1. #26121
    The Unstoppable Force Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    21,510
    Quote Originally Posted by Xeones View Post
    Which is why I mentioned it because I found it odd. Just on the surface it makes no sense to go out of the way to refute rumors, unless it's due to the whole "Best economy ever!" bull shit Trump is using.
    To hear Grassley tell it, a payroll tax cut would be admission the economy was in trouble. Which lines up with what you're saying.

    Unrelated: Guess the Speaker continues.

    For the United States to make a deal with China, Beijing needs to honor its commitments - beginning with the commitment China made in 1984 to respect the integrity of Hong Kong’s laws through the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Our administration will continue to urge Beijing to act in a humanitarian manner and urge China and the demonstrators in Hong Kong to resolve their differences peacefully
    "That's Pence. You can tell by the use of 'our administration' not 'my administration' which should tell you a lot."

    Correct. Incidentally, I found a translation of China's response:

    Bitch, you didn't have a deal anyhow. You just want to make it look like you're taking the moral high ground, while letting children die in concentration camps, so you have an excuse when this round of talks fails as badly as a Trump hotel or the 2017 Colts

  2. #26122
    It's a pity that isn't their real response.

  3. #26123
    Herald of the Titans Zaydin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    FL, USA
    Posts
    2,656
    Democrats response to Trump trying to buy his way out of the recession he is creating should be "Okay. How do you intend to pay for it? You've already added nearly two trillion dollars to the debt and exploded us back to trillion dollar deficits."
    "If you are ever asking yourself 'Is Trump lying or is he stupid?', the answer is most likely C: All of the Above" - Seth Meyers

  4. #26124
    Quote Originally Posted by Xeones View Post
    So reports are out that the white house was considering a pay roll tax cut to prop up the economy and apparently the white house had to immediately refute it.
    Tax Cut 2: How the Deficit got it's Groove Back.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  5. #26125
    The Unstoppable Force Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    21,510
    So let's talk about --

    "Yeah yeah, who's fucked this time?"

    Midwest farmers. The article contains a lot of anecdotal information, including this picture:



    "That's a burst grain silo. Why are you posting a picture from March?"

    I'm not. That's from the 14th. As in, 5 days ago.

    (checks iPhone)

    Six days ago. But anecdotal information aside, there's other info in there.

    1) A lot of farmers didn't get their $15/acre because they couldn't plant anything because they got flooded.

    2) In fact, some farms are still fucking underwater.

    3) There doesn't appear to be a commitment to rebuild the levees to the level...I just read that back and man is that confusing...they were before they were broken. So if, for example, 2020 is even partly as bad as 2019, the new levees will just break and I'll have to write this shit another fucking year.

    The Army Corps of Engineers has the near impossible task of coming up with the clear timeline that these farmers need. The Missouri River is only one of the many waterways that overtopped its banks and destroyed billions of dollars of infrastructure.
    4) Farm bankruptcies grew 13% last year. They are now the highest they've been since 2012. Guess what happened in 2011? The Mississippi flooded. I'm sensing a theme.

    5) Crop insurance rates are up. I'm not an expert, but this article suggests rate increases are 30 to 80 percent. One farmer said the increase was $30 an acre, which would eat into --

    "Whoa whoa whoa. The increase was $30 an acre?"

    Yes.

    "...isn't the money Trump promised $15 an acre? If they got crops in the ground by Aug 1st?"

    Um...(checks article)...yes.

    "So...the money Trump is offering is half the increase they have to pay anyhow? Meaning, they are actually losing even more money than before, even with the socialist bailout?"

    Well, according to that one farmer's figures, yes. And crop insurance does not cover harvested, stored grain, apparently, so it would not have helped the farmer whose grain is in the picture above anyhow. They could end up paying more and getting nothing in return. Also, I'm fairly sure the insurance rates are based on the new, worse levees mentioned above.

    6) Also, this is now the 22nd straight quarter of dropping farm incomes in the Eighth Federal Reserve District: Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, McConnnell's state, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee. The flooding wasn't even all that bad there. Farm spending was also lower in the 8th. I'm going to assume that --

    "Don't assume."

    Well, there are a bunch of reports, and a lot of them aren't great. Unless you're in Dallas or San Fransisco, for some reasons. A few mention that crop prices are going up, which might help some...if you planted anything in time. But even with that, soybean prices are still lower than anything Obama ever posted and corn hasn't moved much since 2014. The prices for both hopped up a little in July, but that seems to be about it.

    There doesn't appear to be a ton of good news here. In 2017, BLS predicted no significant change in number of agriculture jobs through 2026. Every chart I can find by them suggests they're right so far.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Zaydin View Post
    "Okay. How do you intend to pay for it?"
    Tariffs. The answer would be tariffs. Because as long as you're caught regardless, lying can't make it worse.

    - - - Updated - - -

    FY 2019 agricultural exports are projected at $137.0 billion, down $4.5 billion from the February 2019 forecast, largely due to decreases in soybeans and corn exports.

