August 8, 2016, - 3:26 pm

VIDEO: Donald Trump Economic Speech a Home Run – Reaganesque

By Debbie Schlussel

trumpdetroiteconreagandetroitecon


Trump & Reagan Speak @ Detroit Economic Club

I listened live as Donald Trump delivered details of his economic program in a speech to the Detroit Economic Club, today. And I think he hit it outta the ballpark. A total home run. It was Reaganesque. This is the Donald Trump we’ve been waiting and hoping for. The full video and more of my reaction is below.







I don’t know who wrote Donald Trump’s speech today–he claims it was Ivanka with himself, but I don’t believe that for a second. However, no matter who wrote it, it’s the best speech I’ve heard Trump give thus far. It was his best delivery in terms of speaking ability. He stuck to the script and read it with emotion. I felt like he meant it and believed it. And it was his best speech in terms of content: cutting taxes, regulations, and the size of government (which I’ve never ever seen any Republicans actually do), and issuing an executive order to reverse ObamaCare. These are all things America desperately needs. All the things that will buoy our economy and create jobs. All the things that ObamaHillary oppose. And Trump pointed that out. His attacks on Hillary were well expressed and spot on. This was a Ronald-Reagan-style speech.

I’m not crazy about Trump’s protectionist stuff, as I believe in the free market. But other than that, everything else he said was what you’d want to hear from a Republican candidate for Prez, from a conservative candidate for Prez. As I heard the anti-free-trade rhetoric, I figured Congress will oppose him on that stuff, so it’s not a prob. However, I wondered if he can do executive orders on those things. My friend, San Diego’s KFMB radio talk show host Brett Winterble pointed out to me that Reagan did issue protectionist executive orders to help and shelter Harley Davidson and some semiconductor producers (the latter is important for national security, so it’s legit). I doubt Trump would use the executive orders to hamper free trade. But we’ll see. Still, it’s minor in the scheme of things.

Per usual, Trump was unfazed and unflustered by the many interruptions from Bernie-supporting nutjobs. He had a sense of humor about it, remarking that he admired their “spirit.”

I hope this speech is a turnabout from the piling-on negative coverage Trump has gotten over the Khan job and the resulting downward spiral in polls. If the liberal press covers the speech today–and they have no choice, as it was a major speech for his campaign–I think things will change. There are 90-some days until the election, and he can turn it around.

If Trump sticks to this script until election day, he could pull this thing out maybe. If he does even five percent of the stuff he declared he’d do in today’s speech, we should celebrate.

Did you hear the speech? If not, here’s the transcript, and the video is above.

What do you think?

***

One other thing: Brett Winterble points out to me that Trump is getting economic advice from Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore. They are great on economics. Sadly, they are also tight with jihadist Grover Norquist, though Brett believes they will displace Grover in the chain, which would be a good thing. I hope he’s right.

Also a worry, Kellyanne Conway, a total stooge of Norquist, and his chief butt-snorkeler (she owes her entire polling and political advice business to Norquist’s influence on the right), is advising Trump. Let’s hope that ends after election day.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly, PDF & Email




Tags: , , ,


29 Responses

I have mixed feelings about the speech. I did agree with much of the speech (although not the pandering to child-care tax reductions). On the other hand, though, much of the pressure on Trump is to get him to run a Romney-type campaign, i.e. emphasize economics and ignore everything else.

With all the discussion about the wall, this is not possible, but the goal of even his ‘friends’ is to get him as close to that as possible. His ‘friends’ criticize him for responding to a Muslim-Brotherhood type lawyer, a biased Mexican judge, and a disruptive Mexican reporter. What is wrong with these Trump responses, other than challenging political correctness? But the virtually universal hostility of the Republican Party to these justified responses shows that on the whole this Party is an impediment to progress. They prefer narrow campaigns on isolated economic issue.

Well, maybe with a few criticisms of Hillary, but only on safe subjects like her emails, criticisms that will not upset the overall Republicrat alliance.

Even her corruption is venturing into dangerous territory for most Republicans, as many of them do the same type of thing.

Little Al on August 8, 2016 at 3:55 pm

Great speech!

