Trump's Presidency: Is this the next domino to fall?

5,701 posts in this topic

Progress...

 

 

Quote

 

China said Monday it will slap tariffs on more than 5,000 U.S. products in retaliation for President Donald Trump’s decision to raise duties on Chinese goods amid trade talks between the world’s two largest economies.

China’s Ministry of Finance said the new tariffs would impact $60 billion in U.S. imports and would range from 5% to 25%. The tariffs will take effect June 1, which would give the two sides time to resume trade negotiations that broke off last week without reaching a new deal.

The tariffs will impact a wide range of U.S. products, including coffee, beef, salmon, flowers and some fruits and vegetables.

Stocks tumbled follow China's announcement.

The Dow Jones industrial average dropped 566 points, or 2.2%, to 25,372 in early trading, while the Standard & Poor's 500 index lost 67 points, or 2.3%, to 2,813. The tech-heavy Nasdaq, which has been the most vulnerable to trade tensions, plunged 243 points, or 3.1%, to 7,674 Monday morning.

China acted shortly after Trump warned them not to take any action and urged President Xi Jinping to sign a new trade deal.

"I say openly to President Xi & all of my many friends in China that China will be hurt very badly if you don’t make a deal because companies will be forced to leave China for other countries," Trump tweeted.

"Too expensive to buy in China,” he added. “You had a great deal, almost completed, & you backed out!"

Trade talks between the two countries stalled Friday without a new deal after Trump raised tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods to 25% from 10%, including office furniture, handbags and frozen catfish fillets, after trade talks between the two countries stalled.

Trump said in a tweet Sunday that China "broke the deal" and "tried to renegotiate."

The U.S. Trade Representative’s Office also has started the process of levying tariffs on another $325 billion in Chinese goods, a move that would mean that virtually every Chinese import that enters the U.S. will be subject to a levy.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

President Donald Trump has finally dropped his ruse that China pays tariffs to the U.S.Instead, he emphasized another trade lie on Monday.

Trump has repeatedly insisted that China pays tariffs directly to the U.S. government. But it’s actually U.S. importers who pay tariffs for Chinese goods, and they pass those costs to U.S. consumers in the form of higher product prices. 

Trump finally appeared to concede in a tweet that Americans are the ones who really shoulder tariff costs. But he said “there is no reason” they have to pay them — as long as they buy from a “non-Tariffed Country.”

Many American goods, however, contain parts from different countries, so it’s difficult to dodge products that aren’t affected by tariffs.

Trump also said tariff costs can be avoided if products are purchased “inside the USA,” but that’s clearly not the case with products hit by tariffs — even if people buy them in the U.S.

Trump also tweeted — again — that tariffs have helped the U.S. economy, which is not true according to his own economic adviser. “Some people just don’t get it!” Trump wrote.

 

 

more here with his Tweets

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is only one Trump scandal.

 

Quote

There are not many Trump scandals. There is one Trump scandal. Singular: the corruption of the American government by the president and his associates, who are using their official power for personal and financial gain rather than for the welfare of the American people, and their attempts to shield that corruption from political consequences, public scrutiny, or legal accountability.

 

Take recent developments: There’s the president’s attempt to aid the Chinese telecom company ZTE, mere hours after the Chinese government approved funding for a project in the vicinity of a Trump property in Indonesia. There’s the millions of dollars corporations paid to Cohen after the election in an attempt to influence administration policy in their favor. Trump’s Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, also the acting head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, urged banks to pay off politicians in an effort to weaken the CFPB’s powers legislatively—since taking the helm of CFPB, Mulvaney has dropped a number of cases against payday lenders who charge exorbitant interest rates, after taking thousands from the industry as a congressman. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt’s own mini-universe of scandals stems from his improper relationships with industry figures, his misuse of taxpayer funds, and his attempts to obscure the truth about both. Trump attempted to pressure the Postmaster General to increase fees on Amazon in order to punish The Washington Post, which has published many stories detailing wrongdoing and misbehavior on the part of the Trump administration, and the Trump campaign before that. Not long after The New York Times reported that Trump officials may have solicited campaign help not just from Russia, but also from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the president “demanded” that the Justice Department launch an inquiry into whether the FBI improperly investigated a campaign that was eagerly soliciting international aid to swing the election in its favor.

 

In each of these cases, the president or one of his associates was seeking to profit, personally or financially, from their official duties and powers. When that conduct has potentially run afoul of the law, Trump has sought to bend federal law enforcement to his whim, the better to protect himself and his associates from legal accountability. The president’s ongoing chastising of his own Justice Department, and his war of words with current and former FBI officials, stem less from any coherent ideological principle than from Trump’s desperate need to protect himself. An authoritarian model of law enforcement, where the president personally decides who is prosecuted and who is not based on his own political agenda, is simply the best way for Trump to shield himself and his inner circle from legal consequences.

