New study shows income growth slowed under tRump.

[Correll]

...

But it’s too late. It’s a global economy Now. Now you want to isolate and start trade wars with all our allies?

1. Wanting to see America's interests represented in these trade relations, is not "isolating" ourselves.

2. If our "allies" are so offended by US wanting a more balanced trade relationship, then they are not our "allies", but our enemies and knowing that and dealing with it realistically is a step forward.

3. What I want, and what TRump has formally stated repeatedly, if "FAIR TRADE". That is not isolationism, nor demanding submission. We just don't want to be the world's bitch.

And when manufacturing comes home will those companies pay the same wages those manufacturing jobs paid when bush sent them overseas in the 2000s? Not.

A valid point. My response, a. manufacturing still pays more than service, so still better, and b. if globalization is that freaking bad, maybe we should give "isolation" a look.

Today we have too many companies in America who trumps hurting with his trad wars. ....

Those companies have learned to survive in an environment where the American worker is required to be fucked. That environment needs to change. Companies who's model is based on fucking the American worker, can change or die. FUCK THEM.

 

[kaz]

Huh, there are other factors you say? Wait, you're the one who didn't know that.

You still aren't addressing why only the last two years of Obama's term count, why the article only counted the middle class or that it didn't define middle class and used whatever numbers they wanted. You only guessed why the best economic year of Trump's Presidency wasn't included and didn't shed any actual light on any of it

Three times now you’ve repeated the statement that we’re only using the last two years of Obama’s presidency and questioning why we’re not using the earlier years. Wages never go up when unemployment is over 6% ...

Ding, ding, ding. And Obama had the slowest recession recovery in the last century. He kept his foot on the throat of the economy long after it stopped breathing. That's why you only count the last two years, Mrs. Mao

 

[sealybobo]

I'm pretty sure you don't want the income numbers for 2020 to come out now, the year isn't finished and so far, those numbers are abysmal with income probably contracting due to the virus

Huh, there are other factors you say? Wait, you're the one who didn't know that.

You still aren't addressing why only the last two years of Obama's term count, why the article only counted the middle class or that it didn't define middle class and used whatever numbers they wanted. You only guessed why the best economic year of Trump's Presidency wasn't included and didn't shed any actual light on any of it.

Then you speculated that somehow I don't want this year included, as if that would have ANY insight into Trump versus Obama as President

Three times now you’ve repeated the statement that we’re only using the last two years of Obama’s presidency and questioning why we’re not using the earlier years. Wages never go up when unemployment is over 6%.

Throughout the first six years of Obama’s presidency the unemployment rate was over 6%. In fact when Obama started his presidency the economy was in free fall and 500,000 jobs per month.

Once the unemployment rate fell below 6% wagstarted to rise and they continued rising under Donald Trump.

But under Trump, employment growth slowed, wage growth slowed, and the stock market growth slowed.

Much of Trumps “great” stock market is due to stock buy backs. Companies used all that money to buy out minority holdings further increasing the value of the remaining stocks, increasing the equity value of the outstanding shares and increasing the wealth held by the top 10%.

Not only are the rich getting richer under Donald Trump but they’re getting richer faster.

By that logic, Trump deserves a similar pass because he inherited an aging expansion way past the normal end date.

Funny how you libs use different rules to judge different people.

Oh so now you're going to say we were due for a recession? I don't think so. Trump supposedly took the training wheels off. He deregulated and cut taxes. This was supposed to be a boom for the next 7 years but instead Trump started a trade war with China. You guys said it was the best time to take on China because the economy was strong. Well, he only had 2.3% growth in 2019.

And despite his tax breaks to everyone, but mostly the rich, we hardly did better than what Obama gave us. So we shouldn't have given those tax breaks.

Consider this. In 2016 I got a $50,000 raise. This was my reward for selling so much the previous 3 years. Obama's economy was fine and trump's wasn't much better even with all the tax breaks and deregulations. My sales didn't go up because of Trump's policies and I didn't see raises given out at my company since he took office. In fact his trade wars have slowed our sales down.

I love it how Bill Clinton gave us 8 great years but you want to blame him for the 2000 recession.

And now you want to say Trump gets a pass because Obama's economy was good for too long?

 

[sealybobo]

...

But it’s too late. It’s a global economy Now. Now you want to isolate and start trade wars with all our allies?

1. Wanting to see America's interests represented in these trade relations, is not "isolating" ourselves.

2. If our "allies" are so offended by US wanting a more balanced trade relationship, then they are not our "allies", but our enemies and knowing that and dealing with it realistically is a step forward.

3. What I want, and what TRump has formally stated repeatedly, if "FAIR TRADE". That is not isolationism, nor demanding submission. We just don't want to be the world's bitch.

And when manufacturing comes home will those companies pay the same wages those manufacturing jobs paid when bush sent them overseas in the 2000s? Not.

A valid point. My response, a. manufacturing still pays more than service, so still better, and b. if globalization is that freaking bad, maybe we should give "isolation" a look.

Today we have too many companies in America who trumps hurting with his trad wars. ....

Those companies have learned to survive in an environment where the American worker is required to be fucked. That environment needs to change. Companies who's model is based on fucking the American worker, can change or die. FUCK THEM.

Candidate Donald Trump recognized a huge opening here to, at least rhetorically, side with the workers against the global forces that are “ripping them off” thanks to “horrible trade deals.” To this day, even as he enacts tariffs (which invite retaliatory tariffs) that hurt them, his constituents remain loyal. Apparently, if people feel you’ve got their back, they’ll put up with a lot.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/07/25/unfair-trade-means-different-things-to-different-people/

Though Trump hasn’t said what winning looks like (he just assures us it’s easy), I suspect it’s a lower trade deficit and import substitution through expanded domestic capacity. But his agenda is likely to boost the value of the dollar and worsen the trade deficit, and, even considering his new $12 billion payoff to farmers, I doubt he’s willing to sustain this war to the point where producers build domestic plants to replace foreign ones, doubts that are amplified by the deep integration of global supply chains into American production. As I’ve recently written, tariffs can’t unscramble the globalization omelet.


The Chinese are too deeply committed to capturing market share in artificial intelligence, robotics, advanced computing, next-generation vehicles and high tech in general to change their plans for U.S. soybeans (especially when they can get them from Brazil).

