What does the world think of Donald Trump

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes I can you dummy.

No, you cant. These are scientific polls. Your poll is a stupid sham. Not that you understand either one.

 

[edward37]

THose issues get a lot of attention because they are very identifiable. But the over all use of their manufacture of products using vastly cheaper labor than legal in the US, is likely to be an advantage to their manufacturers, that American manufacturers will struggle to compete against.


The idea of having First World workers compete against Third World labor, on a level playing field has been tried. And the results have been a freaking disaster for US.

The US consumer has been given the choice of paying higher prices and supporting US manufacturers or lower prices for goods manufactured in other countries that have lower wages. The US consumers support choose the lower priced item the vast majority of the time.
Trump is proposing we will no longer give the US consumer the choice of lower priced foreign manufactured goods. Trump is closing the US market. Capitalism was not built on cl0sed markets.

/——/ Wrong, President Trump wants free trade and zero tariffs on both sides. He’s working to reduce US manufacturing overhead by cutting corporate taxes and idiotic regulations so they can be more competitive.

If Trump is working toward a free market and is successful, more manufacturing will move off shore because it is cheaper. He is not working toward a free market.

/——/ He’s cutting taxes and eliminating regulations that will make us more competitive. I know you hate that.

The tax cuts are resulting in the largest deficit in the history of the US. That is not conservative economics.

Just remember conservative economics are all lip service

 

[ElmerMudd]

Now it's even worse They won't be buying soybeans from us now and their 5G company now playing footsie with russia as putin calls Xi his best friend

We cant' sustain ever larger trade deficits year after year. Even if it is "Worse" "now", if that it the cost of getting them to stop this shit going forward, that would be worth it.


Just letting them continue to fuck US, is not a viable option.

I agree but our main problem with China is the theft of out companies patents and not allowing our guys to enter china to do business

THose issues get a lot of attention because they are very identifiable. But the over all use of their manufacture of products using vastly cheaper labor than legal in the US, is likely to be an advantage to their manufacturers, that American manufacturers will struggle to compete against.


The idea of having First World workers compete against Third World labor, on a level playing field has been tried. And the results have been a freaking disaster for US.

The US consumer has been given the choice of paying higher prices and supporting US manufacturers or lower prices for goods manufactured in other countries that have lower wages. The US consumers support choose the lower priced item the vast majority of the time.
Trump is proposing we will no longer give the US consumer the choice of lower priced foreign manufactured goods. Trump is closing the US market. Capitalism was not built on cl0sed markets.

Trade policy is a government function. The US economy was built on being somewhat closed. This idea of Free Trade, especially non reciprocate "free trade" is not how we grew to our current size and wealth.



You are not so much making an argument, as spouting some libertarian buzzwords trying to get an emotional reaction from me.


You have failed.

Correl does not know economics or history.
The process of opening world markets and expanding trade, initiated in the United States in 1934 and consistently pursued since the end of the Second World War, has played an important role in the development of American prosperity. According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, American real incomes are 9% higher than they would otherwise have been as a result of trade liberalizing efforts since the Second World War. In terms of the U.S. economy in 2013, that 9% represents $1.5 trillion in additional American income.

 

[ElmerMudd]

The US consumer has been given the choice of paying higher prices and supporting US manufacturers or lower prices for goods manufactured in other countries that have lower wages. The US consumers support choose the lower priced item the vast majority of the time.
Trump is proposing we will no longer give the US consumer the choice of lower priced foreign manufactured goods. Trump is closing the US market. Capitalism was not built on cl0sed markets.

/——/ Wrong, President Trump wants free trade and zero tariffs on both sides. He’s working to reduce US manufacturing overhead by cutting corporate taxes and idiotic regulations so they can be more competitive.

If Trump is working toward a free market and is successful, more manufacturing will move off shore because it is cheaper. He is not working toward a free market.

/——/ He’s cutting taxes and eliminating regulations that will make us more competitive. I know you hate that.

The tax cuts are resulting in the largest deficit in the history of the US. That is not conservative economics.

Just remember conservative economics are all lip service

I agree, but those who feel they are conservatives but do not espouse conservative views because they are too stupid to know what they are.

 

[edward37]

I think our main concerns are them stealing our patents and not allowing our companies into china,,,some not all

The problem is that our trade is not mutually beneficial.

