What happened to the Dirty Donald manufacturing renaissance??

Demonstrably so

 

I’m not confused I saw the historic rejection of Obama and dem policies in 2010 and the recovery...slow at first...but faster after the senate was recovered and with a new admin

 

Proven false

 

Ooook reality is hard for you I suppose

 

Everyone knows Trump doesn't read or like Facts ............... is that a requirement to be a Trumper ?

It's called Inertia.

Over 8 Million Jobs were Loss in the Great Recession. It started during the Bush Administration in 2007. President Obama began adding Jobs in 2010


Job Losses Were Unprecedented. Employers began to add jobs in 2010. Progress erasing the jobs deficit was slow for some time, but the economy has long since recovered the 8.7 million jobs lost between the start of the recession in December 2007 and early 2010 and continued to add jobs since

 

Reality is what proves your nonsense false, lol

 

It started when the Dems had congress and ignored the warnings by the bush admin and did nothing and I agree it slowly started turning around years later when the gop had a massive election at all levels and began ending some of the harmful policies that deepened the recession. Heck Obama was trying to conceive the population double digit unemployment was gonna be the new normal

 

The one thing we cannot hold Dirty Donald responsible for is our decline in agriculture due to the horrendous weather our country has sustained this year.

 

The mass outsourcing occurred in the late 1990s to early 2000s. Started with NAFTA. One of the R and Reagan brainchild.
And also, there was a hollowing out of middle class with those job losses and Union busting. All done courtesy of the RW of America.

 

BMW makes 100% of it's SUV's in South Carolina including all of their export SUV's.

 

This site says they have moved some production to China - don't know how much, and may move more.

BMW could move more of its crossover and SUV production to China, in an effort to hedge losses caused by the Trump administration's tariffs. According to BMW Chief Financial Officer Nicolas Peter, speaking to Automotive News on Wednesday, the company will make "a final decision in the coming weeks about which model to localize next in China."

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/bmw-crossover-suv-production-china-tariffs/

 

These are the kind of tariff stories that don't make the news.
But 70,000 units (about 20%) loss of business isn't chicken feed even though it's not many people.

BMW and Chinese partner Brilliance Automotive Group Holdings signed an agreement Monday to expand their joint venture BMW Brilliance Automotive, the German company said in a press release. The deal will boost the number of cars they produce annually at two facilities in China to 520,000 in 2019.

BMW declined to say how much the output increase will cost. The carmaker last year spent 1 billion euros ($1.2 billion) to lift China capacity to 450,000 vehicles a year from 300,000. About a third of the cars it sold in the country last year were imported, including sport utility vehicles made in the U.S.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...n-to-boost-production-in-china-amid-trade-war

 

And please dont forget that every one of those trade deals were overwhelmingly passed by Republicans, and cheered on and funded by the US Chamber of Commerce!....Now they find god?

 

What reality ? You made an unsupported claim - Twirling around claiming the moon is made of green cheese - regardless of how many times you repeat this claim - is not proof of claim.

 

How is it unsupported? Look at historic unemployment rates, and election results. It’s pretty simple

 

You have not presented any support for your claim. If you want to say something about unemployment rates in the time period you are talking about - 2010 - and relate this to "dem policies" then do so. Saying "look at historic unemployment rates" does not support your claim.

What Dem policies are you referring to - and what GOP policies are you referring to - and how did either effect the unemployment rate ?

 

Well the Dems had congress for the four years leading to that, and the oval for two years...they were making the laws and executing them. That’s when we got double digit unemployment and excuses out of the White House about it being the new normal. 2010 election came around and the gop had a landmark historic sweep at all levels of govt and we begin to see a change.

 

You did not name a single policy that affected the UE rate - never mind explain how this policy affected the UE rate.

It is not some secret that the 2008 crash - and subsequent financial crisis in 2009 - was responsible for the high unemployment rate.

Are you claiming that the policies of Dem congress during the year prior to the crash - caused the crash ?

 

Failed to regulate Fannie and Freddie, massive “stimulus” to bail their donors out, bailed out Wall Street donors...Obamacare

 

This did not happen in the year prior to the crash ? By the time the Dem's got congress the bubble had already peaked - and there was nothing that could have been done at that point to stop the crash.

The issues that led to the crash - Freddie/Fannie was just one problem - happened long before 2007. The issues that led to the crash happened under the Bush admin -with control of both houses of Congress for 4 years prior to 2007.

The stimulus happened after the crash - and was bipartisan. The stimulus decreased the unemployment rate in any case - not increased it ?

 

They won in 2006, the crash took place at the end of 2008, right before Obama won the election.

The unemployment didn't peak at double digits until 2010

 

Philadelphia awoke this morning to the news it will lose 3,500 good jobs over the next 3-4 months.The largest refinery on the East coast which employs over 1,000 will be permanently closing.Hahnemann Hospital will also be closing in September taking it's 2,500 jobs with it.

 

They won in October 2006 but nothing happens in congress until 2007. The factors that led to the crash happened long before this point -when Bush held both houses of congress for 4 years.

The housing market collapse happened over a period of time - taking the stock market with it. The Dow bottomed in Jan/Feb 2009 - just as Obama was taking office. It was after this that the financial collapse happened - later in 2009.

None of this had anything to do with policies from the Dem controlled congress that came into power in Oct 2006.

It was after the crash and subsequent financial crisis that the layoffs and hiring freezes happened. That's just how things work. This had nothing to do with any Obama administration policy in 2009. Obama's first fiscal year did not happen until October 2009 - at which point the unemployment rate was nearing its peak.

After that peak the unemployment rate declined. Like the rise - which had nothing to do with Obama or Dem Congress - the decline that happened had nothing to do with any Red congress policy - sans the stimulus which was bipartisan (something you claimed to be a negative).

I am on the fence with respect to the bailout... I think if we would have defaulted on our debt we would be in a far better place today. This however would have come with a few years of significant pain.

The bailout avoided that pain by bailing out the system. I say this is short term gain for long term losses.

At the height of the financial crisis - The commercial paper markets "FROZE". Most folks do not know what this means. When GE gets a 5 Billion dollar contract to build a nuclear power plant in India - they do not have the money to start the project in the bank. They borrow this money from the CP markets. If those markets are frozen - the project does not proceed. Everything grinds to a halt.

This is why people were talking about a 1930's style depression. This was not just a local (US) event - this was a global event.

There were other factors in the 1930's though - rampant protectionism took hold which extended the pain. I think this time - given the interconnected nature of global trade - things would have wound back up much quicker. Sure we would have suffered for a few years ... perhaps as long as 3 or 4 but, after that I think we would be seeing the light at the end of the dark tunnel.

In any case.... When the markets crash - and corporate profits drop like a stone - they don't do a whole lot of hiring and they do a lot of layoffs and spending cuts which leads to layoffs in other businesses. This is economics 101.

It is also the case that after a certain period of time on UI - those people are no longer counted - so after the peak the numbers come down - even if the economy isn't picking up. That's just the way things work.

 

The housing bubble peaked in mid 2007. Pray tell how the congressional Dems should have prevented the housing crash in 1/2 year (against a potential GWB veto) that was in the making for basically a decade? it seems that the supply side proponents have general trouble with the concept that the economy has inertia and that effects are often only felt after years of policy changes.

 

RWers spouting mfg jobs is hilarious. Since they are responsible for losing all those jobs.
And the unions that gave those jobs the good pay.
I don't think RWers really know much about daily life. They seem to run in circles spouting whatever the head of the group says.