But if the tariffs won’t work, what will?

Instead of applying an outdated tool — tariffs — to unscramble the globalization omelet and move backward, we should be looking around the next corner and investing in people, research and technology that will give us the economic edge we’re rapidly losing.

 

[kaz]

I'm pretty sure you don't want the income numbers for 2020 to come out now, the year isn't finished and so far, those numbers are abysmal with income probably contracting due to the virus

Huh, there are other factors you say? Wait, you're the one who didn't know that.

You still aren't addressing why only the last two years of Obama's term count, why the article only counted the middle class or that it didn't define middle class and used whatever numbers they wanted. You only guessed why the best economic year of Trump's Presidency wasn't included and didn't shed any actual light on any of it.

Then you speculated that somehow I don't want this year included, as if that would have ANY insight into Trump versus Obama as President

Three times now you’ve repeated the statement that we’re only using the last two years of Obama’s presidency and questioning why we’re not using the earlier years. Wages never go up when unemployment is over 6%.

Throughout the first six years of Obama’s presidency the unemployment rate was over 6%. In fact when Obama started his presidency the economy was in free fall and 500,000 jobs per month.

Once the unemployment rate fell below 6% wagstarted to rise and they continued rising under Donald Trump.

But under Trump, employment growth slowed, wage growth slowed, and the stock market growth slowed.

Much of Trumps “great” stock market is due to stock buy backs. Companies used all that money to buy out minority holdings further increasing the value of the remaining stocks, increasing the equity value of the outstanding shares and increasing the wealth held by the top 10%.

Not only are the rich getting richer under Donald Trump but they’re getting richer faster.

By that logic, Trump deserves a similar pass because he inherited an aging expansion way past the normal end date.

Funny how you libs use different rules to judge different people.

Oh so now you're going to say we were due for a recession? I don't think so. Trump supposedly took the training wheels off. He deregulated and cut taxes. This was supposed to be a boom for the next 7 years but instead Trump started a trade war with China. You guys said it was the best time to take on China because the economy was strong. Well, he only had 2.3% growth in 2019.

And despite his tax breaks to everyone, but mostly the rich, we hardly did better than what Obama gave us. So we shouldn't have given those tax breaks.

Consider this. In 2016 I got a $50,000 raise. This was my reward for selling so much the previous 3 years. Obama's economy was fine and trump's wasn't much better even with all the tax breaks and deregulations. My sales didn't go up because of Trump's policies and I didn't see raises given out at my company since he took office. In fact his trade wars have slowed our sales down.

I love it how Bill Clinton gave us 8 great years but you want to blame him for the 2000 recession.

And now you want to say Trump gets a pass because Obama's economy was good for too long?

The Stock market is up over 43% since Trump was elected, and that is with the coronavirus.

Butt hurt much?

 

[bripat9643]

I'm pretty sure you don't want the income numbers for 2020 to come out now, the year isn't finished and so far, those numbers are abysmal with income probably contracting due to the virus

Huh, there are other factors you say? Wait, you're the one who didn't know that.

You still aren't addressing why only the last two years of Obama's term count, why the article only counted the middle class or that it didn't define middle class and used whatever numbers they wanted. You only guessed why the best economic year of Trump's Presidency wasn't included and didn't shed any actual light on any of it.

Then you speculated that somehow I don't want this year included, as if that would have ANY insight into Trump versus Obama as President

Three times now you’ve repeated the statement that we’re only using the last two years of Obama’s presidency and questioning why we’re not using the earlier years. Wages never go up when unemployment is over 6%.

Throughout the first six years of Obama’s presidency the unemployment rate was over 6%. In fact when Obama started his presidency the economy was in free fall and 500,000 jobs per month.

Once the unemployment rate fell below 6% wagstarted to rise and they continued rising under Donald Trump.

But under Trump, employment growth slowed, wage growth slowed, and the stock market growth slowed.

Much of Trumps “great” stock market is due to stock buy backs. Companies used all that money to buy out minority holdings further increasing the value of the remaining stocks, increasing the equity value of the outstanding shares and increasing the wealth held by the top 10%.

Not only are the rich getting richer under Donald Trump but they’re getting richer faster.

By that logic, Trump deserves a similar pass because he inherited an aging expansion way past the normal end date.

Funny how you libs use different rules to judge different people.

Oh so now you're going to say we were due for a recession? I don't think so. Trump supposedly took the training wheels off. He deregulated and cut taxes. This was supposed to be a boom for the next 7 years but instead Trump started a trade war with China. You guys said it was the best time to take on China because the economy was strong. Well, he only had 2.3% growth in 2019.

And despite his tax breaks to everyone, but mostly the rich, we hardly did better than what Obama gave us. So we shouldn't have given those tax breaks.

Consider this. In 2016 I got a $50,000 raise. This was my reward for selling so much the previous 3 years. Obama's economy was fine and trump's wasn't much better even with all the tax breaks and deregulations. My sales didn't go up because of Trump's policies and I didn't see raises given out at my company since he took office. In fact his trade wars have slowed our sales down.

I love it how Bill Clinton gave us 8 great years but you want to blame him for the 2000 recession.

And now you want to say Trump gets a pass because Obama's economy was good for too long?

The shutdown is the cause if the recession, you dumbfuck.

Clinton is obviously responsible for the 2000 recession. He was in office then, dumbass. Who else would be responsible?

 

[Correll]

I'm pretty sure you don't want the income numbers for 2020 to come out now, the year isn't finished and so far, those numbers are abysmal with income probably contracting due to the virus

Huh, there are other factors you say? Wait, you're the one who didn't know that.

You still aren't addressing why only the last two years of Obama's term count, why the article only counted the middle class or that it didn't define middle class and used whatever numbers they wanted. You only guessed why the best economic year of Trump's Presidency wasn't included and didn't shed any actual light on any of it.

Then you speculated that somehow I don't want this year included, as if that would have ANY insight into Trump versus Obama as President

Three times now you’ve repeated the statement that we’re only using the last two years of Obama’s presidency and questioning why we’re not using the earlier years. Wages never go up when unemployment is over 6%.