It is with Mexico In the future for anything trump wants will he threaten to impose tariffs if he doesn't get his way? I love the way he creates the problems then gives in and walks around like he's the one that solved them

Our relationship with Mexico is defined not so much by our trade, as by their ongoing invasion of our nation.


Our overall trade position is not sustainable, nor is it mutually beneficial. THey are benefiting at our expense.

If we are losing in the bilateral trade agreements why is our economy so much better than Mexico and others.

Seriously? That is the line you want to take?


For example, Mexico is a shitty Third World nation. The benefits it gains from it's trade and immigration with US, are of benefit to it, but not enough that it is not still a shitty Third World nation.

Truth be told no I'd hate living there USA is #1 and imho not even trump can bring it down to his level

 

[Cellblock2429]

I think our main concerns are them stealing our patents and not allowing our companies into china,,,some not all

The problem is that our trade is not mutually beneficial.

It is with Mexico In the future for anything trump wants will he threaten to impose tariffs if he doesn't get his way? I love the way he creates the problems then gives in and walks around like he's the one that solved them

Our relationship with Mexico is defined not so much by our trade, as by their ongoing invasion of our nation.


Our overall trade position is not sustainable, nor is it mutually beneficial. THey are benefiting at our expense.

If we are losing in the bilateral trade agreements why is our economy so much better than Mexico and others.

Seriously? That is the line you want to take?


For example, Mexico is a shitty Third World nation. The benefits it gains from it's trade and immigration with US, are of benefit to it, but not enough that it is not still a shitty Third World nation.

/——/ Mexico has the same natural resources the US has. There is no reason for their 3rd world status. Their problem is rampant corruption and unchecked cartels. Canada has fewer resources than Mexico but is still a superior, thriving, civilized nation.

 

[Cellblock2429]

THose issues get a lot of attention because they are very identifiable. But the over all use of their manufacture of products using vastly cheaper labor than legal in the US, is likely to be an advantage to their manufacturers, that American manufacturers will struggle to compete against.


The idea of having First World workers compete against Third World labor, on a level playing field has been tried. And the results have been a freaking disaster for US.

The US consumer has been given the choice of paying higher prices and supporting US manufacturers or lower prices for goods manufactured in other countries that have lower wages. The US consumers support choose the lower priced item the vast majority of the time.
Trump is proposing we will no longer give the US consumer the choice of lower priced foreign manufactured goods. Trump is closing the US market. Capitalism was not built on cl0sed markets.

/——/ Wrong, President Trump wants free trade and zero tariffs on both sides. He’s working to reduce US manufacturing overhead by cutting corporate taxes and idiotic regulations so they can be more competitive.

If Trump is working toward a free market and is successful, more manufacturing will move off shore because it is cheaper. He is not working toward a free market.

/——/ He’s cutting taxes and eliminating regulations that will make us more competitive. I know you hate that.

The tax cuts are resulting in the largest deficit in the history of the US. That is not conservative economics.

/—-/ So over spending as nothing to do with it?

 

[ElmerMudd]

The US consumer has been given the choice of paying higher prices and supporting US manufacturers or lower prices for goods manufactured in other countries that have lower wages. The US consumers support choose the lower priced item the vast majority of the time.
Trump is proposing we will no longer give the US consumer the choice of lower priced foreign manufactured goods. Trump is closing the US market. Capitalism was not built on cl0sed markets.

/——/ Wrong, President Trump wants free trade and zero tariffs on both sides. He’s working to reduce US manufacturing overhead by cutting corporate taxes and idiotic regulations so they can be more competitive.

If Trump is working toward a free market and is successful, more manufacturing will move off shore because it is cheaper. He is not working toward a free market.

/——/ He’s cutting taxes and eliminating regulations that will make us more competitive. I know you hate that.

The tax cuts are resulting in the largest deficit in the history of the US. That is not conservative economics.

/—-/ So over spending as nothing to do with it?

Overspending does have a lot to do with deficits. But when the government is already spending more money than they are bringing in, does it make sense to reduce the revenue (taxes). The supply side theory is the tax cuts will stimulate the economy and ultimately gross revenue (taxes) will increase. That is not happening and best case projections do not see the deficit reducing for 10 years. Ronald Reagan implemented supply side economics for 8 years. He reduced taxes and the economy grew but never enough to have gross tax increase enough to cover the amount taxes were reduced. There is no indication that the same will not happen with Trump.

