Nothing deranged about that, nope nosirree.
Note to self, avoid Marshall U.
Marshall at least had the good sense to suspend her.
I think the USMCA covers more than just yer business.
The president and CEO of the non-partisan Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council), Karen Kerrigan, issued a statement after the report was released.
Kerrigan noted the biggest gains in the report are for the manufacturing and the service sector. Kerrigan added, “The findings clearly demonstrate the value of USMCA to workers, small businesses, entrepreneurs and our economy and is another reason why every member of Congress needs to get behind passage of this important agreement.”
The SBE Council reported small to mid-size businesses dominate trade with Mexico and Canada with most of the businesses having fewer than 20 employees.
And this, which I was going to post in the Money forum, but it’s relevant here as well:
Biden vs. Trump on the U.S. Economy
Nathan Sheets
Sept. 15, 2020 12:21 pm ET
President Donald Trump and former vice president Joe Biden offer a resoundingly distinct choice on economic and regulatory issues. Trump’s economic policies boil down to a vigorous push for growth at home and pursuit of his America First agenda abroad. Biden is calling for more active and expansive government efforts to address inequality and to provide critical investments in people, infrastructure, and the environment.
The implications of this election will reverberate through both the U.S. and global economies.
If Trump is re-elected, he seems likely to continue with the policies pursued during his first term. At root, these were designed to let the private sector, the supply side of the economy, expand as rapidly as possible—the underlying rationale being that, at the end of the day, most jobs, wealth, and innovation are generated in the private sector.
Consistent with this private-sector emphasis, in late 2017 Trump pushed through a massive tax cut, focused on corporate taxes, and he broadly slashed regulation, including on environmental and labor practices, investor protections, and financial regulation.
While the success of Trump’s efforts is open to debate, his supporters emphasize that before the virus erupted, unemployment was running at historic lows, the stock market was at all-time highs (which it has recently regained despite the virus), and economic growth was proceeding at a solid if not spectacular pace. Measures of consumer and business sentiment were running at high levels. Nevertheless, it’s also true that Trump inherited a solid economy from the Obama administration and his tax cuts triggered fiscal deficits of unprecedented magnitude for a period of sustained expansion.
The other prong of Trump’s economic policies has been his efforts to redefine U.S. economic policies abroad in terms of America First, taking a more skeptical view of trade, globalization, and economic cooperation than his predecessors.
Trump’s policies have embroiled the U.S. in a trade war with China, and the confrontation has spilled over into technology, investment, and currency disputes. Less intense tensions have sprung up at times with U.S. allies and partners, including the European Union, Canada, and Mexico.
These stresses, amplified by Trump’s unpredictable operating style, have created temporary gyrations for markets. But Trump has been careful to not push the economy or markets beyond their breaking point. The question is whether he would be as careful in a second term, when no longer contemplating reelection.
Biden’s agenda, in contrast, is based on addressing America’s problems with economic inequality. The average household in the top 1% has 1,250 times more wealth than the average household in the bottom 50%. The implications of this echo in the country’s social, political, and public-health divisions. Evidence is mounting that a rebalancing of resources from “haves” to “have-nots” could help lift aggregate demand and support stronger economic growth.
Such efforts, however, must recognize the potential trade-offs between equity and efficiency—and take pains to preserve the economy’s productive capacity. Seeking to strike this balance, Biden’s proposals call for expanded social spending, especially on education and health care, and increased investment in infrastructure, the environment, and other public goods. These programs would be financed by partially reversing Trump’s corporate tax cuts and hiking levies on high-earning households. Even so, large budget deficits would likely persist under Biden as well.
A Biden administration would also look to tighten regulation to protect the environment, consumers, workers, and investors. And antitrust policy would become more restrictive. Such action would be a conscious attempt to trade some GDP growth today for a safer, healthier, fairer, and potentially more efficient economy tomorrow.
These are important objectives, and Biden’s envisioned programs would meet real needs. But how far would such efforts actually go in reducing inequality and enhancing opportunity? Alternatively, to what extent would higher taxes, increased government spending, and tighter regulation constrain the vitality of the private sector or have other unintended consequences? These remain open—but important—questions.
On the global scene, Biden’s economic policies would be more conventional than Trump’s, with an emphasis on working with allies around the world. This would be particularly true in his approach to China. Many countries share U.S. concerns about Chinese policies, and Biden would seek to build a coalition to pressure Chinese leader Xi Jinping . More generally, he would be comfortable with the U.S. acting as a leader on international economic issues, and he would seek to cooperate in multilateral bodies like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, United Nations, and World Health Organization.
To date, the markets have successfully absorbed the uncertainties associated with the election—seeing much to like and much to worry about in the economic policies of both candidates. On balance, market participants have welcomed Trump’s efforts to cut taxes, but they also wouldn’t mourn his unpredictable style and incessant trade wars.
The implications of the decision in November will not only determine the trajectory of U.S. economic policy over the next four years, they will also be felt far beyond the country’s shores.
Nathan Sheets, Ph.D., is chief economist and head of global macroeconomic research at PGIM Fixed Income .
Clever campaigning.
I wonder who will gain most from the supreme court judge nomination, whenever that will happen. I can see it going both ways, really. Both sides need to play this carefully.
you still wonder? rowland and jdsmith are having a blast meanwhile
Pushing through a judge before the election could well back-fire for the Reps. It’s going to be a very interesting period until the election. And, quite honestly, I am worried very much about what’ll happen immediately after election day, no matter who gets how many votes.
Trump says he is going to choose a woman of color, playing the intersectional card in order to deconstruct it. The Dems will pay a price for opposing.
Trump may pay a price for the identity politics pandering, but not much of one. His fans will mostly see what he’s up to. As long as she has merit, he’s safe.
Opposition parties are…not supposed to oppose the government? 
They’re not supposed to do it stupidly.
Doing something stupidly is always wrong, no matter what.
So how should they do it?
How do you ‘oppose something stupidly’?
Insert obvious joke here.
1 Like
They could maybe wait until those in power do something wrong, and then call them out on it.
Isn’t that what they do now?
Hardly.
So what are they doing?
They’re being utter dicks. Have been for several years straight now.
So let me get this right.
Democratic politicians as an opposition will pay a price for opposing a selection by the governing party. This is allegedly a stupid way to oppose things even though both parties clearly want the chance to nominate someone because itll further their agenda rather than be a neutral check-and-balance interpretation of the law in the US and they’re now all of a sudden they’re not opposing, they’re simply being dicks for some reason.
Makes total sense.
Biden… now Pelosi look like something from One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest:
2 Likes