Is Trump playing the trade game super smart or caving as he goes with exemptions?? We asked GOP contributor Chris Walker if this is chess or mess??!!
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Previously on your morning show with Michael Dilcho.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
And now we're joined by Chris Walker, who is a
GOP contributor to your morning show All Things Republican. We've
been following Donald Trump in this whole trade tariff process, negotiation,
whatever it is. Now we have the exemptions for certain
things that keep coming out smartphones, computer chips. Is this
(00:29):
still a game of super smart chess? Or is this
caving as you go? I guess the first question is
is this chess or mess or both?
Speaker 3 (00:38):
I mean, you know my feelings on this.
Speaker 4 (00:40):
This is mess. I just can't I can't see another.
If it were forty chess, we would be there would
be some consistency. And that's what bothers me about it.
You know, one day it's a revenue generator, another day
it's reshowing jobs, another day it's you know, a negotiating tactic.
All three of those are worthy in different ways, but
(01:01):
none of that they're all mutually exclusive. So you know,
I think it is generally it's it's an idea that
you know, it's lawable in the sense of rethinking how
to fund the government, to the tune of you know,
trillions of dollars of unaccountable dollars to prop up the
stock market is an unsustainable situation. You know, losing jobs
(01:23):
in in the middle of the country and hollowing it
out to China is an unsustainable situation. You know what
I thought about this weekend that I keep kind of
coming back to, you know, incentives work. You know, states
spend lots of money to try to bring jobs to
to their states, and there's a lot of ways that
we can do it. We're still the most prosperous nation
on earth for a reason, and I think a lot
of that is based on, you know, the trade that
(01:46):
we've had over the long rule. Are there are there
trade and balances, yes, but that also means that we
also can buy a lot more and I think all
of that has been in that negative net positive And so,
you know, President Trump wanting to kind of solve some
of these problems and is laudable. But like I say
with anybody, you know, intentions are good, but the outcomes
are what you really need to look at. And if
(02:06):
for adopting protectionist policies the Democrats have done for forever,
what are we really talking about here? So in my view,
I think pre trade is the best way for prosperity,
the best way for job creation, and the best way
to keep our country on the process path that it's
been on.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
Peter Navarrow is going to be in our Sounds of
the Day, and he was on Meet the Press. He
kind of lays out the chess portion of this, and
the thesis of what he's saying is is it's you
can't isolate any one of these things. You have to
look at all of them and how they interact one
with another. And that final missing piece, which is the
tax cuts that are coming.
Speaker 4 (02:44):
I guess it's just.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Different than what you know. I'm not necessarily siding with you.
I think tariffs are a dangerous game to play, and
I think some of it is necessary to even the
playing field, especially with our friends. Some of it is
necessary in terms of isolating China because they are different.
What they do with currency, what they do with stealing
(03:06):
of our intelligence, and unfair trade practices and barriers. I
think that does need to be addressed. But I would
have fought first you'd secure the border, and he did,
then you would address the economy, and you would start
with this tax cut. It looks like that's going to
be the final piece and I don't know if there's
some chess or mess in that in choosing the order.
(03:28):
I guess I'm asking.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
You, well, I mean, we'll see. I mean, part of
it is what can Congress accomplish. Part of it can do,
and I think that's another piece of this. It needs
to be talked about. Congress needs to step up. The
presidents not have unilateral terrorf authority. You know, I trust
President Trump. I think he's I think he's a great man.
I think he's got well intentions, but he does not
have the power he's wielding in terms of it is
(03:51):
with terariffs, you have to have Congress involved with it
because unilateral trade deals are not you know, you can't
unilaterally raise taxes on people, and yet that's what's happening
here with a certain degree. So, I mean, there's a
lot of things that when you think about from a
constitutional perspective, along with the leadership perspective, Row I just
I don't think could be more wrong. And I just
I wish that he wasn't even in the White House.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
But that's a whole for conversation, right, I want.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
To just dust I mean, before you move on, though,
I want to dust out what you just said, because
there's probably some people looking at the radio and saying, well,
this is why you're irrelevant. Republics are, Republicans are irrelevant,
and Democrats are irrelevant. Get on board. This is the
new American first, this is the new trump Ism. And
and I'm kind of that because you know me, I'm
not a Democrat because I don't have their worldview, policy views,
(04:37):
platform views. I have nothing in common with them whatsoever.