 

[ElmerMudd]

/——/ Wrong, President Trump wants free trade and zero tariffs on both sides. He’s working to reduce US manufacturing overhead by cutting corporate taxes and idiotic regulations so they can be more competitive.

If Trump is working toward a free market and is successful, more manufacturing will move off shore because it is cheaper. He is not working toward a free market.

/——/ He’s cutting taxes and eliminating regulations that will make us more competitive. I know you hate that.

The tax cuts are resulting in the largest deficit in the history of the US. That is not conservative economics.

/—-/ So over spending as nothing to do with it?

Overspending does have a lot to do with deficits. But when the government is already spending more money than they are bringing in, does it make sense to reduce the revenue (taxes). The supply side theory is the tax cuts will stimulate the economy and ultimately gross revenue (taxes) will increase. That is not happening and best case projections do not see the deficit reducing for 10 years. Ronald Reagan implemented supply side economics for 8 years. He reduced taxes and the economy grew but never enough to have gross tax increase enough to cover the amount taxes were reduced. There is no indication that the same will not happen with Trump.

This explanation of supply side economics confused cellblock. He receives his fake facts through Trump and company.

 

[Cellblock2429]

If Trump is working toward a free market and is successful, more manufacturing will move off shore because it is cheaper. He is not working toward a free market.

/——/ He’s cutting taxes and eliminating regulations that will make us more competitive. I know you hate that.

The tax cuts are resulting in the largest deficit in the history of the US. That is not conservative economics.

/—-/ So over spending as nothing to do with it?

Overspending does have a lot to do with deficits. But when the government is already spending more money than they are bringing in, does it make sense to reduce the revenue (taxes). The supply side theory is the tax cuts will stimulate the economy and ultimately gross revenue (taxes) will increase. That is not happening and best case projections do not see the deficit reducing for 10 years. Ronald Reagan implemented supply side economics for 8 years. He reduced taxes and the economy grew but never enough to have gross tax increase enough to cover the amount taxes were reduced. There is no indication that the same will not happen with Trump.

This explanation of supply side economics confused cellblock. He receives his fake facts through Trump and company.

/——-/. Congress has proven they can’t restrain themselves. The only way is to starve the beast, which I learned from President Reagan long before Trump was on the scene.

 

[Marion Morrison]

What does the world think of Donald Trump. They are rolling out the red carpet in England, this week, for Trump. But it appears the reception is for the office Trump holds not Donald Trump. Trump's most recent approval ratings in England were 21%. When Obama visited his approval ratings were 72%.
Donald Trump's popularity in the U.K. remains far, far lower than Barack Obama's

Trump is much more popular in Russia than he is in the USA or England. His approval rate is 53% in Russia.
Trump's approval rating in Russia is more than twice Putin's in U.S.

The people who like you and the people who do not like you says a lot about an individual.

Russians love Trump and the English do not like him at all.

Lemme guess, "Orange Man Bad" , amirite? You fucking putz.

 

[edward37]

/——/ He’s cutting taxes and eliminating regulations that will make us more competitive. I know you hate that.

The tax cuts are resulting in the largest deficit in the history of the US. That is not conservative economics.

/—-/ So over spending as nothing to do with it?

Overspending does have a lot to do with deficits. But when the government is already spending more money than they are bringing in, does it make sense to reduce the revenue (taxes). The supply side theory is the tax cuts will stimulate the economy and ultimately gross revenue (taxes) will increase. That is not happening and best case projections do not see the deficit reducing for 10 years. Ronald Reagan implemented supply side economics for 8 years. He reduced taxes and the economy grew but never enough to have gross tax increase enough to cover the amount taxes were reduced. There is no indication that the same will not happen with Trump.

This explanation of supply side economics confused cellblock. He receives his fake facts through Trump and company.

/——-/. Congress has proven they can’t restrain themselves. The only way is to starve the beast, which I learned from President Reagan long before Trump was on the scene.

Give Trump nothing

 

[ElmerMudd]

/——/ He’s cutting taxes and eliminating regulations that will make us more competitive. I know you hate that.

The tax cuts are resulting in the largest deficit in the history of the US. That is not conservative economics.

/—-/ So over spending as nothing to do with it?

