Two Stories From Saudi Arabia

Spare_change

Gold Member
Jun 27, 2011
8,690
1,293
280
Story No. 1 from Saudi Arabia ---

"President Trump in Saudi Arabia on Saturday signed a nearly $110 billion arms deal to help the Persian Gulf ally with its military-defense system.

"That was a tremendous day," Trump said after signing the deal with Saudi leader King Salman. "Tremendous investments in the United States. Hundreds of billions of dollars of investments into the United States and jobs, jobs, jobs."

The White House says the package includes defense equipment and other support to help the Arab nation and the rest of the Gulf region fight again terrorism and the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, according to the White House."

Story No. 2 from Saudi Arabia ----

"U.S. technology and engineering conglomerate GE said on Saturday it had signed $15 billion of business deals with Saudi Arabia as part of the kingdom's drive to diversify its economy beyond oil.
It came as dozens of senior U.S. business executives met Saudi counterparts at a conference coinciding with the visit of President Donald Trump to Riyadh.

The agreements, which involve almost $7 billion of goods and services from GE itself, range from the power and healthcare sectors to the oil and gas industry and mining, GE said. Some of the deals are memorandums of understanding which would require further agreements to materialize.

Among the projects, GE will help make Saudi power generation more efficient and provide digital technology to the operations of oil firm Saudi Aramco, aiming to create $4 billion of annual productivity improvements at Aramco. It will cooperate in medical research and training.
 
Hate to break it to you but both of those have been in the works for a long time. All Trump did was sign.
 
Hate to break it to you but both of those have been in the works for a long time. All Trump did was sign.
 
Once for each story??

Did I claim anything? Is there anything in either story that credits Trump directly?

How many such contracts were signed during Obama's 8 years? What candidate promised more jobs? What president is delivering?
 

Surely, you jest ... how many of those jobs were part-time jobs? How many were seasonal? How many were non-skilled? How many left the job force because they couldn't find jobs? Why didn't the "obama jobs" keep up with the influx of new workers? What was the average $/hour for those "jobs"??

I notice that the article lauds the "wage increases" - it, of course, ignores the original drop in family income during the Obama years, and only talks about increases from the "floor" created during Obama's first 4 years.
 

Surely, you jest ... how many of those jobs were part-time jobs? How many were seasonal? How many were non-skilled? How many left the job force because they couldn't find jobs? Why didn't the "obama jobs" keep up with the influx of new workers? What was the average $/hour for those "jobs"??

No. I don't jest. Obama inherited a tanking economy - the worst recession since the great depression. Did you some how miss that?
 

Surely, you jest ... how many of those jobs were part-time jobs? How many were seasonal? How many were non-skilled? How many left the job force because they couldn't find jobs? Why didn't the "obama jobs" keep up with the influx of new workers? What was the average $/hour for those "jobs"??

No. I don't jest. Obama inherited a tanking economy - the worst recession since the great depression. Did you some how miss that?

Nope - didn't miss a thing. But, then, you choose to ignore the government's culpability (under the Clinton administration as well as Bush - nor do you mention the impact of the Democratic Congress), and you ignore the failure of Obama to direct an efficient and effective recovery. You don't mention that Obama's "social" policies actually contributing to a worsening situation, as well drug out a languorous and morose recovery.

If you are going to tell the story, tell it all.
 

Surely, you jest ... how many of those jobs were part-time jobs? How many were seasonal? How many were non-skilled? How many left the job force because they couldn't find jobs? Why didn't the "obama jobs" keep up with the influx of new workers? What was the average $/hour for those "jobs"??

No. I don't jest. Obama inherited a tanking economy - the worst recession since the great depression. Did you some how miss that?

Nope - didn't miss a thing. But, then, you choose to ignore the government's culpability (under the Clinton administration as well as Bush - nor do you mention the impact of the Democratic Congress), and you ignore the failure of Obama to direct an efficient and effective recovery. You don't mention that Obama's "social" policies actually contributing to a worsening situation, as well drug out a languorous and morose recovery.

If you are going to tell the story, tell it all.

I'm keeping it simple and to the facts. We underwent the worst economic downfall since the Great Depression - that's a lot. The tools Obama was able to use to remedy it were limited by Congress - ie - he couldn't put forth as big a stimulus or infrastructure plan as he sought. Despite that - the economy slowly improved and we achieved an umemployment rate better than when he entered office. So, my question is -why do you need to degrade that? It's what Trump inherited.
 

Surely, you jest ... how many of those jobs were part-time jobs? How many were seasonal? How many were non-skilled? How many left the job force because they couldn't find jobs? Why didn't the "obama jobs" keep up with the influx of new workers? What was the average $/hour for those "jobs"??

No. I don't jest. Obama inherited a tanking economy - the worst recession since the great depression. Did you some how miss that?

Nope - didn't miss a thing. But, then, you choose to ignore the government's culpability (under the Clinton administration as well as Bush - nor do you mention the impact of the Democratic Congress), and you ignore the failure of Obama to direct an efficient and effective recovery. You don't mention that Obama's "social" policies actually contributing to a worsening situation, as well drug out a languorous and morose recovery.

If you are going to tell the story, tell it all.

I'm keeping it simple and to the facts. We underwent the worst economic downfall since the Great Depression - that's a lot. The tools Obama was able to use to remedy it were limited by Congress - ie - he couldn't put forth as big a stimulus or infrastructure plan as he sought. Despite that - the economy slowly improved and we achieved an umemployment rate better than when he entered office. So, my question is -why do you need to degrade that? It's what Trump inherited.

Simple? Wonder why that was the same word I thought of ....

Why do I degrade it? Let's see --- could it be because it is a misrepresentation of reality? Could it be because the numbers are the result of manipulation rather than performance? Could it be because the books were cooked? Could it be because, while some use those figures to tout their favorite politician, the reality is much, much different? Could it be because we have people who are slowly sinking, and all this supposed "recovery" means nothing to them? Could it be because the government chose to not only ignore large portions of society, but chose to actively implement "policies" that exacerbated the damage, and even caused some to slide into the abyss?

You will notice I made no claim that Trump caused this ... but I don't think you can seriously question that his election has galvanized businesses and created an air of confidence and expectation.
 

Forum List

Back
Top