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
  • Advertisement
  • NewLeb

    NewLeb

    New Member
    I find it humorous when people claim here that America has reached its limits in regards to its economic strangling of Iran and its allies. This is just the beginning!
     
    Cedrus Libani

    Cedrus Libani

    New Member
    I find it humorous when people claim here that America has reached its limits in regards to its economic strangling of Iran and its allies. This is just the beginning!
    How do you, as a presumed Lebanese, benefit if Iran does or doesn't get sanctioned? I don't get it.
     
    NewLeb

    NewLeb

    New Member
    How do you, as a presumed Lebanese, benefit if Iran does or doesn't get sanctioned? I don't get it.
    It has nothing to do with me, but with the general welfare of Lebanon. Politics shouldn’t be about individual benefit. ;)
     
    Cedrus Libani

    Cedrus Libani

    New Member
    It has nothing to do with me, but with the general welfare of Lebanon. Politics shouldn’t be about individual benefit. ;)
    Ok, how exactly does Lebanon benefit? Iran's been under sanctions for 40 years, and you and the rest of the pro-Saudi/Al Qaeda crowd have been *****ing about their influence the entire time.
     
    NewLeb

    NewLeb

    New Member
    Ok, how exactly does Lebanon benefit? Iran's been under sanctions for 40 years, and you and the rest of the pro-Saudi/Al Qaeda crowd have been *****ing about their influence the entire time.
    1. If Iran has been under serious sanctions for 40 years, it would not have grown and morphed into what it is today. Unless you forgot, a deal was made between the weakling Obama and the leftist West with Iran, a deal which Trump pulled out of.

    This is why the recent activities against Iran and Hezbollah are unique; which is why today the German parliament called on a full ban on Hezbollah, for instance.

    2. This is not entirely about politics, but a matter of performance. You guys just want to make it about Israel and the KSA because you’d prefer to ignore the failures of a Hezbollah-led government. The protests are a clear testament to this.

    Although Hezbollah and the Lebanese Shiite community have proven themselves to be fierce and brave warriors, they simply fail at economic policy. This is mostly due to them being peasants who migrated to the city during the civil war.

    Hezbollah’s arrogance got them here, and this time, they’re not going to win.
     
    CrusaderV

    CrusaderV

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    House approves Trump's USMCA trade deal amid shadow of impeachment
    BY SYLVAN LANE8TWEET SHARE MORE






