    Trump's own USDA had to post that in May. They're due to say something this month, which might not be as bad, as soybean/corn prices did peak for a few weeks at almost Obama levels.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Our Ruling

    Trump said a new report shows "Google manipulated from 2.6 million to 16 million votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016 Election." The general idea here is that Google gave people search results that in some way affected their vote in the lead-up to the election for president.

    Whether such indirect interactions could cause people to change their votes is questionable, and the paper — which is not new — does nothing to establish how that might happen. The paper doesn’t explain its methodology, and other academics questioned whether its findings were valid. Finally, Trump seems to have exaggerated the outer bound of the questionable findings.

    Overall, we rate his statement False.
    To add to that, the author of the study Trump mentions testified, under oath, that Google did not manipulate the results. In July. Trump tweeted Monday.

    "I guess one blatant lie tweet isn't the end of -- "

    Our Ruling

    "Oh, shit."

    Trump said that two major industrial projects in Louisiana and Pennsylvania exist today thanks to his policies. In reality, both were well underway before he took office.

    The Louisiana plant had all necessary federal permits by 2014.

    The Pennsylvania chemical complex was subject to state regulations, and initial approvals came in 2015. Federal regulators approved the rate structure for a key pipeline in 2018, but construction approval for the pipeline itself came from the state, not the federal government.

    Trump can take credit for boosting LNG exports and pushing a regulatory approach in favor of natural gas, but those dynamics were in play before his election.

    We rate this claim False.
    "So two objective lies in a week? That's not ideal, But if it ends --"

    Our Ruling

    "Son of a bitch!"

    Trump said, "We were losing all our cases in the World Trade Organization. ... And then I came along. Now we’re winning a lot of cases because they know that they’re not on very solid ground."

    This statement contains multiple problems. For decades, the United States, like essentially all countries, has tended to lose most WTO cases in which it was a defendant. But it has won most cases when it was the complaining party.

    Under Trump, there are some indications of an improved (though still losing) U.S. record in cases it’s defending against. But trade experts say this has had little to do with Trump’s policies, which have in fact put the WTO’s continued operations at risk.

    We rate the statement Mostly False.
    "Three in a week. That's bad. But I guess it could be w--"

    Our Ruling

    "OH COME ON!"

    Trump talked about U.S.-Japan trade in terms of Americans buying Japanese cars while the Japanese bought American wheat. He also said the trade deficit is changing rapidly.

    Trump distorted the actual trade relations in many ways. While he was reasonably correct on the scale of cars imported to the United States, he cast wheat as a major part of U.S.-Japan trade. It accounts for less than 1% of sales. Trump sidestepped the top ranking items of civilian aircraft and related goods, and industrial machinery.

    The numbers also undercut his implication that the trade deficit is changing rapidly for the better. It has held steady, although getting a bit worse each year.

    Trump was close on the car and truck imports, but missed the mark in every other respect. We rate this claim Mostly False.
    - - - Updated - - -

    One more for the road. Guess the Speaker! The topic is the socialist bailout for farmers, specifically the $12 billion promised but not provided.

    It does not nowhere near cover the gaps– the markets that we lost. It does not nowhere near cover the loss of income. No the farmers do not want that. We want our markets back. We do not want the money from the taxpayer.
    "The use of 'we' suggests some farming group head."

    The President of the Minnesota Farmer's Union. He had more to say about the tariffs.

    It already has driven some farmers off the farm, which not only hurts the farming community but it hurts rural – small rural communities. It's been very devastating to rural America
    "He says 'it' a lot."

    Wanna see the video? Things work better in context.

    Also, it seems farmer support for Trump is slipping.

    Rural Americans, which includes the nations farmers and agricultural workers, widely supported Trump in the 2016 election, with 62 percent voting for the president, according to an analysis by Pew Research. Despite the trade tensions and concerns voiced by prominent farming community leaders such as Wertish, the majority of rural Americans still support the president, although many have grown frustrated. A May Gallup survey found that 54 percent of self-described rural residents still supported Trump, compared to just 41 percent of Americans overall.
    Minnesota farmers are overwhelmingly old white males, average age 55, 85% male and 99+% white. It is the #1 state in the country in sales of grain, #2 hog. There appear to be about 1100,000 or so MN farmers. Trump lost Minnesota in 2016 by about 45,000 votes. He might lose by more this time.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Oh, and in case you forgot like I did, the EU tariffed whiskey in response to Trump's tariffs. Both are still in effect.

    Whiskey sales to EU are down 21%, a loss of about $150 million, most of which is Jack Daniels. That's not a ton, but it all adds up. So would the 10,000 to 70,000 possible jobs lost due to this facet of the trade war. Companies have halted expansion, and many have lost profits because
    a) they'd rather lower their prices and eat the loss, rather than lose all their sales and lose even more
    b) US and EU use different bottle sizes apparently, so you can't just say "fuck it, I'll sell the EU stuff locally"
    c) Scottish and Irish Whiskeys are now cheaper than American in the EU, and let's face it, probably better. I don't know. I don't drink any of them. But when an entire group of liquors is literally called "Scotch" I'm just going to assume it's because it's tasty. Plus the Irish.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •