Coca-Cola says it's raising soda prices after Trump tariffs

Coca-Cola Company on Wednesday said they will raise the price of their signature sodas this year in part because of the financial strain caused by President Trump's tariffs.

Coca-Cola's Chief Executive James Quincey told the Wall Street Journal that they are stepping up prices in response to the rising costs of delivery and metal prices after the U.S. slapped $50 billion duties on Chinese products earlier this year.

He declined to give further details about the price change and pointed to multiple factors influencing the change.

“There is some broad-based push on input costs that have kind of come in and affected ours and many other industries as well,” Quincey told the Journal.

Trump in recent weeks has announced billions of dollars worth of tariffs on exports from other countries, including historic U.S. allies such as Canada and the European Union, as well as economic competitors Mexico and China.

Many companies have come out against Trump's tariffs, claiming they are hurting manufacturers, workers and consumers.

The Trump administration last week proposed 10 percent tariffs on an additional list of $200 billion in Chinese goods, and has threatened to slap tariffs on automobiles and car parts from the EU.

In response, the targeted countries have announced steep retaliatory tariffs against U.S. goods, which have hurt U.S. industries including agriculture and manufacturing.

Some companies have announced plans to move their production abroad to avoid the tariffs.

The Trump administration on Tuesday announced $12 billion in aid for farmers who are being hit hard by his tariffs.

Trump on Wednesday announced he and the EU are negotiating toward "zero tariffs" in the future.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/39892 ... to-tariffs

<

Farm groups fear Trump aid won’t fix trade damage

Farm groups say President Trump’s promised $12 billion aid to farmers is not enough to repair the damage from tariffs and are urging him to produce a long-term solution that will open foreign markets.

Farmers are expressing some support for the much-needed help but say it’s more important for the administration to reverse course on the tariffs, which Trump argues he’s using as leverage to bring trading partners to the negotiating table.

Agriculture groups and lawmakers have been calling on the Trump administration to stop imposing the tariffs because their products — from pork to soybeans — are being targeted for retaliation by other nations.

The American Soybean Association said that “producers cannot weather sustained trade disruptions.”

“While soybean growers appreciate the administration’s recognition that tariffs have caused reduced exports and lower prices, the announced plan provides only short-term assistance,” said John Heisdorffer, the group’s president and a soybean grower from Keota, Iowa.

U.S. soy prices have dropped more than $2 per bushel in the past couple months as the trade war between the U.S. and China ramped up.

“Our best course of action is to expand other markets and develop new ones to buy the soybeans we’re not selling to China,” he said.

Farm groups found themselves in a difficult spot Tuesday after Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said the agency will authorize up to $12 billion for programs to help farmers caught in the tariff war, which would cover the estimated $11 billion in retaliatory tariffs on U.S. agricultural goods.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said Trump is taking “strong action” “to make sure America’s farmers and ranchers are not left to bear the brunt of illegal retaliation by China and other countries.”

But farm groups say the assistance is only a short-term fix and are more concerned that American farmers will find themselves losing important export markets.

“This announcement is substantial, but we cannot overstate the dire consequences that farmers and ranchers are facing in relation to lost export markets,” said American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall.

“Our emphasis continues to be on trade and restoring markets, and we will continue to push for a swift and sure end to the trade war and the tariffs impacting American agriculture,” he said.

Farmers argue that the economic cyclone of tariffs is creating long-term, irreversible damage that will cut into the $20 billion trade surplus in agriculture that has been built up over the years.

“Unfortunately, a one-time check won’t replace the deterioration of long-term contracts and relationships,” said Brian Kuehl, executive director of Farmers for Free Trade.

The aid also won’t address other parts of the sector — from producers, to grain bin operators, to shippers.

“We urge the administration to take immediate action to stop the trade war and get back to opening new markets,” Kuehl said.

Farm and business groups have both been putting a full-court press on Trump to stop the barrage of retaliatory tariffs between the U.S. and trading partners such as Canada, Mexico, China and the European Union.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which didn’t directly comment on the $12 billon plan, has repeatedly urged the administration to reconsider their tariffs policy.

“U.S. tariffs, together with Chinese retaliation, are disrupting global trade and supply chains, further damaging American businesses, workers, farmers, ranchers and investors,” the Chamber wrote in its Section 301 submission to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on Tuesday. “Unilateral tariff strategies have no record of historical success and have always led to unintended consequences.”

The White House’s plan to provide aid to farmers for the tariffs also got a cold reception from congressional Democrats and Republicans.

“So, we have a policy now that is taxing the American consumer and then bailing out U.S. farmers with welfare,” said House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) during a CNBC breakfast. “I don’t get it. I don’t agree with it.”

“They put in place a policy that requires our farmers to go on welfare and, you know, it’s a ridiculous policy that just needs to be reversed,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said farmers don’t want government money, “we want markets.”

“There’ll never be enough money to solve the problem,” said Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.). “What happens when other countries gain our markets? Can you do $12 billion regularly? How long does this take?”

But senators have no way to stop the aid package from going into place next fall because Perdue will use his authority at the USDA to hand out the checks.

Despite the mounting criticism, Trump has defended his use of tariffs, arguing that the U.S. has been on the losing end of trade agreements.

On Tuesday, Trump assured supporters the steep tariffs will eventually bring benefits and called for patience for the plan to take shape.

“And the farmers will be the biggest beneficiary. Watch. We’re opening up markets. You watch what’s going to happen. Just be a little patient,” he said during a speech in Kansas City, Mo., on Tuesday.

Mick Mulvaney, head of the White House budget office, said Wednesday that trade policy is harder than taxes and regulatory cuts because “you have to get the Chinese and other countries to do what you want them to do and change their behavior.”

“That’s really, really hard,” he said during a CNBC breakfast in Washington.

But it’s unclear how long Republicans will wait ahead of a midterm election. Experts warn that U.S. trading partners have targeted their tariffs in some cases toward red states that backed Trump.

The U.S. is in a trade deal with Canada and Mexico, the North American Free Trade Agreement, but has few other deals around the globe. The U.S. has no trade pacts with China or the EU.

Trump has levied tariffs of 25 percent on imported steel and 10 percent on aluminum. The White House also has slapped tariffs of 25 percent on $34 billion worth of Chinese imports. China quickly responded with an equal batch of duties. Another $16 billion is in the pipeline.

For now, despite Trump’s aid, farm groups are still pressing for a change in trade policy.

Kent Bacus, director of international trade for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, said that “trade agreements and trade enforcement are the most effective long-term solutions to the challenges faced by U.S. beef producers.”

Iowa Corn Growers Association President Mark Recker said that the group will “support these payments if this stands as our only recourse.”

“Ultimately, resolving trade differences and repairing relationships with our trading partners must be our top priority,” he said.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/39891 ... ade-damage

<

Politics

Conservatives Push to Impeach Rosenstein as DOJ Defends Actions

Several House conservatives escalated their longstanding threat to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on grounds that demands for documents about sensitive investigations have been ignored, but Justice Department officials defended their compliance.

Republican Representatives Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan, along with nine co-sponsors, introduced an impeachment resolution Wednesday against Rosenstein, but notably stopped short of using a legislative procedure that would have forced a House vote before the chamber adjourns for a five-week recess Thursday.

Earlier Wednesday, officials who spoke to reporters said the Justice Department has fully complied with two subpoenas from the House Intelligence Committee and met almost all demands in a subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee. The officials spoke to reporters on the condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing document production to Congress.

The House Republicans are demanding documents related to the continuing investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 campaign as well as the FBI’s probe into Democrat Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of state. They say both probes were tainted by animosity toward Republican Donald Trump, who frequently invokes that argument in tweets about what he calls a “witch hunt.”

“For nine months we’ve warned them consequences were coming, and for nine months we’ve heard the same excuses backed up by the same unacceptable conduct,” Meadows said in a statement. “Time is up and the consequences are here. It’s time to find a new deputy attorney general who is serious about accountability and transparency.”

House leaders and other rank-and-file Republicans, however, have been cool to the idea of punishing Rosenstein, and many Senate Republicans have strongly opposed such steps.

‘Does Not Agree’

“This Senate Republican does not agree,” Jeff Flake of Arizona tweeted in response to the resolution being introduced.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina earlier Wednesday dismissed the potential for a Rosenstein impeachment, saying it’s “more likely" he’d be "in the NBA playing basketball.”

Democrats say that the real goal is to topple Rosenstein because he named Robert Mueller as special counsel and oversees his continuing inquiry into the Russian meddling and whether anyone around Trump conspired in it. A replacement for Rosenstein could fire Mueller or narrow the scope of his work.

The Justice Department officials said the only document the department won’t make available to lawmakers is an unredacted version of a memorandum from Rosenstein to Mueller authorizing specific activities once he took over the investigation.

What’s Withheld

Some parts of other documents won’t be provided to lawmakers if they have information that can be withheld under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, such as material related to grand jury proceedings and foreign governments, the officials said.

Just to meet the congressional demands, the department has built two reading rooms, and the FBI has written new software code to search its top-secret system, the officials said.

Over the weekend, the department released heavily redacted warrant applications and court documents related to surveillance of Carter Page, a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, in response to Freedom of Information Act requests.

