At $28 billion so far, the farm rescue is more than twice as expensive as the 2009 bailout
- Thread starter Kenneth Griffin
- Start date
“Self made” my ass. “Taxpayer made” is more accurate.
Oh I love it when people say "if you knew anything about economics'.
Protip: You know nothing of economics.
War of poverty since 1964 has cost taxpayers 22 trillion, that's 22 TRILLION. 28 billion is chicken feed, less than half the cost of foreign aid to Israel...
Because when they restructured under chapter 11, they allowed the workers to keep their lavish pensions while the original stockholders shares were liquidated.
When GM was losing 35 - 40 billions in '07 & '08 did the work force clamor for wage cuts?
They didn't clamor for them, but they took em.
That's pretty much the standard corporate response.
"Hey, we had a rough year, so we ALL need to tighten our belts and give a little back"
vs
"Hey, we had an awesome year. Ima get a new yacht! Get your lazy asses back to work!"
China is on it's knees to the United States. I read someplace that 50% of their domestic hogs has the swine flu. With pork being a major part of their diet they are crawling back to the U.S. for pork.
China is not on their knees. They are a patient people. They will starve the peasants before they cave to someone like Trump.
If anyone is on their knees, it's American farmers.
Hold on you're comparing 55 years of costs vs the costs of a single program that's been around for a couple years. This is not an argument that supports your economic acumen.
Multiply 28 billion times 55. Does it equal 22 trillion? Sorry, I forgot, Democrats and math...
Does this mean you are fine with the automaker bailouts? I mean, financially, it was an even smaller drop in the water than the farmer welfare.Multiply 28 billion times 55. Does it equal 22 trillion? Sorry, I forgot, Democrats and math...
Was the government the proximate cause of GM to go bankrupt?
Hasn't the revenue raised from the tariffs far exceeded the bailout of farmers which is needed because of the trade war? I've read and heard that most of the weight of the tariffs so far has been been on China (lowering of prices of exported goods and by the decrease in the value of their currency), and not on the American consumer. Are these assertions not true?
I for one am glad that we are standing up to China and hope that the next president continues to take a tough stance against them. We need to diversify away from dependence on that regime. Trump's techniques may not be the best, but at least it is a long overdue attempt.
I for one am glad that we are standing up to China and hope that the next president continues to take a tough stance against them. We need to diversify away from dependence on that regime. Trump's techniques may not be the best, but at least it is a long overdue attempt.
Last edited:
No. They're not true.
And the "raised revenue" is a massive tax on the Main Streeters. No one else.
But all the ORIGINAL tariffs are still in place.
China reciprocated on the US "not raising tariffs", by not raising ADDITIONAL tariffs.
Then, Trump blinked, and exempted many imports from China from ANY tariffs. Probably for his campaign shit and hotel amenities.
