Trump Golden Economy: lowest unemployment, 3% growth , China buying 1,2 trillion dollars goods

The economy under the Crusader in Chief

  • Defeated China economically

    Votes: 6 54.5%
  • Reduce Taxes and Regulation

    Votes: 6 54.5%
  • Made America the biggest energy producer in the world

    Votes: 6 54.5%
  • Reduced unemployment to historical figures including for minorities

    Votes: 6 54.5%
  • Reached historical 3 percent growth

    Votes: 6 54.5%
  • Created 600,000 manufacturing jobs

    Votes: 6 54.5%
  • Most of the achievements due to Hussein Obama

    Votes: 5 45.5%
  • Taxes cuts mainly for the rich

    Votes: 5 45.5%
  • Environment will be destroyed and global warming is a major problem

    Votes: 4 36.4%
  • Social inequality and race inequality continues

    Votes: 5 45.5%
  • The new trade deal with Canada and Mexico is NAFTA

    Votes: 6 54.5%
  • Deficit is expanding and debts are rising

    Votes: 8 72.7%
  • Economic slowdown is coming

    Votes: 5 45.5%
  • Recession is coming

    Votes: 5 45.5%

  • Total voters
    11
Mrsrx

Mrsrx

Somehow a Member
Staff member
Trump numbers have already factored in combined Bush and Obama mismanagement.
Can you factor in inflation as well to see if americans are richer or poorer than 2000?

Trump, Bush and Obama all screwed the middle class american....Trump is feuling the bullrun with Fed pressure

The bipartisan system is ruining US households as purchasing power is going down on average unfortunately ...defending either sides economically is a disgrace when inequalities have never been bigger..

 
  • Advertisement
  • proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Can you factor in inflation as well to see if americans are richer or poorer than 2000?
    If you have these numbers, please feel free to present them.
    However, I personally did not notice big price changes lately one way or the other.
    Besides, having high employment rate with raising salaries has to affect inflation numbers.

    Trump, Bush and Obama all screwed the middle class american....Trump is feuling the bullrun with Fed pressure
    This one is more like a feeling rather than a fact.

    The bipartisan system is ruining US households as purchasing power is going down on average unfortunately ...defending either sides economically is a disgrace when inequalities have never been bigger.
    Technically we do not have two party system - the problem he is human nature.
    US governing system does not offer coalition approach to governing and subsequent ministerial horsetrading.
    Naturally all similarly-minded individuals unite in effort to become stronger than the opposition.
    Eventually process is finalized when only two strong parties are present.
    To my opinion it is good enough to keep each other in check.

    Unfortunately today both sides are too comfortable sitting in DC, BS and doing nothing for American people.

    This is where Trump the status quo breaker comes in.
    Man is hated by both sides, but he is loved by people because instinctively we feel that Washington mold has to be broken and swamp has to be drained.

    You are witnessing process where US is trying to better itself - it does not guaranty success because evil roots are too deep, but still Trump has let paste out of the tube.
     
    NiceV

    NiceV

    Well-Known Member
    The Trump tariffs keep working, to the consternation of many economists
    BY JEFF FERRY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR0
    The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
    TWEET SHARE MORE






























    As a new year dawns in America, many of the nation’s manufacturing sectors are experiencing aggressive growth.
    In October, the largest U.S. manufacturer of solar panels, First Solar, announced production at its second U.S. plant, a new $1 billion factory in Lake Township, Ohio, that will employ 500 workers. Roughly a dozen other solar panel and cell manufacturers are following First Solar’s example and launching additional U.S.-based production as well.
    In November, kitchenware and furniture maker Williams-Sonoma announced a 6.4 percent increase in third-quarter revenue. Much of this success came from its new retail brand West Elm, which experienced a fourth-quarter sales increase of 14 percent despite 25 percent tariffs on most of its products sourced from China. Williams-Sonoma has made commitments to leave China and is opening manufacturing operations in the U.S. and adding employees.
    And in December, America’s largest steelmaker, Nucor, announced the addition of a coil paint line at its Mississippi County, Arkansas, mill that will coat roughly 250,000 tons of steel each year. The plant will add 50 new jobs in Arkansas, joining the hundreds of positions that the company is currently adding in new mills under construction in Missouri and Florida.
    These companies are just a few examples of a broader trend showing that the Trump administration’s tariffs are working. The steel industry in particular offers ample evidence, with America’s steel companies investing some $13 billion in new steelmaking and mills across the nation.
    This isn’t what many economists predicted, however. And frustrated by the flow of such positive news, the economics profession is looking for other means to wage their war against tariffs. Last month, two Federal Reserve Board economists, Aaron Flaaen and Justin Pierce, claimed that the tariffs have led to a “relative” loss for manufacturing employment in affected sectors. They also reported other small but negative effects from rising input costs. Their report follows other attempts to demonstrate that the tariffs aren’t helping the economy.
    But what’s really going on? The answer, to quote one economist friend, is: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.”
    Here’s what we actually know. There was a manufacturing boom in 2017 and 2018 that boosted manufacturing employment 190,000 jobs in 2017 and 264,000 jobs in 2018. That brought America’s factory employment up to 12.809 million by December 2018. The 2018 increase was the largest in 20 years. Federal Reserve manufacturing production figures support this, showing industrial production up 2.5 percent in 2017 and 2.2 percent in 2018.
    In 2019, the manufacturing sector experienced a pause. Fed data show that as of November, manufacturing output was down 0.8 percent compared with November 2018. But jobs aren’t down. Manufacturing employment in November 2019 came in at 12.865 million, up 56,000 jobs from December 2018.
    The 2019 slowdown could have many causes. There’s the Fed’s series of interest rate increases. Or the slowdown in foreign economies, including China and Germany. But the fact remains that the U.S. economy continues to grow faster than major competitors. And China is suffering from the current trade war, with U.S. imports from China down $65 billion – or 15 percent – in 2019 year-to-date compared with 2018.
    As for the tariffs’ impacts, some industries may have seen price increases following the tariffs. But there are many product categories, like steel and solar panels, where prices have actually fallen since the tariffs were imposed. And even in industries like furniture, where prices have risen, they have increased by far less than the tariff rate of 25 percent. And while some companies that sell cheap products from China have suffered, more nimble companies like Williams-Sonoma have done very well.
    Despite all this real-world evidence, economists have rushed to condemn the Trump administration’s trade policies. They simply believe that free trade is wonderful, and that Donald Trump is awful. And they cannot be bothered to look at actual data and reports from the hundreds of companies reporting positive results in the past three years.
    This is not to say that the tariffs are perfect. There are cases where downstream industries are suffering. But in a world where China has created completely artificial and highly subsidized prices in order to take over world industries, the answer is not to repeal the tariffs. Instead, the right path is to extend protection to these downstream industries, so that they too can enjoy growth by serving American customers and employing American workers.
     
    NiceV

    NiceV

    Well-Known Member
    Senate panel advances Trump's new NAFTA despite GOP gripes

    Senate panel advances Trump's new NAFTA despite GOP gripes
    BY SYLVAN LANE
    TWEET SHARE MORE
    A Senate panel on Tuesday advanced President Trump’s revamp of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) almost unanimously despite grumbling from conservative lawmakers.

    The Senate Finance Committee voted 25-3 to send to the full chamber a bill implementing Trump’s proposed U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) opposed the measure, which passed the House last month with broad bipartisan support.

    The GOP-controlled Senate is expected to finalize the USMCA within weeks, cementing Trump’s most substantial victory on trade policy. But Senate leaders could be forced to delay a floor vote until after Trump's impeachment trial if Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sends House-passed articles of impeachment to the upper chamber in the coming days.

    ADVERTISEMENT
    While the new trade deal is not the total replacement of NAFTA that Trump promised during the 2016 campaign, it makes significant updates to the 1994 pact that the president called the “worst” trade agreement in U.S. history.

    Trump was able to secure the support of Democrats and some labor unions after agreeing to several major concessions. Changes that won over progressives included tougher labor law enforcement, stricter environmental standards and stripping protections for certain high-cost pharmaceuticals.

    “When the Trump administration sent up the first version of this new NAFTA agreement, it was just more of the status quo. It didn't cut it,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, who voted in favor of the measure Tuesday.

    ADVERTISEMENT
    Most Senate Republicans are eager to hand Trump a victory on one of his top priorities ahead of the 2020 elections, despite their preferences for looser trade restrictions.

    But several GOP senators complained Tuesday about being taken for granted.

    “Here we are today, totally jammed by the House and this process, not even able to offer an amendment,” Toomey said. “We've slapped on all of these provisions designed to restrict trade and investment, we’ll get no economic growth out of this. And we, the Senate and the Senate Finance Committee, are allowing ourselves to be marginalized.”

    Cassidy, the only other Republican to vote against USMCA on Tuesday, said, “The House got a lot of stuff because the House actually had the ability to say, ‘We're not going to do this unless we get our demands met.’ We've not had that ability.”

    ADVERTISEMENT
    Pelosi refused to hold a vote on USMCA without drastic changes to the agreement first proposed by Trump in 2018. After six months of intense and secretive negotiations, Trump and Pelosi announced a deal on a revised pact with the endorsement of powerful labor groups like the AFL-CIO that have long opposed NAFTA.

    Trump’s protectionist trade policy has been a constant strain on the president's relationship with congressional Republicans who support reducing trade barriers. Several GOP senators said Tuesday that while they shared the concerns of Toomey and Cassidy, they had little choice but to approve USMCA.

    “Sen. Toomey made a bunch of important comments that I agree with as well,” said Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.). “And yet we need to, given the political realities, get this agreement across the finish line.”

    Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) added that USMCA “is certainly not a perfect deal, and not necessarily the deal that I would like us to be discussing today, but it certainly is a step in the right direction.”

    Trump has threatened to pull out of the original NAFTA agreement if Congress fails to approve USMCA. Doing so would likely derail the economies of all three countries, upend continental supply lines and send prices for groceries soaring.
     
    NiceV

    NiceV

    Well-Known Member
    Historical Deal
    Half a cheer for Trump's China trade deal

    Half a cheer for Trump's China trade deal
    BY DESMOND LACHMAN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR
    The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
    TWEET SHARE MORE
    By signing a phase-one trade agreement with China, President Trump most likely has succeeded in preventing a crisis of his own making from spiraling out of control. At least now, in the run up to the November election, it seems highly unlikely that we will have an escalation in the U.S.-China trade war that has caused so much damage to the U.S. and world economies.

    But it is far from clear whether this phase-one deal will have done anything to repair the damage from the punitive import tariffs imposed on China. This would appear to be especially the case since the administration is not planning to roll back the many restrictive import tariffs that will remain on China until after November’s U.S. presidential election.

    Even then, the administration is likely to do so only after determining that the Chinese government has fully complied with its obligations under the phase-one arrangement. Given China’s poor track record in addressing U.S. complaints about intellectual property theft and forced technology transfer, one should not hold one’s breath for a further de-escalation in the U.S.-China trade war next year.

    ADVERTISEMENT
    It is difficult to overstate the toll that the U.S.-China trade war has exacted on the U.S. and global economies.

    U.S. investment has virtually stagnated at home as a result of heightened economic policy uncertainty and of fear about global supply chains getting disrupted. Meanwhile, in recent quarters the U.S. manufacturing sector has been in a troubling slump while overall U.S. economic growth has slowed to a disappointing pace.