The department has made documents related to the Page surveillance warrant available to lawmakers for review with few redactions. So far, some 30 lawmakers have seen them, the officials said.

Republican Accusations

House conservatives led by Meadows, Jordan and Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, have accused Rosenstein and his team of withholding documents, hiding text messages, engaging in potential federal warrant abuse, and defying congressional subpoenas.

The steps they took Wednesday echoed similar maneuvering in 2016 by some of the same lawmakers, targeting then-IRS commissioner John Koskinen for impeachment before that year’s seven-week House summer break. Koskinen later that year was spared impeachment when the House ultimately defeated the resolution.

The biggest unmet demand is providing lawmakers access to unredacted documents related to the Clinton investigation, which falls under the House Judiciary subpoena, the officials said. Attorney General Jeff Sessions put a U.S. attorney, John Lausch, in charge of providing Congress with the documents.

Several House conservatives escalated their longstanding threat to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on grounds that demands for documents about sensitive investigations have been ignored, but Justice Department officials defended their compliance.

Republican Representatives Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan, along with nine co-sponsors, introduced an impeachment resolution Wednesday against Rosenstein, but notably stopped short of using a legislative procedure that would have forced a House vote before the chamber adjourns for a five-week recess Thursday.

Earlier Wednesday, officials who spoke to reporters said the Justice Department has fully complied with two subpoenas from the House Intelligence Committee and met almost all demands in a subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee. The officials spoke to reporters on the condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing document production to Congress.

The House Republicans are demanding documents related to the continuing investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 campaign as well as the FBI’s probe into Democrat Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of state. They say both probes were tainted by animosity toward Republican Donald Trump, who frequently invokes that argument in tweets about what he calls a “witch hunt.”

“For nine months we’ve warned them consequences were coming, and for nine months we’ve heard the same excuses backed up by the same unacceptable conduct,” Meadows said in a statement. “Time is up and the consequences are here. It’s time to find a new deputy attorney general who is serious about accountability and transparency.”

House leaders and other rank-and-file Republicans, however, have been cool to the idea of punishing Rosenstein, and many Senate Republicans have strongly opposed such steps.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... op-demands

<

I see Joe is posting a lot. He must be happy that Trump got the EU to cave and agree to more fair trade, helping our farmers and manufacturers!

Winning!

HEADLINES

In abrupt shift, Trump makes nice with EU, gets tough on Russia
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/ ... ker-742718

<

Trump team tries to show spine on Russia

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/ ... ing-741039

<

Trump backs off new tariffs on EU in retreat from trade war

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/ ... ons-741162

<

Bolton: Trump Delaying Putin Meeting Until ‘After the Russia Witch Hunt’

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bolton-tr ... t?ref=home


<

Republicans Largely Abandon Running on Trump’s Tax Cuts

https://www.thedailybeast.com/republica ... s?ref=home

<

Trump’s “Plan” to Appease Farmers With $12 Billion Amounts to “Gold Crutches”

https://www.motherjones.com/food/2018/0 ... rdue-usda/

<

Trump claims Cohen tape on Playboy model may have been doctored

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/ ... ape-740418

<

Senate eyes hitting Russia in slap to Trump

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/ ... ons-739846

<

Mexican officials are supposed to be in DC tomorrow. Newly elected Mexican prez already sent a personal letter to Trump asking for a quick resolution on trade disagreements. His people are meeting with us tomorrow.

Trump says he may just do a separate deal with Mexico, since Trudeau is trying to act like a tough guy. (Which is difficult to do when with his fake eyebrows hanging halfway off his face)

Eventually they will all cave. They need us.

A couple years ago California passed up France as the World's 6th largest economy. (if Cali were it's own country)
https://www.sacbee.com/news/business/ar ... 80667.html

Connecticut is the richest state in the U.S. per capita.
http://www.courant.com/business/hc-per- ... story.html#

New York, New Jersey, and Illinois are well up the list too.

Yet right now all these states are in "irretrievable debt". Retirees are not getting their checks on time. Vendors have to wait months to be paid. It is a friggin mess.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/th ... vable-debt

All the bastions of liberalism. Their great experiment has failed. This is what far left policies get you. As Margaret Thatcher once famously said, "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other peoples money."

Don't allow them to bring this to the national stage. 21 trillion in debt is way too much as it is.

Not a big deal to most. But there are a lot of families that are going to be getting closure soon. Thanks to the President.

The Associated Press @AP
BREAKING: Yonhap news agency says a US military plane is heading to North Korea to pick up remains of US soldiers killed in war.