I'm not a Republican because they failed to live their platform.
So I'm somewhere in between. But what you're dusting out
is important, and that is that if look when Barack
Obama was a narcissist, all right, and a lot of
Republicans were quick to point that out. This guy was
(04:59):
all about his celebrity, all about himself. He was a narcissist.
He can't have a narcissist in a White House. Well,
the first Donald Trump was a narcissist. I think since
the assassination attempt in newfound faith, I think he's less
of that. Bill Maher's proof of that, having met him.
But narcissism's wrong no matter who the narcissist is and
what happens in the matrix is when it's a left narcissist,
(05:19):
it's okay to the left. When it's a right narcissist,
it's not okay to the left, and vice versa. And
the same can be true in worshiping of the presidency.
This is something David Zanatti and I both talk about
a lot that you know, the Congress is to have
the most power because it's the closest to the people,
and we in the House, the People's House, we have
(05:41):
the populace represented, and then for statehood, we have two
senators from every state. And that's how the country should
be controlled, and the president should just be the executor
overseeing it. And it's gotten backwards, and I think it
goes back to probably a little bit of Roosevelt on
the radio, a little bit of Ike, but a whole
lot of John F. Kennedy on television. And we have
(06:02):
come to worship the presidency like a king. And it's
not so what you're saying is very important for people
to hear, not in the context of well, he's not
supporting Trump, so he's the enemy.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
No.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
I mean, look, no matter who the president is, Congress
needs to prevail.
Speaker 4 (06:18):
When I see when I see power wielded without guardrails.
It worries me. Not because I don't trust President Trump.
I do, But what I what I think about is
what happens when somebody, when another president comes in where
Gretchen Whitmer's some else, it looks like we don't know
what's going to happen politically, that's not the point. The
point is the balance of power. The checks and balances
(06:40):
are very important for the longevity of our country because
when there is somebody that we don't like, or there's
somebody that we don't trust in there who doesn't have
the best inage of America, that gets put twenty fold
on us. And so you know, it's very important that
Congress re emerges here, not just because of everybody's in
the same party. That's irrelevant. It's about the power that's
(07:01):
wielded in the ability for this country to continue to
have that power split evenly, because ultimately, when somebody we
don't like in the lighthouse is going to wield that
we're not going to like the outcome. And so it's
important to keep even our own friends and allies and
the end the party between the booies because it leads
to a better outcome for everybody. And so again what
(07:24):
we're seeing, you know, these judges and these other things
are pushing back.
Speaker 3 (07:27):
Well, then we don't like them because we don't like
what they're saying.
Speaker 4 (07:29):
Is President Trump. But it's a piece of a guardrail
that keeps the balance going. And you know, if the
washing machine is out of balance, a lot of things
get out of balance in the country, and that's that's
not a good thing. Look, I'm not preaching balance like look,
I want to. I want to push back on the
liberalism that we've seen over the last forty years. It's
a huge piece of that. I'm grateful President Trump is
(07:51):
doing that, but I think there is a Congress for
a reason. It needs to be in conjunction with and
in cooperation with, not just unilateral all.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
Right, So bottom line is should should he have started
with the tax cuts?
Speaker 4 (08:04):
I don't know that.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
I heard a clearance.
Speaker 4 (08:05):
Absolutely absolutely, well, Look, I love from thebal's income tax.
I think part of the problem with the tariffs are
as an argument for revenue is that.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
When tariffs were our major source of revenue, there.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
Was no income tax. And look, when we went down
the income tax problem, that was a huge moment for
our country that I think we shouldn't do well.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
I think I think that when you hear what income
tax is bad.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
But but when you hear the sounds, when you hear
the sounds of the day, you're going to hear Peter
Navarro basically kind of give you a glimpse of that
that it's all of that, that that that's coming, and
that the amount of revenue from the tariffs will bring
about and pay for the tax cuts. But I think
what you and I suspect is, I wonder if somebody
(08:48):
has the ambition of a of abolishing federal income tax
altogether and creating.
