Jump to content

The Trump Presidency Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

He misses me so he's trying to fill the void with a sugar substitute ( that's you suited )

I've had it.   He did not ****ing dispute the story   He made a statement about things that weren't in the ****ing story which means he confirmed the ****ing story.   Jesus Jumping Jimmeny Chris

he should throw a gay person off a building while he's there or kill someone for drawing a cartoon. really get into the spirit of being a muslim.

I mean, if he strongly condemned a powerful foreign nation without talking to the president, he should be fired. I have no idea if that happened, but it seems really likely.

 

So... all of the people in Trumps entourage (cabinet, family) all just happened to unilaterally work with the Russians and were not only not fired but protected by Trump no way shape and form means that Trump involved with the Russians, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That has absolutely nothing to do with my point. I don't care about the Russians. The issue is if (i still don't know if it actually happened) an employee publically and strongly declaring a position on something (on behalf of an entire corporation or in this case country) without talking to the boss (or anyone else).

 

That would get nearly anyone from any corporation fired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://theconcourse...-anc-1824233490

How America's Largest Local TV Owner Turned Its News Anchors Into Soldiers In Trump's War On The Media

 

BUyhysn.png

tldr: constant hue and crying about fake news while right-wing media is in fact weaponized.

 

The article you posted forgot to include that all major networks have must runs. As pointed out by Sharly Attkinson of the best Sunday Show Full Measure,

"There’s certainly room for debate over “Must Runs” and their content, whether it’s Sinclair –or ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX. But to cast Sinclair as some sort of unique offenders is inaccurate and unfair".

 

The article states Sinclair required in 2004 of affiliates to air anti-John Kerry propaganda. Amazing that they forgot to include the false with doctored documents story Dan Rather did on George Bush in the National Guard, which he got his ass fired over.

 

Pretty rich you would post Rather comments from yesterday. You really need to do better research before you post your biased articles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... Dan Rather did on George Bush in the National Guard, which he got his ass fired over.

 

http://ew.com/articl...bs-news-firing/

 

Rather and his producer Mary Mapes (played by Cate Blanchett in Truth) aired a story that alleged that Bush went AWOL during his time in the Texas Air National Guard. The Bush administration charged that the documents used as the basis for the report were inauthentic, leading to an independent investigation that ultimately concluded that the piece disregarded “fundamental journalistic principles.” The documents were not, however, ever proved to be forgeries.

 

But hey... at least he did his time unlike Cadet Bonespurs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and your using Dan Rather as your objective non-partisan example?

 

I just happened across it on imgur and thought it was a pertinent quote. But go ahead and strawman Dan Rather than actually comment on anything real.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://ew.com/articl...bs-news-firing/

 

Rather and his producer Mary Mapes (played by Cate Blanchett in Truth) aired a story that alleged that Bush went AWOL during his time in the Texas Air National Guard. The Bush administration charged that the documents used as the basis for the report were inauthentic, leading to an independent investigation that ultimately concluded that the piece disregarded “fundamental journalistic principles.” The documents were not, however, ever proved to be forgeries.

 

But hey... at least he did his time unlike Cadet Bonespurs.

 

Again, you and your source is wrong. Memos were proven to be frauds with rock solid facts. Of course if you dig deep you will find out all of this was covered up to protect CBS.

 

I had told Lanpher that the memos were frauds and explained why in great and extensive detail. I went into the fatal OETR issue, the use of Air Force serial numbers years after they had been replaced by Social Security numbers, the invalidity of an order demanding Bush take a physical, and others. I even gave him the names of seven other Guardsmen who worked with Killian every day.

From my follow-up conversations with them and from the report, only one was contacted. Only eight Guardsmen total were interviewed by this panel, and four of them were subjects quoted in the “60 Minutes” show. At that point, Lanpher had enough information to determine the memos to be frauds and implicate CBS.

