Merry Christmas from Donald Trump

[Unregistered]

Yeah, more soybeans. Let me go plow some fields.

Most soybeans went to China, as do many other agricultural products. Mexico, Canada as well - and those wars are still going on. The deal yesterday is a bandaid for a small set of issues. That and the aid package are temporary bandaids

Heard this interview yesterday from a state agricultural rep (Gould - Idaho)

GOULD: In the state of Idaho, as in other states, we have spent a lot of time and effort in our market relationships. We do governor's trade missions. We do inbound and outbound missions. Some of the trade partners, our distributors and the folks that buy our products are third, fourth generations. They're longstanding partners. They've come to know us as a reliable partner for high-quality food products. So once that's lost, it's very difficult to be seen as a reliable partner again. So we fear that.

SHAPIRO: Yeah. And in our last minute, I know you haven't had time to (laughter) look over the details. The announcement just came out this afternoon. But what do you make of this new agreement with the European Commission?

GOULD: Well, I certainly welcome all trade opportunities out there. For Idaho specifically, they're a much smaller market. They produce a lot of the same commodities that we do. And, of course, distance remains a factor. We look more at Canada, Mexico and Southeast Asia, as they tend to be the bigger drivers in our export market.

SHAPIRO: So it sounds like you're hopeful, but you're not necessarily expecting this to solve all the problems Idaho farmers are facing right now.

GOULD: Yes, it won't by any stretch solve the problems of Idaho farmers.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/25/63244...id-for-farmers

[Unregistered]

Everyone needs long term stability. The farmers are huge welfare recipients already, thru subsisdation.
Their votes have been bought for decades. Plus they are the biggest contributor to our illegal alien issue. We could have stopped that decades ago, by penalizing farmers. Instead, we wanted their votes. Farmers are one big scam.

Absolutely - it may even be a bigger welfare program than actual welfare itself. Doesn't help that Iowa is first for the primaries. Candidates suck up to Iowa farmers for months on end because that first win matters - how many pic of candidates eating corn dogs at the state fair do we need? Then they hope that winning Iowa farmers will translate to getting all the farmers in other states. We need a more balanced primary system where the first few states all but determine who is running. Do batches of states at a time from all over the US.

[Unregistered]

Absolutely - it may even be a bigger welfare program than actual welfare itself. Doesn't help that Iowa is first for the primaries. Candidates suck up to Iowa farmers for months on end because that first win matters - how many pic of candidates eating corn dogs at the state fair do we need? Then they hope that winning Iowa farmers will translate to getting all the farmers in other states. We need a more balanced primary system where the first few states all but determine who is running. Do batches of states at a time from all over the US.

I don't care about the primaries. I just want an end the welfare tractor queens. All business is a risk.

[Unregistered]

Trump is picking winners and losers in a supposedly free market system.

Amazon= bad, let's tax them

Soybeans = good, let's give them free money

[Unregistered]

Because farmers need long term stability. They know this aid package is merely a temporary bandaid. They're understandably concerned that relationships they've had for years, decades in many cases, may be lost and never recovered. Also, it isn't just about the farmers but their suppliers (feed, equipment), transportation, storage. As with the auto industry it isn't just about the one business but the ripple effect it has

I'm sorry, but....but they sound like snowflakes.
Sorry.

[Unregistered]

And again who funded the Original Dossier and where did it originate from ?

Let’s see ..... I wonder..... Ummmm oh that’s right the The Conservative Right wing Washington Free Beacon who also got Fusion, but here’s where it gets tricky.
Finding out who is behind door number one in starting the Beacons investigation and it wasn’t a Democrat candidate but a Republican one who wanted to stop Trump with the dirt they found.
Could it be Cruz ( strong maybe) Rubio ( probably not) Bush ( strong maybe) the RNC ( very strong maybe)
The strong maybes HATEd Trump and still do.

It was no secret the RNC funded the dossier and wanted Cruz or Rubio to win, they definitely didn’t want Trump , everyone in the party believed Trump was toxic and the worse match up against HC ( now we know different) In fact it was widely known that the RNC was refusing to spend a cent on Orange man but once he won the Republican Nomination they had no choice and then they dropped the funding of the dossier, what the FukTARTs and the Republicans are trying to do now is keep it quite about the Originators of the dossier.
When Mueller's case comes to an end the shoe will drop with evidence so overwhelming Republicans will cry bloody murder.
I’ll bring this post back up in a month but watch you’ll see that Cruz is deeper into this thing than anyone ever imagined.

[Unregistered]

Trump is picking winners and losers in a supposedly free market system.

Amazon= bad, let's tax them

Soybeans = good, let's give them free money

Ah but its not exactly a free market. Trump is trying to make it one.

[Unregistered]

Ah but its not exactly a free market. Trump is trying to make it one.

Is that reverse-speak?
He's NOT making it one.
By "trying" do you mean "pretending"?

[Unregistered]

Ah but its not exactly a free market. Trump is trying to make it one.

Yeah, a lifelong grifter and conman is going to magically change into an incorruptible politician with integrity once he becomes president. Nice fairytale.

[Unregistered]

Ah but its not exactly a free market. Trump is trying to make it one.

He'll never be able to first of all. Second of all, what he's doing is protectionist, not free market. He's been obsessed with it for decades.

