What Do Mark Levin and Hillary Clinton Have In Common ?

[protectionist]

That's an easy question. Both are anti-protectionist, anti-populist, anti-Trump GLOBALISTS. How strange to hear someone pretending to be a conservative, spouting anti-American worker, anti-American values on the radio.
EARTH TO LEVIN, BECK, et al: Globalism does not CONSERVE American jobs, and economic strength. It does not put America's money into American pockets, to be spent in American stores (AKA the US economy), and buy things, thereby CONSERVING the strength of the American economy.

As a former business owner in America, I know that businesses need customers with money in their pockets to buy their stuff. They don't get that money by seeing their jobs going to China and Mexico. And they don't get it from domestic outsourcing either (cheap, foreign labor inside the US).

Pretty amazing to see talk show hosts agreeing with Hillary Clinton (America's # 1 outsourcer), and claiming to be conservative. Dudes: Globalism is not conservative, and it never has been. Protectionism conserves jobs, purchasing power, and economic strength, just like Eisenhower did when he deported millions of illegal aliens in 1954, with Operation Wetback.

Maybe Levin, and Beck can compare how much stock$ they have in China, Mexico, India et al, and see who comes out on top. Whoever it is, that would be the bottom of conservatism. These guys need to find a new line of work. Maybe they could hook up with Hillary's people at the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, La Raza, or some other open border, globalist organizations - ie. orgs that spurn American allegiance, and the conservative, patriotic principle of America first.

Whatever they do, they should see Trump's resounding victory to be a clear statement of what American conservatives see conservatism to be, rather than some globalist brand of psuedo-conservatism, which is dead as a doornail.

 

[miketx]

Neither one of them are president?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What Do Mark Levin and Hillary Clinton Have In Common ?

they're both post-menopausal?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Let's not forget, either, that both of them squeak like a banshee when they get agitated.

 

[miketx]

they are both lesbians?

 

[Mr Natural]

Both are assholes?

 

[Boss]

That's an easy question. Both are anti-protectionist, anti-populist, anti-Trump GLOBALISTS. How strange to hear someone pretending to be a conservative, spouting anti-American worker, anti-American values on the radio.
EARTH TO LEVIN, BECK, et al: Globalism does not CONSERVE American jobs, and economic strength. It does not put America's money into American pockets, to be spent in American stores (AKA the US economy), and buy things, thereby CONSERVING the strength of the American economy.

As a former business owner in America, I know that businesses need customers with money in their pockets to buy their stuff. They don't get that money by seeing their jobs going to China and Mexico. And they don't get it from domestic outsourcing either (cheap, foreign labor inside the US).

Pretty amazing to see talk show hosts agreeing with Hillary Clinton (America's # 1 outsourcer), and claiming to be conservative. Dudes: Globalism is not conservative, and it never has been. Protectionism conserves jobs, purchasing power, and economic strength, just like Eisenhower did when he deported millions of illegal aliens in 1954, with Operation Wetback.

Maybe Levin, and Beck can compare how much stock$ they have in China, Mexico, India et al, and see who comes out on top. Whoever it is, that would be the bottom of conservatism. These guys need to find a new line of work. Maybe they could hook up with Hillary's people at the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, La Raza, or some other open border, globalist organizations - ie. orgs that spurn American allegiance, and the conservative, patriotic principle of America first.

Whatever they do, they should see Trump's resounding victory to be a clear statement of what American conservatives see conservatism to be, rather than some globalist brand of psuedo-conservatism, which is dead as a doornail.

Levin isn't a Globalist. He is a free market capitalist who believes in open free market capitalism without government picking winners and losers through trade policy. That is where most corporatism and globalism stems from. Jobs leave the US for China and Mexico because sometimes it's cheaper to have things produced elsewhere. The best way to return those jobs to the US is to reduce regulations and taxes on corporations in the US.

Making economic presumptions on trade deficit figures is boneheaded to say the least. Running a trade deficit is not necessarily a bad thing. We purchase many raw materials from abroad which are turned into products that are sold and which generate economic growth and prosperity. Thousands of jobs rely on purchasing cheap raw materials from abroad where they are assembled in America to produce much more value than the deficit they caused.