    In short, it would seem that the trade war with China has been an important factor in preventing the U.S. economy from harvesting the fruit of Trump’s large 2017 corporate tax cut and his bold efforts at economic deregulation. Long gone are the days when Trump’s promise to put the U.S. economy on a 3-4 percent growth path appeared even remotely plausible. Instead, we are now becoming accustomed to economic growth in the 2 percent range, which is little different from the growth rates experienced during the Obama years.

    ADVERTISEMENT
    If Trump’s tariffs on Chinese imports have not been good for U.S. economic growth, they have done little to close the U.S. trade deficit. Indeed, under Trump’s watch we have seen a 30 percent increase in the overall U.S. trade deficit despite his frequent resort to higher import tariffs.

    The negative effects of the U.S.-China trade war on the global economy have been even more pronounced than they have been on the United States. China, the world’s second largest economy, is now growing at its slowest pace in more than a decade, while Germany, the world’s third largest economy and a major exporter to China, is on the cusp of an economic recession.

    Now that Trump has secured a trade truce with China, one must hope that he does not extend his trade war to the European front. In particular, one must hope that he has drawn the right lessons from his unsuccessful trade war with China and that he will retract his threat to impose a 25 percent import tariff on European automobiles.

    With the French, German, Italian and U.K. economies all showing troubling signs of weakness, the last thing that Europe needs now is a body blow from a more restrictive U.S. trade policy. Hopefully Trump’s economic team grasps how a further weakening of the European economy could have untoward spillover effects on the global economy that could reach our shores.
     
    NiceV

    NiceV

    Well-Known Member
    The Crusader in Chief continues his historical achievements
    Senate approves Trump trade deal with Canada, Mexico

    BY SYLVAN LANE
    TWEET SHARE MORE
    The Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill to implement President Trump’s proposed update to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) after a mad dash to clear the measure before impeachment proceedings paralyze the chamber.

    Senators voted 89-10 to pass a bill ratifying Trump’s U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), sending the measure to the president for his final sign-off. USMCA’s passage marks another milestone for Trump just one day after he cemented a preliminary trade deal with China.

    “Today the Senate will send this landmark agreement to the president’s desk,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) ahead of the vote. “Quite a week of substantive accomplishments for the nation, for the president, and for international trade."

    ADVERTISEMENT
    All but one Republican and nine Democrats voted to approve USMCA. Democrats who voted against the agreement cited insufficient improvements to environmental standards.

    “Despite the fact that it includes very good labor provisions, I am voting against USMCA because it does not address climate change, the greatest threat facing our planet,” said Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).

    Trump is expected to sign the deal within days, though it will not take effect until Canada ratifies the agreement. The government of Mexico approved the deal last year and amended its labor laws to comply with stricter standards included in USMCA.

    ADVERTISEMENT
    The Senate’s approval of USMCA checks off a key promise of Trump’s 2016 campaign that could help strengthen the president’s electoral prospects.

    Trump’s pledge to rip up NAFTA was crucial to his appeal in industrial states that lost thousands of jobs to Mexico under the 1994 pact. While USMCA is more of an update to NAFTA than a replacement, the still deal gives Trump an achievement to tout in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — four swing states that could make or break his reelection.

    “I think there was a lot of skepticism, frankly, that we could come up with either one of these agreements,” said Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) in a CNBC interview on Wednesday.

    “We have done both of them, and shown that once again America can be out there helping to level the playing field and create a better environment for our workers and our farmers and get some deals done.”

    ADVERTISEMENT
    USMCA’s passage may also serve as the high-water mark of bipartisanship for Washington, and just days before the Senate begins Trump’s impeachment trial.

    Many Democrats shared Trump’s skepticism of NAFTA and were eager to team with the president to revise the deal even as they sought to remove him from office. Trump also needed to secure enough Democratic support to clear USMCA through the House, where the GOP holds a minority.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and a team of Democratic negotiators secured major victories for the party in negotiations with Trump, including tougher labor, environmental and pharmaceutical standards.

    Those changes helped win over some labor unions and Democrats fiercely opposed to free trade deals, including Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who has voted against every trade deal considered by Congress since 1993.

