years, Congress has abdicated its oversight and legislative authority in favor of Regulatory Tyranny. Be it the FDA or the DEA arbitrarily saying ‘____’ Bad.

              I want to understand the consistency of your argument here. You are saying the Status Quo is actually fine…I am curious if you would be saying the same thing about Executive Branch powers and Article One abdication of power if someone else was in Office.

              But this discussion misses the forest for the trees anyway. Article One comes first for a reason. We live in a Republic, the Framers clearly intended for the Congress to give it the form and control the structure. If you want to say they intended for a President to be able to adjust the knobs, that seems reasonable.

              But arbitrarily laying new taxes on new products and services is not an adjustment of the knobs.

              Like

      • Dennis Leonard says:

        Would you mind linking to this,
        ” delegated their legislative authority with the line-item veto without a Constitutional Amendment

        Like

        • ristvan says:

          Line item veto was ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Not hard, simply A1§7.2.

          There never was any delegation of it to the Executive. It was Presidents trying line item vetoes to dodge the omnibus, studded with irrelevancies spending bills that Congress serves up with special provisions for bridges to nowhere and such.

          Liked by 3 people

          • Steven Edwards says:

            It was delegated, that is SPECIFICALLY what the Supreme Court said, It was an unconstitutional delegation of the Congress legislative power.

            And they said it would require an Amendment for the President to have such a power.

            Like

  6. UNBELIEVABLE, can you think of anyone else who can talk with such total informative authority on these issues – there isn’t a one and that is why they hate him so much -especially the string pullers behind the pols, he knows their games/tricks and can’t be bought- if this were a mile race he would have lapped the pack after the first 100 yards.

    Liked by 7 people

    • SouthernTrumpette says:

      ” if this were a mile race he would have lapped the pack after the first 100 yards.”

      LOL. That’s a good way of putting it.
      Trump is unbelievably well- informed.
      The Democrat candidates would have to be “coached” for months before such an interview….and they still wouldn’t hold a candle to Trump.

      Thank you, Lord, for sending us this President !

      Liked by 4 people

  7. Sunshine says:

    A dream come through: Swiping at the EU tyrannical crooks!

    Liked by 4 people

  8. Katherine McCoun says:

    LOVE< LOVE< LOVE!!! COC being called out
    Hurt the RINOs

    Liked by 9 people

  9. ristvan says:

    An interesting question is WHY this long interview this morning? IMO to effectively and immediately counter 3 narratives that developed over the weekend.
    1. Mexico deal is ‘nothing’, was already agreed (NYT). And to reassure US companies in Mexico, while putting them on notice (USCoC) to pressure AMLO to follow through—or else.
    2. China: Xi, you better show up at G20 so we can have little chat about negotiating in good faith. You don’t, bam! China’s other 60% gets immediately tariffed.
    3. UTC+Raytheon after UTC spins out Otis and Carrier. Guys, we will take a careful look at how this affects defense competition.

    On 3, the answer is pretty easy, but PDJT is very busy and probably didn’t get a briefing yet. There is very little competitive overlap. UTC sold Sikorsky helicopter to Lockheed Martin. UTC makes jet engines, Raytheon makes avionics and missiles. The combination will result in $1 billion in annual cost savings per WSJ today.
    The military aircraft bid problem PDJT noted is the past consolidation into just Boeing and Lockheed, with a little Northrup Grumman. But that consolidation was inevitable as the cost and complexity of military aircraft programs rose exponentially. No different than commercial jet aircraft boiled down to just Boeing and Airbus, with a little Embraer for regional jets. Bombardier had to get bailed out by Airbus. And Embraer is joining forces with Boeing on its commercial jets.

    Liked by 10 people

    • 1hear2learn says:

      I have to say I really, really enjoy reading any and all of your posts here on CTH. You’re ability to provide concise, detailed information on often complex issues and legal matters, in a manner that I can understand. Thank you very much for your continued contributions!