Let's say you make bottled water. You purchase plastic bottles from Mexico and caps from Japan. You spend $0.70 for the bottles and $0.05 for the caps. You're contributing to the trade deficit but you're going to add $0.02 worth of water and create a product you will sell for $1.50. Now, let's say the government steps in and says... you're gonna make those bottles and caps here or you're going to pay a tariff. So now, your bottles are going to cost $1 each and caps will cost $0.25... either by paying more to produce them here or by paying more in tariffs. Add your water at $0.02 and now you have $1.27 cost and can't sell your product and make a decent profit at $1.50 anymore. There is no market for $2 bottles of water, so your company goes out of business. All the people you once employed are out of a job but you've reduced the trade deficit.

 

[protectionist]

Levin isn't a Globalist. He is a free market capitalist who believes in open free market capitalism without government picking winners and losers through trade policy. That is where most corporatism and globalism stems from. Jobs leave the US for China and Mexico because sometimes it's cheaper to have things produced elsewhere. The best way to return those jobs to the US is to reduce regulations and taxes on corporations in the US.

Making economic presumptions on trade deficit figures is boneheaded to say the least. Running a trade deficit is not necessarily a bad thing. We purchase many raw materials from abroad which are turned into products that are sold and which generate economic growth and prosperity. Thousands of jobs rely on purchasing cheap raw materials from abroad where they are assembled in America to produce much more value than the deficit they caused.

Let's say you make bottled water. You purchase plastic bottles from Mexico and caps from Japan. You spend $0.70 for the bottles and $0.05 for the caps. You're contributing to the trade deficit but you're going to add $0.02 worth of water and create a product you will sell for $1.50. Now, let's say the government steps in and says... you're gonna make those bottles and caps here or you're going to pay a tariff. So now, your bottles are going to cost $1 each and caps will cost $0.25... either by paying more to produce them here or by paying more in tariffs. Add your water at $0.02 and now you have $1.27 cost and can't sell your product and make a decent profit at $1.50 anymore. There is no market for $2 bottles of water, so your company goes out of business. All the people you once employed are out of a job but you've reduced the trade deficit.

1. "free market capitalist who believes in open free market capitalism without government picking winners and losers through trade policy" - THAT is what being a GLOBALIST is.

2. It is only cheaper to have things produced outside the US because of the high US corporate tax (35%) and because of regulations$$$. Labor costs are also higher in the US, but these are offset by shipping costs (very high to international shippers) Trump's reforms to lower the corporate tax to 15% (10% less than China) and reduce regulations, will bring back jobs to the US (+ tariffs wherever necessary)

3. The absence of companies in the US, reduces American employment levels, thereby reducing spending in US stores (AKA the economy) depriving US business of sales$$$.

 

[Boss]

1. "free market capitalist who believes in open free market capitalism without government picking winners and losers through trade policy" - THAT is what being a GLOBALIST is.

Well no, that's NOT what a globalist is. A globalist advocates planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world. That makes you and Trump globalists because that's exactly what you seek to do with tariffs. Levin believes there should be no interference from government with the free market. If it so happens events and developments globally are advantageous to the free market, so be it.

2. It is only cheaper to have things produced outside the US because of the high US corporate tax (35%) and because of regulations$$$. Labor costs are also higher in the US, but these are offset by shipping costs (very high to international shippers) Trump's reforms to lower the corporate tax to 15% (10% less than China) and reduce regulations, will bring back jobs to the US (+ tariffs wherever necessary)

Labor cost is certainly not offset by shipping. I agree with your point about taxes and regulation but I would add collective bargaining to the formula as well. Tariffs are nothing more than a different form of taxation. As consumers, we will pay for it. You will not bring jobs back and you'll likely drive businesses out of this country and into other markets. How do I know this? Because Herbert Hoover tried the very same thing and that's what happened.

3. The absence of companies in the US, reduces American employment levels, thereby reducing spending in US stores (AKA the economy) depriving US business of sales$$$.

I don't disagree with this, we just disagree on how to bring the jobs back. You don't seem to realize how many jobs are created as the result of being able to buy cheaper raw materials (or components) from abroad. When you try to intervene with tariffs it either kills those jobs or drives them to other markets where the capitalist can still profit.