"Finally, the Trump–Reagan trade comparison fails to grasp just how far removed the 1980s are from today’s economic and legal realities. Rising prosperity abroad — a welcome development overall — has significantly diminished the United States’ ability to bully its trade partners as Reagan attempted to do. For example, while the United States is China’s largest export market, it accounts for only 18.3 percent of all Chinese exports. At the same time, American dependence on international trade has been steadily rising — and along with it the potential cost of American protectionist policies or retaliation against them. According to World Bank data, imports of goods and services in 1985 accounted for less than 10 percent of U.S. GDP, while exports were at roughly 7 percent. Today, those figures are 15 percent and 12 percent, respectively. That spells pain for U.S. companies and workers, either as exporters or import-consumers.

Furthermore, the WTO — ironically a Reagan-era accomplishment today decried by President Trump! — provides a new and impressive venue for resolving trade disputes without, in almost all cases, the need for unilateral action. The United States has prevailed in 86 percent of the complaints that it has brought to the WTO — all without angering our trading partners, disrupting markets, or burdening American consumers.

Trumpist intellectuals’ frequent invocations of Reagan to defend President Trump’s protectionism ignore ample historical context, actual policy results, and the evolution of the modern global trading system. Seen in the proper light, Reagan’s legacy argues strongly in favor of free trade and multilateral engagement, rather than a return to a bygone era of trade-policy failure.

Protectionism is destructionism, after all."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/...istory-lesson/

[Unregistered]

I don't care about the primaries. I just want an end the welfare tractor queens. All business is a risk.

I agree, but there's a visceral reaction American have when it comes to farming. It's wrapped up in our history, culture, human necessity for food. Now that fewer Americans have connections to the land (we are no longer an agricultural society) and farming is becoming industrialized I hope to see subsidies go away. The small family farm is becoming extinct. We sure as hell shouldn't be supporting Big Agribusiness

[Unregistered]

It was no secret the RNC funded the dossier and wanted Cruz or Rubio to win, they definitely didn’t want Trump , everyone in the party believed Trump was toxic and the worse match up against HC ( now we know different) In fact it was widely known that the RNC was refusing to spend a cent on Orange man but once he won the Republican Nomination they had no choice and then they dropped the funding of the dossier, what the FukTARTs and the Republicans are trying to do now is keep it quite about the Originators of the dossier.
When Mueller's case comes to an end the shoe will drop with evidence so overwhelming Republicans will cry bloody murder.
I’ll bring this post back up in a month but watch you’ll see that Cruz is deeper into this thing than anyone ever imagined.

Very interesting..... Cruz is a snake I never liked that guy i wouldn’t be surprised if he and certain members of the RNC were in bed together. Cruz kinda been laying low with this Russia collusion thing maybe it’s because his name is deep into this investigation.

[Unregistered]

Very interesting..... Cruz is a snake I never liked that guy i wouldn’t be surprised if he and certain members of the RNC were in bed together. Cruz kinda been laying low with this Russia collusion thing maybe it’s because his name is deep into this investigation.

Mike Pence is no angel either. He has intentionally stayed out of the fray, but still kisses Trump's fat azz when necessary.

[Unregistered]

He'll never be able to first of all. Second of all, what he's doing is protectionist, not free market. He's been obsessed with it for decades.

"Finally, the Trump–Reagan trade comparison fails to grasp just how far removed the 1980s are from today’s economic and legal realities. Rising prosperity abroad — a welcome development overall — has significantly diminished the United States’ ability to bully its trade partners as Reagan attempted to do. For example, while the United States is China’s largest export market, it accounts for only 18.3 percent of all Chinese exports. At the same time, American dependence on international trade has been steadily rising — and along with it the potential cost of American protectionist policies or retaliation against them. According to World Bank data, imports of goods and services in 1985 accounted for less than 10 percent of U.S. GDP, while exports were at roughly 7 percent. Today, those figures are 15 percent and 12 percent, respectively. That spells pain for U.S. companies and workers, either as exporters or import-consumers.

Furthermore, the WTO — ironically a Reagan-era accomplishment today decried by President Trump! — provides a new and impressive venue for resolving trade disputes without, in almost all cases, the need for unilateral action. The United States has prevailed in 86 percent of the complaints that it has brought to the WTO — all without angering our trading partners, disrupting markets, or burdening American consumers.

Trumpist intellectuals’ frequent invocations of Reagan to defend President Trump’s protectionism ignore ample historical context, actual policy results, and the evolution of the modern global trading system. Seen in the proper light, Reagan’s legacy argues strongly in favor of free trade and multilateral engagement, rather than a return to a bygone era of trade-policy failure.

Protectionism is destructionism, after all."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/...istory-lesson/

That's a nice Snowflake view of Trump's trade policy, however, as usual, does not reflect reality. Trump wants reciprocal fair trade. It's very simple, when we sell China a car or China wants to sell us a car the tariffs should be low and equal. Today China has a 25% tariff on US car imports but the US has 2.5% tariffs on China car imports. Is this free and fair trade? Of course not. All Trump is looking for in the end is say 2.5% for both sides not a 10x factor. Cars is one example but China plays around with subsidies, selective large tariffs, state sponsored incentives for local suppliers, stealing of intellectual property, all against WTO rules and this has been happening for a couple decades as the expense of US workers. This is not protectionism. It's about time a president focuses on it. Finally someone with balls.

[Unregistered]

<blah, blah, blah> Finally someone with balls.

On which you like to suckle.