      Liked by 4 people

      • ristvan says:

        You are welcome. Been around the block a few times, and my first of three ‘careers’ really honed communication skills. Try to make mainly substantive contributions for Treepers where I know stuff others may not.

        Liked by 6 people

    • Dutchman says:

      ristvan,
      In particular, #1 cracks me up! Within 24 hours of 45 announcing tariffs on Mexico, the Foriegn minister makes a previously unscheduled ’emergency’ trip to D.C.
      Because he,suddenly just had this overwhelming need to see the Washington monument! LOL!

      Liked by 3 people

    • GB Bari says:

      The interview length was curious considering it is a Monday and not a weekend show interview where AFAIK audiences are normally larger. I cannot find any hole in your reasoning as to motives. PDJT has a not-too-subtle way of dropping hints on his political (and economic) adversaries.

      Liked by 2 people

  10. Bert Darrell says:

    CNBC lying headline today (www.cnbc.com): “Trump: If President Xi does not attend G-20, more China tariffs will go into effect immediately” That sounds as a threat, doesn’t it? Except that PDJT did not say so.

    What did PDJT actually say when asked if tariffs would increase again if Pres. Xi does not attend was (and I paraphrase):

    Tariffs would be imposed on additional Chinese products if no deal is made, as announced weeks ago. He also stated that he thinks that Pres. Xi will attend the G 20 meeting to attend and complimented him, as he always does.

    The market lost about 100 points on the fake news and is now catching back up as people take the time to listen to the interview and draw their own conclusions.

    Fake news are, indeed, the enemy of the American people. They hate every single success of PDJT.
    .

    Liked by 3 people

  11. Thamk you President again,
    You are The Best President we ever Had,
    Will support you 100%:

    Liked by 4 people

  12. Trent Telenko says:

    Pres. Trump 90-day’s review of compliance review means tariff’s drop again like a hammer if AMLO and the Mexican government have not delivered.

    IMO AMLO and the Mexican government are -incapable- of delivering.

    Essentially what Pres. Trump has done is set up a bidding war between the Leftist hedged fund Billionaire financed NGO’s who are engaged in human trafficking from Central America to the US border and the multinational corporations with plants in Mexico.

    It’s all about who delivers the biggest “Mordida” to the Mexican government officials in charge of border security the fastest.

    I’m thinking we are going to see tariff’s reapplied on Mexico myself.

    Hedge Fund/Futures Market Billionaires have more discretionary income and can make decisions faster than multi-national corporations.

    It will take AMLO 6-months after tariff’s are applied to get the border situation under control via a purge of the people taking the Futures Billionaires “Mordida.”

    The Multi-national’s unwillingness to fund enough Mordida now means they are going to lose it all later.

    Like

    • ristvan says:

      TT, I am more optimistic. Three reasons.
      First AMLO needs USMCA. PDJT can always just cancel NAFTA. He wins either way, AMLO only loses if doesn’t deliver.
      Second, AMLO campaigned against corruption, and is delivering elsewhere (Pemex/Odebrecht bribery, pipeline theft of gasoline stopped by shutting pipeline and using only tanker trucks).
      Third, AMLO knows PDJT isn’t bluffing.

      Liked by 8 people

      • ms Idaho says:

        Ristvan thank you. I read a posting (probably by you) that Mexico & Canada would approve USMCA, and then the US would do so.
        Today I read that Pelosi has parceled out the various parts to various comities to see if things need to be modified or could be improved.
        Question – if the other 2 countries have approved USMCA would this not negate the deal?

        Like

        • GB Bari says:

          IMO, more than likely Pelosi’s “edits” would improve the benefits to <Mexico and Canada (and China) and worsen the U.S. benefits from the deal. It's simply not her nature or ideology to pass any laws that are actually beneficial for the greater US.

          Liked by 5 people

          • ms Idaho says:

            sooooo… congress might go along (with coaching from CoC) but POTUS might veto?

            Like

            • GB Bari says:

              Well, consider that the majority in both houses of Congress, especially their leaders, were perfectly fine with the status quo of NAFTA despite the fact that it had been sucking the wealth out of this country for 26+ years, I wouldn’t be shocked if both houses tried to modify the language to heavily benefit the globalists / USCoC.

              And assuming the change in language would once again worsen the effect on Main Street, yes, IMO POTUS would likely veto it.

              Liked by 2 people

  13. azchick says:

    Our CITIZEN SELECTED & ELECTED PRESIDENT is shaking up the world in OUR FAVOR. Call to ALL Deplorables. Get out there, find a candidate that supports PDJT’s agenda and get to work. It’s what we can do to help PDJT. I’m already working in CD2 So. AZ for Brandon Martin. Come help if you’re in our district or…..you could always send $20 our way. THX.

    Like

  14. Troublemaker10 says:

    Like

  15. This was another fantastic interview. President Trump’s command of the details of our economy, trade and companies is a joy to hear. Anyone that doubts his capabilities should just listen to one of these interviews.

    I found the comments regarding unwinding QE2 particularly interesting–those moves in 2018, coupled with rate increases, created more significant tightening than most analysts grasp. During Obama terms no unwinding of the massive stimuli occasioned by near zero interest rates and Fed injections of money into the economy could have occurred–the economy was just too weak to sustain it.

    Reducing QE2 unwind from $50B/mo to $25B/mo still provides significant downdraft to economic growth.

    Does anyone else remember ANY president of recent vintage that could speak so knowledgeably in in depth on economic matters? Prior presidential conversations were instead confined to slogans and direction (except Reagan, particularly on dealing with inflation and USSR), leaving the mandarins of the DS to act according to their own (usually misguided) ideas.

    Favorite quote was his reference to Tech billionaires “walking around in their undershirts”!! Gotta love POTUS.

    Liked by 4 people

  16. teamzr1 says:

    Illegal alien wetbacks streaming into the U.S. as group that’s raising money to build border wall claims it filmed 1,000 plus just this weekend – including two packing guns

    Yea the deal really making a change to stop this invasion 😦

    Like

  17. 3rdday61 says:

    President Trump says that you have to sing your own praises because nobody else will. Well, I don’t like to make things about me , but I’ll make an exception here.
    Are you pea brains ready to listen to me now ? it only took 6 months[I made this known last Christmas] for people to admit that the sole impediment to Main Street economic growth is the one and only Federal Reserve.
    That same Federal Reserve that We The People now have access to a God given solution for. A solution that absolutely neuters the Fed’s control over our Main Street money supply by simply creating our own unlimited money supply. That’s right. God given means no limits. The only way you can limit God is to say NO. How much do we need ? $100B ? $1T ? The effect will be immediate.
    People need to wake up!!! We have over 300 million people and NO competition. We simply make good quality products, made in the USA with one purpose and one purpose only: To make $ to create our own money supply. GET IT??? We unleash one dedicated brand[USPTO}, go to town with unbridled capitalism, then use the profits as our Main Street money supply. Everybody[The People] wins. No more boom and bust economic cycles. Winning!!!
    Please don’t be foolish enough to think you can put a limit on how much God can give. The only way to limit Him is to say NO. No more.
    Seems I recall a similar saying about WINNING. About winning so much you’ll say no, no more.
    I, for one, am not tired of winning. Are you ?
    ‘I speak the truth in Christ, I lie not.’ 1Tim 2:7

    .

    Liked by 2 people

  18. bored identity says:

    Undiluted Trump at hIs Best:

    “I’m a member of the U.S. Chamber, maybe I’ll have to rethink that because when you look at it, the chamber is probably more for the companies and the people that are members than they are for our country,” Trump said…

    Liked by 1 person

  19. AloftWalt says:

    I find it quite amusing that the demoncraps are whining about tariffs. After all, they are all for taking our money any other way they can get it.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s