Now, I can't speak for Levin on this, I'm not entirely sure where he stands on it, but from my own perspective, I don't mind some tariffs under certain circumstances. For instance, if a foreign country is attempting to shoulder-out American companies from a particular market by flooding it with cheap product, then a tariff may be in order to stop that. But we currently have over 12,000 tariffs on all kinds of things from abroad. It doesn't sound as though our problem is a lack of tariffs, does it?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Both are people who's opinions I don't give a fuck about

 

[yiostheoy]

That's an easy question. Both are anti-protectionist, anti-populist, anti-Trump GLOBALISTS. How strange to hear someone pretending to be a conservative, spouting anti-American worker, anti-American values on the radio.
EARTH TO LEVIN, BECK, et al: Globalism does not CONSERVE American jobs, and economic strength. It does not put America's money into American pockets, to be spent in American stores (AKA the US economy), and buy things, thereby CONSERVING the strength of the American economy.

As a former business owner in America, I know that businesses need customers with money in their pockets to buy their stuff. They don't get that money by seeing their jobs going to China and Mexico. And they don't get it from domestic outsourcing either (cheap, foreign labor inside the US).

Pretty amazing to see talk show hosts agreeing with Hillary Clinton (America's # 1 outsourcer), and claiming to be conservative. Dudes: Globalism is not conservative, and it never has been. Protectionism conserves jobs, purchasing power, and economic strength, just like Eisenhower did when he deported millions of illegal aliens in 1954, with Operation Wetback.

Maybe Levin, and Beck can compare how much stock$ they have in China, Mexico, India et al, and see who comes out on top. Whoever it is, that would be the bottom of conservatism. These guys need to find a new line of work. Maybe they could hook up with Hillary's people at the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, La Raza, or some other open border, globalist organizations - ie. orgs that spurn American allegiance, and the conservative, patriotic principle of America first.

Whatever they do, they should see Trump's resounding victory to be a clear statement of what American conservatives see conservatism to be, rather than some globalist brand of psuedo-conservatism, which is dead as a doornail.

Hmmm ... let me guess ...

... They're both Jewish ??

If so that would explain why Hillary does not like sex.

 

[Boss]

You could just as easily have asked: What does Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have in common? ...Trade policy!

 

[G.T.]

Both are people who's opinions I don't give a fuck about

here here

 

[busybee01]

That's an easy question. Both are anti-protectionist, anti-populist, anti-Trump GLOBALISTS. How strange to hear someone pretending to be a conservative, spouting anti-American worker, anti-American values on the radio.
EARTH TO LEVIN, BECK, et al: Globalism does not CONSERVE American jobs, and economic strength. It does not put America's money into American pockets, to be spent in American stores (AKA the US economy), and buy things, thereby CONSERVING the strength of the American economy.

As a former business owner in America, I know that businesses need customers with money in their pockets to buy their stuff. They don't get that money by seeing their jobs going to China and Mexico. And they don't get it from domestic outsourcing either (cheap, foreign labor inside the US).

Pretty amazing to see talk show hosts agreeing with Hillary Clinton (America's # 1 outsourcer), and claiming to be conservative. Dudes: Globalism is not conservative, and it never has been. Protectionism conserves jobs, purchasing power, and economic strength, just like Eisenhower did when he deported millions of illegal aliens in 1954, with Operation Wetback.

Maybe Levin, and Beck can compare how much stock$ they have in China, Mexico, India et al, and see who comes out on top. Whoever it is, that would be the bottom of conservatism. These guys need to find a new line of work. Maybe they could hook up with Hillary's people at the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, La Raza, or some other open border, globalist organizations - ie. orgs that spurn American allegiance, and the conservative, patriotic principle of America first.

Whatever they do, they should see Trump's resounding victory to be a clear statement of what American conservatives see conservatism to be, rather than some globalist brand of psuedo-conservatism, which is dead as a doornail.

I can see why you are a former business owner. Your ignorance is astounding. The US is still one of the largest producers of goods in the world. Thanks to global trade Americans have access to more goods than ever before and our standard of living has increased as a result.

You claim to be a conservative yet you want the government managing the economy. Protectionism is big government. And what about the tariffs and taxes America has which are the result of crony capitalism. Americans pay more than they should for sugar and milk because the government keeps prices high.

Trump's victory shows that he was less hated than Clinton. His low approval ratings show that. It also shows how much hate exists in the so-called conservative movement.

 

[2aguy]

1. "free market capitalist who believes in open free market capitalism without government picking winners and losers through trade policy" - THAT is what being a GLOBALIST is.

