Trump 47 Economy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t understand the increase in leisure and hospitality. Who is doing all this travel and entertainment. That’s the first thing I’m cutting out the budget.

The top 10% of income earners. Our economy is entirely reliant on them.

That isn't really true. The reason the GDP and economy in general do better when democratic policies are in place are because money cycles through communities many times more when poor and middle class people have resources. The top 1% or 10% mostly horde money and it doesn't really benefit the broader society.

The problem is the “health” of our economy has become almost entirely reliant on top 10%. That’s who is traveling and markets overwhelmingly are catering to them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/08/06/economy-jobs-middle-class-recession-tariffs/

The top 10 percent of earners now drive about half of spending, according to Moody’s, up from 36 percent three decades ago. These people will determine if the U.S. economy avoids a recession. These are households earning $250,000 or more, and they are largely doing just fine, buoyed by strong stock-market gains, mansions and rental properties that have shot up in value in recent years, and a rebound in business dealmaking. The wealthy continue to spend on lavish vacations, parties and events, and that masks the strain that many middle-class and moderate-income families are experiencing.

Partially true, but that isn't enough to generate sustained GDP and job growth, which democratic policies achieve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t understand the increase in leisure and hospitality. Who is doing all this travel and entertainment. That’s the first thing I’m cutting out the budget.

The top 10% of income earners. Our economy is entirely reliant on them.

That isn't really true. The reason the GDP and economy in general do better when democratic policies are in place are because money cycles through communities many times more when poor and middle class people have resources. The top 1% or 10% mostly horde money and it doesn't really benefit the broader society.

Exactly. I will get a tax cut and just save it. Someone working and middle class gets a tax cut and spends it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t understand the increase in leisure and hospitality. Who is doing all this travel and entertainment. That’s the first thing I’m cutting out the budget.

The top 10% of income earners. Our economy is entirely reliant on them.

That isn't really true. The reason the GDP and economy in general do better when democratic policies are in place are because money cycles through communities many times more when poor and middle class people have resources. The top 1% or 10% mostly horde money and it doesn't really benefit the broader society.

The problem is the “health” of our economy has become almost entirely reliant on top 10%. That’s who is traveling and markets overwhelmingly are catering to them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/08/06/economy-jobs-middle-class-recession-tariffs/

The top 10 percent of earners now drive about half of spending, according to Moody’s, up from 36 percent three decades ago. These people will determine if the U.S. economy avoids a recession. These are households earning $250,000 or more, and they are largely doing just fine, buoyed by strong stock-market gains, mansions and rental properties that have shot up in value in recent years, and a rebound in business dealmaking. The wealthy continue to spend on lavish vacations, parties and events, and that masks the strain that many middle-class and moderate-income families are experiencing.

Partially true, but that isn't enough to generate sustained GDP and job growth, which democratic policies achieve.

That’s why I said it’s a problem. The economy is reliant on top 10% and that is not healthy or sustainable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t understand the increase in leisure and hospitality. Who is doing all this travel and entertainment. That’s the first thing I’m cutting out the budget.

The top 10% of income earners. Our economy is entirely reliant on them.

That isn't really true. The reason the GDP and economy in general do better when democratic policies are in place are because money cycles through communities many times more when poor and middle class people have resources. The top 1% or 10% mostly horde money and it doesn't really benefit the broader society.

The problem is the “health” of our economy has become almost entirely reliant on top 10%. That’s who is traveling and markets overwhelmingly are catering to them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/08/06/economy-jobs-middle-class-recession-tariffs/

The top 10 percent of earners now drive about half of spending, according to Moody’s, up from 36 percent three decades ago. These people will determine if the U.S. economy avoids a recession. These are households earning $250,000 or more, and they are largely doing just fine, buoyed by strong stock-market gains, mansions and rental properties that have shot up in value in recent years, and a rebound in business dealmaking. The wealthy continue to spend on lavish vacations, parties and events, and that masks the strain that many middle-class and moderate-income families are experiencing.