Throughout the first six years of Obama’s presidency the unemployment rate was over 6%. In fact when Obama started his presidency the economy was in free fall and 500,000 jobs per month.

Once the unemployment rate fell below 6% wagstarted to rise and they continued rising under Donald Trump.

But under Trump, employment growth slowed, wage growth slowed, and the stock market growth slowed.

Much of Trumps “great” stock market is due to stock buy backs. Companies used all that money to buy out minority holdings further increasing the value of the remaining stocks, increasing the equity value of the outstanding shares and increasing the wealth held by the top 10%.

Not only are the rich getting richer under Donald Trump but they’re getting richer faster.

By that logic, Trump deserves a similar pass because he inherited an aging expansion way past the normal end date.

Funny how you libs use different rules to judge different people.

Oh so now you're going to say we were due for a recession? I don't think so. Trump supposedly took the training wheels off. He deregulated and cut taxes. This was supposed to be a boom for the next 7 years but instead Trump started a trade war with China. You guys said it was the best time to take on China because the economy was strong. Well, he only had 2.3% growth in 2019.

And despite his tax breaks to everyone, but mostly the rich, we hardly did better than what Obama gave us. So we shouldn't have given those tax breaks.

Consider this. In 2016 I got a $50,000 raise. This was my reward for selling so much the previous 3 years. Obama's economy was fine and trump's wasn't much better even with all the tax breaks and deregulations. My sales didn't go up because of Trump's policies and I didn't see raises given out at my company since he took office. In fact his trade wars have slowed our sales down.

I love it how Bill Clinton gave us 8 great years but you want to blame him for the 2000 recession.

And now you want to say Trump gets a pass because Obama's economy was good for too long?

Acknowledging the existence of the business cycle is not giving someone a pass.


It is reasonable to consider what Obama inherited. Giving him a pass on the FIRST SIX YEARS, is a bit much.


The same with Trump. He did inherit an aging expansion. It was overdue for a recession. Trump's economic policies were going against the tide.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm pretty sure you don't want the income numbers for 2020 to come out now, the year isn't finished and so far, those numbers are abysmal with income probably contracting due to the virus

Huh, there are other factors you say? Wait, you're the one who didn't know that.

You still aren't addressing why only the last two years of Obama's term count, why the article only counted the middle class or that it didn't define middle class and used whatever numbers they wanted. You only guessed why the best economic year of Trump's Presidency wasn't included and didn't shed any actual light on any of it.

Then you speculated that somehow I don't want this year included, as if that would have ANY insight into Trump versus Obama as President

Three times now you’ve repeated the statement that we’re only using the last two years of Obama’s presidency and questioning why we’re not using the earlier years. Wages never go up when unemployment is over 6%.

Throughout the first six years of Obama’s presidency the unemployment rate was over 6%. In fact when Obama started his presidency the economy was in free fall and 500,000 jobs per month.

Once the unemployment rate fell below 6% wagstarted to rise and they continued rising under Donald Trump.

But under Trump, employment growth slowed, wage growth slowed, and the stock market growth slowed.

Much of Trumps “great” stock market is due to stock buy backs. Companies used all that money to buy out minority holdings further increasing the value of the remaining stocks, increasing the equity value of the outstanding shares and increasing the wealth held by the top 10%.

Not only are the rich getting richer under Donald Trump but they’re getting richer faster.

By that logic, Trump deserves a similar pass because he inherited an aging expansion way past the normal end date.

Funny how you libs use different rules to judge different people.

Oh so now you're going to say we were due for a recession? I don't think so. Trump supposedly took the training wheels off. He deregulated and cut taxes. This was supposed to be a boom for the next 7 years but instead Trump started a trade war with China. You guys said it was the best time to take on China because the economy was strong. Well, he only had 2.3% growth in 2019.

And despite his tax breaks to everyone, but mostly the rich, we hardly did better than what Obama gave us. So we shouldn't have given those tax breaks.

Consider this. In 2016 I got a $50,000 raise. This was my reward for selling so much the previous 3 years. Obama's economy was fine and trump's wasn't much better even with all the tax breaks and deregulations. My sales didn't go up because of Trump's policies and I didn't see raises given out at my company since he took office. In fact his trade wars have slowed our sales down.

I love it how Bill Clinton gave us 8 great years but you want to blame him for the 2000 recession.

And now you want to say Trump gets a pass because Obama's economy was good for too long?

The Stock market is up over 43% since Trump was elected, and that is with the coronavirus.

Butt hurt much?

We said the same thing when Obama was president. You guys pointed to 2.2% growth and said sorry not good enough. So why is a up stock market and 2.3% growth in 2019 different?

Seems like you were holding Obama to a higher and different standard.

For sure you were. Remember when Obama was president you didn't believe the unemployment numbers. 2 Months after Trump took office you believed them. Stop being intellectually dishonest and moving the bar now that Trump is running things.

Oh, and you also pointed to the debt as a reason Obama sucked when we showed you back then the stock market was up. Remember doing that?

And yippy the stock market is up. Who benefits most from the stock market? Not 401K holders. The rich do.

This is the same shit you guys said when Bush was president too by the way.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm pretty sure you don't want the income numbers for 2020 to come out now, the year isn't finished and so far, those numbers are abysmal with income probably contracting due to the virus

Huh, there are other factors you say? Wait, you're the one who didn't know that.

You still aren't addressing why only the last two years of Obama's term count, why the article only counted the middle class or that it didn't define middle class and used whatever numbers they wanted. You only guessed why the best economic year of Trump's Presidency wasn't included and didn't shed any actual light on any of it.

Then you speculated that somehow I don't want this year included, as if that would have ANY insight into Trump versus Obama as President

Three times now you’ve repeated the statement that we’re only using the last two years of Obama’s presidency and questioning why we’re not using the earlier years. Wages never go up when unemployment is over 6%.

Throughout the first six years of Obama’s presidency the unemployment rate was over 6%. In fact when Obama started his presidency the economy was in free fall and 500,000 jobs per month.

Once the unemployment rate fell below 6% wagstarted to rise and they continued rising under Donald Trump.

But under Trump, employment growth slowed, wage growth slowed, and the stock market growth slowed.

Much of Trumps “great” stock market is due to stock buy backs. Companies used all that money to buy out minority holdings further increasing the value of the remaining stocks, increasing the equity value of the outstanding shares and increasing the wealth held by the top 10%.