Well no, that's NOT what a globalist is. A globalist advocates planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world. That makes you and Trump globalists because that's exactly what you seek to do with tariffs. Levin believes there should be no interference from government with the free market. If it so happens events and developments globally are advantageous to the free market, so be it.

2. It is only cheaper to have things produced outside the US because of the high US corporate tax (35%) and because of regulations$$$. Labor costs are also higher in the US, but these are offset by shipping costs (very high to international shippers) Trump's reforms to lower the corporate tax to 15% (10% less than China) and reduce regulations, will bring back jobs to the US (+ tariffs wherever necessary)

Labor cost is certainly not offset by shipping. I agree with your point about taxes and regulation but I would add collective bargaining to the formula as well. Tariffs are nothing more than a different form of taxation. As consumers, we will pay for it. You will not bring jobs back and you'll likely drive businesses out of this country and into other markets. How do I know this? Because Herbert Hoover tried the very same thing and that's what happened.

3. The absence of companies in the US, reduces American employment levels, thereby reducing spending in US stores (AKA the economy) depriving US business of sales$$$.

I don't disagree with this, we just disagree on how to bring the jobs back. You don't seem to realize how many jobs are created as the result of being able to buy cheaper raw materials (or components) from abroad. When you try to intervene with tariffs it either kills those jobs or drives them to other markets where the capitalist can still profit.

Now, I can't speak for Levin on this, I'm not entirely sure where he stands on it, but from my own perspective, I don't mind some tariffs under certain circumstances. For instance, if a foreign country is attempting to shoulder-out American companies from a particular market by flooding it with cheap product, then a tariff may be in order to stop that. But we currently have over 12,000 tariffs on all kinds of things from abroad. It doesn't sound as though our problem is a lack of tariffs, does it?

There you go.....actually stating the truth, facts and reality.......to a bunch of left wing morons.......it is easier teaching math to a dog, because at least they will try to understand what you are saying....

 

[Freewill]

That's an easy question. Both are anti-protectionist, anti-populist, anti-Trump GLOBALISTS. How strange to hear someone pretending to be a conservative, spouting anti-American worker, anti-American values on the radio.
EARTH TO LEVIN, BECK, et al: Globalism does not CONSERVE American jobs, and economic strength. It does not put America's money into American pockets, to be spent in American stores (AKA the US economy), and buy things, thereby CONSERVING the strength of the American economy.

As a former business owner in America, I know that businesses need customers with money in their pockets to buy their stuff. They don't get that money by seeing their jobs going to China and Mexico. And they don't get it from domestic outsourcing either (cheap, foreign labor inside the US).

Pretty amazing to see talk show hosts agreeing with Hillary Clinton (America's # 1 outsourcer), and claiming to be conservative. Dudes: Globalism is not conservative, and it never has been. Protectionism conserves jobs, purchasing power, and economic strength, just like Eisenhower did when he deported millions of illegal aliens in 1954, with Operation Wetback.

Maybe Levin, and Beck can compare how much stock$ they have in China, Mexico, India et al, and see who comes out on top. Whoever it is, that would be the bottom of conservatism. These guys need to find a new line of work. Maybe they could hook up with Hillary's people at the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, La Raza, or some other open border, globalist organizations - ie. orgs that spurn American allegiance, and the conservative, patriotic principle of America first.

Whatever they do, they should see Trump's resounding victory to be a clear statement of what American conservatives see conservatism to be, rather than some globalist brand of psuedo-conservatism, which is dead as a doornail.

Hmmm ... let me guess ...

... They're both Jewish ??

If so that would explain why Hillary does not like sex.

Huma disagrees.

 

[TomParks]

Levin is a fraud and coward....Michael Savage exposed him for what he is

 

[ding]

What Do Mark Levin and Hillary Clinton Have In Common ?

they're both post-menopausal?

They both are attracted to women.

 

[busybee01]

Levin is a fraud and coward....Michael Savage exposed him for what he is

Garbage like Michael Savage is what you rely on for information. Levin defends Trump when he thinks he is right and criticizes Trump when he thinks he is wrong. Of course no one is allowed to criticize the regime. Hail the Fuerher.

 

[whitehall]

Hillary is a ruthless babe who will pretend to be whatever you want her to be. If you think you want a globalist she will be a globalist. At the core she is nothing but an empty suit and an enabler for a guy she latched on to to gain reflected political power. I don't see how you can label Beck and Levin as globalists.