Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
US current account trade deficit at highest level in 7 years
Say, isn't that about the time Obama entered the office? But how can this be; he assured us this:
US current account trade deficit at highest level in 7 years
Say, isn't that about the time Obama entered the office? But how can this be; he assured us this:
What's your point here?
Congress has had 3 terms of Republicans in the House and is Republican controlled in the Senate.
US current account trade deficit at highest level in 7 years
Say, isn't that about the time Obama entered the office? But how can this be; he assured us this:
What's your point here?
Congress has had 3 terms of Republicans in the House and is Republican controlled in the Senate.
Dear, his first 2 years were dem controlled
US current account trade deficit at highest level in 7 years
Say, isn't that about the time Obama entered the office? But how can this be; he assured us this:
What's your point here?
Congress has had 3 terms of Republicans in the House and is Republican controlled in the Senate.
I think if you were "objective" you'd see the point as clear as your face.
Dear, his first 2 years were dem controlled.US current account trade deficit at highest level in 7 years
Say, isn't that about the time Obama entered the office? But how can this be; he assured us this:
What's your point here?
Congress has had 3 terms of Republicans in the House and is Republican controlled in the Senate.
US current account trade deficit at highest level in 7 years
Say, isn't that about the time Obama entered the office? But how can this be; he assured us this:
What's your point here?
Congress has had 3 terms of Republicans in the House and is Republican controlled in the Senate.
I think if you were "objective" you'd see the point as clear as your face.
If I were "objective" then clearly I'd see it how you see it, is that what you're telling me? Seriously?
The President isn't the be all and end all of the US economy, you know that, right?
US current account trade deficit at highest level in 7 years
Say, isn't that about the time Obama entered the office? But how can this be; he assured us this:
What's your point here?
Congress has had 3 terms of Republicans in the House and is Republican controlled in the Senate.
I think if you were "objective" you'd see the point as clear as your face.
If I were "objective" then clearly I'd see it how you see it, is that what you're telling me? Seriously?
The President isn't the be all and end all of the US economy, you know that, right?
I'm saying you wouldn't have to seek clarification on a straightforward and true point if you were "objective" as you've claimed. That you'd see it how I see it is your overstated case.
US current account trade deficit at highest level in 7 years
Say, isn't that about the time Obama entered the office? But how can this be; he assured us this:
What's your point here?
Congress has had 3 terms of Republicans in the House and is Republican controlled in the Senate.
I think if you were "objective" you'd see the point as clear as your face.
If I were "objective" then clearly I'd see it how you see it, is that what you're telling me? Seriously?
The President isn't the be all and end all of the US economy, you know that, right?
I'm saying you wouldn't have to seek clarification on a straightforward and true point if you were "objective" as you've claimed. That you'd see it how I see it is your overstated case.
Or maybe you're just reading whatever the hell you like into this, and then using it as a reason to attack me.
What's your point here?
Congress has had 3 terms of Republicans in the House and is Republican controlled in the Senate.
I think if you were "objective" you'd see the point as clear as your face.
If I were "objective" then clearly I'd see it how you see it, is that what you're telling me? Seriously?
The President isn't the be all and end all of the US economy, you know that, right?
I'm saying you wouldn't have to seek clarification on a straightforward and true point if you were "objective" as you've claimed. That you'd see it how I see it is your overstated case.
Or maybe you're just reading whatever the hell you like into this, and then using it as a reason to attack me.
Nope. You're an Obama PR guy in all reality; that's a stark contrast to what you claim.
An objective person would have readily accepted the reality that Obama lied about his economic prowess. You, on the other hand, ignored his bold lie and just blamed Republicans, which was somewhat beside the point in the second place.
I think if you were "objective" you'd see the point as clear as your face.
If I were "objective" then clearly I'd see it how you see it, is that what you're telling me? Seriously?
The President isn't the be all and end all of the US economy, you know that, right?
I'm saying you wouldn't have to seek clarification on a straightforward and true point if you were "objective" as you've claimed. That you'd see it how I see it is your overstated case.
Or maybe you're just reading whatever the hell you like into this, and then using it as a reason to attack me.
Nope. You're an Obama PR guy in all reality; that's a stark contrast to what you claim.
An objective person would have readily accepted the reality that Obama lied about his economic prowess. You, on the other hand, ignored his bold lie and just blamed Republicans, which was somewhat beside the point in the second place.
Yawn
That was by far the largest bilateral merchandise trade deficit the U.S. ran with any country during the month. The overall not-seasonally-adjusted U.S. merchandise trade deficit for May was $63,979,100,000, according to the Census Bureau. From January through May 2015, according to current Census Bureau, the U.S. ran a not-seasonally-adjusted merchandise trade deficit of $58,426,100,000. After China, the second largest bilateral merchandise trade deficit the U.S. ran this May, according to the Census Bureau, was the $5,801,900,000 deficit with Mexico. The $29,016,900,000 bilateral merchandise trade deficit with China in May was five times as large as the bilateral deficit with Mexico.
