Literally. MAGA will buy it with higher prices due to tariffs - that's the "money that we've made." And that's tariffs kicking in to farmers' benefit.
Jesus, people.
That's what's happening. I'm not 100% sure that's what farmers want. Sadly, many of them will support him trying to own the libs.
P.S. There's not enough fake gold in that office.
And one time, the automakers. Everybody else can go fuck themselves.
UPDATE 06:55 pm:
Dems would never do this. One of the advantages Republicans have over Democrats is Republicans don't care what they get blamed for. They just squeal it was some other guy's fault.
Let's see if Biden can follow through. This imbalance has gone on far too long.The fossil fuel industry has accumulated “billions of dollars in subsidies, loopholes and special foreign tax credits”, in Biden’s words. He intends to eliminate these and shift to non-carbon energy by strengthening the nation’s electrical grid, creating a new “clean electricity standard” that will force utilities to end carbon emissions by 2035 and providing research support and tax credits for clean energy.
It’s a sensible 180-degree shift of industrial policy.
The old industrial policy for the automobile industry consisted largely of bailouts – of Chrysler in 1979 and General Motors and Chrysler in 2008.
Biden intends to shift away from gas-powered cars entirely and invest $174bn in companies making electric vehicles. He’ll also create 500,000 new charging stations.
[...]
Internet service providers have been subsidized by the states and the federal government and federal regulators have allowed them to consolidate into a few giants. But they’ve dragged their feet on upgrading copper networks with fiber, some 30 million Americans still lack access to high-speed broadband, and the US has among the world’s highest prices for internet service.
Biden intends to invest $100bn to extend high-speed broadband coverage. He also threatens to “hold providers accountable” for their sky-high prices – suggesting either price controls or antitrust enforcement.
[...]
The pharmaceutical industry exemplifies the old industrial policy at its worst. Big pharma’s basic research has been subsidized through the National Institutes of Health. Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act bankroll much of its production costs. The industry has barred Americans from buying drugs from abroad. Yet Americans pay among the highest drug prices in the world.
Biden intends to invest an additional $30bn to reduce the risk of future pandemics – replenishing the national stockpile of vaccines and therapeutics, accelerating the timeline for drug development and boosting domestic production of pharmaceutical ingredients currently made overseas. That’s a good start but he must insist on a more basic and long-overdue quid pro quo from big pharma: allow government to use its bargaining power to restrain drug prices.
[...]
[I]t’s old industrial policy versus new. The new should focus on cutting-edge breakthroughs and not be frittered away on pointless projects like the F35 fighter jet. And it should meet human needs rather than add to an overstuffed arsenal.
[...]
A proper industrial policy requires that industries receiving public benefits act in the public interest.
Guardian
And that won't be easy. They're not going to capitulate willingly.Biden’s restructuring of the American economy is necessary. America’s old industrial policy was stifling innovation and gouging taxpayers and consumers. The challenges ahead demand a very different economy.
But Biden’s new industrial policy must avoid capture by the industries that dominated the old.
A General Motors spokesperson told The Hill that the automaker is suspending operation in North America until March 30 and will assess on a week-to-week basis from then on when they would resume.
Ford Motor Co. also said it would suspend production through March 30, The Associated Press reported, while Fiat-Chrysler was expected to announce the shutting down of its factories as well.
The shutdowns come after the United Auto Workers (UAW) union announced Tuesday evening that they had reached a deal with GM, Ford and Fiat-Chrysler to “review and implement” a rotating partial shutdown of facilities.
The Hill
When has that EVER worked?The GOP tax law passed in 2017 was supposed to super charge the economy, but the lack of major impact is spurring critics to renew their attacks against the signature measure from President Trump.
Republicans said the tax law would help the economy through several avenues, including by sending business investment soaring. But just 15 months after it took effect, business investment has actually been contracting, falling 1 percent and 3 percent in the past two quarters.
The Hill
That's the build-up to doing it again. Blame thee failure on something else.Republicans who supported the tax law are blaming Trump's trade war with China as the reason why it failed to have the intended impact.
It worked for Reagan. It worked for Bush. There's no reason to think there won't soon come along another Republican administration that says the same exact shit to credulous people who then find - guess what? - it didn't work again!“Donald Trump and Republicans justified their massive giveaway to wealthy multinational corporations by claiming that it would boost investment and the benefits would trickle down to workers,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee.
“Two years later, none of their promises have been fulfilled. Investment is flat and workers have not seen the wage increases they were promised,” he added.
[...]
Slashing the corporate tax rate and restructuring the tax code, supporters said, would incentivize businesses to invest their money back into the U.S. economy, buying up equipment, buildings and software to accommodate more workers and make them more productive.
It's the never-ending story. It even happened under Obama. Remember the bank bailout that was supposed to get money into the economy, but the flow somehow didn't make it past the banks?Democrats have hammered the GOP over the massive spike in stock buybacks that was funded by companies using their tax windfall.
Ding dong. That's why they do it.Stock buybacks, which are not considered a business investment, tend to raise the price of remaining shares for other stockholders rather than spur economic activity.
The reality, however, was different.Ten years ago, on Saturday, September 13th, 2008, the world was about to end.