    The House on Thursday passed a bill to implement President Trump’s overhaul of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), advancing a crucial piece of his economic agenda with strong bipartisan support.
    The bill to enact Trump’s U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) passed 385 to 41, with 38 Democrats, two Republicans and Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.) voting against the deal. The measure now moves to the Senate, where it is expected to pass after the chamber concludes Trump’s impeachment trial.
    The USMCA’s passage in the House marks one of the most significant bipartisan breakthroughs in a bitterly divided Congress. The resounding bipartisan vote comes less than 24 hours after the House voted almost exclusively along partisan lines to impeach Trump, who is unlikely to be convicted and removed from office by the GOP-held Senate.
    Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) announcement last week that Democrats had reached a deal with Trump to pass USMCA was just an hour after telling the country her caucus would introduce articles of impeachment against the president.
    Despite the shadow of the House’s indictment, Trump and lawmakers in both parties hailed USMCA as a boon for U.S. workers, manufacturers and farmers.
    "Due to Democrats' misguided obsession with impeachment, they neglected moving forward on this pro-worker and pro-growth trade agreement for far too long," said Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), ranking Republican on the House Ways and Committee. "Nonetheless, today I am so encouraged that we're here finally moving forward."
    House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) offered similar praise for the bipartisan work on the deal while navigating the partisan tensions over impeachment.
    “This vote today, Madam Speaker, is a reminder that even while the House was working on a serious matter regarding the president's accountability for abuses of office, we are still working hard to deliver on our promises to the American people to focus on economic opportunity,” he said. “And in this instance, we are working together.”
    The agreement includes provisions to boost U.S. auto production, increase Canadian market access for U.S. farmers, and raise Mexico’s minimum wage. The deal will also allow Canadians to buy more U.S. goods online duty-free and will also install a new regime of rules relating to digital trade.
    USMCA may also prove to be a political win for both Trump, who pledged to rip up NAFTA in 2016, and vulnerable Democrats eager to show moderate voters they can legislate amid impeachment.
    Trump’s scorn for NAFTA was crucial to his support among disaffected Democrats in industrial states that lost thousands of jobs under the 1994 pact. His vow to replace NAFTA helped propel him to electoral victories in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, which had reliably supported Democratic presidential candidates since 1992.
    Democratic lawmakers have also been fiercely critical of NAFTA, and many were eager to team up with Trump to rewrite the agreement.
    Pelosi brushed off concerns that Democrats could give Trump “a victory to boast about,” calling it a “collateral benefit if we can come together to support America's working families.”
    “The president wants to take credit? So be it. That would not stand in the way of our passing this," she said.
    Trump’s initial proposal fell flat among Democrats, who demanded stricter enforcement measures for labor and environmental laws.
    House Democrats and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, the top White House trade negotiator, spent six months in heated negotiations to overhaul the deal. A final agreement came together early last week after Democrats secured a slew of victories that clinched support from major labor unions and progressive lawmakers.
    "House passage of the USMCA with such huge bipartisan support is a major milestone and shows just how much President Trump is successfully changing U.S. trade policy so it works for the benefit of American workers, farmers, ranchers and businesses," Lighthizer said in a statement following the vote.
    Democrats were able to add a provision to create independent panels to ensure Mexican factories are complying with the agreement, and allow the U.S. to impose tariffs on firms that violate the deal’s labor standards.
    The revised agreement also limits the ability of companies to sue countries over regulations that could impede their international sales, a long-standing Democratic goal. They were also able to strip USMCA of a measure to lock in 10 years of market exclusivity for biologic drugs, arguing the provision would inflate high prescription drug prices.
    "On every conceivable front, we have improved the old NAFTA,” said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.), the Democratic leader on trade policy.
    “You can vote for what we've negotiated, or you can embrace the status quo. If this fails today, that's precisely what you're doing."
    The changes were enough to win over some of the fiercest Democratic critics of free trade deals, including Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who blame NAFTA for thousands of job losses in their states.
    “I was determined to make sure that any new trade agreements did not undermine U.S. wages and salaries, accelerate outsourcing, or continue to hurt working people,” wrote DeLauro, one of the chief Democratic negotiators in talks with Lighthizer, in a Friday letter to colleagues.
    “USMCA is not a model moving forward, but it establishes important principles we can build from.”
    The endorsement of powerful labor groups such as the AFL-CIO and the United Steelworkers also ensured USMCA would have ample support in the House.
    Not all of DeLauro’s progressive colleagues were convinced, including Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), who bristled at Neal’s pitch to support USMCA and not maintain the status quo. He argued that the deal would still treat Mexican workers “like chattel” and “American jobs would still flow to other countries."
    “Me and the status quo don't agree most of the time,” Pascrell said. “I mean, I even got a Jerry Garcia tie on today.”
    Other influential unions such as the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) also voiced concerns about the deal.
    But that Brown, DeLauro and organized labor could support a trade deal proposed by a Republican president reflected the ways Trump has transformed the congressional landscape on trade policy. Several Republican senators griped that USMCA had drifted too far in labor’s favor and would hinder the deal’s fundamental goal of reducing trade barriers.

    Some Republican senators are expected to vote against USMCA. Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), a staunch conservative, said he would oppose the deal over its “myriad provisions to warm the hearts of protectionists.” Other like minded Republicans are expected to follow.
    Even so, Senate Republicans will almost certainly cement a key pillar of Trump’s economic agenda despite their ideological misalignment with the president.
    Major Achievement for the Crusader in Chief
     
    CrusaderV

    CrusaderV

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Trade, interest rates top finance fights for 2020
    Trade, interest rates top finance fights for 2020
    BY SYLVAN LANETWEET SHARE MORE
    2020 is shaping up to be a crucial year on the economic and financial front.
    President Trump is eager to protect a solid stretch of economic growth and clinch key victories in his trade fights with the election approaching. Democrats, meanwhile, are striving to expose the shortcomings of the Trump economy while battling back against his deregulatory agenda. Policymakers and the financial industry are bracing for a bruising campaign and how it may affect the economy.
    Here are five crucial fights that could define economic and financial policy in 2020.
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Trump's trade wars
    Trump concluded 2019 with two significant victories for his trade agenda: the Democratic-led House’s approval of his new North American trade pact, and the outline of a preliminary trade deal with China.
    ADVERTISEMENT
    But the president’s trade war with China is far from over, and another fight with the European Union may kick into high gear in 2020.
    U.S. and Chinese officials announced last week that they have reached preliminary trade deal that will be released following a typical legal review. While Trump and top White House officials have touted the agreement as a major breakthrough, previous agreements with China have fallen apart throughout the last year.
    The preliminary trade deal would also leave in place U.S tariffs on billions of dollars in Chinese goods and retaliatory tariffs on some American agricultural exports, raising the risks of further economic harm.
    The trade war between the world’s largest economies is one of several forces driving a global economic slowdown. But Trump’s simmering trade battle with the European Union might also hinder growth abroad and harm U.S. firms dependent on transatlantic trade.
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Trump imposed 25-percent tariffs in October on an array of popular and iconic European food products, such as wine, cheese, olives, Irish and Scotch whiskies, pork and cookies. The EU has threatened to retaliate with its own tariffs on U.S. food products, which would boost pressure on the ailing agricultural sector.

    The fight between Trump and the Fed
    Trump has shattered more than two decades of precedent with his campaign to bend the Federal Reserve to his will.
    The president has sought to bully the independent central bank into slashing interest rates to near-zero or negative levels to juice the economy and weaken the value of the dollar. Doing so could spur an economic surge ahead of the 2020 election and give Trump added leverage in his trade war with China.
    ADVERTISEMENT
    The Fed has resisted Trump’s demands so far. While the bank cut interest rates three times in 2019, borrowing costs still remain several ticks above Trump’s preferred level. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has ruled out cutting rates to the negative levels seen in countries teetering on the brink of recession, and the bank is expected to hold steady on rates for the foreseeable future.
    But as Trump nears what is expected to be a close election, the president may ramp up his pressure on the Fed to stimulate the economy regardless of its effect on inflation or financial stability.

    The fight over Trump's financial records
    The Supreme Court is set to issue a groundbreaking ruling in three cases involving congressional and prosecutorial requests for Trump’s financial records that could shape the way Congress can oversee the executive branch.
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Two cases involve financial records subpoenas from Democratic lawmakers for a broad range of financial documents related to President Trump and his businesses. One case centers on subpoenas sent to Trump's accounting firm, Mazars USA, while another involves requests sent to Deutsche Bank and Capital One.
    A third case involves a subpoena from Manhattan prosecutors against Mazars USA for Trump’s personal and corporate financial records, including tax returns, from 2011 to 2018.
    The court will hear arguments in the case in March and will issue a ruling before the end of June. If the high court upholds the subpoenas, the decision could give lawmakers and prosecutors a trove of Trump’s personal financial information just months before the 2020 election.

    A legal challenge to the CFPB
    The Supreme Court is also set to rule on another separation of powers case next year, but one with far greater implications for the financial sector. In Selia Law vs. the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the court must decide if the powerful financial regulator’s structure impedes on the president’s authority and how far the justices can go to fix it.
    The CFPB is led by a sole director appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate, and only fireable “for cause,” which is generally considered to be misconduct or severe incompetence.
    Critics of the CFPB, including the Trump administration and current director Kathy Kraninger, argue that the bureau’s structure impedes on the president’s authority. They claim that because the CFPB director is so powerful and the president can only fire her for cause, the bureau’s structure limits constitutional executive authority.
    The bureau’s defenders insist that Congress did not overstep its authority and that the CFPB’s structure mirrors other similar agencies.
    If the Supreme Court sides with the Trump administration, it could do something as minor as asking Congress to sort out the conflict, or go as far as shutting down the CFPB entirely. But a likely middle ground could be simply declaring that the president may fire the CFPB director at will, not just for cause.