The fantastical tale Trump wants you to believe about collusion

The Washington Post
By Paul Waldman
July 27 at 12:53 PM

If you want to believe Donald Trump is innocent when it comes to Russia, you’re going to have to do some work. It’s not just that new information keeps coming out, and you’ll have to figure out whether it should be disbelieved (It’s not true!) or explained away (Even if it’s true, it’s perfectly fine!). You’ll also have to keep abreast of the president’s shifting stories and justifications so you can be up to date on what you’re supposed to say. And you’ll have to believe some things that are frankly unbelievable.

Now that Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former fixer, has publicly said that he was in the room when Trump was told beforehand of the infamous Trump Tower meeting Trump’s son, son-in-law and campaign chairman had with a group of Russians they believed would provide dirt on Hillary Clinton, and Trump gave the go-ahead for the meeting, Trump advocates are being called upon yet again for a new round of denials. So we should step back and remind ourselves of exactly what it is they’re asking us all to accept.

Don Jr. wouldn’t have told his father about the Trump Tower meeting. Without getting too deeply into psychological analysis of Don Jr., it’s pretty plain that he worships his father, in whose shadow he lives, and craves his respect. So when an acquaintance approached him with an offer to meet with Russians who, according to the email Don Jr. received, said they could “provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary […] This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” Don Jr. was excited.

“If it’s what you say I love it,” he responded. With the potential of such a blockbuster find, we’re supposed to believe that Don Jr. wouldn’t have rushed to tell his dad what he was about to acquire for him.

Neither Paul Manafort nor Jared Kushner would have bothered to tell Trump about the meeting, either. In the fast-moving chaos of a presidential campaign, something extraordinary has to be on offer to assemble the campaign chairman, the candidate’s son, and the candidate’s son-in-law and chief policy adviser. When the Russians came calling, the Trump team obviously thought they were about to get something extraordinary. But we’re supposed to believe that nobody informed Donald Trump.

It’s mere coincidence that between the email to Don Jr. and the Trump Tower meeting, Trump touted damaging information he was about to reveal about Hillary. Don Jr. received the email proposing the Trump Tower meeting on June 3, 2016. On June 6, he had two phone calls with Emin Agalarov, the son of a Russian oligarch, who was helping to set up the meeting. Between those two calls he had another call with a blocked number. His father has a blocked number. Don Jr. says he can’t remember whom he spoke to.


But the next day, June 7, Donald Trump told a crowd at a rally, “I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we’re going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons. I think you’re going to find it very informative and very, very interesting.” The meeting took place two days later, on June 9, but produced no damaging information on Clinton. Trump never delivered his “major speech” revealing Clinton misconduct. We’re supposed to believe this is all coincidence.

The Trump team released a false statement to the public about the Trump Tower meeting even though they hadn’t done anything wrong. When the story of the Trump Tower meeting was about to break in July 2017, a group of Trump advisers quickly gathered to craft a cover story to minimize the damage. The account they settled on is one in which the meeting had nothing to do with the campaign but was just about policy related to adoption of Russian children by American parents. We’re supposed to believe that they released this false story despite the fact that there was nothing improper about the meeting in the first place.

President Trump lied about crafting the false statement to the public for no particular reason. That Trump lied about this is not in dispute. We now know that it was the president who dictated the cover story, but on multiple occasions, Trump had his lawyers publicly attest that he had nothing to do with the statement (“The president didn’t sign off on anything,” “The president was not involved”). But then last month we learned that the lawyers, in a letter to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, finally admitted that the president “dictated a short but accurate response” to be delivered to the New York Times, and thereby to the public, on Don Jr.’s behalf, just as The Post had reported last June. We’re supposed to believe that these admitted lies were not meant to cover up anything, since there was nothing to cover up.

Working with representatives of the Russian government to get dirt on your opponent is perfectly fine. This is one of the most audacious claims Trump and his advocates have made, but it’s one they almost had no choice but to retreat to. After the Trump camp’s lies about what happened in the meeting were exposed, they could no longer deny that Trump’s family members and closest advisers were actively seeking help from the Russians. “I think from a practical standpoint most people would have taken that meeting,” the president finally said. “Politics isn’t the nicest business in the world, but it’s very standard.”

That is completely false — taking campaign help from a foreign government is not “standard” at all and is probably illegal. But once it became the president’s position, his defenders had to adopt it as their own. “Look, I don’t think that it’s bad if campaigns are turning to foreign governments for dirt. It’s not collusion,” said conservative pundit Andrew McCarthy on Fox. So now we’re all supposed to believe that colluding with a hostile foreign power isn’t actually collusion, and there’s nothing wrong with it anyway.