Not only are the rich getting richer under Donald Trump but they’re getting richer faster.

By that logic, Trump deserves a similar pass because he inherited an aging expansion way past the normal end date.

Funny how you libs use different rules to judge different people.

Oh so now you're going to say we were due for a recession? I don't think so. Trump supposedly took the training wheels off. He deregulated and cut taxes. This was supposed to be a boom for the next 7 years but instead Trump started a trade war with China. You guys said it was the best time to take on China because the economy was strong. Well, he only had 2.3% growth in 2019.

And despite his tax breaks to everyone, but mostly the rich, we hardly did better than what Obama gave us. So we shouldn't have given those tax breaks.

Consider this. In 2016 I got a $50,000 raise. This was my reward for selling so much the previous 3 years. Obama's economy was fine and trump's wasn't much better even with all the tax breaks and deregulations. My sales didn't go up because of Trump's policies and I didn't see raises given out at my company since he took office. In fact his trade wars have slowed our sales down.

I love it how Bill Clinton gave us 8 great years but you want to blame him for the 2000 recession.

And now you want to say Trump gets a pass because Obama's economy was good for too long?

Acknowledging the existence of the business cycle is not giving someone a pass.


It is reasonable to consider what Obama inherited. Giving him a pass on the FIRST SIX YEARS, is a bit much.


The same with Trump. He did inherit an aging expansion. It was overdue for a recession. Trump's economic policies were going against the tide.

Now you see why Obama had slow steady regulated growth. He didn't take risks and had something like 80 straight months of jobs gains.

Trump tried to take credit for the monthly jobs numbers too in the beginning. And by the way, they weren't any better than Obama's monthly jobs numbers. But suddenly 200,000 jobs in a month was good when Trump was in charge.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm pretty sure you don't want the income numbers for 2020 to come out now, the year isn't finished and so far, those numbers are abysmal with income probably contracting due to the virus

Huh, there are other factors you say? Wait, you're the one who didn't know that.

You still aren't addressing why only the last two years of Obama's term count, why the article only counted the middle class or that it didn't define middle class and used whatever numbers they wanted. You only guessed why the best economic year of Trump's Presidency wasn't included and didn't shed any actual light on any of it.

Then you speculated that somehow I don't want this year included, as if that would have ANY insight into Trump versus Obama as President

Three times now you’ve repeated the statement that we’re only using the last two years of Obama’s presidency and questioning why we’re not using the earlier years. Wages never go up when unemployment is over 6%.

Throughout the first six years of Obama’s presidency the unemployment rate was over 6%. In fact when Obama started his presidency the economy was in free fall and 500,000 jobs per month.

Once the unemployment rate fell below 6% wagstarted to rise and they continued rising under Donald Trump.

But under Trump, employment growth slowed, wage growth slowed, and the stock market growth slowed.

Much of Trumps “great” stock market is due to stock buy backs. Companies used all that money to buy out minority holdings further increasing the value of the remaining stocks, increasing the equity value of the outstanding shares and increasing the wealth held by the top 10%.

Not only are the rich getting richer under Donald Trump but they’re getting richer faster.

By that logic, Trump deserves a similar pass because he inherited an aging expansion way past the normal end date.

Funny how you libs use different rules to judge different people.

Oh so now you're going to say we were due for a recession? I don't think so. Trump supposedly took the training wheels off. He deregulated and cut taxes. This was supposed to be a boom for the next 7 years but instead Trump started a trade war with China. You guys said it was the best time to take on China because the economy was strong. Well, he only had 2.3% growth in 2019.

And despite his tax breaks to everyone, but mostly the rich, we hardly did better than what Obama gave us. So we shouldn't have given those tax breaks.

Consider this. In 2016 I got a $50,000 raise. This was my reward for selling so much the previous 3 years. Obama's economy was fine and trump's wasn't much better even with all the tax breaks and deregulations. My sales didn't go up because of Trump's policies and I didn't see raises given out at my company since he took office. In fact his trade wars have slowed our sales down.

I love it how Bill Clinton gave us 8 great years but you want to blame him for the 2000 recession.

And now you want to say Trump gets a pass because Obama's economy was good for too long?

The shutdown is the cause if the recession, you dumbfuck.

Clinton is obviously responsible for the 2000 recession. He was in office then, dumbass. Who else would be responsible?

The markets shook when Bush stole the election. The market tightened up it's asshole in fear of what Bush would do.

Actually the recession was from Mar 2001–Nov 2001

Would he leave his guard down and get hit by a terrorist attack? Would he lie us into a war? Would he cause a Great Recession?

The answer to all three questions is yes.

 

[sealybobo]

Think about it. Bush was less qualified to run the country than Trump is and Trump's horrible.

 

[Correll]

...

But it’s too late. It’s a global economy Now. Now you want to isolate and start trade wars with all our allies?

1. Wanting to see America's interests represented in these trade relations, is not "isolating" ourselves.

2. If our "allies" are so offended by US wanting a more balanced trade relationship, then they are not our "allies", but our enemies and knowing that and dealing with it realistically is a step forward.

3. What I want, and what TRump has formally stated repeatedly, if "FAIR TRADE". That is not isolationism, nor demanding submission. We just don't want to be the world's bitch.

And when manufacturing comes home will those companies pay the same wages those manufacturing jobs paid when bush sent them overseas in the 2000s? Not.

A valid point. My response, a. manufacturing still pays more than service, so still better, and b. if globalization is that freaking bad, maybe we should give "isolation" a look.

Today we have too many companies in America who trumps hurting with his trad wars. ....

Those companies have learned to survive in an environment where the American worker is required to be fucked. That environment needs to change. Companies who's model is based on fucking the American worker, can change or die. FUCK THEM.

Candidate Donald Trump recognized a huge opening here to, at least rhetorically, side with the workers against the global forces that are “ripping them off” thanks to “horrible trade deals.” To this day, even as he enacts tariffs (which invite retaliatory tariffs) that hurt them, his constituents remain loyal. Apparently, if people feel you’ve got their back, they’ll put up with a lot.

The "global forces" are ripping us off. Trump is the only one that offered to have our backs. The rest were clear in that they thought the battle already lost and had written US off.