    Another fight over spending
    Lawmakers struggled to reach a deal to fund the government until last week, shortly before the late-December deadline to avoid a shutdown. The 2020 election is set to scramble that process by raising the political temperature and shortening the congressional calendar.
    Congress spends most of the first two months before the election on recess under federal law, so lawmakers must decide whether they can strike a funding deal before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, or use a stopgap to push the deadline until after the election.
    And while Congress squabbles, steady increases in domestic and defense spending are set to push the deficit to $1 trillion for the first time since 2012.
     
    CrusaderV

    CrusaderV

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Five health care fights to watch in 2020
    Five health care fights to watch in 2020
    BY PETER SULLIVAN AND JESSIE HELLMANNTWEET SHARE MORE
    Advocates hope lawmakers can beat the odds and move major health care legislation in the new year.
    2019 opened with bipartisan talk of cracking down on drug prices and surprise medical bills. But it ended without major legislation signed into law on either front, and a host of other health care battles, including a lawsuit threatening the entire Affordable Care Act, looming over the coming election year.
    Here are five health care fights to watch in 2020.
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Drug pricing
    Lowering drug prices was supposed to be an area for potential bipartisan action in 2019, but the effort ran into a brick wall of industry lobbying and partisan divisions.
    ADVERTISEMENT
    There is a push to finally get legislation over the finish line in 2020, though.
    Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is calling for attaching drug pricing legislation to a package of expiring health care programs, like community health center funding, that must be renewed by May 22. She hopes the pressure from that deadline helps carry a larger package, but that is far from certain, especially as the election gets closer.
    Democrats point to President Trump’s vow to support allowing the government to negotiate drug prices during his 2016 campaign. While Trump backed off that pledge this year, they hold out hope he might come back around. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is also strongly opposed to the idea, and has concerns about a more modest bill from Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) that could provide a more realistic bipartisan path.
    “The president said when he ran and until relatively recently that he would support negotiated prices and I expect at some point he will go back to that, and we're just going to keep pushing the Senate to try to achieve that,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.).
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Surprise billing
    The other major health care initiative that Pelosi says she wants in the May package is protecting patients from surprise medical bills.
    That effort has also fallen prey to intense industry lobbying and congressional infighting.
    Backers of a bipartisan bill from the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Senate Health Committee on the issue pushed for including the measure in a year-end spending and were deeply frustrated when it was left out.
    ADVERTISEMENT
    A key factor was House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) putting forward the outline of a rival plan days before this month’s funding deadline, showing a split on the way forward.
    “It’s certainly going to be harder [next year],” said Shawn Gremminger, senior director of federal relations at Families USA, a liberal health care advocacy group.
    “You are now under six months out from the general election,” he said about moving legislation in May 2020.
    Backers have a tough road ahead. They will have to bridge the divide between the competing plans and overcome lobbying from powerful doctor and hospital groups, who worry the legislation could lead to damaging cuts to their payments.

    ADVERTISEMENT
    ObamaCare
    Outside of Capitol Hill negotiating rooms, the GOP lawsuit to overturn the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is looming large.
    A federal appeals court last week issued a long-awaited ruling on the fate of the law, though it did little to settle the issue. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law’s mandate to have health insurance is unconstitutional, but punted on the question of whether any of the rest of the law should also be struck down, instead sending it back to the lower court.
    The most tangible effect of the move could be to push a final Supreme Court decision on the fate of the law past the 2020 elections, though it’s possible the justices could still choose to take the case sooner.
    Democrats intend to hammer Republicans over the lawsuit during next year’s campaign, though, a strategy that paid off for the party during the 2018 midterms when they focused on health care.
    The Democratic group Protect Our Care launched a national TV ad on Friday, saying “President Trump and Republicans just won a major decision in their lawsuit to repeal health care from millions of American families,” and warning of the loss of pre-existing condition protections.