If you believe all those things, I commend you on your mental flexibility. You might want to consider how you’d be reacting if we found out that in the heart of the 2016 campaign, Chelsea Clinton her husband, and John Podesta had eagerly sought information on Donald Trump from, say, the Iranian government, and then Clinton herself had lied publicly about the meeting. Would you be saying it was no big deal and we shouldn’t worry about it? When you’ve been saying for years that she ought to go to jail because she used the wrong email account?

To conclude, I’d like to offer a warning. The other people who Cohen says were in the room when Trump was informed about the meeting with the Russians were presumably close aides and/or family members. Given all the lying that everyone around Trump has done up until this point, it’s perfectly plausible that even if Cohen is telling the truth, they’ll claim otherwise. After all, if they were close enough to Trump to be in the room, they might be willing to lie for him, especially if none of them are facing their own legal jeopardy like Cohen is, and they’re sure there’s no way to prove who’s telling the truth.

It’ll be their word against his. They can say, “Yep, the president’s telling the truth” and walk away, perhaps with the promise that their loyalty will be rewarded in the future. I would be shocked if they aren’t talking to each other right now, getting their stories straight. Even if we all know what really happened, proving it is something else entirely.




Peter C - what follows is my own note: All the lying by Trump and his close associates is why this part of the puzzle as set forth in the opinion piece is so powerful:

But the next day, June 7, Donald Trump told a crowd at a rally, “I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we’re going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons. I think you’re going to find it very informative and very, very interesting.” The meeting took place two days later, on June 9, but produced no damaging information on Clinton. Trump never delivered his “major speech” revealing Clinton misconduct. We’re supposed to believe this is all coincidence.

To the best of my knowledge, Trump and his people have yet to devise an explanation/lie to try to get around that fact. But I am sure they are working on it. In any event, the most alarming conclusion is really looking more and more like the most probable one. Indeed, there is getting to be little genuine basis to doubt that the worst is true.

Yeah, those same writers laughed at Trump when he said 4 GDP.

4.1 baby!

Obama averaged 1.6 over his 8 years.

I don’t know how much more evidence you guys need. Conservative policies are far better for jobs and economy.

One quarter of 4.1 annualized growth. Woo hoo! All the corruption, lies, and terrible governance is worth it! Obama had only five quarters better than that.

Trump sure is getting a whole lot of value from his forty pieces of gold. Meanwhile, he is secretly pocking a whole lot more for himself. Keep that blind eye turned.

Obama's biggest parting gift to Trump may be the economy

[To think that the economy got the kickstart by Obama and his administration. Trump complains he inherited a mess. I wonder how Trump gets us out of the depression that Obama inherited.

The absence of better wage growth and inflation is one of the biggest mysteries in the economy.

The United States has added jobs for 85 straight months, the longest streak on record.

If my math is correct, 85-10 (months of trump)=75. Does this mean that 75 months (6 1/2 years...85%) of jobs added came under the Obama administration and has continued to grow under the Trump administration these last 10 months?? Trump's on a roll. Looks like he will surpass Obama's rate of increase 100% to 85%.........Oh Gawd! 6 years from now???

One positive about the tax plan.......I'm looking forward to my wages increasing significantly next year

Donald Trump is heading to the White House with a pledge to revive the U.S. economy and put millions of Americans back to work.

Based on the latest economic data, much of that goal has already been accomplished by President Barack Obama. That includes Friday's employment report that showed the unemployment rate had dropped to a nine year low of 4.6 percent.]

Americans voters' widespread anxiety about the economy played a major role in the 2016 election. Trump's broad promises to restore widely shared prosperity, with little policy details spelled out, helped him win what many saw as as upset victory.

The underpinnings of that popular economic anxiety, though, are well defined. Since peaking in 1979, American manufacturing employment has shrunk by a third — a loss of more than 7 million jobs. Millions more discouraged, able-bodied workers faced with shrinking job options have left the work force, apparently for good.

Yet millions more older workers approaching retirement have set aside savings only to cover less than a year's expenses. And the next generation is entering the workforce financially handicapped by unprecedented levels of student debt.

So it's no surprise that the incoming Trump administration is eager to quell that groundswell of household angst by promising to boost the pace of economic growth to levels not seen in a generation.

"Our most important priority is sustained economic growth, and I think we can absolutely get to sustained 3 to 4 percent GDP, and that is absolutely critical for the country," Steven Mnuchin, Trump's choice for Treasury secretary, told CNBC on Wednesday.

But if GDP growth alone is the benchmark for Americans' financial well-being, the Trump administration will inherit an economy that is well on its way to fulfilling his campaign promises.

Today, some eight years after the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression, many forecasters see the long-overdue recovery finally picking up steam. "The economy is starting to hit on almost all cylinders," Joel Naroff, chief economist at Naroff Economic Advisors, said after reviewing the latest report on GDP growth.