Though Trump hasn’t said what winning looks like (he just assures us it’s easy), I suspect it’s a lower trade deficit and import substitution through expanded domestic capacity. But his agenda is likely to boost the value of the dollar and worsen the trade deficit, and, even considering his new $12 billion payoff to farmers, I doubt he’s willing to sustain this war to the point where producers build domestic plants to replace foreign ones, doubts that are amplified by the deep integration of global supply chains into American production. As I’ve recently written, tariffs can’t unscramble the globalization omelet.

When he was elected, and it was feared he would just come in and slam down tariffs, local manufactures were flooded with requests for information from foreign producers who were prepared to move production here, to maintain access to the world's largest single market.


Your assumption of our utter weakness, is not convincing to me. And indeed, considering what assholes our "allies" have been, I'd burn it all down out of spite, if the alternative is letting people fuck us.

The Chinese are too deeply committed to capturing market share in artificial intelligence, robotics, advanced computing, next-generation vehicles and high tech in general to change their plans for U.S. soybeans (especially when they can get them from Brazil).

I agree. They will never negotiate in good faith. They will never be even decent trading partners. Time to stop playing with them.

But if the tariffs won’t work, what will?

Instead of applying an outdated tool — tariffs — to unscramble the globalization omelet and move backward, we should be looking around the next corner and investing in people, research and technology that will give us the economic edge we’re rapidly losing.

But you just said that China is going to have those markets. We are playing a rigged game and as long as we allow our enemies to set the rules, we will lose.

 

[kaz]

I'm pretty sure you don't want the income numbers for 2020 to come out now, the year isn't finished and so far, those numbers are abysmal with income probably contracting due to the virus

Huh, there are other factors you say? Wait, you're the one who didn't know that.

You still aren't addressing why only the last two years of Obama's term count, why the article only counted the middle class or that it didn't define middle class and used whatever numbers they wanted. You only guessed why the best economic year of Trump's Presidency wasn't included and didn't shed any actual light on any of it.

Then you speculated that somehow I don't want this year included, as if that would have ANY insight into Trump versus Obama as President

Three times now you’ve repeated the statement that we’re only using the last two years of Obama’s presidency and questioning why we’re not using the earlier years. Wages never go up when unemployment is over 6%.

Throughout the first six years of Obama’s presidency the unemployment rate was over 6%. In fact when Obama started his presidency the economy was in free fall and 500,000 jobs per month.

Once the unemployment rate fell below 6% wagstarted to rise and they continued rising under Donald Trump.

But under Trump, employment growth slowed, wage growth slowed, and the stock market growth slowed.

Much of Trumps “great” stock market is due to stock buy backs. Companies used all that money to buy out minority holdings further increasing the value of the remaining stocks, increasing the equity value of the outstanding shares and increasing the wealth held by the top 10%.

Not only are the rich getting richer under Donald Trump but they’re getting richer faster.

By that logic, Trump deserves a similar pass because he inherited an aging expansion way past the normal end date.

Funny how you libs use different rules to judge different people.

Oh so now you're going to say we were due for a recession? I don't think so. Trump supposedly took the training wheels off. He deregulated and cut taxes. This was supposed to be a boom for the next 7 years but instead Trump started a trade war with China. You guys said it was the best time to take on China because the economy was strong. Well, he only had 2.3% growth in 2019.

And despite his tax breaks to everyone, but mostly the rich, we hardly did better than what Obama gave us. So we shouldn't have given those tax breaks.

Consider this. In 2016 I got a $50,000 raise. This was my reward for selling so much the previous 3 years. Obama's economy was fine and trump's wasn't much better even with all the tax breaks and deregulations. My sales didn't go up because of Trump's policies and I didn't see raises given out at my company since he took office. In fact his trade wars have slowed our sales down.

I love it how Bill Clinton gave us 8 great years but you want to blame him for the 2000 recession.

And now you want to say Trump gets a pass because Obama's economy was good for too long?

The Stock market is up over 43% since Trump was elected, and that is with the coronavirus.

Butt hurt much?

We said the same thing when Obama was president. You guys pointed to 2.2% growth and said sorry not good enough. So why is a up stock market and 2.3% growth in 2019 different?

Seems like you were holding Obama to a higher and different standard.

For sure you were. Remember when Obama was president you didn't believe the unemployment numbers. 2 Months after Trump took office you believed them. Stop being intellectually dishonest and moving the bar now that Trump is running things.

Oh, and you also pointed to the debt as a reason Obama sucked when we showed you back then the stock market was up. Remember doing that?

And yippy the stock market is up. Who benefits most from the stock market? Not 401K holders. The rich do.

This is the same shit you guys said when Bush was president too by the way.

Obama took over at the bottom of a deep recession, his numbers should have been way better than they were just to be mediocre. Worst recession recovery ever in modern history

 

[kaz]

I'm pretty sure you don't want the income numbers for 2020 to come out now, the year isn't finished and so far, those numbers are abysmal with income probably contracting due to the virus

Huh, there are other factors you say? Wait, you're the one who didn't know that.

You still aren't addressing why only the last two years of Obama's term count, why the article only counted the middle class or that it didn't define middle class and used whatever numbers they wanted. You only guessed why the best economic year of Trump's Presidency wasn't included and didn't shed any actual light on any of it.

Then you speculated that somehow I don't want this year included, as if that would have ANY insight into Trump versus Obama as President

Three times now you’ve repeated the statement that we’re only using the last two years of Obama’s presidency and questioning why we’re not using the earlier years. Wages never go up when unemployment is over 6%.

Throughout the first six years of Obama’s presidency the unemployment rate was over 6%. In fact when Obama started his presidency the economy was in free fall and 500,000 jobs per month.

Once the unemployment rate fell below 6% wagstarted to rise and they continued rising under Donald Trump.

But under Trump, employment growth slowed, wage growth slowed, and the stock market growth slowed.

Much of Trumps “great” stock market is due to stock buy backs. Companies used all that money to buy out minority holdings further increasing the value of the remaining stocks, increasing the equity value of the outstanding shares and increasing the wealth held by the top 10%.

Not only are the rich getting richer under Donald Trump but they’re getting richer faster.