Hillel on August 8, 2016 at 4:48 pm

The speech was likely written by Stephen Miller, with assistance from Trump’s policy advisers, such as John Paulson, Steven Feinberg, Harold Hamm, and Steven Mnuchin. Carl Ichan also likely provided input, through he’s not officially a policy adviser. (Trump asked Icahn, a good friend of his, to join his team, but Icahn declined.) Note that Trump’s advisers are real-world practitioners, not academics.

Here’s a little bit about Stephen Miller:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-speechwriter-behind-donald-trumps-republican-convention-address-1469093401

Ralph Adamo on August 8, 2016 at 4:53 pm

    Also, “Reganesque” isn’t always a good thing at all. For example, Trump has met with two former Reagan advisers, Henry Kissinger and James Baker, but he has not asked to put them on his team, so far. And that is a very good thing if he does NOT include them. And it’s a good thing that Caspar Weinberger, another Reagan team member is dead.

    In fact, I would consider Trump to be a sell-out if ANY of those former Reagan dregs show up on his team. More likely, Kissinger and/or Baker will be coming out to endorse Hillary Clinton. They, in fact, are a perfect fit for her team.

    Time will tell, as it always does.

    Ralph Adamo on August 8, 2016 at 6:16 pm

    Ralph, I believe that much of the speech was composed by the chief economic advisor to Trump, David Malpass. He was interviewed on the Fox News Channel this evening and had a lot of detail on all of the economic issues that Trump spoke about this afternoon.

    neils60 on August 8, 2016 at 10:59 pm

As for protectionism, we need to protect our industries, markets and workers from unfair competition.

I believe in fair trade. The way it is now, foreign countries get to dump their cheap goods here and we’re locked out of their markets.

That’s not fair and that’s not free trade. Trump makes no apologies for putting our country and its people first.

If only his critics would do the same – America would have a brighter future.

NormanF on August 8, 2016 at 5:21 pm

    Reagan was not a free trader, he was a crony capitalist.

    Reagan’s protectionist policies and attitude went light years beyond Harleys and “nation security” semiconductors.

    Reagan’s “voluntary” Japanese auto import restrictions cost American consumers $1000-$2000 per car in higher prices. And buyers of some popular Japanese cars often had to pay even more than that.

    His free trade policy also put restrictions on textiles,sugar,semiconductors,motorcycles,etc,etc.

    Reagan put restrictions on Japanese semiconductors because they were undercutting American manufacturers. It was not about national security.

    You fair traders don’t get it. There’s no free lunch. Any attempt to protect American jobs by restricting imports will impoverish American consumers by forcing them to pay higher prices, and also reduce the standard of living for the middle and lower classes by putting previously affordable products out of their reach.

    Import restrictions are a regressive tax on the middle class and the poor. The Rush Limbaughs and Bill Gates of the world aren’t hurt by them, the lower income people get hurt the most.

    Trump is a fool on the trade issue.

    Scott on August 10, 2016 at 1:58 am

Let me preface this by saying that I am not trying to attack Trump and am looking for honest thoughts on the following:

Not necessarily a response to today’s speech but I have heard him throw around a 30% tariff on foreign made goods. Would he really do something like that since it would affect his merchandise that is not made here? And also all the products Ivanka has her name on that are made overseas(like the dresses she wore at the GOP convention which all sold out after people saw her in them). Won’t the two of them and everyone else who has products made overseas just pass the cost on to the consumer?

Marla on August 8, 2016 at 7:38 pm

If he can stay on message, he has a chance. Hillary Clinton is banking on race baiting and government programs to grease the skids for her.

Worry on August 8, 2016 at 8:16 pm

The tariffs are said to be what would happen if the foreign countries did not negotiate seriously about ‘better trade deals.’ Trump has said they would be a last resort, and, to me, appear to be basically a negotiating position. He has specifically said that this is not something he is advocating up front, but, rather a ‘last resort’ that he doesn’t really expect to happen.

Little Al on August 8, 2016 at 8:55 pm

My serious question, I have always thought to reverse a law (ObaCare) is basically the same way it became law. Has to be passsed by a % of congress, etc? Can he really sidestep it, that doesn’t seem likely but I could be wrong, civics was not a strong suit for me.