The Commerce Department on Tuesday boosted its estimate of third-quarter gross domestic product to a 3.2 percent annual rate, up from the previous estimate of 2.9 percent. That's just 8-tenths of a percent shy of Trump's GDP growth target.

Like most presidents, Trump's term in office will be measured by historians, at least in part, by his stewardship of the U.S. economy. American voters will also have a chance to weigh in when they go to the polls four years from now.
If the recovery continues to build momentum, will history credit Trump or Obama?

For his part, Obama has vigorously defended his economic record over the last eight years, starting with his administration's response to the worst economic crisis in nearly a century. That record includes signing the 2009 Recovery Act, reversing a wave of layoffs that peaked at more than 800,000 in a single month.

"Anybody who says we are not absolutely better off today than we were just seven years ago — they're not leveling with you," Obama said in February. "They're not telling the truth. By almost every economic measure, we are significantly better off."

Trump would not be the first president (or governor, or mayor) to take credit for the accomplishments of his or her predecessor. Much of the groundwork for the 1980s national prosperity of the Reagan administration, for example, was laid by the politically painful policy of double-digit, inflation-killing interest rates engineered by fiercely independent Fed Chairman Paul Volcker.

But jobs numbers and top line GDP numbers mask the much more complex impact of today's economic crosswinds on the financial well-being of American families, still recovering from the trillions of dollars of household wealth wiped out by the loss of foreclosed homes, investment savings and lost paychecks after the wave of U.S. mortgage lending fraud that sparked the 2008 global financial collapse.

To better assess the accomplishments and unfulfilled agenda of the Obama administration, and assess its place in history, CNBC.com analyzed a broad swath of data to compare the economic records of the last six presidents. We looked at a variety of measures, calculating the net change from the start of a president's term to the end, beginning with Jimmy Carter's inauguration in January 1977. (Our data is current as of July when the analysis was first done during the presidential campaign.)

Here are a dozen charts showing what we found.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/30/obamas- ... onomy.html

<

Trump says economy may be the 'greatest in history.' Let's check the record.

President Donald Trump has a new talking point: This economy ranks among the greatest in U.S. history. He tweeted late Monday that "In many ways this is the greatest economy in the HISTORY of America and the best time EVER to look for a job!" He followed that up Tuesday with a tweet saying the current conditions could be "the best economy in the history of our country."

Trump did hedge, but if he's suggesting his economy is the best ever, he's got a problem: The numbers don't back him up.

This is a good economy and Trump deserves some credit for it. But calling it the "greatest ever" goes too far, as it can't top the late 1990s or the stellar growth in parts of the 1940s, 1960s and 1980s, according to key data.

There are many ways to judge an economy, but the typical measures are growth, jobs, wages, inflation and debt. Inequality also usually gets tossed into the mix.

In today's economy, jobs are plentiful, the stock market is at record levels and confidence - both business and consumer - is high. Inflation has also remained tame. But growth, while showing signs of picking up, is still below what it was in many eras. Wage growth is also disappointing compared with what it was in prior boom times, and the deficit has also surged, which experts warn could be a drag on the economy for yeas to come.

Let's break down the good, the so-so and the not great parts of the current economy. (And let's add the caveat that presidents usually get more credit for good or bad economic times than they probably deserve.)

- The really good: America has a lot of jobs right now

The United States has a record number of job openings and the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been since April 2000. If it falls any lower (and most economists say it will), Trump would be presiding over the lowest rate since 1969 (when unemployment fell to 3.5 percent).

Unemployment is at the lowest level for African Americans since the government started measuring it in 1972, and the gap between black and white unemployment rates is the narrowest ever. Hispanic unemployment is near an all-time low, as is unemployment for Americans who have high school diplomas but didn't attend college.

Neil Irwin of The New York Times put it this way: "We ran out of words to describe how good the jobs numbers are." Kevin Hassett, head of Trump's Council of Economic Advisers, said Tuesday, "The job market right now is about as strong as I've ever seen."

While hiring has been strong for years and the trend began under President Barack Obama, 2018 has looked especially good. The monthly average job gains this year are actually faster than last year or 2016. Trump deserves some credit for that, and business leaders such as JPMorgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon say the tax cuts and deregulation under Trump have boosted their profits and spurred many companies to hire more workers.

The only drawback is that a smaller share of Americans are working now than in 2000. The labor force participation rate - a measure of the total number of people working against the total number of people who could be working - is under 63 percent now, vs. 67 percent in 2000. While some of the decline is explained by baby boomers retiring, not all of it is, raising concerns that some Americans who could work still aren't.

- The good (but not great): Economic growth is picking up (but still below the 1990s)

On the campaign trail, Trump liked to call the Obama economy "weak" and "anemic." He often pointed to 2 percent economic growth as puny and said he could achieve growth of 4 or 5 percent a year. Yet under Trump so far, the economy isn't growing much faster than it did under Obama. In his first year in office, economy grew by 2.3 percent. It's possible to argue that Trump's policies had not taken effect, but the economy grew by just 2.2 percent in the first quarter of this year.

Growth is expected to pick up during the rest of 2018. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that growth will be at 3.3 percent for the year, the best since 2005, and Trump deserves some credit for that, although a global rebound has also helped. But almost no forecaster thinks that level of growth will last; most expect it to fall back down quickly.

To put it another way, growth in the Trump era looks likely to be far short of the late 1990s or 1980s, when growth averaged above 4 percent a year or much of the 1960s when growth averaged above 5 percent a year.

- The disappointing: Wage growth is still lousy.

Trump has tapped into the frustration and insecurities of many American workers whose pay has been basically flat for the past two decades - or more. Once you adjust for inflation (a.k.a. cost of living), median household income in America was several thousand dollars lower in 2014 than in 2000. It has improved a tad - 2016 was the highest middle-class income on record, but it's still barely topped the level from 1999.

The problem for Trump is that it's not getting much better. Wage growth is still hovering around 2.6 to 2.8 percent, which is barely above inflation. That's far short of the 4 percent wage growth during much of the 1990s.

There's optimism that Americans will finally get wage growth over 3 percent later this year. There are many signs that companies can't find enough workers and are finally willing to pay more to get (and keep) employees. But while there are many anecdotes of companies saying they are raising pay, the official wage growth statistic for the entire country still isn't rising much.

After Trump's tax cuts, some companies opted to give one-time bonuses. That's real money for employees, but it only comes once and isn't a true wage bump.

- The really disappointing: Trump's $1 trillion deficits

As a candidate, Trump once promised to eliminate the national debt within 8 years. But projected deficits have exploded on his watch.

America's annual government budget deficit will hit $1 trillion by 2020, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and it's expected to stay that high for years to come. It's mainly driven by the tax cut Trump pushed hard for and signed in December. His team started off wanting to make it "deficit-neutral" so it would not add to the debt, but that was quickly abandoned. The end result is a tax cut that CBO estimates will add $1.9 trillion to the debt because of lost revenue and added interest costs.

On top of that, Trump pushed for more government spending, especially on the military, and he has refused to make any changes to Medicare or Social Security, the two programs that many budget hawks say must be tweaked in the coming years or else the debt will become unsustainable. He has also sought cuts to safety net programs for the poor, which could exacerbate inequality.

While debt has grown under many recent presidents, it happened during sour economic times when the government tried to spend to revive the economy and save jobs. It's highly unusual to have this kind of buildup of debt during good economic times, and many have warned the economy could suffer down the road as the U.S. government lacks the money to help during the next downturn, let alone make needed investments in infrastructure and education.

Bottom line: Most economists call this a very solid time for the U.S. economy. Some even call it "hot" or "strong." But they aren't calling it history-making.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... tory.html#

<

More #Winning ...

-

Worker pay and benefits climbing at fastest pace in 10 years, ECI finds

Published: July 31, 2018 10:51 a.m. ET

Cost of labor rose at a 2.8% yearly rate as firms boost benefits

By Jeffry Bartash Reporter Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg

The cost of employing the average American worker is going up with the unemployment rate way down.

The numbers: American workers are finally reaping the benefits of the lowest unemployment rate and best jobs market in decades: Wages and benefits are rising at the fastest pace in a decade.

The employment cost index rose 0.6% in the second quarter, a tick below the MarketWatch estimate of 0.7%.

More important, the cost of worker compensation in the form of pay and benefits edged up to 2.8% to mark the biggest yearly gain since mid-2008.

In other words, workers are making out better.

What happened: Wages — some 70% of employment costs — rose a sturdy 0.5% in the second quarter, the government said Tuesday.

The big increase was in benefits: They jumped 0.9% to mark the largest advance in four years.

Employees in the private sector are faring better than those in government, the ECI data showed.

The ECI reflects how much companies, governments and nonprofit institutions pay employees in wages and benefits.

Big picture: Wages and compensation are going up because unemployment is way down. The jobless rate has tumbled to an 18-year low of 4% after the hiring of millions of people in the past eight years.

More and more companies complain they cannot find enough skilled workers. Firms have sought to fill openings by offering better benefits such as more vacation time or flexible hours. When push comes to shove, they are offering higher pay.