Overspending does have a lot to do with deficits. But when the government is already spending more money than they are bringing in, does it make sense to reduce the revenue (taxes). The supply side theory is the tax cuts will stimulate the economy and ultimately gross revenue (taxes) will increase. That is not happening and best case projections do not see the deficit reducing for 10 years. Ronald Reagan implemented supply side economics for 8 years. He reduced taxes and the economy grew but never enough to have gross tax increase enough to cover the amount taxes were reduced. There is no indication that the same will not happen with Trump.

This explanation of supply side economics confused cellblock. He receives his fake facts through Trump and company.

/——-/. Congress has proven they can’t restrain themselves. The only way is to starve the beast, which I learned from President Reagan long before Trump was on the scene.

The deficit increased substantially under Reagan. He had the intent but his strategy did not work, supply side economics. Supply side economics ends up with the rich receiving the largest tax breaks but they do not reinvest all of the tax savings so the rich benefit more than the overall economy.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The tax cuts are resulting in the largest deficit in the history of the US. That is not conservative economics.

/—-/ So over spending as nothing to do with it?

Overspending does have a lot to do with deficits. But when the government is already spending more money than they are bringing in, does it make sense to reduce the revenue (taxes). The supply side theory is the tax cuts will stimulate the economy and ultimately gross revenue (taxes) will increase. That is not happening and best case projections do not see the deficit reducing for 10 years. Ronald Reagan implemented supply side economics for 8 years. He reduced taxes and the economy grew but never enough to have gross tax increase enough to cover the amount taxes were reduced. There is no indication that the same will not happen with Trump.

This explanation of supply side economics confused cellblock. He receives his fake facts through Trump and company.

/——-/. Congress has proven they can’t restrain themselves. The only way is to starve the beast, which I learned from President Reagan long before Trump was on the scene.

The deficit increased substantially under Reagan. He had the intent but his strategy did not work, supply side economics. Supply side economics ends up with the rich receiving the largest tax breaks but they do not reinvest all of the tax savings so the rich benefit more than the overall economy.

/——/ Congress stabbed Reagan in the back. They were supposed to cut spending but never did because they are lying weasels

 

[Correll]

We cant' sustain ever larger trade deficits year after year. Even if it is "Worse" "now", if that it the cost of getting them to stop this shit going forward, that would be worth it.


Just letting them continue to fuck US, is not a viable option.

I agree but our main problem with China is the theft of out companies patents and not allowing our guys to enter china to do business

THose issues get a lot of attention because they are very identifiable. But the over all use of their manufacture of products using vastly cheaper labor than legal in the US, is likely to be an advantage to their manufacturers, that American manufacturers will struggle to compete against.


The idea of having First World workers compete against Third World labor, on a level playing field has been tried. And the results have been a freaking disaster for US.

The US consumer has been given the choice of paying higher prices and supporting US manufacturers or lower prices for goods manufactured in other countries that have lower wages. The US consumers support choose the lower priced item the vast majority of the time.
Trump is proposing we will no longer give the US consumer the choice of lower priced foreign manufactured goods. Trump is closing the US market. Capitalism was not built on cl0sed markets.

Trade policy is a government function. The US economy was built on being somewhat closed. This idea of Free Trade, especially non reciprocate "free trade" is not how we grew to our current size and wealth.



You are not so much making an argument, as spouting some libertarian buzzwords trying to get an emotional reaction from me.


You have failed.

Correl does not know economics or history.
The process of opening world markets and expanding trade, initiated in the United States in 1934 and consistently pursued since the end of the Second World War, has played an important role in the development of American prosperity. According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, American real incomes are 9% higher than they would otherwise have been as a result of trade liberalizing efforts since the Second World War. In terms of the U.S. economy in 2013, that 9% represents $1.5 trillion in additional American income.

1. And you just ignored the entire 18th century of massive growth, when a small agricultural nation, grew to rival the whole continent of Europe in industry.


2. And you just ignored the last 3 years of massive discussion on how those good macro-economic numbers hide a large and real cost to a lot of people and communities.

 

[ElmerMudd]

I agree but our main problem with China is the theft of out companies patents and not allowing our guys to enter china to do business

THose issues get a lot of attention because they are very identifiable. But the over all use of their manufacture of products using vastly cheaper labor than legal in the US, is likely to be an advantage to their manufacturers, that American manufacturers will struggle to compete against.


The idea of having First World workers compete against Third World labor, on a level playing field has been tried. And the results have been a freaking disaster for US.

