Like a Soviet-type economy': GOP free traders unload on Trump

a reply to: JoshuaCox

If trump or someone like him decides to back away from the UK yall do not have a military able to step in and replace the US..

hahahaha - after he sold billions in arms to the Saudis - ya think he wont sell to the Brits?

Without foreign commitments ( pre-orders ) and tax breaks from Washington your MIC wouldn't stay afloat




www.ft.com...

MAY 15, 2018
US urges UK to push ahead with F-35 fighter jets deal Ambassador echoes Trump’s call for allies to become more militarily self-sufficient

a reply to: Stevenjames15

And every penny of the TARP was paid back early or is that fake news?

Partly fake news

You decide

www.politifact.com...

Most of these banks, however, are small institutions who are struggling to stay afloat, Kiel wrote. Of the 400-plus, 162 have fallen behind on their dividend payments to the treasury, he wrote, and, according to a March report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, 130 banks were included on the government’s list of "problem banks," demonstrating "financial, operational, or managerial weaknesses that threatened their continued financial viability." "While repayments, dividends, and interest from institutions participating ... have exceeded the program’s original investment disbursements, the number of missed payments has increased over the life of the program," government officials wrote in the GAO report. "Institutions that continue to miss payments and problem institutions may have difficulty ever fully repaying their … investments."

Our ruling: Not all of the banks who received TARP money have repaid the loans. In fact, 400-plus banks are still on the government’s red list -- more than have completed the payments -- and, according to the GAO, some may never pay the money back. But, the fact remains, due to interest, dividends and other revenue streams, the government has received more money back ($266.7 billion, according to the Treasury) than it handed out to banks under the bailout law ($245.2 billion). We rate this claim Mostly True.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Willtell

No it didn't.

Gm still pays more in labor costs than the actual cost to produce autos.

Would love to see the day you see more then one side.

"I love the free-market all of a sudden" - Average Trump hater upon learning of Trump's trade ware.

For the blind among you www.huffingtonpost.com...

a reply to: Annee

I already effing do.

Revenue Decrease US$145.588 billion (2017

Net income Decrease US$ -3.882 billion (2017)[5

en.wikipedia.org...

Where does $140 billion dollars go?

originally posted by: zardust
a reply to: Willtell

From the good ole' farm subsidies

The United States paid allegedly around $20 billion in 2005 to farmers in direct subsidies as "farm income stabilization"[12][13][14] via farm bills. In 2010 the overall agricultural subsidies were $172 billion,including financial support for product prices.[15] These bills pre-date the economic turmoil of the Great Depression with the 1922 Grain Futures Act, the 1929 Agricultural Marketing Act, and the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act creating a tradition of government support.

This is nothing new and frankly a drop in the bucket.

I don't agree with it, but it is not new.

I think there may have been some type of black farmers reparations around that time that is in that figure in 2010.

Something like 50g for any blacks that had land.

originally posted by: Words
"I love the free-market all of a sudden" - Average Trump hater upon learning of Trump's trade ware.

"Maybe big government policies aren't such a bad thing after all"

-Average Trump supporter, trying to justify Trumps trade war

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Words
"I love the free-market all of a sudden" - Average Trump hater upon learning of Trump's trade ware.

"Maybe big government policies aren't such a bad thing after all"

-Average Trump supporter, trying to justify Trumps trade war

"I love farmers and flyover country all of a sudden." – Trump haters

a reply to: burdman30ott6

dude... did you not just say this in your own thread?

For years we've heard criticisms on both sides about "blindly following whatever the party says" and how evil it is, now we're seeing voters supporting and agreeing with an individual's ideas and ideals and anyone who disagrees from within that individual's party is used as a weaponized dissention "Oh, look! Even So and so, the Republican now says Trump is wrong." And? Isn't that showing freedom of thought, separated from partisan "loyalty" on the part of Trump and his supporters? Isn't that what everyone and their dog (disingenuously) cajoled American about not doing for the past 20 years?

But it's ok for you to call those people idiots because what? they don't think exactly the same way you do?

a reply to: Willtell

Saving capitalism with socialism?

WTH?

Are these tariffs directly affecting anyone's paycheck here?

Probably not. Eff China

I have no problem bailing out farners during a period where we leverage our assets for better trade deals

What I have a problem with is to big to fail banks

Change hurts, unlike hope and change. Farmers were hurting long before the tariffs we're started.

a reply to: grey580

Its not socialism when its in the name of protecting our citizens from foreign aggressors whom care not for the standards we hold our farmers too.

a reply to: Saiker



woooo! that goal post is moving.