Nope. The final report was condescendingly dismissive of our testimony, stating, “… the concerns raised by these former Guardsmen in the end may be simply different views of events[.]” No, they were indisputable facts backed up by evidence.

 

https://www.dailysig...-george-w-bush/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just happened across it on imgur and thought it was a pertinent quote. But go ahead and strawman Dan Rather than actually comment on anything real.

 

Rather is correct network news is all fluff and void of investigative reporting.

 

Of course the media was a useful tool helping the Obama gang subvert our democracy.

 

Mr. Rhoades whose brother David is President of CBS news said the following regarding the spin on the Iran deal.

 

When I asked whether the prospect of this same kind of far-reaching spin campaign being run by a different administration is something that scares him, he admitted that it does. “I mean, I’d prefer a sober, reasoned public debate, after which members of Congress reflect and take a vote,” he said, shrugging. “But that’s impossible.”

 

Ned Price, Rhodes’s assistant, gave me a primer on how it’s done. The easiest way for the White House to shape the news, he explained, is from the briefing podiums, each of which has its own dedicated press corps. “But then there are sort of these force multipliers,” he said, adding, “We have our compadres, I will reach out to a couple people, and you know I wouldn’t want to name them — ”

 

“I can name them,” I said, ticking off a few names of prominent Washington reporters and columnists who often tweet in sync with White House messaging.

 

Price laughed. “I’ll say, ‘Hey, look, some people are spinning this narrative that this is a sign of American weakness,’ ” he continued, “but — ”

 

“In fact it’s a sign of strength!” I said, chuckling.

 

“And I’ll give them some color,” Price continued, “and the next thing I know, lots of these guys are in the dot-com publishing space, and have huge Twitter followings, and they’ll be putting this message out on their own.”

 

https://www.nytimes....olicy-guru.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kreskin like

 

David P Gelles

‏@gelles

The parody front page from The Boston Globe. Published 2 years ago with headlines like “Deportations to Begin” and “Markets Sink as Trade War Looms”.

 

DaI2QpDW4AAAc6f.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

The phony "Trade war" that the media is pushing is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Trump already tariffed 50b, which China matched. He is talking about 100b more. Can China match that also? Nope. We only export about 115-120 billion total to China.

 

Second problem for China: They only import stuff that they really need. Our main imports from China are stuff that our people want.

 

Good luck, China. At least you have some rare earth metals so that you have a tiny bit of leverage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The phony "Trade war" that the media is pushing is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Trump already tariffed 50b, which China matched. He is talking about 100b more. Can China match that also? Nope. We only export about 115-120 billion total to China.

 

Second problem for China: They only import stuff that they really need. Our main imports from China are stuff that our people want.

 

Good luck, China. At least you have some rare earth metals so that you have a tiny bit of leverage.

 

 

There are legitimate problems with how China conducts trade but slapping tariffs on things is the worst way to deal with them.

 

Of course if the US was still in the TPP there would be a lot more leverage but that was the first thing that Trump dumped.

 

A lot of the narrative about China is actually old news such as their currency manipulation. Yup, they used to keep they currency artificially low but in fact have been doing the opposite for many years and have been spending hundreds of billions of dollars of their foreign currency to prop up the value of their currency.

 

The US runs a surplus on things like tourism and services. Focusing only on trade in goods shows a basic lack of understanding on what trade is.

 

The US runs a deficit in trade on goods and services because the US savings rate is low and US consumption is high.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Inadequate Savings—Not Trade Deals—Account for Much of U.S. Trade Deficit

 

 

 

In the 1930s, the U.S. ran trade surpluses for almost the entire decade. Had Donald Trump been president at the time, this statistic would, presumably, have made him happy.

 

However, the trade surpluses in the 1930s were directly linked to the Great Depression, which had such a devastating effect on the U.S. and world economies that American households stopped buying imports. This historical fact highlights how a trade surplus isn’t necessarily a sign of a healthy economy. Nor does a trade deficit imply that an economy is on the verge of ruin.

 

Yet, during the election campaign, Trump railed against the large trade deficits that the U.S. has with countries such as Mexico and China. He reportedly complained to his staff that he couldn’t find one country that the U.S. ran a trade surplus with.

 

Trump contends that trade deficits are a result of unfair trade policies. In his version of events, countries with large trade surpluses with the U.S. put high tariffs on imports of U.S.-made goods and services, making U.S. exports uncompetitive in these foreign markets. At the same time, Trump says, the U.S. doesn’t impose the same trade restrictions. Consequently, cheap imports flow into the country and lead to large trade imbalances. U.S. companies can’t compete with these low-cost imports flooding the U.S. market and are forced to lay off workers.

 

Some U.S. trade partners, including China and Japan, have implemented tariff and non-tariff barriers on U.S. exports that make it difficult for U.S.-made products to penetrate these markets. But the U.S. itself is not exactly a beacon of free trade. For example, it protects different segments of its agriculture sector, among others, against foreign competition.

 

In contrast to Trump’s view, a more plausible explanation for the chronic trade deficits that the U.S. has been running since the early 1980s can be found in the trends in savings and investment. In simple terms, the U.S. consumes more than it produces and doesn’t save enough. The lack of savings applies both to households, which have elevated levels of debt, and to the federal government, which continues to run large budget deficits. The shortfall in savings is financed by selling U.S. assets, such as government bonds, to foreign buyers. The funds raised from the sales of U.S. assets are used to fund consumption and investment spending. Consequently, the U.S. trade deficit is equal to the flow of foreign capital into the United States.1

 

The Wall Street Journal’s Greg Ip notes that the links between savings and the trade balance are apparent in the experience of numerous countries. If, as Trump insists, trade deficits were caused by protectionist measures, countries that implement barriers to limit imports should run trade surpluses. However, this is not the case. According to the World Bank, India and Brazil (which are highly protectionist) consistently run large trade deficits because, like the U.S., they save less than they invest. Conversely, Germany and Switzerland have relatively low tariffs and run trade surpluses because they save more than they invest. They lend their excess savings to countries such as Brazil and India to help them fund chronic trade deficits.

Trump also contends that free trade deals such as NAFTA were negotiated unfairly and provide other countries (in the case of NAFTA, Canada and Mexico) with an advantage over the United States. This perception of trade deals was a key factor behind his decision to pull the U.S. out of the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement. Just as there is no link between protectionist measures and trade balances, Trump’s claim that there is a connection between trade deals and large U.S. trade deficits is flawed. The U.S. has large trade deficits with Japan and Germany, yet neither of these countries has a trade agreement with the United States.

In the past, the U.S. government tried to reduce trade deficits by insisting that major trading partners adjust their trade policies. In the 1980s, the Japanese government agreed to voluntarily restrain exports of cars to the U.S. market to address the large trade imbalance between the two countries. This agreement eventually led Japan to shift some of its car production to the U.S. to quell the anger in the U.S. Congress. However, these initiatives failed to arrest the growth in the trade deficit because the U.S. continued to save less than it consumed.

 

Japan’s experience provides evidence that higher savings can lower trade imbalances. Post-war Japan was a high-savings country and ran large trade surpluses. But these surpluses have started to gradually diminish as aging Japanese workers retire and spend their savings on goods and services, including imported ones. This could eventually happen in the U.S., but not for a while. The U.S. savings rate was generally above 10 per cent until the mid-1980s, but the rate has gradually declined since then and currently sits at between 5 and 6 per cent.

 

Ironically, by threatening to punish Mexico for its large trade surplus with the U.S., Donald Trump is picking a fight with a country that has a similar problem. Mexico has a healthy trade surplus with the U.S., but runs an overall deficit when its trade with other countries is included in the total. And Mexico has a trade deficit for the same reason as the U.S.—it doesn’t save enough and must borrow from abroad to make up the difference.