Rounding out the Top Ten nations with which the U.S. ran its largest (not seasonally adjusted) bilateral merchandise trade deficits in May were Germany ($5,693,400,000), Japan ($4,665,600,000), Ireland ($3,117,700,000), Italy ($2,620,300,000), Vietnam ($2,532,600,000), India ($2,531,700,000), South Korea ($2,529,100,000) and Malaysia ($2,203,200,000). Four of these Top Ten—Mexico, Japan, Vietnam and Malaysia—are among the 11 nations with which the Obama administration negotiated the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal that was signed in February. Congress has not yet approved that deal. Overall during the month of May, the U.S. exported $119,612,200,000 in goods and imported $183,591,300,000—resulting in the total not-seasonally-adjusted merchandise trade deficit for the month of $63,979,100,000, according to the Census Bureau.
Through the first five months of the year (January through May), the U.S. ran a not-seasonally-adjusted merchandise trade deficit of $284,556,300,000. In the same five months, the U.S. ran a cumulative $131,269,100,000 bilateral merchandise trade deficit with China alone. In May 2015, according to current Census Bureau figures, the U.S. ran a $30,310,200,000 bilateral merchandise trade deficit with China. In January through May of 2015, the U.S. ran a $140,297,600,000 merchandise trade deficit with China. The merchandise trade balance includes only the trade in goods, not services.
In addition to the United States, the nations that would be included in the TPP include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. “The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a proposed free trade agreement (FTA) among the United States and 11 Asia-Pacific countries,” the Congressional Research Service said in a report published on June 14. “The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has described it as a ‘comprehensive and high standard’ agreement, designed to eliminate and reduce trade barriers and to establish and extend the rules and disciplines of the trading system among the parties to the agreement.” “If implemented,” said the CRS report, “it would be the largest plurilateral FTA by value of trade, encompassing roughly 40% of world GDP, and could serve further to integrate the United States in the dynamic Asia-Pacific region. As a ‘living agreement,’ it has the potential to negotiate new rules and expand its membership. It could also mark a shift to the negotiation of ‘mega-regional’ trade liberalization agreements in lieu of bilateral FTAs and broader multilateral trade liberalization in the World Trade Organization (WTO).”
U.S. Ran $29,016,900,000 Merchandise Trade Deficit With China in May
The proposed United Kingdom Trade Continuity Act the two GOP senators co-sponsored states that it will “provide for the continuation with respect to the United Kingdom of existing commercial agreements between the United States and the European Union, [and] encourage the President to expeditiously negotiate a new comprehensive bilateral trade agreement with the United Kingdom.” The bill, introduced less than a week after the June 24 Brexit referendum, expresses American support for Brexit and proposes that a U.S.-U.K. free-trade agreement confirming the “special relationship” between the two nations be negotiated within 30 days of its passing. “It is the sense of Congress that— the United States supports the decision by the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union,” the bill states.
“The United States has a special and historic relationship with the United Kingdom that has enabled economic prosperity and security cooperation that greatly benefits both countries. “The United Kingdom is a great and important trading partner with the United States, with exports to the United Kingdom in 2015 totaling approximately $56,114,600,000 and imports to the United States totaling approximately $57,962,300,000,” the bill continued. “It is in the national interest of both the United States and the United Kingdom to preserve and expand the special relationship between the 2 countries,” it concluded.
Sen. Lee said that a free trade agreement would stabilize U.S.-U.K. relations as the United Kingdom takes this historic step away from the 28-nation bloc. “Our nation’s special relationship with the United Kingdom has promoted economic prosperity and security in both countries for over a hundred years,” Sen. Lee said. “This relationship can and should be preserved,” he continued, “which is why we have introduced legislation that would minimize uncertainty and promote stability as the United Kingdom declares their independence from the European Union.”
The bill states that the American people support Brexit, contradicting a statement President Obama made in London in April discouraging the move. Obama also cautioned that it would place Britain “at the back of the queue” for American trade relations. “Ultimately, [Brexit] is something that the British voters have to decide for themselves. But as part of our special relationship, part of being friends is to be honest and to let you know what I think,” Obama said. “And speaking honestly, the outcome of that decision is a matter of deep interest to the United States because it affects our prospects as well. The United States wants a strong United Kingdom as a partner. And the United Kingdom is at its best when it's helping to lead a strong Europe,” the president continued. “I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line, there might be a UK-U.S. trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen anytime soon, because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done, and the UK is going to be in the back of the queue -- not because we don't have a special relationship, but because … trying to do piecemeal trade agreements is hugely inefficient,” Obama said at the time.
MORE
But it was all designed 40 years ago when Nixon went to China to see how much tea was..$29B trade deficit with China in May...
U.S. Ran $29,016,900,000 Merchandise Trade Deficit With China in May
July 6, 2016 | The United States ran a $29,016,900,000 merchandise trade deficit with China in May, according to the data released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.
That was by far the largest bilateral merchandise trade deficit the U.S. ran with any country during the month. The overall not-seasonally-adjusted U.S. merchandise trade deficit for May was $63,979,100,000, according to the Census Bureau. From January through May 2015, according to current Census Bureau, the U.S. ran a not-seasonally-adjusted merchandise trade deficit of $58,426,100,000. After China, the second largest bilateral merchandise trade deficit the U.S. ran this May, according to the Census Bureau, was the $5,801,900,000 deficit with Mexico. The $29,016,900,000 bilateral merchandise trade deficit with China in May was five times as large as the bilateral deficit with Mexico.