By that logic, Trump deserves a similar pass because he inherited an aging expansion way past the normal end date.

Funny how you libs use different rules to judge different people.

Oh so now you're going to say we were due for a recession? I don't think so. Trump supposedly took the training wheels off. He deregulated and cut taxes. This was supposed to be a boom for the next 7 years but instead Trump started a trade war with China. You guys said it was the best time to take on China because the economy was strong. Well, he only had 2.3% growth in 2019.

And despite his tax breaks to everyone, but mostly the rich, we hardly did better than what Obama gave us. So we shouldn't have given those tax breaks.

Consider this. In 2016 I got a $50,000 raise. This was my reward for selling so much the previous 3 years. Obama's economy was fine and trump's wasn't much better even with all the tax breaks and deregulations. My sales didn't go up because of Trump's policies and I didn't see raises given out at my company since he took office. In fact his trade wars have slowed our sales down.

I love it how Bill Clinton gave us 8 great years but you want to blame him for the 2000 recession.

And now you want to say Trump gets a pass because Obama's economy was good for too long?

The shutdown is the cause if the recession, you dumbfuck.

Clinton is obviously responsible for the 2000 recession. He was in office then, dumbass. Who else would be responsible?

The markets shook when Bush stole the election. The market tightened up it's asshole in fear of what Bush would do.

Actually the recession was from Mar 2001–Nov 2001

Would he leave his guard down and get hit by a terrorist attack? Would he lie us into a war? Would he cause a Great Recession?

The answer to all three questions is yes.

So even according to you, W is at fault for a recession that took place two months after he took office. You know less than nothing about economics, you really don't need to make yourself look that stupid.

And here's the difference to you. The third quarter of 2000 was originally a small decrease in GDP. Had that stayed that way, it would have been the start of the recession. But it was revised to a tiny positive. That microscopic change according to you is the difference between which President is responsible for the recession.

My God man, you need to stop broadcasting your complete dearth of knowledge of business and finance, it's just sad how little you know

 

[sealybobo]

...

But it’s too late. It’s a global economy Now. Now you want to isolate and start trade wars with all our allies?

1. Wanting to see America's interests represented in these trade relations, is not "isolating" ourselves.

2. If our "allies" are so offended by US wanting a more balanced trade relationship, then they are not our "allies", but our enemies and knowing that and dealing with it realistically is a step forward.

3. What I want, and what TRump has formally stated repeatedly, if "FAIR TRADE". That is not isolationism, nor demanding submission. We just don't want to be the world's bitch.

And when manufacturing comes home will those companies pay the same wages those manufacturing jobs paid when bush sent them overseas in the 2000s? Not.

A valid point. My response, a. manufacturing still pays more than service, so still better, and b. if globalization is that freaking bad, maybe we should give "isolation" a look.

Today we have too many companies in America who trumps hurting with his trad wars. ....

Those companies have learned to survive in an environment where the American worker is required to be fucked. That environment needs to change. Companies who's model is based on fucking the American worker, can change or die. FUCK THEM.

Candidate Donald Trump recognized a huge opening here to, at least rhetorically, side with the workers against the global forces that are “ripping them off” thanks to “horrible trade deals.” To this day, even as he enacts tariffs (which invite retaliatory tariffs) that hurt them, his constituents remain loyal. Apparently, if people feel you’ve got their back, they’ll put up with a lot.

The "global forces" are ripping us off. Trump is the only one that offered to have our backs. The rest were clear in that they thought the battle already lost and had written US off.

Though Trump hasn’t said what winning looks like (he just assures us it’s easy), I suspect it’s a lower trade deficit and import substitution through expanded domestic capacity. But his agenda is likely to boost the value of the dollar and worsen the trade deficit, and, even considering his new $12 billion payoff to farmers, I doubt he’s willing to sustain this war to the point where producers build domestic plants to replace foreign ones, doubts that are amplified by the deep integration of global supply chains into American production. As I’ve recently written, tariffs can’t unscramble the globalization omelet.

When he was elected, and it was feared he would just come in and slam down tariffs, local manufactures were flooded with requests for information from foreign producers who were prepared to move production here, to maintain access to the world's largest single market.


Your assumption of our utter weakness, is not convincing to me. And indeed, considering what assholes our "allies" have been, I'd burn it all down out of spite, if the alternative is letting people fuck us.

The Chinese are too deeply committed to capturing market share in artificial intelligence, robotics, advanced computing, next-generation vehicles and high tech in general to change their plans for U.S. soybeans (especially when they can get them from Brazil).

I agree. They will never negotiate in good faith. They will never be even decent trading partners. Time to stop playing with them.

But if the tariffs won’t work, what will?

Instead of applying an outdated tool — tariffs — to unscramble the globalization omelet and move backward, we should be looking around the next corner and investing in people, research and technology that will give us the economic edge we’re rapidly losing.

But you just said that China is going to have those markets. We are playing a rigged game and as long as we allow our enemies to set the rules, we will lose.

Bottom line. You believe Trump. I don't.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm pretty sure you don't want the income numbers for 2020 to come out now, the year isn't finished and so far, those numbers are abysmal with income probably contracting due to the virus

Huh, there are other factors you say? Wait, you're the one who didn't know that.

You still aren't addressing why only the last two years of Obama's term count, why the article only counted the middle class or that it didn't define middle class and used whatever numbers they wanted. You only guessed why the best economic year of Trump's Presidency wasn't included and didn't shed any actual light on any of it.

Then you speculated that somehow I don't want this year included, as if that would have ANY insight into Trump versus Obama as President

Three times now you’ve repeated the statement that we’re only using the last two years of Obama’s presidency and questioning why we’re not using the earlier years. Wages never go up when unemployment is over 6%.

Throughout the first six years of Obama’s presidency the unemployment rate was over 6%. In fact when Obama started his presidency the economy was in free fall and 500,000 jobs per month.

Once the unemployment rate fell below 6% wagstarted to rise and they continued rising under Donald Trump.

But under Trump, employment growth slowed, wage growth slowed, and the stock market growth slowed.

Much of Trumps “great” stock market is due to stock buy backs. Companies used all that money to buy out minority holdings further increasing the value of the remaining stocks, increasing the equity value of the outstanding shares and increasing the wealth held by the top 10%.

Not only are the rich getting richer under Donald Trump but they’re getting richer faster.

By that logic, Trump deserves a similar pass because he inherited an aging expansion way past the normal end date.

Funny how you libs use different rules to judge different people.

Oh so now you're going to say we were due for a recession? I don't think so. Trump supposedly took the training wheels off. He deregulated and cut taxes. This was supposed to be a boom for the next 7 years but instead Trump started a trade war with China. You guys said it was the best time to take on China because the economy was strong. Well, he only had 2.3% growth in 2019.

And despite his tax breaks to everyone, but mostly the rich, we hardly did better than what Obama gave us. So we shouldn't have given those tax breaks.

Consider this. In 2016 I got a $50,000 raise. This was my reward for selling so much the previous 3 years. Obama's economy was fine and trump's wasn't much better even with all the tax breaks and deregulations. My sales didn't go up because of Trump's policies and I didn't see raises given out at my company since he took office. In fact his trade wars have slowed our sales down.

I love it how Bill Clinton gave us 8 great years but you want to blame him for the 2000 recession.

And now you want to say Trump gets a pass because Obama's economy was good for too long?

The shutdown is the cause if the recession, you dumbfuck.

Clinton is obviously responsible for the 2000 recession. He was in office then, dumbass. Who else would be responsible?

The markets shook when Bush stole the election. The market tightened up it's asshole in fear of what Bush would do.

Actually the recession was from Mar 2001–Nov 2001

Would he leave his guard down and get hit by a terrorist attack? Would he lie us into a war? Would he cause a Great Recession?

The answer to all three questions is yes.

The stock market started heading South before Bush was even declared the winner.

You are a total buffoon.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm pretty sure you don't want the income numbers for 2020 to come out now, the year isn't finished and so far, those numbers are abysmal with income probably contracting due to the virus

Huh, there are other factors you say? Wait, you're the one who didn't know that.

You still aren't addressing why only the last two years of Obama's term count, why the article only counted the middle class or that it didn't define middle class and used whatever numbers they wanted. You only guessed why the best economic year of Trump's Presidency wasn't included and didn't shed any actual light on any of it.

Then you speculated that somehow I don't want this year included, as if that would have ANY insight into Trump versus Obama as President

Three times now you’ve repeated the statement that we’re only using the last two years of Obama’s presidency and questioning why we’re not using the earlier years. Wages never go up when unemployment is over 6%.

Throughout the first six years of Obama’s presidency the unemployment rate was over 6%. In fact when Obama started his presidency the economy was in free fall and 500,000 jobs per month.

Once the unemployment rate fell below 6% wagstarted to rise and they continued rising under Donald Trump.

But under Trump, employment growth slowed, wage growth slowed, and the stock market growth slowed.

Much of Trumps “great” stock market is due to stock buy backs. Companies used all that money to buy out minority holdings further increasing the value of the remaining stocks, increasing the equity value of the outstanding shares and increasing the wealth held by the top 10%.

Not only are the rich getting richer under Donald Trump but they’re getting richer faster.

By that logic, Trump deserves a similar pass because he inherited an aging expansion way past the normal end date.

Funny how you libs use different rules to judge different people.

Oh so now you're going to say we were due for a recession? I don't think so. Trump supposedly took the training wheels off. He deregulated and cut taxes. This was supposed to be a boom for the next 7 years but instead Trump started a trade war with China. You guys said it was the best time to take on China because the economy was strong. Well, he only had 2.3% growth in 2019.

And despite his tax breaks to everyone, but mostly the rich, we hardly did better than what Obama gave us. So we shouldn't have given those tax breaks.

Consider this. In 2016 I got a $50,000 raise. This was my reward for selling so much the previous 3 years. Obama's economy was fine and trump's wasn't much better even with all the tax breaks and deregulations. My sales didn't go up because of Trump's policies and I didn't see raises given out at my company since he took office. In fact his trade wars have slowed our sales down.

I love it how Bill Clinton gave us 8 great years but you want to blame him for the 2000 recession.

And now you want to say Trump gets a pass because Obama's economy was good for too long?

The Stock market is up over 43% since Trump was elected, and that is with the coronavirus.

Butt hurt much?

We said the same thing when Obama was president. You guys pointed to 2.2% growth and said sorry not good enough. So why is a up stock market and 2.3% growth in 2019 different?

Seems like you were holding Obama to a higher and different standard.

For sure you were. Remember when Obama was president you didn't believe the unemployment numbers. 2 Months after Trump took office you believed them. Stop being intellectually dishonest and moving the bar now that Trump is running things.

Oh, and you also pointed to the debt as a reason Obama sucked when we showed you back then the stock market was up. Remember doing that?

And yippy the stock market is up. Who benefits most from the stock market? Not 401K holders. The rich do.

This is the same shit you guys said when Bush was president too by the way.

Obama took over at the bottom of a deep recession, his numbers should have been way better than they were just to be mediocre. Worst recession recovery ever in modern history

It was the right recovery despite how fast you wanted things to turn around.

And for you, the Trump recovery stated the day he took office. Suddenly the "real" unemployment number was real. You guys said the "real" unemployment number was something like 20% when Obama was president suddenly trump walks into the white house it was 4. What gives?

 

[sealybobo]

I'm pretty sure you don't want the income numbers for 2020 to come out now, the year isn't finished and so far, those numbers are abysmal with income probably contracting due to the virus

Huh, there are other factors you say? Wait, you're the one who didn't know that.

You still aren't addressing why only the last two years of Obama's term count, why the article only counted the middle class or that it didn't define middle class and used whatever numbers they wanted. You only guessed why the best economic year of Trump's Presidency wasn't included and didn't shed any actual light on any of it.

Then you speculated that somehow I don't want this year included, as if that would have ANY insight into Trump versus Obama as President

Three times now you’ve repeated the statement that we’re only using the last two years of Obama’s presidency and questioning why we’re not using the earlier years. Wages never go up when unemployment is over 6%.

Throughout the first six years of Obama’s presidency the unemployment rate was over 6%. In fact when Obama started his presidency the economy was in free fall and 500,000 jobs per month.

Once the unemployment rate fell below 6% wagstarted to rise and they continued rising under Donald Trump.