    Medicare for All
    In the Democratic presidential race, "Medicare for All" is a central dividing line.
    How the issue plays out in 2020 will depend in large part on who wins the Democratic nomination. If progressives like Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) or Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) win the nomination, Republicans will be able to go full bore on their attacks that private health insurance would be eliminated under the proposal.
    Even more moderate candidates like former Vice President Joe Biden and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg would face attacks that their public option plans are a step down the road toward eventually implementing full-scale single payer.
    The internal debate on the issue has faded somewhat from its peak. Health care has not featured as prominently in the last two debates, and some of the fighting has shifted to other areas, like candidates' fundraising practices.
    But the issue is still simmering and could burst back to open warfare among Democrats at any point.

    Vaping rules
    The battle over e-cigarette flavors will likely resume in 2020 as the Trump administration and Congress try to cut rising youth vaping rates.
    Public health advocates are pushing the administration to clear the market of flavors like mint and fruit that they argue are fueling a youth vaping epidemic.
    Trump said he would eliminate those flavors in September, but has appeared to back down after backlash from vaping advocates and the e-cigarette industry.
    Now he says he would like to find a compromise that preserves such flavors for adults while keeping them away from kids.
    Advocates like the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids plan to pressure Trump to follow through on his word, though it’s looking unlikely.
    However, the e-cigarette market could also look vastly different after May 2020, when companies must apply to the Food & Drug Administration to stay on the market
    The industry must prove its products benefit public health, a big ask for companies like Juul, whose products are favored by kids who vape.
    House Democrats also plan to vote on a bill that would ban flavored e-cigarette and tobacco products, but it’s not clear if it will get a vote in the Senate.
    Load Comments
     
    Mrsrx

    Mrsrx

    Somehow a Member
    Orange Room Supporter

    surprise... TLDR: Prices are up 4% and manufacturing is down 1.5% (which impacted jobs and sales are down)
     
    Mrsrx

    Mrsrx

    Somehow a Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    In 2018
    We are in 2020 buddy
    Published: Dec 28, 2019 8:41 a.m. ET <-- date of the article

    I guess understanding that impacts are not immediate is beyond you ...patience is a virtue :)
     
    CrusaderV

    CrusaderV

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Published: Dec 28, 2019 8:41 a.m. ET <-- date of the article

    I guess understanding that impacts are not immediate is beyond you ...patience is a virtue :)
    Anyway today Crusader economy is the strongest in the world
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member

    surprise... TLDR: Prices are up 4% and manufacturing is down 1.5% (which impacted jobs and sales are down)
    I appreciate you are using numbers, here are few more:
    Under 8 years of Bush American median income grew from $60,906 to $61,308.
    Under 8 years of Obama American median income 'grew' from $61,308 to $60,973.
    Under 2.5 years of Trump American median income grew from $60,973 to $65,976.
    Dated: 1/2/2020
     
    CrusaderV

    CrusaderV

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I appreciate you are using numbers, here are few more:
    Under 8 years of Bush American median income grew from $60,906 to $61,308.
    Under 8 years of Obama American median income 'grew' from $61,308 to $60,973.
    Under 2.5 years of Trump American median income grew from $60,973 to $65,976.
    Dated: 1/2/2020
    Noway
    Great numbers
    Trump should be president for life
     
    Mrsrx

    Mrsrx

    Somehow a Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I appreciate you are using numbers, here are few more:
    Under 8 years of Bush American median income grew from $60,906 to $61,308.
    Under 8 years of Obama American median income 'grew' from $61,308 to $60,973.
    Under 2.5 years of Trump American median income grew from $60,973 to $65,976.
    Dated: 1/2/2020
    Not defending obama at all i have no love lost even for him ...but please factor in 2008 which was 15 years of mismanagement
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Not defending obama at all i have no love lost even for him ...but please factor in 2008 which was 15 years of mismanagement
    Trump numbers have already factored in combined Bush and Obama mismanagement.
     
    Top