 
 
 

The president’s opponents have yet to craft a coherent narrative about the Trump administration’s corruption, even though the only major legislative accomplishment Trump has to his name is cutting his own taxes. But his supporters have, ironically, crafted an overarching explanation to account for how the president they voted for, who came to office promising to eliminate official corruption, has come to embody it. The “Deep State” narrative is no more complicated than an attempt to explain the accumulating evidence of misbehavior on the part of the administration as a wide-ranging conspiracy to frame the president. The more evidence of wrongdoing that comes to light, the more certain they are that the conspiracy theory is true. In their own way, Trump supporters have recognized that Trump’s burgeoning list of scandals is made of branches from the same twisted tree.

 

The latest Trumptown fable, that the FBI inquiry into the Trump campaign was meant to aid Clinton’s campaign, is as incoherent as it is absurd. The FBI properly kept the Russia inquiry under wraps while high-ranking FBI officials defied Justice Department rules and made public statements about two inquiries into Clinton prior to election day. Neither of those inquiries led to indictments or guilty pleas; the special-counsel inquiry has led to more than 20so far. Had the FBI been motivated by a political vendetta against Trump, leaking the fact of the inquiry on its own, even if it uncovered no malfeasance at all, would have been enough to damage his candidacy. The essential quality of pro-Trump punditry however, is that their perception of reality must be warped to conform to the latest Trump proclamation, even if it contradicts previous Trump pronouncements or established facts. Trump dictates reality, and his supporters rush to justify whatever has been decreed. In this way, Trump manages to corrupt not just those in his immediate orbit or inner circle, but even those who have never met him, who endeavor to reconcile the insurmountable gap between his words and the world as it exists.

 

I want to emphasize that not everything the administration is doing that I believe is bad is a scandal, which I am defining as official wrongdoing or corruption. The president’s ongoing immigration policy, an attempt to displace, through aggressive deportations of otherwise law-abiding undocumented immigrants, and the cancellation of Temporary Protected Status and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, is a moral travesty but not necessarily a misuse of his official powers. Trump’s immigration policy is a reflection of his belief that these people from “shithole countries” are inferior, and therefore offer little to the United States. He is hardly the first president to pursue such a policy on such a basis; but a policy can be morally repugnant without being a scandal.

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, fraufruit said:

 

Economists have estimated that the trade war is costing the U.S. more than $3 billion a month.

 

 

A new wall every 2 months.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US annual federal budget is $3.8 Trillion.   $20 billion for a wall and $12 billion for farmer subsidies are rounding errors. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that the new talking point now? That $1.1 billion that Brokeahontas lost? Tis but a scratch...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, El Jeffo said:

Is that the new talking point now? That $1.1 billion that Brokeahontas lost? Tis but a scratch...

 

If you want to become hysterical over those amounts, considering what is at stake, I won't try to stop you.   

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm far from hysterical, Loretta. But if you're still a Trump fan at this point, chances are you're either a white nationalist or an idiot.

 

But I repeat myself.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, El Jeffo said:

I'm far from hysterical, Loretta. But if you're still a Trump fan at this point, chances are you're either a white nationalist or an idiot.

 

But I repeat myself.

 

Or super rich...

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, El Jeffo said:

I'm far from hysterical, Loretta. But if you're still a Trump fan at this point, chances are you're either a white nationalist or an idiot.

 

But I repeat myself.

 

I have never been a Trump fan, but your ongoing hysteria about the Russiagate scam and your lack of civility toward anyone who does not embrace your ideas with religious fervor has caused you to become delusional.  

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More de-bunking of lies -

 

 

Quote

 

U.S. cities that take in larger numbers of undocumented immigrants do not see a correlation with higher rates of violent and property crime, a new study by the Marshall Project and the New York Times has found.

The study debunks one of President Trump’s favorite talking points, that undocumented immigrants represent a criminal risk to Americans. That idea has been central to Trump’s political rise and was articulated when he announced his candidacy for president on June 16, 2015.

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. they’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists,” Trump said.

Since taking office, Trump has repeated the claim that undocumented immigrants are prone to crime and that U.S. metro areas designated as “sanctuary cities” suffer as a result.

But the new study compared recent estimates of undocumented populations in metro areas with local crime rates published by the FBI and found that a significant majority of urban areas reported decreases in violent and property crime between 2007 and 2016.

