President Trump 2.0

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

What do you base that on?

From policies like those mentioned below.

The non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget warns of heightened risk of ‘an eventual fiscal crisis’ and his plans will see the USA in debt by double the amount that Kamala Harris's plans would.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...la-harris.html

And he is shocked when regular economic growth occurs

But Trump keeps pretending otherwise, either because he's economically illiterate or because he enjoys pretending to be economically illiterate. During his interview with Mike Huckabee over the weekend, for example, the president added in reference to the latest GDP data, "Everybody was shocked. They said it wouldn't happen for years."

Again, nobody was shocked, just as nobody said it'd take years to see quarterly growth that's been routine for quite a while.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...cy-msna1027741

And thinks that tariffs just tax foreign companies

But in recent weeks, Mr. Trump has made even more expansive claims about the power of tariffs, including that they will help pay for child care, combat inflation, finance a U.S. sovereign wealth fund and help preserve the dollar’s pre-eminent role in the global economy.

Economists have been skeptical of many of these assertions. While tariffs generate some level of revenue, in many cases they could create only a small amount of the funding needed to pursue some of the goals that Mr. Trump has outlined.

In other cases, they say, tariffs could actually backfire on the U.S. economy, by inviting retaliation from foreign governments and raising costs for consumers. Economic research has indicated that the cost of tariffs tend to be borne by American businesses and households, rather than foreign companies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/10/u...m-tariffs.html

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Ha ha ha, you are truly a comedy legend.

Seriously though, you with that statement, are an an authoritative administrations wet dream.

Seems some, still haven't got over the UK GE result, and are looking elsewhere for their loony kicks...

Try following Halifax Town AFC, if you're in need of some entertainment . ( if not results....) Surely more important than a country you don't live in.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

The opinion of you……..and you are ……as far as I know…..not the most eminent political commentator out there.

If you and I were eminent political commentators, I doubt we would be spending our time on a forum when the world's TV studios waited upon our wisdom.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pierre

What do you base that on?



Which of his convictions demonstrate that? I thought he was only convicted of falsifying business records?

The words out of his own mouth to Glen Beck + his first impeachment, for someone with such a strong opinion people would think you'd pay attention more

Originally Posted by Pierre

Ha ha ha, you are truly a comedy legend.

Seriously though, you with that statement, are an an authoritative administrations wet dream.

So are supporters of the guy who promised to be dictator on day 1, he's actually telling people what he'll do and it makes no difference to the cult who don't believe the evidence of their eyes and ears

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Biden hasn’t been in charge for ages, he’s been ousted by his own party, as he is not fit to run for reelection, but deemed ok to remain in position until February 25?

Not a great situation is it? We don't want history to repeat itself by electing another very old person as US President do we?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Not a great situation is it? We don't want history to repeat itself by electing another very old person as US President do we?

Its not uncommon, since Kennedy most have been over 50, the more recent over 70.

Fun fact, Jimmy Carter is the oldest living (ex) president, he turned 100 last week, he was 52 when elected.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

From policies like those mentioned below.

The non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget warns of heightened risk of ‘an eventual fiscal crisis’ and his plans will see the USA in debt by double the amount that Kamala Harris's plans would.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...la-harris.html

It’s an opinion piece, it plainly says in the first few lines …….

Trump, who has not yet released a comprehensive economic plan,

If he hasn’t put forward a plan/policy how can they claim a crisis?

Hmmm

And he is shocked when regular economic growth occurs

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...cy-msna1027741

Yes, from that article …..in October 2017

No one actually thought that -- because 3.1% quarterly growth has been quite common since the end of the Great Recession.

But from just six months earlier…..

The US economy slowed dramatically in the first three months of the year, according to official data, external.
GDP expanded at an annual rate of 0.7% in the first quarter - the slowest rate since the first quarter of 2014.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39748165

That would appear to be well below the very common 3%, wouldn’t it?

And thinks that tariffs just tax foreign companies

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/10/u...m-tariffs.html

Tariffs have their place, but that is just another opinion piece.

---------- Post added at 22:56 ---------- Previous post was at 22:53 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Ha ha ha, you are truly a comedy legend.

Seriously though, you with that statement, are an an authoritative administrations wet dream.

Originally Posted by Mr K

Seems some, still haven't got over the UK GE result, and are looking elsewhere for their loony kicks...

Try following Halifax Town AFC, if you're in need of some entertainment . ( if not results....) Surely more important than a country you don't live in.

If there was an actual point to that post, please do write in, although I can’t reply to all letters I do read them.

---------- Post added at 22:59 ---------- Previous post was at 22:56 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If you and I were eminent political commentators, I doubt we would be spending our time on a forum when the world's TV studios waited upon our wisdom.

Point accepted, but I think we’d be great on the Jeremy Vine show. Just waiting for the call.

Trump’s own proposals for tariffs

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy...w-do-they-work

He has proposed a 60% tariff on goods from China — and a tariff of up to 20% on everything else the United States imports.

This week, he raised the ante still higher. To punish the machinery manufacturer John Deere for its plans to move some production to Mexico, Trump vowed to tax anything Deere tried to export back into the United States — at 200%.

And he threatened to hit Mexican-made goods with 100% tariffs, a move that would risk blowing up a trade deal that Trump’s own administration negotiated with Canada and Mexico

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

The words out of his own mouth to Glen Beck + his first impeachment, for someone with such a strong opinion people would think you'd pay attention more

Conviction. As in convicted and he has never been impeached.

