The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread

Trump tariffs lead to bleak 2019 farm forecasts

The Agriculture Department’s Economic Research Service has estimated that 2018 net farm income will be $9.8 billion, or 13 percent, lower than the year before. Adjusting for inflation, farm income is barely above the lowest level since 2002. If current trends continue, some agriculture economists predict that farm income will fall again in 2019.

Trade aid vs. suppressed demand

Although many farmers aren’t vocally blaming Trump for their woes, the trade war has both direct and indirect effects on agriculture. Steel and aluminum duties levied on imports from China as well as other trading partners like Canada have bumped up the cost of farm equipment, while tariffs on Chinese chemicals have raised prices on pesticides and herbicides.

USDA’s recent trade aid package provides some respite, but it will not address the broader challenges. Several sectors of the farm economy also complain that the $12 billion trade assistance program will give meager relief from retaliatory tariffs.

The department is set to announce plans for a second round of trade aid around early December, but the Agriculture secretary has repeatedly stressed the cash payments are intended to just be a temporary, one-year stopgap.

Gordon called the program a “Band-Aid on an arterial bleed.”

The biggest factor taking aim at farm incomes has to do with supply and demand economics. Commodity prices have plummeted since spring, when China was gearing up to slap 25 percent duties on U.S. agricultural goods like soybeans in retaliation for Trump’s tariffs on Chinese high-tech products.

Ken Morrison, an agriculture commodities market expert, said China is unlikely to back down over Trump’s trade demands on issues like intellectual property and technology transfers. Like other trade experts and market watchers, Morrison thinks retaliatory tariffs are here to stay.

“I spent four years in China, long enough to know not to underestimate their willingness to endure economic pain, especially when their sovereign goals are threatened,” he said.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/23/trump-tariffs-farmers-agriculture-866450

Put an Idiot in the White House - what could go wrong?
 
Booter said:
Trump tariffs lead to bleak 2019 farm forecasts

The Agriculture Department’s Economic Research Service has estimated that 2018 net farm income will be $9.8 billion, or 13 percent, lower than the year before. Adjusting for inflation, farm income is barely above the lowest level since 2002. If current trends continue, some agriculture economists predict that farm income will fall again in 2019.

Trade aid vs. suppressed demand

Although many farmers aren’t vocally blaming Trump for their woes, the trade war has both direct and indirect effects on agriculture. Steel and aluminum duties levied on imports from China as well as other trading partners like Canada have bumped up the cost of farm equipment, while tariffs on Chinese chemicals have raised prices on pesticides and herbicides.

USDA’s recent trade aid package provides some respite, but it will not address the broader challenges. Several sectors of the farm economy also complain that the $12 billion trade assistance program will give meager relief from retaliatory tariffs.

The department is set to announce plans for a second round of trade aid around early December, but the Agriculture secretary has repeatedly stressed the cash payments are intended to just be a temporary, one-year stopgap.

Gordon called the program a “Band-Aid on an arterial bleed.”

The biggest factor taking aim at farm incomes has to do with supply and demand economics. Commodity prices have plummeted since spring, when China was gearing up to slap 25 percent duties on U.S. agricultural goods like soybeans in retaliation for Trump’s tariffs on Chinese high-tech products.

Ken Morrison, an agriculture commodities market expert, said China is unlikely to back down over Trump’s trade demands on issues like intellectual property and technology transfers. Like other trade experts and market watchers, Morrison thinks retaliatory tariffs are here to stay.

“I spent four years in China, long enough to know not to underestimate their willingness to endure economic pain, especially when their sovereign goals are threatened,” he said.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/23/trump-tariffs-farmers-agriculture-866450

Put an Idiot in the White House - what could go wrong?
Click to expand...
You must not have listened to Trump in Texas last night.
 
Fake News putting words in the President's mouth,
CNN's Jim Acosta 'Asks' Trump: 'You're a White Nationalist'

pTBoqzcU-720.jpg

JUSTIN CARUSO 23 Oct 2018


President Donald Trump defined nationalism for CNN reporter Jim Acosta in the White House Tuesday, saying that he’s “so proud of our country.”


“Mr. President, just to follow up on your comments about being a nationalist–there is a concern that you are sending coded language or a dog whistle to some Americans out there that what you really mean is that you’re a white nationalist?” Jim Acosta asked in the Oval Office.

“I’ve never even heard that, I can’t imagine that,” Trump said. “I’ve never heard that theory about being a nationalist.”

Trump also said, “I am very proud of our country. We cannot continue to allow what’s happened to our country to continue happening. We can’t let it happen. So I’m proud. I’m proud of our country, and I am a nationalist. It’s a word that hasn’t been used too much. Some people use it, but I’m very proud. I think it should be brought back.”

“All I want our country is to be treated well, to be treated with respect. For many years, other countries that are allies of ours–so-called allies–they have not treated our country fairly. So in that sense, I am absolutely a nationalist, and I’m proud of it,” the president also told Acosta.


This question comes after Trump enthusiastically called himself a “nationalist” at a rally in Texas Monday.

“A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much,” the president said.

“You know what I am? I’m a nationalist. Okay? A nationalist. Use that word.”

Acosta, as usual, took to his Twitter to recap what just happened for his followers.

“I also asked Trump about the ‘nationalist’ label he has given himself. He brushed off the notion that this means he is a ‘white nationalist,'” he said in part.



 
Booter said:
Trump tariffs lead to bleak 2019 farm forecasts

The Agriculture Department’s Economic Research Service has estimated that 2018 net farm income will be $9.8 billion, or 13 percent, lower than the year before. Adjusting for inflation, farm income is barely above the lowest level since 2002. If current trends continue, some agriculture economists predict that farm income will fall again in 2019.