Speaker 4 (08:55):
Peter Navarro, I think that's fine. The problem is is
that what we're seeing is the second these terriffs get
really hard, we pull back on them. And rightfully so,
I mean, look at what happens to the stock markers
the last weeks. You can't just do It's not just
a theory, and so this is going to be a
ten to fifteen year glide path to get off of
(09:16):
a lot of these dopamine trics that we have relative
to the economy. So yeah, let's get if there's a
vision there, great, but to institute what we've seen so
far is when it needs to be a fifteen step program, yere,
you know, I think it's unrealistic. So yeah, if it's
going to a boss income tax and lower tax pervity,
all board, let's go. But also let's talk about that.
(09:38):
We don't have to play the shell game where it's like, oh,
well this is coming down the line. Let's do the
tariffs first. What is the plan, what is the vision
over the of the rest of the administration to get there?
And if so, great, But we're saying we're being told
to take medicine right now just on tariffs, when three
fourths of the problem hasn't even been discussed or even
outlined in any great detail.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Well, no matter what size anybody falls on, we're all
witnessing Trump either playing a great smart super chess game
of trade or this is a mess and and exemptions
as he goes. Uh, you say mess, others may say whatever.
The reality is, we're going to arrive this direction and
(10:18):
motion will arrive at a destination and it's either going
to be chess or mess. But we can add, now
what smartphones and computer chips to the exemption list as.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
Well, and that's that's part of the problem too, Michael.
You know we're talking about on shoring or you know
there's national trade implications. COVID outlined a lot of problems
for we're weak and.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
Vulnerable, and those are all laudable goals.
Speaker 4 (10:38):
But they're feckless when you when you do exemptions. If
we're talking about pharmaceuticals and chips creation needing to be
brought back to America, you can't exempt them and the
tariffs to say that that's the goal here. Again, I
don't want to call the mess, but you can't. You
there's an effort here to try to have it both ways,
and that's that's just not a realistic situation here. If
(11:00):
you're if the goal is to decouple ourselves from China,
which is a lot of a goal, you can't exempt
the most serious issues from the from these tariffs as
part of the issue. It's not going to do what
you wanted to do cheaper for China to create the
iPhone that it is for people to manufacture it here
to the parks that would be care from China. It's crazy.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Chris Walker is our GOP analyst and consultant and weekly
visitor all Things Republican.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
Miss a little, miss a lot, miss a lot, and
we'll miss you. It's your Morning Show with Michael del
Churno
Previously on your morning show with Michael Dilcho.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
And now we're joined by Chris Walker, who is a
GOP contributor to your morning show All Things Republican. We've
been following Donald Trump in this whole trade tariff process, negotiation,
whatever it is. Now we have the exemptions for certain
things that keep coming out smartphones, computer chips. Is this
(00:29):
still a game of super smart chess? Or is this
caving as you go? I guess the first question is
is this chess or mess or both?
Speaker 3 (00:38):
I mean, you know my feelings on this.
Speaker 4 (00:40):
This is mess. I just can't I can't see another.
If it were forty chess, we would be there would
be some consistency. And that's what bothers me about it.
You know, one day it's a revenue generator, another day
it's reshowing jobs, another day it's you know, a negotiating tactic.
All three of those are worthy in different ways, but
(01:01):
none of that they're all mutually exclusive. So you know,
I think it is generally it's it's an idea that
you know, it's lawable in the sense of rethinking how
to fund the government, to the tune of you know,
trillions of dollars of unaccountable dollars to prop up the
stock market is an unsustainable situation. You know, losing jobs
(01:23):
in in the middle of the country and hollowing it
out to China is an unsustainable situation. You know what
I thought about this weekend that I keep kind of
coming back to, you know, incentives work. You know, states
spend lots of money to try to bring jobs to
to their states, and there's a lot of ways that
we can do it. We're still the most prosperous nation
on earth for a reason, and I think a lot
of that is based on, you know, the trade that
(01:46):
we've had over the long rule. Are there are there
trade and balances, yes, but that also means that we
also can buy a lot more and I think all
of that has been in that negative net positive And so,
you know, President Trump wanting to kind of solve some
of these problems and is laudable. But like I say
with anybody, you know, intentions are good, but the outcomes
are what you really need to look at. And if
(02:06):
for adopting protectionist policies the Democrats have done for forever,
what are we really talking about here? So in my view,
I think pre trade is the best way for prosperity,
the best way for job creation, and the best way
to keep our country on the process path that it's
been on.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
Peter Navarrow is going to be in our Sounds of
the Day, and he was on Meet the Press. He
kind of lays out the chess portion of this, and
the thesis of what he's saying is is it's you
can't isolate any one of these things. You have to
look at all of them and how they interact one
with another. And that final missing piece, which is the
tax cuts that are coming.