So are supporters of the guy who promised to be dictator on day 1, he's actually telling people what he'll do and it makes no difference to the cult who don't believe the evidence of their eyes and ears

Dictator on day one, one for the sheep….and yes, I mean you as you obviously blindly eagerly eat any sheet fed to you by the anyone.

Yes he said jokingly he would be a dictator on day one, for a day……………..as….a……..joke……..for……..a……….day…………

, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?” Hannity asked Trump in the interview taped in Davenport, Iowa on Tuesday.

“Except for day one,” Trump responded

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...iowa-town-hall

Clearly a joke.

---------- Post added at 23:14 ---------- Previous post was at 23:10 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Trump’s own proposals for tariffs

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy...w-do-they-work

Good for him.

We’ve sold our manufacturing base down the river. We, the nation that invented steel, can no longer make it.

Why do you think his proposals are bad?

From the linked article above

Tariffs raise costs for companies and consumers that rely on imports. They’re also likely to provoke retaliation.

The European Union, for example, punched back against Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum by taxing U.S. products, from bourbon to Harley-Davidson motorcycles. Likewise, China responded to Trump’s trade war by slapping tariffs on American goods, including soybeans and pork in a calculated drive to hurt his supporters in farm country.

A study by economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Zurich, Harvard and the World Bank concluded that Trump’s tariffs failed to restore jobs to the American heartland. The tariffs “neither raised nor lowered U.S. employment’’ where they were supposed to protect jobs, the study found.

Despite Trump’s 2018 taxes on imported steel, for example, the number of jobs at U.S. steel plants barely budged: They remained right around 140,000. By comparison, Walmart alone employs 1.6 million people in the United States.

Worse, the retaliatory taxes imposed by China and other nations on U.S. goods had “negative employment impacts,’’ especially for farmers, the study found. These retaliatory tariffs were only partly offset by billions in government aid that Trump doled out to farmers. The Trump tariffs also damaged companies that relied on targeted imports.

The Tax Foundation, a right-wing Libertarian policy research group funded by the Koch Brothers & Exxon Mobil, stated

Candidate Trump has proposed significant tariff hikes as part of his presidential campaign; we estimate that if imposed, his proposed tariff increases would hike taxes by another $524 billion annually and shrink GDP by at least 0.8 percent, the capital stock by 0.7 percent, and employment by 684,000 full-time equivalent jobs. Our estimates do not capture the effects of retaliation, nor the additional harms that would stem from starting a global trade war.

For his previous Tariffs, they say

Before accounting for behavioral effects, the $79 billion in higher tariffs amounts to an average annual tax increase on US households of $625. Based on actual revenue collections data, trade war tariffs have directly increased tax collections by $200 to $300 annually per US household, on average. Both estimates understate the cost to US households because they do not factor in the lost output, lower incomes, and loss in consumer choice the tariffs have caused.

https://taxfoundation.org/research/a...biden-tariffs/

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

For his previous Tariffs, they say

Swings and roundabouts, winners and losers

Workers who produce the specific goods covered by tariffs typically benefit from the protection. While it is difficult to pin down exact numbers, the tariffs on steel products appear to have helped create several thousand jobs in the steel industry; similarly, tariffs on washing machines are associated with approximately 1,800 new jobs at Whirlpool, Samsung, and LG factories in the US. In these specific industries, then, tariffs have probably been good for workers.

But any benefits for workers in import-competing industries need to be balanced against losses for two other groups of workers. First, many workers are employed in factories that use imported goods as inputs in their production processes, and when these imports increase in cost due to tariffs, it harms their production, often leading to job losses. Second, when the U.S. unilaterally imposes tariffs, American trading partners often implement retaliatory tariffs which may limit U.S. export production, again ultimately harming workers in these industries.

In general, then, Trump’s tariffs have helped some workers and hurt others.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/d...onal-security/

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Conviction. As in convicted and he has never been impeached.

Wrong, he's been impeached twice, it's the process regardless of verdict

Dictator on day one, one for the sheep….and yes, I mean you as you obviously blindly eagerly eat any sheet fed to you by the anyone.

Yes he said jokingly he would be a dictator on day one, for a day……………..as….a……..joke……..for……..a……….day…………



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...iowa-town-hall

Clearly a joke.

Clearly joking, that's why I quoted the Glen Beck interview where he stated he'd have no choice but to lock up political opponents

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

no choice but to lock up political opponents

Well Biden and Harris have certainly given it a good go.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well Biden and Harris have certainly given it a good go.

What utter bs and you called me a sheep

Why don't you try and substantiate some of donnies claims because he sure as hell can't

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I doubt anyone except a few cronies would be better off with Trump as he is economically illiterate. More worryingly, he has a disdain for democracy as his convinctions demonstrate. He would waste tax payers' money chasing judges who've followed due process and putting people in charge based on how much the fawn to him and not on their abilities, making the US the laughing stock of the World.

And if you don't want another old politician in power, don't given your vote to Trump.

Biden is a bit useless in the Middle East but the US currently has an economy the rest of the world looks on with envy:


https://www.ft.com/content/3261fc5f-...5-26864ef24e6a

Sorry our accounts say differently and in the end it's the bottom line thar counts