But under Trump, employment growth slowed, wage growth slowed, and the stock market growth slowed.

Much of Trumps “great” stock market is due to stock buy backs. Companies used all that money to buy out minority holdings further increasing the value of the remaining stocks, increasing the equity value of the outstanding shares and increasing the wealth held by the top 10%.

Not only are the rich getting richer under Donald Trump but they’re getting richer faster.

By that logic, Trump deserves a similar pass because he inherited an aging expansion way past the normal end date.

Funny how you libs use different rules to judge different people.

Oh so now you're going to say we were due for a recession? I don't think so. Trump supposedly took the training wheels off. He deregulated and cut taxes. This was supposed to be a boom for the next 7 years but instead Trump started a trade war with China. You guys said it was the best time to take on China because the economy was strong. Well, he only had 2.3% growth in 2019.

And despite his tax breaks to everyone, but mostly the rich, we hardly did better than what Obama gave us. So we shouldn't have given those tax breaks.

Consider this. In 2016 I got a $50,000 raise. This was my reward for selling so much the previous 3 years. Obama's economy was fine and trump's wasn't much better even with all the tax breaks and deregulations. My sales didn't go up because of Trump's policies and I didn't see raises given out at my company since he took office. In fact his trade wars have slowed our sales down.

I love it how Bill Clinton gave us 8 great years but you want to blame him for the 2000 recession.

And now you want to say Trump gets a pass because Obama's economy was good for too long?

The shutdown is the cause if the recession, you dumbfuck.

Clinton is obviously responsible for the 2000 recession. He was in office then, dumbass. Who else would be responsible?

The markets shook when Bush stole the election. The market tightened up it's asshole in fear of what Bush would do.

Actually the recession was from Mar 2001–Nov 2001

Would he leave his guard down and get hit by a terrorist attack? Would he lie us into a war? Would he cause a Great Recession?

The answer to all three questions is yes.

The stock market started heading South before Bush was even declared the winner.

You are a total buffoon.

I don't remember worrying about the economy until the 2000's.

Oh, and worse than the 2001 recession was Bush's policies he implemented after 9-11.

9-11 hurt the economy too but not as much as Bush's policies. And you know that's true because you didn't vote for Jeb. If you really liked Bush you wouldn't have voted for Trump.

 

[kaz]

Obama took over at the bottom of a deep recession, his numbers should have been way better than they were just to be mediocre. Worst recession recovery ever in modern history

It was the right recovery despite how fast you wanted things to turn around

Worst recovery ever was "the right recovery." At least you admit you hate America

And for you, the Trump recovery stated the day he took office. Suddenly the "real" unemployment number was real. You guys said the "real" unemployment number was something like 20% when Obama was president suddenly trump walks into the white house it was 4. What gives?

You're hallucinating again. I never said anything like that

 

[kaz]

I'm pretty sure you don't want the income numbers for 2020 to come out now, the year isn't finished and so far, those numbers are abysmal with income probably contracting due to the virus

Huh, there are other factors you say? Wait, you're the one who didn't know that.

You still aren't addressing why only the last two years of Obama's term count, why the article only counted the middle class or that it didn't define middle class and used whatever numbers they wanted. You only guessed why the best economic year of Trump's Presidency wasn't included and didn't shed any actual light on any of it.

Then you speculated that somehow I don't want this year included, as if that would have ANY insight into Trump versus Obama as President

Three times now you’ve repeated the statement that we’re only using the last two years of Obama’s presidency and questioning why we’re not using the earlier years. Wages never go up when unemployment is over 6%.

Throughout the first six years of Obama’s presidency the unemployment rate was over 6%. In fact when Obama started his presidency the economy was in free fall and 500,000 jobs per month.

Once the unemployment rate fell below 6% wagstarted to rise and they continued rising under Donald Trump.

But under Trump, employment growth slowed, wage growth slowed, and the stock market growth slowed.

Much of Trumps “great” stock market is due to stock buy backs. Companies used all that money to buy out minority holdings further increasing the value of the remaining stocks, increasing the equity value of the outstanding shares and increasing the wealth held by the top 10%.

Not only are the rich getting richer under Donald Trump but they’re getting richer faster.

By that logic, Trump deserves a similar pass because he inherited an aging expansion way past the normal end date.

Funny how you libs use different rules to judge different people.

Oh so now you're going to say we were due for a recession? I don't think so. Trump supposedly took the training wheels off. He deregulated and cut taxes. This was supposed to be a boom for the next 7 years but instead Trump started a trade war with China. You guys said it was the best time to take on China because the economy was strong. Well, he only had 2.3% growth in 2019.

And despite his tax breaks to everyone, but mostly the rich, we hardly did better than what Obama gave us. So we shouldn't have given those tax breaks.

Consider this. In 2016 I got a $50,000 raise. This was my reward for selling so much the previous 3 years. Obama's economy was fine and trump's wasn't much better even with all the tax breaks and deregulations. My sales didn't go up because of Trump's policies and I didn't see raises given out at my company since he took office. In fact his trade wars have slowed our sales down.

I love it how Bill Clinton gave us 8 great years but you want to blame him for the 2000 recession.

And now you want to say Trump gets a pass because Obama's economy was good for too long?

The shutdown is the cause if the recession, you dumbfuck.

Clinton is obviously responsible for the 2000 recession. He was in office then, dumbass. Who else would be responsible?

The markets shook when Bush stole the election. The market tightened up it's asshole in fear of what Bush would do.

Actually the recession was from Mar 2001–Nov 2001

Would he leave his guard down and get hit by a terrorist attack? Would he lie us into a war? Would he cause a Great Recession?

The answer to all three questions is yes.

The stock market started heading South before Bush was even declared the winner.

You are a total buffoon.

I don't remember worrying about the economy until the 2000's.

Oh, and worse than the 2001 recession was Bush's policies he implemented after 9-11.

9-11 hurt the economy too but not as much as Bush's policies. And you know that's true because you didn't vote for Jeb. If you really liked Bush you wouldn't have voted for Trump.

You're just making that up based on the party involved. Your knowledge of economics and business is just abysmal. W was a terrible President. But he had the same basic policies as slick and Obama Bin Laden. And they were worse than 9/11 on the economy? You're completely full of shit