While bigger paychecks are great for workers, the Federal Reserve is watching closely to see if rising compensation is stoking inflation. The Fed could jack up U.S. interest rates if it becomes a big worry, but so far inflation remains relatively mild.

What they are saying? “For now, the headline is that the rate of increase of labor costs is no threat to inflation, but that won’t stop the Fed hiking in both September and December,” said chief economist Ian Shepherdson of Pantheon Macroeconomics.

Market reaction: The Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, +0.64% and the S&P 500 SPX, +0.65% were set to open slightly higher in Tuesday trades. The stock market has rallied in a big way over the past two weeks, but prices gave way on Monday.

The 10-year Treasury yield TMUBMUSD10Y, -0.66% has almost climbed back to 3% after a month of back-sliding over trade-war worries.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worke ... 2018-07-31

Trump has a $100 billion tax cut for the rich he wants to enact without Congress

It’s not clear whether it’s actually legal.

Soon after Donald Trump was elected, he was filmed strolling into a swanky New York City restaurant and telling fellow patrons, “We’ll get your taxes down — don’t worry.” And he’s sticking to it. After already signing a tax bill that disproportionately benefits corporations and the wealthy, Trump’s administration is reportedly contemplating a unilateral move that would cut taxes, mainly for rich people, by $100 billion.

Alan Rappeport and Jim Tankersley at the New York Times reported late Monday that the administration is considering bypassing Congress and attempting to cut capital gains taxes, a maneuver that is legally tenuous but, if undertaken, would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in an interview at the Group of 20 summit in Argentina in July that the department was “studying whether it could use its regulatory powers to allow Americans to account for inflation in determining capital gains tax liabilities,” Rappeport and Tankersley reported. Officials are looking at whether they can change how “cost” is defined for calculating capital gains.

A capital gains tax is imposed when an investor sells an asset, such as a stock. In the United States, the capital gains tax rate is usually 20 percent, plus a 3.8 percent tax in net investment income to fund Obamacare. Rappeport and Tankersley lay out how the change Treasury is considering would work with the 20 percent rate:

If a high earner spent $100,000 on stock in 1980, then sold it for $1 million today, she would owe taxes on $900,000. But if her original purchase price was adjusted for inflation, it would be about $300,000, reducing her taxable “gain” to $700,000. That would save the investor $40,000.

“At a time when the deficit is out of control, wages are flat, and the wealthiest are doing better than ever, to give the top one percent another advantage is an outrage and shows the Republicans’ true colors,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. “Furthermore, Mr. Mnuchin thinks he can do it on his own, but everyone knows this must be done by legislation. If this proposal were to be considered in the Congress, it would not pass.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) hit back too.

@realDonaldTrump wants to go around Congress & hand $100 billion to his rich buddies on top of $1.5 trillion he gave away to billionaires & big corporations last year. DC works great if you’re rich & powerful. How about a gov't that works for everyone? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/us/p ... v=top-news …

4:34 PM - Jul 30, 2018

Whether such a maneuver would be legal is not clear — even Mnuchin emphasized to the Times that he wasn’t sure it is. George H.W. Bush’s administration considered and rejected the idea in 1992, but Larry Kudlow, President Trump’s top economic adviser, has long advocated for indexing capital gains to inflation.

If the Treasury were to attempt it, it would almost certainly face an immediate legal challenge.

But that might not matter, at least in the short term, for investors poised to take advantage of it, who would likely rush to sell off assets. And if the policy were to stick, the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business estimates government revenues would be reduced by $102 billion over a decade, with 86 percent of benefits going to the top 1 percent and 63 percent of benefits going to the top 0.1 percent.

Trump can’t stop cutting taxes for rich people

The $1.5 trillion tax bill passed by the GOP in December cut taxes for most Americans, including the middle class, but it heavily benefits the wealthy and corporations.

According to estimates from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the top fifth of earners get 70 percent of the bill’s benefits, and the top 1 percent get 34 percent. The new tax treatment for “pass-through” entities — companies organized as sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs, or S corporations — will mean an estimated $17 billion in tax savings for millionaires in 2018. American corporations are showering their shareholders with stock buybacks this year, thanks in part to their tax savings.

Trump and other Republicans have also begun discussing plans for a second round of tax legislation. The House Ways and Means Committee last week released a framework for “Tax Reform 2.0,” which includes making permanent the 2017 tax cuts for families and individuals (right now, they expire in 2025). It also lists helping new businesses write off more of their initial costs.

In an interview with Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo aired at the start of July, Trump said a second tax plan would be on the way by October. He said the proposal would be aimed at the middle class — then offered the example of reducing the corporate tax rate further. The 2017 bill reduced the corporate rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, and he said he wants to get it to 20 percent.

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/31/17634194/ ... ital-gains

<