The study showed that the decreases in metro crime rates were independent of changes in the undocumented population.

The new research, while perhaps the most detailed, is just the latest to refute Trump’s claims about undocumented immigrants and crime.

2018 study by the Cato Institute, for example, found that in Texas, immigrants — legal or undocumented — committed fewer crimes than native-born U.S. residents. Another study across all 50 states had similar results.

A separate study published in March 2018 in the journal Criminology found that states with more undocumented immigrants have lower crime rates than those with fewer.

 

There is a Revolution going on in California. Soooo many Sanctuary areas want OUT of this ridiculous, crime infested & breeding concept. Jerry Brown is trying to back out of the National Guard at the Border, but the people of the State are not happy. Want Security & Safety NOW!

 

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, balticus said:

The US annual federal budget is $3.8 Trillion.   $20 billion for a wall and $12 billion for farmer subsidies are rounding errors. 

 

Still, Trump is not getting his "rounding error" for his wall.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019, 7:47:02, fraufruit said:

But we've already been subsidizing farmers since the first tariffs were announced. Everyone knows that the American consumers will pay for all of the tariffs with higher prices. WTF?

 

 

 

 

US Farmers shouldn't be subsidized at all! No one forced them to make trade with China. If anything they should have saw this coming. China is a despicable country with a horrible record of human rights violations and has no alliance with United States. But the poor and innocent American farmers didn't care about these things and neither did the the American consumer(despite the massive "Buy American" campaign in the late 90's).  

 

If so many farmers in the US are really so dependent on shipping soybeans and cows to a tyrant regime, just to earn a buck. then maybe its about time some for of them to learn how to do something else for a living instead of trying to scrape every last dime from the billions of acres of land that they probably inherited from great great grandparents. And then we are expected to bail them out when they are unable to do so?  I don't feel sorry for them one bit.

 

As for the poor and innocent American consumers, to hell with them. They are just a bunch of idiots who pay China to steal their technology and then sell it back to them. If Americans are really that stupid, then yes I hope they will have to pay more. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fromm said:

If so many farmers in the US are really so dependent on shipping soybeans and cows to a tyrant regime, just to earn a buck. then maybe its about time some for of them to learn how to do something else for a living instead of trying to scrape every last dime from the billions of acres of land

 

Except for the fact that we need those farmers to continue doing what they are doing. 

 

Agricultural subsidies in the US are not new or exclusive to the Drumpf administration. 

 

If all the farmers went and found something more lucrative, we’d have to import from China. :ph34r:

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fromm said:

 Not really.

 

What an eloquent, well-thought response. Thank you for your contribution. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Fromm said:

 

US Farmers shouldn't be subsidized at all! No one forced them to make trade with China. If anything they should have saw this coming. China is a despicable country with a horrible record of human rights violations and has no alliance with United States. But the poor and innocent American farmers didn't care about these things and neither did the the American consumer(despite the massive "Buy American" campaign in the late 90's).  

 

If so many farmers in the US are really so dependent on shipping soybeans and cows to a tyrant regime, just to earn a buck. then maybe its about time some for of them to learn how to do something else for a living instead of trying to scrape every last dime from the billions of acres of land that they probably inherited from great great grandparents. And then we are expected to bail them out when they are unable to do so?  I don't feel sorry for them one bit.

 

As for the poor and innocent American consumers, to hell with them. They are just a bunch of idiots who pay China to steal their technology and then sell it back to them. If Americans are really that stupid, then yes I hope they will have to pay more. 

 

Are you suggesting that US businesses should not trade with China at all?   

 

With respect to agriculture subsidies, they are simply an insurance policy which enables overproduction but guarantees food supply.   A little bit of inefficiency and cost seems minor in comparison to the alternative, i.e. malnutrition or starvation.     

 

If you think that China was allowed entry into the WTO too early, you are not alone.

 

This is a decent overview with some links. 

 

https://www.dlacalle.com/en/nuclear-option-china-has-already-lost-a-possible-trade-war/

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, balticus said:

 

Are you suggesting that US businesses should not trade with China at all?   

 

With respect to agriculture subsidies, they are simply an insurance policy which enables overproduction but guarantees food supply.   A little bit of inefficiency and cost seems minor in comparison to the alternative, i.e. malnutrition or starvation.     

 

If you think that China was allowed entry into the WTO too early, you are not alone.

 

This is a decent overview with some links. 

 

https://www.dlacalle.com/en/nuclear-option-china-has-already-lost-a-possible-trade-war/

 

 

b.alt.icus is making sense.   What's happening here?

3

Share this post


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