Speaker 4 (02:44):
I guess it's just.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Different than what you know. I'm not necessarily siding with you.
I think tariffs are a dangerous game to play, and
I think some of it is necessary to even the
playing field, especially with our friends. Some of it is
necessary in terms of isolating China because they are different.
What they do with currency, what they do with stealing
(03:06):
of our intelligence, and unfair trade practices and barriers. I
think that does need to be addressed. But I would
have fought first you'd secure the border, and he did,
then you would address the economy, and you would start
with this tax cut. It looks like that's going to
be the final piece and I don't know if there's
some chess or mess in that in choosing the order.
(03:28):
I guess I'm asking.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
You, well, I mean, we'll see. I mean, part of
it is what can Congress accomplish. Part of it can do,
and I think that's another piece of this. It needs
to be talked about. Congress needs to step up. The
presidents not have unilateral terrorf authority. You know, I trust
President Trump. I think he's I think he's a great man.
I think he's got well intentions, but he does not
have the power he's wielding in terms of it is
(03:51):
with terariffs, you have to have Congress involved with it
because unilateral trade deals are not you know, you can't
unilaterally raise taxes on people, and yet that's what's happening
here with a certain degree. So, I mean, there's a
lot of things that when you think about from a
constitutional perspective, along with the leadership perspective, Row I just
I don't think could be more wrong. And I just
I wish that he wasn't even in the White House.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
But that's a whole for conversation, right, I want.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
To just dust I mean, before you move on, though,
I want to dust out what you just said, because
there's probably some people looking at the radio and saying, well,
this is why you're irrelevant. Republics are, Republicans are irrelevant,
and Democrats are irrelevant. Get on board. This is the
new American first, this is the new trump Ism. And
and I'm kind of that because you know me, I'm
not a Democrat because I don't have their worldview, policy views,
(04:37):
platform views. I have nothing in common with them whatsoever.
I'm not a Republican because they failed to live their platform.
So I'm somewhere in between. But what you're dusting out
is important, and that is that if look when Barack
Obama was a narcissist, all right, and a lot of
Republicans were quick to point that out. This guy was
(04:59):
all about his celebrity, all about himself. He was a narcissist.
He can't have a narcissist in a White House. Well,
the first Donald Trump was a narcissist. I think since
the assassination attempt in newfound faith, I think he's less
of that. Bill Maher's proof of that, having met him.
But narcissism's wrong no matter who the narcissist is and
what happens in the matrix is when it's a left narcissist,
(05:19):
it's okay to the left. When it's a right narcissist,
it's not okay to the left, and vice versa. And
the same can be true in worshiping of the presidency.
This is something David Zanatti and I both talk about
a lot that you know, the Congress is to have
the most power because it's the closest to the people,
and we in the House, the People's House, we have
(05:41):
the populace represented, and then for statehood, we have two
senators from every state. And that's how the country should
be controlled, and the president should just be the executor
overseeing it. And it's gotten backwards, and I think it
goes back to probably a little bit of Roosevelt on
the radio, a little bit of Ike, but a whole
lot of John F. Kennedy on television. And we have
(06:02):
come to worship the presidency like a king. And it's
not so what you're saying is very important for people
to hear, not in the context of well, he's not
supporting Trump, so he's the enemy.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
No.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
I mean, look, no matter who the president is, Congress
needs to prevail.
Speaker 4 (06:18):
When I see when I see power wielded without guardrails.
It worries me. Not because I don't trust President Trump.
I do, But what I what I think about is
what happens when somebody, when another president comes in where
Gretchen Whitmer's some else, it looks like we don't know
what's going to happen politically, that's not the point. The
point is the balance of power. The checks and balances
(06:40):
are very important for the longevity of our country because
when there is somebody that we don't like, or there's
somebody that we don't trust in there who doesn't have
the best inage of America, that gets put twenty fold
on us. And so you know, it's very important that
Congress re emerges here, not just because of everybody's in
the same party. That's irrelevant. It's about the power that's
(07:01):
wielded in the ability for this country to continue to
have that power split evenly, because ultimately, when somebody we
don't like in the lighthouse is going to wield that
we're not going to like the outcome. And so it's
important to keep even our own friends and allies and
the end the party between the booies because it leads
to a better outcome for everybody. And so again what
(07:24):
we're seeing, you know, these judges and these other things
are pushing back.
