Posted on 06/19/2015 2:52:27 PM PDT by VA Voter
Neither. I don't vote for liberal Democrats, and Trump self-identified as one.
He believes the country must have universal healthcare.
He wants a ban on "assault rifles."
He believes taxes should be raised on upper income earners.
He has tried to get the government to use its powers of eminent domain to seize land from property owners so that he could have it.
So I ask you...why would anyone on this site support a person who SAID he was a Democrat & espoused liberal positions?
“no trade imbalance at the end of Clinton’s term”
Trade imbalance increased dramatically during Clinton’s last four years.
“As the budget deficit has fallen, why has the trade deficit increased?”
What world do you live in? The budgets deficit is now about 18 trillion; Obama has added about 7 trillion. The trade deficit has increased, obviously, because we import more (manufactured goods) than we export because we are being de-industralized.
That is all a bit too irrational for me to respond to it.
Don’t so much read what they say, watch what they’re doing. If The Donald isn’t a threat, then why are all these beltway bootlickers squealing like teenage girls at a slasher movie?
“The anti-Trumps are getting irrational in their rantings.”
When you’re taking flak, you’re over the target.
Excellent point and well played. I hadn’t drawn that analogy.
At the same time that the budget deficit decreased.
How does that fit with your theory?
What world do you live in?
Reality. You?
The budgets deficit is now about 18 trillion;
Do you really not know the difference between debt and deficit?
we import more (manufactured goods) than we export because we are being de-industralized.
Obviously.
You know who else takes flak?
Liberal blowhards.
I said that trade deficits cause debt. I didn’t say that trade deficits cause ALL debt. There is a difference. You said that the budget deficit was decreasing. I used your terminology; however: (from Wikipedia - Deficits occur when a government’s expenditures exceed the revenue that it generates.) In general parlance, that is acceptable language and that is what is happening. Debt is accumulated deficits. I have no clue with your attraction to that graph. If you think the economy is fine, you belong to a small group who thinks that way. You should not be wasting time your with me, but go forth and correct all the many analysts who think otherwise, all 43 million on food stamps, and all 93 million who do not have jobs, and all the multiple millions who work part time.
Almost as unqualified as the current White House resident.
No, I don't agree. The government spends what it wants to spend without any consideration of trade. The two are not related.
Please, study some economics -- it's not hard. But, please, do not rely on the rantings of Trump for your opinions.
You just can't prove it.
I didn’t say that trade deficits cause ALL debt.
Precisely WHICH debts do they cause?
You said that the budget deficit was decreasing.
And unlike you, I can prove my claims.
Deficits occur when a government’s expenditures exceed the revenue that it generates.
Excellent! Old dogs and all that. No mention of trade though.
I have no clue with your attraction to that graph.
Simply to prove wrong your claim about de-industrialization.
and all 93 million who do not have jobs,
I corrected your error here as well. 320 million Americans means many more than 93 million do not work.
Effects of trade deficit (article by Kurt Williamsen);
This was the logic I have been using and his is a long article exploring the validity of the logic:
“Using logic, many Americans deduce from our deficits that a situation is occurring similar to the following scenario: More U.S. imports than exports indicates less production here, fewer jobs here, fewer opportunities for advancement, lower wages, longer hours at the jobs that are available, and more years of work before retirement — if retirement comes at all.
They also wonder how long we can continue running up these trade deficits, because wealth is literally being drained from our country. Or is it?
In fact, is any part of the depressing result of trade deficits true, or is it logic gone awry?”
The national debt has been skyrocketing due to government borrowing under Obama. I have no clue as to why you say it is not, or just enjoy hairsplitting. I don’t consider myself an economist, but the ones who do, they are the ones who say that the United States is being de-industralized. I just notice that, when I buy things, not very much of it is manufactured in the United States. I was in Lowes to buy a wrench; I found what I wanted and it was made in the United States - had an American flag prominently displayed to capture consumer attention, since it is so rare - I was so surprised that I bought two. The 93 million figure is counting the able-bodied workers from a certain age that comprise the LABOR POOL, historically from about age 18 to 65, factoring out students, military, etc.