Trade aid vs. suppressed demand

Although many farmers aren’t vocally blaming Trump for their woes, the trade war has both direct and indirect effects on agriculture. Steel and aluminum duties levied on imports from China as well as other trading partners like Canada have bumped up the cost of farm equipment, while tariffs on Chinese chemicals have raised prices on pesticides and herbicides.

USDA’s recent trade aid package provides some respite, but it will not address the broader challenges. Several sectors of the farm economy also complain that the $12 billion trade assistance program will give meager relief from retaliatory tariffs.

The department is set to announce plans for a second round of trade aid around early December, but the Agriculture secretary has repeatedly stressed the cash payments are intended to just be a temporary, one-year stopgap.

Gordon called the program a “Band-Aid on an arterial bleed.”

The biggest factor taking aim at farm incomes has to do with supply and demand economics. Commodity prices have plummeted since spring, when China was gearing up to slap 25 percent duties on U.S. agricultural goods like soybeans in retaliation for Trump’s tariffs on Chinese high-tech products.

Ken Morrison, an agriculture commodities market expert, said China is unlikely to back down over Trump’s trade demands on issues like intellectual property and technology transfers. Like other trade experts and market watchers, Morrison thinks retaliatory tariffs are here to stay.

“I spent four years in China, long enough to know not to underestimate their willingness to endure economic pain, especially when their sovereign goals are threatened,” he said.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/23/trump-tariffs-farmers-agriculture-866450

Put an Idiot in the White House - what could go wrong?
Click to expand...

Trump ruins our Farmer's International Markets with his tariffs and then wants to give the Farmers $18 Billion in aid. Izzy you are right we are becoming Venezuela.
 
Booter said:
Trump tariffs lead to bleak 2019 farm forecasts

The Agriculture Department’s Economic Research Service has estimated that 2018 net farm income will be $9.8 billion, or 13 percent, lower than the year before. Adjusting for inflation, farm income is barely above the lowest level since 2002. If current trends continue, some agriculture economists predict that farm income will fall again in 2019.

Trade aid vs. suppressed demand

Although many farmers aren’t vocally blaming Trump for their woes, the trade war has both direct and indirect effects on agriculture. Steel and aluminum duties levied on imports from China as well as other trading partners like Canada have bumped up the cost of farm equipment, while tariffs on Chinese chemicals have raised prices on pesticides and herbicides.

USDA’s recent trade aid package provides some respite, but it will not address the broader challenges. Several sectors of the farm economy also complain that the $12 billion trade assistance program will give meager relief from retaliatory tariffs.

The department is set to announce plans for a second round of trade aid around early December, but the Agriculture secretary has repeatedly stressed the cash payments are intended to just be a temporary, one-year stopgap.

Gordon called the program a “Band-Aid on an arterial bleed.”

The biggest factor taking aim at farm incomes has to do with supply and demand economics. Commodity prices have plummeted since spring, when China was gearing up to slap 25 percent duties on U.S. agricultural goods like soybeans in retaliation for Trump’s tariffs on Chinese high-tech products.

Ken Morrison, an agriculture commodities market expert, said China is unlikely to back down over Trump’s trade demands on issues like intellectual property and technology transfers. Like other trade experts and market watchers, Morrison thinks retaliatory tariffs are here to stay.

“I spent four years in China, long enough to know not to underestimate their willingness to endure economic pain, especially when their sovereign goals are threatened,” he said.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/23/trump-tariffs-farmers-agriculture-866450

Put an Idiot in the White House - what could go wrong?
Click to expand...
But you people love taxes and QE. Why wouldnʻt you love Tariffs.
 
For too long, the Democratic Party has operated under a certain assumption: The tides of history are in its favor. Aggregation of power to the federal government, usurpation of power by the judiciary, centralization of power in the executive branch -- all of that would redound to their political benefit. And for decades, they were largely correct: Not only did the federal government continue to grow but federal policymaking also shifted consistently leftward, with brief points of stagnation during eras of Republican rule.

But President Trump's ascension to power has shocked the Democrats awake. Suddenly, some Democrats have realized that they are not fated to rule forever -- and that powers handed to the federal government by Democrats can be turned against Democrats, too.

Ben Shapiro
 
This shock has resulted in two Democratic responses. The first: a determination to change the system of government itself to forestall any future Republican victory. Thus, we've heard calls to abolish the Electoral College (not happening), to pack the Supreme Court (not happening), to apportion the Senate based on population (not happening). The second response, however, is more tenable and far more appealing across the political aisle: a restoration of the founding promise to devolve authority to local authorities.— Ben again
 
This week, Hillary Clinton hit upon this unique strategy -- a strategy some centuries old but fought tooth and nail by the left -- seemingly by accident. She tweeted, "A reality of a Supreme Court with a right-wing majority is that the states are a new important front in protecting civil rights -- especially the rights of the most vulnerable among us."

The states aren't that new. They've been around for a couple of centuries, and they've always been designed to protect the interests of local populations. Sometimes those interests have been brutal and terrible -- see, for example, slavery and Jim Crow -- but sometimes those interests have been positive and welcome. In designing a system determined to please the greatest number of human beings, localism is usually, but not invariably, the solution. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 39, our government is "neither wholly national nor wholly federal." There's a reason for that.— Shapiro
 
It's good to see members of the left finally discovering some founding philosophy. But there is one problem with the left's view of federalism and devolution of power: That view seems temporary. The minute Democrats seize power once more, the glories of federalism will surely recede into the background in favor of the club of federal power. That's just one more reason that Democrats shouldn't be handed that power anytime soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top