Rounding out the Top Ten nations with which the U.S. ran its largest (not seasonally adjusted) bilateral merchandise trade deficits in May were Germany ($5,693,400,000), Japan ($4,665,600,000), Ireland ($3,117,700,000), Italy ($2,620,300,000), Vietnam ($2,532,600,000), India ($2,531,700,000), South Korea ($2,529,100,000) and Malaysia ($2,203,200,000). Four of these Top Ten—Mexico, Japan, Vietnam and Malaysia—are among the 11 nations with which the Obama administration negotiated the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal that was signed in February. Congress has not yet approved that deal. Overall during the month of May, the U.S. exported $119,612,200,000 in goods and imported $183,591,300,000—resulting in the total not-seasonally-adjusted merchandise trade deficit for the month of $63,979,100,000, according to the Census Bureau.
Through the first five months of the year (January through May), the U.S. ran a not-seasonally-adjusted merchandise trade deficit of $284,556,300,000. In the same five months, the U.S. ran a cumulative $131,269,100,000 bilateral merchandise trade deficit with China alone. In May 2015, according to current Census Bureau figures, the U.S. ran a $30,310,200,000 bilateral merchandise trade deficit with China. In January through May of 2015, the U.S. ran a $140,297,600,000 merchandise trade deficit with China. The merchandise trade balance includes only the trade in goods, not services.
In addition to the United States, the nations that would be included in the TPP include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. “The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a proposed free trade agreement (FTA) among the United States and 11 Asia-Pacific countries,” the Congressional Research Service said in a report published on June 14. “The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has described it as a ‘comprehensive and high standard’ agreement, designed to eliminate and reduce trade barriers and to establish and extend the rules and disciplines of the trading system among the parties to the agreement.” “If implemented,” said the CRS report, “it would be the largest plurilateral FTA by value of trade, encompassing roughly 40% of world GDP, and could serve further to integrate the United States in the dynamic Asia-Pacific region. As a ‘living agreement,’ it has the potential to negotiate new rules and expand its membership. It could also mark a shift to the negotiation of ‘mega-regional’ trade liberalization agreements in lieu of bilateral FTAs and broader multilateral trade liberalization in the World Trade Organization (WTO).”
U.S. Ran $29,016,900,000 Merchandise Trade Deficit With China in May
See also:
GOP Senators Push for Free-Trade Agreement With Post-Brexit UK
July 6, 2016 -- Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Tom Cotton (R-AR), are calling on President Obama to negotiate a new free-trade agreement with the United Kingdom (UK) following the UK’s “Brexit” from the European Union last month.
The proposed United Kingdom Trade Continuity Act the two GOP senators co-sponsored states that it will “provide for the continuation with respect to the United Kingdom of existing commercial agreements between the United States and the European Union, [and] encourage the President to expeditiously negotiate a new comprehensive bilateral trade agreement with the United Kingdom.” The bill, introduced less than a week after the June 24 Brexit referendum, expresses American support for Brexit and proposes that a U.S.-U.K. free-trade agreement confirming the “special relationship” between the two nations be negotiated within 30 days of its passing. “It is the sense of Congress that— the United States supports the decision by the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union,” the bill states.
“The United States has a special and historic relationship with the United Kingdom that has enabled economic prosperity and security cooperation that greatly benefits both countries. “The United Kingdom is a great and important trading partner with the United States, with exports to the United Kingdom in 2015 totaling approximately $56,114,600,000 and imports to the United States totaling approximately $57,962,300,000,” the bill continued. “It is in the national interest of both the United States and the United Kingdom to preserve and expand the special relationship between the 2 countries,” it concluded.
Sen. Lee said that a free trade agreement would stabilize U.S.-U.K. relations as the United Kingdom takes this historic step away from the 28-nation bloc. “Our nation’s special relationship with the United Kingdom has promoted economic prosperity and security in both countries for over a hundred years,” Sen. Lee said. “This relationship can and should be preserved,” he continued, “which is why we have introduced legislation that would minimize uncertainty and promote stability as the United Kingdom declares their independence from the European Union.”
The bill states that the American people support Brexit, contradicting a statement President Obama made in London in April discouraging the move. Obama also cautioned that it would place Britain “at the back of the queue” for American trade relations. “Ultimately, [Brexit] is something that the British voters have to decide for themselves. But as part of our special relationship, part of being friends is to be honest and to let you know what I think,” Obama said. “And speaking honestly, the outcome of that decision is a matter of deep interest to the United States because it affects our prospects as well. The United States wants a strong United Kingdom as a partner. And the United Kingdom is at its best when it's helping to lead a strong Europe,” the president continued. “I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line, there might be a UK-U.S. trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen anytime soon, because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done, and the UK is going to be in the back of the queue -- not because we don't have a special relationship, but because … trying to do piecemeal trade agreements is hugely inefficient,” Obama said at the time.
MORE