Williamsen said that in a lot of countries where people are starving, it is not because there is no food; it is because there is no money. My point has always been that it doesn’t matter if cheap good come here to be bought; if you don’t have a job, you still can’t buy it.
About the author’s conclusion - I’m too tired to read it. I’ll get to it later. I scanned it briefly; he got off into the perils of fiat money. I’m assuming he had a negative conclusion.
Good comment, Doughty. Very true.
Thank you. Appreciate the comment.
Money is the only form of wealth? If we buy oil, we're not getting wealth in exchange for our money? If I buy a car, is wealth draining from me, or did I get something useful in exchange? Something I valued more than the money I spent on it?
The national debt has been skyrocketing due to government borrowing under Obama. I have no clue as to why you say it is not,
Excuse me? Where did I ever say the national debt hasn't skyrocketed under Obama? Or under Bush before him?
I don’t consider myself an economist, but the ones who do, they are the ones who say that the United States is being de-industralized.
Which ones say that? The ones who ignore the fact that we make 20% of all manufactured goods on the entire planet?
I just notice that, when I buy things, not very much of it is manufactured in the United States.
And that is your proof that we've de-industrialized?
The 93 million figure is counting the able-bodied workers from a certain age that comprise the LABOR POOL,
And when has 100% of our labor pool ever been employed? The BLS says we have almost 120 million employed in the private sector and almost 22 million employed by government. About 142 million total. If you think our unemployment rate is 93 million/(93 million + 142 million) or almost 40%, I'm going to have to criticize your math.
he got off into the perils of fiat money.
Based on his many huge errors here.....
Investors are exiting Singapore in droves right now based on its trade deficits. Though typically Singapore exports ample palm oil and coal, in recent months it has had large trade deficits, causing investors to flee, leading to funding problems for businesses and government alike.
I'm having a difficult time taking him at all seriously.
From USA Today - 8 years ago. (excerpt)
The decline has gotten worse.
Factory jobs: 3 million lost since 2000
Posted 4/20/2007
By Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON — Three weeks ago, Dawn Zimmer became a statistic. Laid off from her job assembling trucks at Freightliner’s plant in Portland, Ore., she and 800 of her colleagues joined a long line of U.S. manufacturing workers who have lost jobs in recent years. A total of 3.2 million — one in six factory jobs — have disappeared since the start of 2000.
Many people believe those jobs will never come back.
“They are building a multimillion-dollar plant in Mexico and they are going to build the Freightliners down there. They came in and videotaped us at work so they could train the Mexican workers,” said Zimmer, 55, who had worked at Freightliner since 1994.
That’s the issue for American workers. Many of their jobs are moving overseas, to Mexico and China and elsewhere.
Real manufacturing output, up 50% since NAFTA passed.
As per NAFTA, correlation is not causation. The United States had a bustling economy before NAFTA and the other free trade agreements. Between about 1950 and 1970 real income rose about 75%. You can find studies that show NAFTA was a washout as far as jobs are concerned, about as many jobs were lost as gained. The Real Output graft you cite encompasses things like increased output efficiency, etc. The United States is of course still the premier economic engine in the world, it has absorbed repeated blows, but it can take only so much.
From Robert Atkkinson, Industry Week, Mar 14, 2013:
America lost 5.7 million, or 33%, of its manufacturing jobs in the 2000s. This is a rate of loss unprecedented in U.S. history—worse than in the 1980s, when BusinessWeek warned of deindustrialization and worse than the rate of manufacturing job loss experienced during the Great Depression.
While U.S. manufacturing has clawed back, regaining about half a million of those lost manufacturing jobs since 2010, there’s little doubt that the 2000s constituted the worst decade for manufacturing employment in the Republic’s history.
Note: the half a million regained jobs is not all that comforting.
I’m referring more to Obama as being the “Joe Cool” type of POTUS we don’t want. Anyway, Obama was never really cool. It the smoke and mirrors that make him seem cool to WAY too many voters...and what’s worse is that Obama believes his own press.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.