MrBigBrain on August 8, 2016 at 9:38 pm

Does Norquest at all have anything to do w/ Trump? After all, he is tight w/ the Muzzies, in contrast to Trump, who has laid out his opposition to Muzzie immigration. Yeah, he’s flipped on it several times, but the fact that he even said it…

I am actually fine w/ Trump’s protectionist stuff. Rather than trade, the real issue is that the cost of running operations, such as manufacturing, is so high in the US that the bulk of it has been offshored to a variety of places. China is by far the biggest, but one sees examples of that everywhere. Walk into a shop, say a Costco, and see how many ‘Made in the USA’ clothes you can find. I bought a pair of jeans, and discovered to my disgust later that it was made in Pakistan. Tried finding another pair made somewhere else – there wasn’t one. And forget about one made in this country.

I support Trump’s idea to do bilateral deals, and scrap the multilateral ones that involve more than 2 countries – that’s what complicates things and screws them up. The US is economically compatible w/ Canada, but not w/ Mexico, so it is ridiculous that we should have the same agreements w/ the latter that we have w/ the former. Similarly, deals can be done w/ countries like the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand… but I am wary about anything done w/ China. In fact, the latter is now so well off that they themselves offshore a good portion of their work to Africa.

About his claim of Ivanka helping him, I believe that the child care tax credit (not deductions) has to be her idea, since she is a Lib. In short, the government would pay parents to cover their childcare costs. I cannot imagine Moore, Kudlow or even Norquist being behind that one. I don’t agree w/ it, but I do recognize the political reality that the GOP can’t be perceived as ‘mean’ on every issue, from minimum wage to childcare to trade

Trump vs the Congressional GOP has to be a give & take. He would be willing to buy in on Paul Ryan’s agenda on a lot of things – be it education, military spending and a lot of other things the GOP already has, where he himself doesn’t seem to have strong opinions one way or another. But the GOP needs to buy in on Trump’s key issues – trade deals, immigration reform, a moratorium on Muslim immigration (however he labels it), aligning w/ Russia in the Middle East, putting pressure on NATO countries to pay their fair share, and the other issues he wants to use to pull in a section of the Bernie voters. If they work w/ him on that, then he doesn’t need to do a state by state electoral strategy, which ultimately won’t work for Republicans. What he needs is an overall strategy that will appeal to everyone irrespective of where they are.

Also, the Congressional GOP should just KEEP SHUT on things where they disagree w/ Trump, like in the case of Khizr Khan. While the latter showcased his dead son at the DNCon, he happens to have an immigration business whose primary clientele are Muzzies, so he has a clear vested interest in Trump’s Muzzie ban not succeeding a bit. Since the GOP does not agree w/ Trump on the ban, but 70% of the GOP voters actually do, the GOP should just SHUP UP when Trump is discussing those issues. They are not gonna get the Muzzie vote, and nor should they. But by speaking up in opposition to Trump’s proposal, they’re just dampening the chances that the people who see Muzzies as a threat will vote solidly on their side. While people have been hoping that the voters support the down ticket in the election, I fear that people will support Trump but abandon the Congressional GOP in droves due to the way they have been more adept at opposing Trump, instead of Obama

Trump is expected to focus his attention on Clinton and Obama. His party would do well to practice what they loudly preach!!!

Infidel on August 8, 2016 at 11:12 pm

>I’m not crazy about Trump’s protectionist stuff, as I believe in the free market.<

Abraham Lincoln is my all-time American hero. Read his writings! Lincoln was a protectionist. The GOP is historically protectionist going back to its Whig party roots. The historical legacy of the GOP is protectionism. (You sure you're a "conservative"?)

Allowing police-state tyrannies equal access to American market is neo-slavery in the name of "free markets". Trump is the first Republican since Nixon (and probably before) to promote protectionism. He is the first true Republican we've had in decades. Under Reagan, trade barriers were still in place for China, Taiwan, So. Korea, Japan, Mexico, Canada and many other nations. However, it was under Reagan that a US-Israel free-trade agreement was struck. This was America's FIST free-trade agreement. It was made with a small country with a strong commitment to freedom and collective bargaining.

On another note, I haven't yet watched your video but will do so in time. I can only say that Trump's speech to AIPAC was really great. It was so great that the cowards at AIPAC apologized for it and removed it from their web site. (It might be back on their web site now that the storm has passed, but it's not like I check their web site very often. My guess is that Trump's speech is still absent from AIPAC's web site.)

I shall part with this quote from Abraham Lincoln in 1832 following a long dissertation by his political opponent:

"Fellow citizens, I presume you all know who I am. I am humble Abraham Lincoln. I have been solicited by many friends to become a candidate for the Legislature. My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of the national bank; I am in favor of the internal improvement system and a high protective tariff. These are my sentiments and political principles. If elected, I shall be thankful; if not, it will be all the same."

Sincerely,

There is NO Santa Claus

There is NO Santa Claus on August 8, 2016 at 11:30 pm

Here’s a morsel for everyone, that falls under the category ‘you couldn’t make this cr*p up’…The father of the Orlando mass-murderer attended H.Clinton’s rally in Kissimee FL, and sat about ten rows from the stage. The local press even interviewed the guy. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/08/09/florida-dnc-invites-orlando-terrorist-father-to-hillary-clinton-rally-seddique-mateen-accepts-and-attends/#more-119971

waynesteapartyworld on August 9, 2016 at 4:44 am

    WTPW, good find. Of course the fact that the father of mass Muslim murderer Omar Mateen is supporting Clinton should not be a surprise. And naturally, the mainstream media will totally ignore the muerder’s father’s endorsement. They are focused 100% on finding things to smear Trump even if they have to make it up and lying about Clinton to help her win the presidency. They’re not called Presstitutes for nothing.

    Ralph Adamo on August 9, 2016 at 1:50 pm

      You are absolutely right, Ralph. I have realized for many years that the media is contemptible, and I have always expected sleaze from them, but I have never seen anything this bad on their part.

      Little Al on August 9, 2016 at 4:12 pm

I heard Stephen Moore, during a Fox Business Channel interview say that he helped Trump with the speech.

Little Al on August 9, 2016 at 4:58 am

Thanks for featuring this speech Debbie.
Hopefully Donald Trump does get elected and has a Republican congress that acts upon the Gospel of Trump, we as a nation will be better off.

Andrew Jackson would be proud of this speech.

Confederate on August 9, 2016 at 8:50 am

The Speech sounded like it had some Stephen Moore input or at least some of his ideas. Now if Trump can keep echoing this economic plan and stay on point, we will see some changes in the polls soon. I really don’t care if Hil-liar-y leads the National polls, Trump needs to work on Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Let her have all of the CA voters. Mr. Trump, no more silly, counter-productive, petty squabbles with Muslim Gold Star Jihadist’s. Don’t make that raghead a household name!

MuzzCrusher on August 9, 2016 at 10:28 am

He also needs to work on Utah, Nevada, Idaho and Arizona, I’m afraid. It seems clear that the Republican Establishment is working on reducing Trump’s vote among Mormon Republicans. They seem to see Mormons as the most susceptible layer of the Republican base.

Little Al on August 9, 2016 at 11:54 am

Oh, but the Republican Defense Experts don’t like Trump.

To John Bolton’s credit, he didn’t sign the piece of junk they produced yesterday. Perhaps he was afraid he would be called on his foolish article in the WSJ yesterday, where he suggested it might really make a difference who becomes the new Secretary General of the United (sic) Nations.

Someone with his prestige and standing would do more of a service to freedom by just explaining why the United States should leave the UN. His silliness reminds me of those who seek the ‘moderate’ Muslims in Iran and elsewhere.

This is the quality of thought of those Defense ‘experts’ who criticize Trump.

Little Al on August 9, 2016 at 2:30 pm

While John Bolton has not explicitly endorsed Trump, he has focused like a laser on Clinton’s misdeeds, so he would probably be easy for Trump to include in his foreign policy team in any capacity.

The Republicans who remain obsessed w/ Russia should note that Putin and Erdogan normally have diverging interests. Putin wants to prop up Assad, while Erdogan wants to gain recognition as the leader of Sunni Islam by being at the forefront of attempts to topple him. In fact, Turkey has been the biggest clandestine supporter of ISIS – why else is Turkey, rather than Iraq or Jordan or Lebanon the place to go to for Jihadists who want to join ISIS? Trump’s idea to ally w/ Putin against ISIS and presumably other Islamic forces is a good one.

The GOP ‘defense experts’ are still stuck in the 80s, and have substituted the Soviet Union w/ Russia. But it’s been at least 15 years the Islam has replaced Communism as the main threat to the West, and Trump seems to be the first leader to have recognized that.

Infidel on August 9, 2016 at 7:28 pm

I’m for fair trade, not free trade. The freetraders sat by and watched millions of American jobs leave the country. Trump gets that, 100?.

bill cody on August 9, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    Amen, Bill. Take NAFTA, for example. The freetrader’s (corporate elitists) dream. They got the gold mine while we, the American workers, got the shaft. Trump does get it. FAIR trade, not free trade!

    Jimmy Ledbetter on August 9, 2016 at 11:17 pm

I’m wondering if those ties to “Jihad Grover” among some of Trump’s advisers (as mentioned at the end of this article) may be part of why The Donald pulled his punches (and essentially made like the proverbial gerbil on a treadmill, not saying what Debbie had indicated needed to be covered) over the “Khan man,” last week.

ConcernedPatriot on August 10, 2016 at 3:33 am

ConcernedPatriot, I doubt it. That was a bad week, given first his showdown w/ Ryan, then the Khans and finally that Ashburn baby. He had to wind it down a bit. As for the flip flops on the ban, I don’t see them as having changed.

On the ban, while he’s fiddled w/ the underlying parameters, such as basing it on geography/territory, rather than religion (something I disagree w/), in one of his rallies, he read out a litany of Muslim outrages against average citizens, calling out each of the countries that they were from. The one where he asked where Uzbekistan is. Some spun it as an attack on legal immigration, but Trump just avoided calling it what it was this time – Muslim immigration – both legal & illegal. In any case, he’s written off the Muslim vote, and is probably just trying to test which spin of the Muslim ban message would resonate w/ the overall public, not just the GOP voters, who support his Muslim ban 70%.

The thing about Khizr Khan – that Muz, as I indicated in my above post, has a Muz immigration business – that’s his livelihood. So he had a direct conflict w/ Trump’s ban. But his hobby of distributing pocket constitutions is stupid – there is nothing there that says anything about the rights of foreigners to come to the US, so one can design any law they like to keep us safe. Trump, rather than going after his wife being veiled & silent, should have pointed out that Khan has a Muz immigration business and a big stake in a Muz ban not happening. In short, paint him as a lobbyist w/ a conflict of interest, w/o going after his gold star credentials.

The Paul Ryan thing – Ryan was in a primary, and just like he didn’t back any candidates during the primary, except speak out against Trump’s Muz ban, Trump too is entitled not to support him. First of all, Ryan declined to support Trump after Cruz and Kaisich had dropped out, leaving the impression that it didn’t matter whether Trump wins against Hilary or not. Trump, by contrast, declined to support Ryan in a primary, where the opponent was Nehlan, who incidentally has a much clearer picture on Muslims than not just Ryan, but Trump himself as well. Talking about how Muzzies practice taquiyya, and how it’s therefore impossible to vet them over whether they support taqquiya. Too bad he lost.

The baby story was even more ridiculous – as reports now show, it was the mom who stepped out when the baby started crying, waited until he calmed down and had a pacifier, and returned to the seat once he was quiet. And the media left everyone w/ the impression that Trump had her evicted from the rally.

Infidel on August 10, 2016 at 7:55 am

And you have enough stupid, gullible sheeple who blindly swallow the media’s drumbeat on all of the above. Which does not bode well for our future as a nation, in any way.

ConcernedPatriot on August 10, 2016 at 7:22 pm

->”I’m not crazy about Trump’s protectionist stuff, as I believe in the free market.”

I disagree since for example the Chinese use slave labor and lack of any environmental concern with the objective of hostile economic take-over at any costs of America in particular.

We cannot pretend to be playing on a level field when it is maliciously slanted against us. That is why there are judgment calls producing penalties… and tariffs.

And I’ll add that Jack Ma’s current election season and post election threats and “warnings” regarding Trump are just that type of B.S. and to that same destructive end.

Yea, I’m all for a free-market also, as long as my opponents aren’t using disposable human and child labor (e.g. mining) along with birth defect and sickness inducing industrial waste habits while in competition with me, or for that matter in any fashion, in order to economically crush my country.

Phil Lipofsky on November 16, 2016 at 3:14 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field