The New York Federal Reserve was a zoo. Imagine NASA headquarters on the day a giant asteroid careens into the atmosphere. That was the New York Fed: all hands on deck, peak human panic.
The crowd included future Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, then-Treasury Secretary (and former Goldman Sachs CEO) Hank Paulson, the representatives of multiple regulatory offices, and the CEOs of virtually every major bank in New York, each toting armies of bean counters and bankers.
The asteroid metaphor fit. In the twin collapses of top-five investment bank Lehman Brothers and insurance giant AIG, Wall Street saw a civilization-imperiling ball of debt hurtling its way.
The legend of that meeting, as immortalized in hagiographic reconstructions like Andrew Ross Sorkin’s Too Big to Fail, is that the tough-minded bank honchos found a way to scrape up just enough cash to steer the debt-comet off course.
Matt Taibbi
Why the change of tune? Guess.“They owe a lot of money to your friends on Wall Street and we’re going to have to wipe that out. You’re going to say goodbye to that, I don’t know if it’s Goldman Sachs GS, +0.26% but whoever it is you can wave goodbye to that,” Trump said in a pre-recorded interview with Geraldo Rivera that aired on Sean Hannity’s show Tuesday night.
Market Watch
In reality, most of that money is owed to everyday investors. Less than 25% of Puerto Rican debt is held by hedge funds, according to estimates by Cate Long, founder of research firm Puerto Rico Clearinghouse.
The rest of the debt is owned by individuals and mutual funds that are held by mom-and-pop investors.
"For the most part, Main Street America owns this debt," Long said.
CNN Money
Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday's report.
Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government's bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world's largest insurance company.
[...]
The initial $85 billion to bail out AIG was supplemented by an additional $49.1 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP, as well as additional funds from the Federal Reserve. AIG's debt to U.S. taxpayers totals $133.3 billion outstanding.
[...]
AIG received the bailout of $85 billion at the discretion of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which was led at the time by Timothy Geithner [who was thereafter appointed by the Obama administration as Secretary of the US Treasury].
USA Today
Tell me again; where are they getting the money to do that?Less than three years after receiving $10 billion in bailout money from American taxpayers, Goldman Sachs informed its employees [in 2011] that it [would] fire 1,000 workers in the United States and elsewhere, shifting their jobs to the cheaper Singaporean labor market.
[...]
Goldman is firing American workers at a time of record profits for the company, which raked in $2.7 billion in profits in the first three months of 2011 alone.
Goldman’s plan is helped by conservatives in Washington who have prevented Congress from discouraging corporations from outsourcing.
[...]
Many conservatives justify outsourcing by arguing that not only would companies be more profitable by shifting low-skilled work to developing countries, but laid-off American workers would be forced to re-educate themselves for new, high-paying industries.
Think Progress
Smart move. He's at much less risk of consequences in Los Angeles.Tim Leissner, chairman of Goldman Sachs Southeast Asia’s operations, has taken a “personal leave” amidst corruption scandals associated with Malaysia’s state-owned 1MDB fund, with which Goldman worked closely.
President of Goldman’s Singapore operations since 2006 and chairman of its Southeast Asia operations since 2014, Leissner [...] was seen as a “key player” in cultivating the bank’s very profitable relationships with Kuala’ Lumpur’s banking and government elite, including Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak [who chairs the state-owned investment and development company, 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB)].
[...]
Goldman orchestrated the $6.5 billion sale of three 1MDB bonds in 2012 and 2013, from which the bank earned $593 million in fees and expenses. The deal has raised questions, as such fees in Malaysia are usually much lower.
It has since emerged that Razak received a $681 million “donation” to his personal bank account.
[...]
It was discovered this week that Leissner has moved from Singapore to his Los Angeles home, calling it a “personal leave.”
RT
I owe almost my entire Wall Street career to the Clintons. I am not alone; most bankers owe their careers, and their wealth, to them. Over the last 25 years they – with the Clintons it is never just Bill or Hillary – implemented policies that placed Wall Street at the center of the Democratic economic agenda, turning it from a party against Wall Street to a party of Wall Street.
[...]
More than 23 years following Bill Clinton’s election, Wall Street is very much intertwined with the Clintons: they helped fundamentally change Wall Street, and Wall Street fundamentally changed the Democratic party.
[...]
They championed free trade, pushing Nafta. They reformed welfare, buying into the conservative view that poverty was about dependency, not about situation. They threw the old left a few bones, repealing prior tax cuts on the rich, but used the increased revenues mostly on Wall Street’s favorite issue: cutting the debt.
Most importantly, when faced with their first financial crisis, they bailed out Wall Street.
[...]
The use of bailouts should have also been a reason to heavily regulate Wall Street, to prevent behavior that would require a bailout. But the [Clinton] administration didn’t do that; instead they went the opposite direction and continued to deregulate it, culminating in the repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999.
[...]
Wall Street now had both political parties working for them, and really nobody holding them accountable. Now, no trade was too aggressive, no risk too crazy, no behavior to unethical and no loss too painful.
[...]
Hillary Clinton continues to receive large donations from top bankers. Ask anyone who has spent the last two decades on Wall Street which politicians have worked for them the hardest and most will grudgingly admit it’s the Clintons. I doubt that will change anytime soon.
Chris Arnade in The Guardian