    “[Trump’s] first NAFTA draft was nowhere near the good deal that the president promised. He had negotiated, pure and simple, another corporate trade deal that meant nothing for workers,” Brown said Wednesday in remarks on the Senate floor.

    ADVERTISEMENT
    But the new version of USMCA incorporated language from a bill offered by Brown and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) to ensure foreign factories comply with labor standards under trade agreements, clinching his support.

    “The president resisted, and resisted, and resisted, but we finally approved a deal to put workers at the center of our trade policy,” Brown said.

    The endorsements of Brown and a slew of powerful labor groups, including the AFL-CIO, helped rally progressive Democrats behind the deal. The House approved USMCA on Dec. 19 by a vote of 385-41, just one day after approving two articles of impeachment against Trump.

    Even some of Trump’s 2020 Democratic challengers, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), and Michael Bennet (Colo.), voted for USMCA as a step to reduce the harm of NAFTA.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was the sole Democratic presidential candidate to vote against USMCA, calling on Trump to "fundamentally rewrite" the 1994 agreement.

    ADVERTISEMENT
    The rush of Democratic support for Trump’s marquee trade deal guaranteed USMCA’s easy passage, but also frustrated Senate Republicans who largely favored NAFTA. Several GOP senators said they felt taken for granted as the White House bent over backwards to secure Democratic votes.

    Republican critics of the deal complained that USMCA was rushed through the Senate less than a month after the White House unveiled changes to the agreement.

    “It's very, very important to me that we insist that that delegated authority be exercised properly and the legislation that follows from it complies with the law,” said Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who voted against the deal.

    Despite their ideological differences over trade, few GOP senators were expected to buck Trump on a marquee issue. The president had also warned he would pull out of NAFTA altogether if Congress did not approve his replacement, threatening to unleash an economic calamity if lawmakers rebuked him.

    Several also highlighted provisions in USMCA to reduce barriers for U.S. crop and dairy sales to Canada and Mexico, a victory for the agriculture industry.

    “While not perfect, this deal represents a long overdue update to NAFTA, and overall will benefit workers and farmers in our state and across the country,” said Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), touting the deal’s benefits for dairy farmers.

    Trump has sought to make the strong economy and recent successes in trade talks a focal point of his campaign for a second term. The president is counting on a solid economic record to quash concerns about his conduct, character and rhetoric that could cost him swing voters.

    Senators raced to approve USMCA before Trump’s impeachment trial, which would have blocked the chamber from voting on any other legislation.

    The confluence of the House’s votes to impeach Trump and approve his most significant trade accomplishment threw USMCA’s future in doubt. A surprise ruling from the Senate parliamentarian set off a mad dash to approve USMCA in six committees other than the Finance panel, which has jurisdiction over trade.

    But Pelosi’s initial refusal to send articles of impeachment to the Senate gave the upper chamber enough time to clear USMCA before Trump’s trial begins. The Senate is expected to swear in senators and initiate Trump's trial Tuesday.

     
    Danny Z

    Danny Z

    Legendary Member
    Somebody should tell Trump that Obama can hold his breath 20 minutes under water.
     
    HannaTheCrusader

    HannaTheCrusader

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    pretty much sujms up pro islamic libtards

    “My daughter is in school. I saved all my money. Am I gonna get my money back?” the dad asked.

    “Of course not,” Warren replied.

    “So you’re gonna pay for people who didn’t save any money, but those of us who did the right thing get screwed?” the man asked.


     
    Picasso

    Picasso

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I don't agree with many points, but refusing the fact that other countries are taking advantage of the US, especially China and the European Union, and working on new trade agreements are some of his most important achievements.

     
    Last edited:
    AtheistForYeezus

    AtheistForYeezus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Full respect to this man. He delivered on all his campaign promises.
    It's funny that he gets so vilified by the liberal media for simply taking a tough stance against illegal immigration.
    When did it become a crime to protect your country?
     
    Top