 

Sources

 

Greg Ip, “Deficits Are a Flawed Guide to Unfair Trade Practices,” The Wall Street Journal (March 15, 2017); Alan Reynolds, “What the China Trade Warriors Get Wrong,” The Wall Street Journal (October 26, 2016).

Related Report

 

U.S. Outlook Spring 2017

Related Webinars

 

NAFTA 2.0 and Canada

The Conference Board of Canada, June 13, 2017 at 02:00 PM EDT

Live Webinar by Kristelle Audet, and Danielle Goldfarb

Canadian Outlook with the Chief Economist: Economic Growth Accelerates But Risks Abound

The Conference Board of Canada, June 21, 2017 at 02:00 PM EDT

Live Webinar by Craig Alexander

1 Trade in financial assets are included in the capital account of the balance of payments. The U.S. current account deficit on trade in goods and services is matched by a capital account surplus as capital flows into the U.S. to finance the current account deficit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The phony "Trade war" that the media is pushing is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Trump already tariffed 50b, which China matched. He is talking about 100b more. Can China match that also? Nope. We only export about 115-120 billion total to China.

 

Second problem for China: They only import stuff that they really need. Our main imports from China are stuff that our people want.

 

Good luck, China. At least you have some rare earth metals so that you have a tiny bit of leverage.

 

Justin Wolfers

 

@JustinWolfers

The first rule of tariffs is don’t impose them.

 

The second rule is don’t impose them on intermediate inputs and capital equipment used by American businesses, or you’ll just hurt their competitiveness. https://piie.com/commentary/op-eds/element-surprise-bad-strategy-trade-war

 

So here’s what the master negotiator did:

 

Da8t0QlVwAEGt7G.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Sweet

 

@billsweet

42m42 minutes ago

More

great and accurate summary of the comprehensive effect of tariffs:

 

“It’s hurting our suppliers. It’s hurting us. It’s hurting our customers.”

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/from-wisconsin-to-connecticut-small-businesses-feel-pain-of-tariffs-1523793600

 

Da-XdDTX0AAGnHc.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather is correct network news is all fluff and void of investigative reporting.

 

I see your Rather and raise you Sean Hannity who apparently is in the TrumpCo entourage. There's bias and then there's gone off the deep and making up stuff.

 

“I mean, I’d prefer a sober, reasoned public debate, after which members of Congress reflect and take a vote,” he said, shrugging. “But that’s impossible.”

 

Uh... Obamacare had 18-months of hearings before being passed. The GOP repeat and not replace had ONE DAY of actually being in the hands of Senators.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course if the US was still in the TPP there would be a lot more leverage but that was the first thing that Trump dumped

 

Oh there was a trial balloon floated that he might rejoin the TPP to "protect the farmers". Because the Chinese smartly targeted red states.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Justin Wolfers

 

@JustinWolfers

The first rule of tariffs is don’t impose them.

 

The second rule is don’t impose them on intermediate inputs and capital equipment used by American businesses, or you’ll just hurt their competitiveness. https://piie.com/com...ategy-trade-war

 

So here’s what the master negotiator did:

 

 

That's a limited short-term argument. Tariffs are bad world wide in perfect fair trade.

 

However, simple question ... if tariffs don't work for individual countries, why are the countries that impose the most tariffs doing the best on global trade?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a limited short-term argument. Tariffs are bad world wide in perfect fair trade.

 

However, simple question ... if tariffs don't work for individual countries, why are the countries that impose the most tariffs doing the best on global trade?

 

umm, they aren't ?

 

Running a trade surplus isn't good and running a trade deficit isn't bad. They are mostly just an accounting function determined by a country's saving rate and level of foreign investment.

 

A tariff is a tax on consumers of the goods being taxed. I thought you didn't like taxing Americans ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

umm, they aren't ?

 

Running a trade surplus isn't good and running a trade deficit isn't bad. They are mostly just an accounting function determined by a country's saving rate and level of foreign investment.