Partially true, but that isn't enough to generate sustained GDP and job growth, which democratic policies achieve.

That’s why I said it’s a problem. The economy is reliant on top 10% and that is not healthy or sustainable.

Which is why the Dems spend so much if their political capital trying to expand the middle class.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Bank of America: August's payrolls saw "weakness in manufacturing (-12k), construction (-7k), and mining (-6k). The slowdown could be driven by weaker business investment due to tariff uncertainty. If uncertainty remains because of the Supreme Court case, this could persist."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bank of America: August's payrolls saw "weakness in manufacturing (-12k), construction (-7k), and mining (-6k). The slowdown could be driven by weaker business investment due to tariff uncertainty. If uncertainty remains because of the Supreme Court case, this could persist."

Oh, so outside data is consistent with the jobs reports that the government says are lies?

[Anonymous]

Why it’s the toughest time to be searching for work in America in years
Tariff uncertainty, stubbornly high inflation and rising AI adoption are giving rise to labor market gridlock.

“New data last week showed a fourth month of tepid job growth and propelled joblessness to its highest level since late 2021, when the economy was still recovering from the effects of the coronavirus pandemic. Now, as companies wrestle with inflation, economic uncertainty and trade policy whiplash, many are shredding payrolls and shifting tasks to artificial intelligence while pulling in higher profits. And some executives are pointedly broadcasting sizable layoffs as wins, a sign they’re making workforces leaner and more efficient.”

“Hardly any corner of the economy is untouched by jobs cuts and slowdown: Employment in all goods-producing industries slumped in August, with the deepest losses coming from manufacturing and mining. The service sector was racked by steep layoffs in business and professional services and IT.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/09/07/layoffs-hiring-slowdown/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why it’s the toughest time to be searching for work in America in years
Tariff uncertainty, stubbornly high inflation and rising AI adoption are giving rise to labor market gridlock.

“New data last week showed a fourth month of tepid job growth and propelled joblessness to its highest level since late 2021, when the economy was still recovering from the effects of the coronavirus pandemic. Now, as companies wrestle with inflation, economic uncertainty and trade policy whiplash, many are shredding payrolls and shifting tasks to artificial intelligence while pulling in higher profits. And some executives are pointedly broadcasting sizable layoffs as wins, a sign they’re making workforces leaner and more efficient.”

“Hardly any corner of the economy is untouched by jobs cuts and slowdown: Employment in all goods-producing industries slumped in August, with the deepest losses coming from manufacturing and mining. The service sector was racked by steep layoffs in business and professional services and IT.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/09/07/layoffs-hiring-slowdown/

Anecdotally, I have never known so many people recently laid off in my adult life, and most were not in government positions - marketing, healthcare, tech, etc.

[Anonymous]

A recent MIT study found that business who rolled out AI projects regretted it because it didn’t provide the solution they were looking for. AI is so overhyped!

[Anonymous]

A company in MI just announced that they were cancelling a $210M factory in MI and cites the GOP clampdown on clean energy. Those were real jobs because Trump personally doesn't like clean energy. Seriously? Tell those union workers how great Trump is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A company in MI just announced that they were cancelling a $210M factory in MI and cites the GOP clampdown on clean energy. Those were real jobs because Trump personally doesn't like clean energy. Seriously? Tell those union workers how great Trump is.

Trump is destroying the economy. Hope MAGA likes stagflation!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A company in MI just announced that they were cancelling a $210M factory in MI and cites the GOP clampdown on clean energy. Those were real jobs because Trump personally doesn't like clean energy. Seriously? Tell those union workers how great Trump is.

good! Michigan deserve this for handing Trump the election. Dumb union voters who thought life would be better under trump because 2018 was their best year financially. They forget that Trump's first 3 years benefited from the economy Obama built.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Well, if that's true, he is certainly killing what was left.