Trump hasn't invested a single dime in infrastructure. His infrastructure bill never made it out of committee so this couldn't possibly be a factor. Goldman Sachs did a study that found the impact of regulatory rollbacks on the economy were minimal at best and could find no tangible effect on the economy. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...for-the-us-economy-is-a-dud-so-far-2018-02-12 Ford just decided to stop production of one of their models manufactured in China because of the tariffs and when Trump suggested that they manufacture the model in the US, Ford said that it wouldn't be profitable for them to do so. This said I do support a tougher stance toward China and many of their economic practices but tariffs stand to hurt Americans more than the Chinese and amount to little more than a tax, which most conservatives are diametrically opposed to. tough talk with NoKo is not an economic policy. I would agree that Trump and Kim's school boy tough talk was a negative on the economy but I don't know that the "summit" was a net positive for the economy aside from pushing the needle back to where it was before their "rocket man" and "dotard" stand off. To be clear, I cheer any time more jobs are created in America because it's good for America and not something I see as political. That said, many of the manufacturing jobs that have returned were due to long term plans by the manufacturers and not because of Trump's policies. https://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/trump-jobs-returning-because-of-me/ https://www.businessinsider.com/the...se-to-bring-back-us-manufacturing-jobs-2017-3 Trump's economic success has been largely predicated on the rise in the stock market. This rise has been good for those with money in the market but it doesn't coincide with the reality on the ground. Unemployment remains low but primarily because of the "gig" economy where people are unable to find long term full time employment so they work two or three part time jobs to make a living. This was true under Obama as well and is indicative of a longer term trend than in anything that Obama or Trump did or is doing. Further, GDP growth under Trump for 2017 was 2.3%, hardly an overwhelming number. Conservatives are talking up the second quarter GDP number that was recently revised upward to 4.2% but if you look back our Q2 numbers have been high for quite some time. While I applaud any good economic news, it's not like the economy is humming along at 3% growth or better. As @Winston1 has pointed out the economy operates, in many regards, independent from the President and/or Congress and while policies can have an effect, those are often longer term effects rather than immediate unless it is a fiscal stimulus like what W did when the government simply mailed out checks to people. Tax cuts, when directed at working people, can also have this effect. That said, even Trump's tax cuts missed the mark of working people in favor of cutting taxes for the richest and for corporations. In fact, most working people's taxes will go up the next few years as a result of his tax cuts.
def·i·cit [ˈdefəsət] NOUN the amount by which something, especially a sum of money, is too small. synonyms: shortfall · deficiency · shortage · undersupply · slippage · indebtedness · debt · arrears · minus amount · negative amount · loss an excess of expenditure or liabilities over income or assets in a given period. "an annual operating deficit" · [more] (in sports) the amount or score by which a team or individual is losing. "came back from a 3–0 deficit" technical a deficiency or failing, especially in a neurological or psychological function. "deficits in speech comprehension" Here is the definition of deficit. We are spending over $800 billion a year more than we are collecting in tax revenues. So no matter what number you cite that says our tax revenues are higher under Trump it is still more than $800 billion too little and this is a direct result of Trump's policies.
And? Its still lower than Obama's. Obama had a 4 year run with $1 Trillion plus. Even still, the "budget" which creates the deficit, is about 80% based on the dip-shits in congress and senate.
I have heard for 2 years Trump is going to destroy our country, yet, here we are. Making a shit load of money. Odd.
Boeing does, Lockheed Martin does in fact many many companies do. Banks do, Pharma does, insurance does. You can’t name a sector of business that doesn’t
No. Because if they did, they would not be bringing money back into the US, which they are doing. Or, it would mean your scenario of him fucking all this up is false. Your call bud. The biggest factor for corporations is tax, payroll tax, levies/tariffs, and regulatory considerations. The only time whats in the budget matters is when its a corporate subsidy or bailout. Which is everything you listed which lives off the governments teet. Small business.
In Trump’s own words prices will go up https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/10/trump-tariffs-iphone-more-expensive/amp?__twitter_impression=true Trump Says iPhones Will Get More Expensive. Actually, It's Going to Be Much Worse Than That. Building iPhones entirely in the U.S. would double or triple their retail prices. There's no way Apple is going to do that. Eric Boehm Sep. 10, 2018 9:55 am Xinhua/Sipa USA/NewscomIn what seems like an admission that his trade war is neither "good" nor "easy to win," President Donald Trump tweeted over the weekend that prices for Apple products, like iPhones, "may increase because of the massive Tariffs we may be imposing on China." This kind of honesty is actually a positive step for the administration. Yes, it's misleading to say that the tariffs are being imposed "on China"—tariffs are import taxes paid by consumers, not by foreign producers—but being upfront about how tariffs will increase prices for Americans is a marked improvement over his months of denials, let alone his claim that "tariffs are the greatest." Still, the Saturday tweet really undersells the potential impact of Trump's plan to slap 25 percent tariffs on another $200 billion of Chinese imports. It is not only Apple products but potentially hundreds of consumer goods that could spike in price—from computers, tablets, and video games to vacuum cleaners, furniture, and children's toys. All just in time for Christmas. In short, American consumers are about to feel the brunt of tariffs in the same way that aluminum- and steel-consuming industries have for months. The first rounds of tariffs focused on industrial goods and raw materials, and they have increased costs without achiving their primary policy goal of on-shoring manufacturing jobs. Despite the lack of evidence that the tariffs are working—indeed, without understandingwhy he even wants tariffs in the first place, if Bob Woodward's new book is to be believed—Trump is now doubling down. Adding 25 percent to the cost of a new iPhone will hike the price of Apple's low-end product to more than $200. If cell phone prices spike, or if there's a hit to Apple stock (a major driver of the stock market as a whole, and a key component of mutual funds held by many average investors as part of retirement accounts and the like), this will quickly go from being an economic problem for Trump to a political one. But Trump has what he says is an easy solution. "Make your products in the United States instead of China," he tweeted this weekend. "Start building new plants now." Even if it were possible for Apple to re-route complex global supply chains that have been years in the making, all to appease Trump's desire for an American-made iPhone, would consumers benefit? No. An American-made iPhone would cost more than $2,000 at the retail level, according to an analysis by Marketplace. One interesting detail in that Marketplace report: Cheap Chinese labor, contrary to popular opinion, is not the source of most of the savings achieved by building iPhones in China. Apple pays about $5 per iPhone in labor costs, but building phones in the U.S. would add only about $10 to that total. The real problem with trying to make an all-American iPhone is that cell phone components and parts are sourced all around the world. The pieces that go into an iPhone cost Apple about $190 to puchase, but would easily cost three times as much to produce in the U.S. Even if it were possible to force, or entice, Apple to make an iPhone in the U.S., you'd end up with a far more expensive product. Or as Michael Froman, a former U.S. trade representative, told Inside Trade reporter Anshu Siripurapu in December: It turns out that Apple knows more about the process of making iPhones than Donald Trump does. Tariffs will hurt American consumers, but they won't make Apple build iPhones in the U.S.—because that would hurt consumers even worse.