The US consumer has been given the choice of paying higher prices and supporting US manufacturers or lower prices for goods manufactured in other countries that have lower wages. The US consumers support choose the lower priced item the vast majority of the time.
Trump is proposing we will no longer give the US consumer the choice of lower priced foreign manufactured goods. Trump is closing the US market. Capitalism was not built on cl0sed markets.

Trade policy is a government function. The US economy was built on being somewhat closed. This idea of Free Trade, especially non reciprocate "free trade" is not how we grew to our current size and wealth.



You are not so much making an argument, as spouting some libertarian buzzwords trying to get an emotional reaction from me.


You have failed.

Correl does not know economics or history.
The process of opening world markets and expanding trade, initiated in the United States in 1934 and consistently pursued since the end of the Second World War, has played an important role in the development of American prosperity. According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, American real incomes are 9% higher than they would otherwise have been as a result of trade liberalizing efforts since the Second World War. In terms of the U.S. economy in 2013, that 9% represents $1.5 trillion in additional American income.

1. And you just ignored the entire 18th century of massive growth, when a small agricultural nation, grew to rival the whole continent of Europe in industry.


2. And you just ignored the last 3 years of massive discussion on how those good macro-economic numbers hide a large and real cost to a lot of people and communities.

It was the 19th and 20th centuries that saw the transition to an industrialized nation not the 18th century. As our economy grew we became the largest consuming nation in the world. The US could not produce enough goods to fill our own demand. Thus the start of globalization.
I agree with you that as our economy has evolved many segments of our society have been left out. They have always included minorities and immigrants but now includes a large group of workers in the Midwest that are mostly white.

 

[edward37]

/—-/ So over spending as nothing to do with it?

Overspending does have a lot to do with deficits. But when the government is already spending more money than they are bringing in, does it make sense to reduce the revenue (taxes). The supply side theory is the tax cuts will stimulate the economy and ultimately gross revenue (taxes) will increase. That is not happening and best case projections do not see the deficit reducing for 10 years. Ronald Reagan implemented supply side economics for 8 years. He reduced taxes and the economy grew but never enough to have gross tax increase enough to cover the amount taxes were reduced. There is no indication that the same will not happen with Trump.

This explanation of supply side economics confused cellblock. He receives his fake facts through Trump and company.

/——-/. Congress has proven they can’t restrain themselves. The only way is to starve the beast, which I learned from President Reagan long before Trump was on the scene.

The deficit increased substantially under Reagan. He had the intent but his strategy did not work, supply side economics. Supply side economics ends up with the rich receiving the largest tax breaks but they do not reinvest all of the tax savings so the rich benefit more than the overall economy.

/——/ Congress stabbed Reagan in the back. They were supposed to cut spending but never did because they are lying weasels

How were they going to cut spending when Reagan won the cold war by outspending Russia?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The only way is to starve the beast, which I learned from President Reagan long before Trump was on the scene.

Yes, Reagan was a true expert on expanding the government and inflating the national debt without paying for any of it. Good for you.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The only way is to starve the beast, which I learned from President Reagan long before Trump was on the scene.

Yes, Reagan was a true expert on expanding the government and inflating the national debt without paying for any of it. Good for you.

/——/ The President has no control on spending or paying government debts. Only Congress can do those things.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Overspending does have a lot to do with deficits. But when the government is already spending more money than they are bringing in, does it make sense to reduce the revenue (taxes). The supply side theory is the tax cuts will stimulate the economy and ultimately gross revenue (taxes) will increase. That is not happening and best case projections do not see the deficit reducing for 10 years. Ronald Reagan implemented supply side economics for 8 years. He reduced taxes and the economy grew but never enough to have gross tax increase enough to cover the amount taxes were reduced. There is no indication that the same will not happen with Trump.

This explanation of supply side economics confused cellblock. He receives his fake facts through Trump and company.

/——-/. Congress has proven they can’t restrain themselves. The only way is to starve the beast, which I learned from President Reagan long before Trump was on the scene.

The deficit increased substantially under Reagan. He had the intent but his strategy did not work, supply side economics. Supply side economics ends up with the rich receiving the largest tax breaks but they do not reinvest all of the tax savings so the rich benefit more than the overall economy.

/——/ Congress stabbed Reagan in the back. They were supposed to cut spending but never did because they are lying weasels

How were they going to cut spending when Reagan won the cold war by outspending Russia?

/—-/ DemocRATs spent the money, not the President. Why can’t libtards understand how things work?