Speaker 3 (07:27):
Well, then we don't like them because we don't like
what they're saying.
Speaker 4 (07:29):
Is President Trump. But it's a piece of a guardrail
that keeps the balance going. And you know, if the
washing machine is out of balance, a lot of things
get out of balance in the country, and that's that's
not a good thing. Look, I'm not preaching balance like look,
I want to. I want to push back on the
liberalism that we've seen over the last forty years. It's
a huge piece of that. I'm grateful President Trump is
(07:51):
doing that, but I think there is a Congress for
a reason. It needs to be in conjunction with and
in cooperation with, not just unilateral all.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
Right, So bottom line is should should he have started
with the tax cuts?
Speaker 4 (08:04):
I don't know that.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
I heard a clearance.
Speaker 4 (08:05):
Absolutely absolutely, well, Look, I love from thebal's income tax.
I think part of the problem with the tariffs are
as an argument for revenue is that.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
When tariffs were our major source of revenue, there.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
Was no income tax. And look, when we went down
the income tax problem, that was a huge moment for
our country that I think we shouldn't do well.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
I think I think that when you hear what income
tax is bad.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
But but when you hear the sounds, when you hear
the sounds of the day, you're going to hear Peter
Navarro basically kind of give you a glimpse of that
that it's all of that, that that that's coming, and
that the amount of revenue from the tariffs will bring
about and pay for the tax cuts. But I think
what you and I suspect is, I wonder if somebody
(08:48):
has the ambition of a of abolishing federal income tax
altogether and creating.
Speaker 4 (08:55):
Peter Navarro, I think that's fine. The problem is is
that what we're seeing is the second these terriffs get
really hard, we pull back on them. And rightfully so,
I mean, look at what happens to the stock markers
the last weeks. You can't just do It's not just
a theory, and so this is going to be a
ten to fifteen year glide path to get off of
(09:16):
a lot of these dopamine trics that we have relative
to the economy. So yeah, let's get if there's a
vision there, great, but to institute what we've seen so
far is when it needs to be a fifteen step program, yere,
you know, I think it's unrealistic. So yeah, if it's
going to a boss income tax and lower tax pervity,
all board, let's go. But also let's talk about that.
(09:38):
We don't have to play the shell game where it's like, oh,
well this is coming down the line. Let's do the
tariffs first. What is the plan, what is the vision
over the of the rest of the administration to get there?
And if so, great, But we're saying we're being told
to take medicine right now just on tariffs, when three
fourths of the problem hasn't even been discussed or even
outlined in any great detail.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Well, no matter what size anybody falls on, we're all
witnessing Trump either playing a great smart super chess game
of trade or this is a mess and and exemptions
as he goes. Uh, you say mess, others may say whatever.
The reality is, we're going to arrive this direction and
(10:18):
motion will arrive at a destination and it's either going
to be chess or mess. But we can add, now
what smartphones and computer chips to the exemption list as.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
Well, and that's that's part of the problem too, Michael.
You know we're talking about on shoring or you know
there's national trade implications. COVID outlined a lot of problems
for we're weak and.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
Vulnerable, and those are all laudable goals.
Speaker 4 (10:38):
But they're feckless when you when you do exemptions. If
we're talking about pharmaceuticals and chips creation needing to be
brought back to America, you can't exempt them and the
tariffs to say that that's the goal here. Again, I
don't want to call the mess, but you can't. You
there's an effort here to try to have it both ways,
and that's that's just not a realistic situation here. If
(11:00):
you're if the goal is to decouple ourselves from China,
which is a lot of a goal, you can't exempt
the most serious issues from the from these tariffs as
part of the issue. It's not going to do what
you wanted to do cheaper for China to create the
iPhone that it is for people to manufacture it here
to the parks that would be care from China. It's crazy.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Chris Walker is our GOP analyst and consultant and weekly
visitor all Things Republican.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
Miss a little, miss a lot, miss a lot, and
we'll miss you. It's your Morning Show with Michael del
Churno
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!