 

A tariff is a tax on consumers of the goods being taxed. I thought you didn't like taxing Americans ?

 

Read this article at the WSJ. It explains things very well.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-tax-cut-president-trump-loves-will-deepen-trade-deficits-he-hates-1524043800

 

The U.S. runs a trade deficit because it consumes more than it produces while its trading partners, collectively, do the opposite. (Another way of saying this is that the U.S. invests more than it saves, while other countries save more than they invest.) Lately, the gap has grown, to an average of $54 billion a month since October from $46 billion a month in the prior 12 months.

 

Some of the wider trade deficit reflects a recent falloff in foreign growth, especially Europe which the International Monetary Fund this week predicted won’t last, and a surge in post-hurricane construction and replacement demand in the U.S. But some is more long lasting, in particular the huge tax cut that Mr. Trump signed into law in December and took effect on Jan. 1. Anticipation of the tax cut spurred business investment and sent stock prices up sharply, generating more spending by newly enriched shareholders. In February, Congress passed and Mr. Trump signed a budget that boosts federal spending by nearly $300 billion over the next two years.

 

As those two measures push up business and household spending, U.S. imports should climb. Indeed, the spillover of American fiscal stimulus is a major reason for the IMF’s upbeat global outlook. For the U.S., this is a good thing: With unemployment at 4.1% the U.S. doesn’t have enough spare workers to meet all the new demand so imports are a safety valve against overheating. It’s one of many reasons economists don’t get worked up about trade deficits: They beat the alternative of less investment and maybe a recession.

 

Not so Mr. Trump who sees trade as zero-sum game and deficits as proof the U.S. is losing. His trade agenda is geared to correcting that: renegotiating the North American and Korean free trade agreements, tariffs on steel and aluminum, and threats to impose tariffs on $150 billion worth of Chinese imports. Yet these measures would likely have at best a negligible effect, if any, on the trade gap. Tariffs will redirect some U.S. steel orders to domestic from foreign mills, but many imports have no ready American substitute. Meanwhile, some sales may be lost by American companies that have to pay more for imported inputs or are hit by retaliatory tariffs in their export markets.

 

Correcting the deficit with one country or in one product is often pointless because the shortfall may simply reappear elsewhere. Indeed, the shale revolution has helped slash the single biggest contributor to the deficit by boosting exports of oil and slashing imports. Yet the gap in all other commodities has grown by more than enough to offset that benefit.

 

 

Permanently reducing the U.S. trade deficit requires some combination of the U.S. saving more and other countries saving less, a tall order because saving is heavily driven by structural factors such as aging, the social safety net and the availability of credit help. For many years China bolstered domestic saving by holding down its currency and controlling capital inflows, effectively restricting how much Chinese households could consume. But it hasn’t lately, contrary to Mr. Trump’s tweet Monday that China was playing a “devaluation game.”

 

Permanently higher budget deficits make trade deficits worse by diminishing national saving. Larry Kudlow, Mr. Trump’s chief economic adviser, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal disputed the link between the budget and trade deficits. But in a recent report economists at Goldman Sachs studied the historical record and found that all else equal, every $100 boost to the budget deficit because of policy decisions (as opposed to economic developments such as a recession) raises the trade deficit by $35.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about them tax cuts for the rich.

 

Debt isn't always bad, it depends on how it is used. Investing in a country's physical and human capital thru debt is often (usually) a good thing. Cutting taxes on the richest people and on capital in this case isn't a good thing especially since the next shoe to drop from low tax GOP crowd will be to use the rising debt as an excuse to cut investments in people and physical capital.

DbJDegSX4AALJ_Q.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

@JoshuaGreen

Follow Follow @JoshuaGreen

More

What's the matter with Kansas? It's getting hit with a 178% sorghum tariff, blowback from Trump's trade war with China. "Half of Kansas sorghum or more was going to China. That probably stops." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-17/chinese-sorghum-tariffs-will-hit-hard-in-trump-friendly-kansas … via @BW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...