US Politics the 2025 trump presidency thread

[Fire&Water]

Unfunny court jester billyboy

 

[-=SS=-]

I actually love Bill Burr and think that he's quite sincere. He's trying to be his authentic self as far as I can tell. Sure, could be an act, but as someone who reads people for a living - I don't read him that way. I read him as being true to himself and I find his earnestness endearing and authentic.

Oh for sure he's being authentic, I don't think he tries to hide it. He just really isn't that funny or charismatic. It isn't helped by the fact that so many other comedians are complete dogshit these days as well, I think people have lost touch with what genuinely funny people are and the sort of material they work with (uncomfortable social commentary and truths).

 

[4DQSAR]

• Donald Trump announces a 90-day pause on higher tariffs for dozens of countries - but hikes levies on China to 125%
• There will now be a universal tariff of 10% on all countries' goods, except for China
• He says the higher rate for China is because of "the lack of respect that China has shown to the world's markets"
• Earlier on Wednesday, China announced an 84% tariff on US imports after Donald Trump imposed a 104% tariff on Chinese goods entering the US
• Stock markets surged after Trump made his announcement - the president appears to have blinked, writes Natalie Sherman in New York
• Anthony Zurcher's analysis: The US is making nice – or at least nicer - with most countries, but is leaning into a trade war with China

Source BBC.

As I have pointed out before, it's as much the way tarriffs change on the whim of the POTUS that is as damaging as the tarriffs themselves. I might add that if it's going to produce a recession within the US, I don't see anyone keen to build new factories.

 

[alasdairm]

^ right? markets absolutely love uncertainty!

America’s astonishing act of self-harm

"If it endures, Donald Trump’s decision on April 2 2025 to enact sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs on US trade partners will go down as one of the greatest acts of self-harm in American economic history. They will wreak untold damage on households, businesses and financial markets across the world, upending a global economic order that America benefited from and helped to create." (my emphasis)

(that is from the notoriously liberal, woke, sjw publication, the financial times)

Peter Navarro is the architect of Trump’s tariff policy. Elon Musk is not impressed.

"A year ago, he was serving time in prison. Today, Navarro is Trump’s key adviser on the tariffs that have roiled markets.

Two years ago, Peter Navarro wrote a 30-page policy paper titled “The Case for Fair Trade” that urged the next Republican president to take aim at “those countries that have relatively large trade deficits with the U.S. and apply relatively high tariffs.”

President Donald Trump’s tariffs have hammered global markets this month, but they are rooted in ideas that are far from new. Trump’s tariff policy closely resembles ideas that have been championed by Navarro, an economist who is the president’s senior counselor for trade and manufacturing. The ideas appear in the two-year-old Republican policy guide and run throughout multiple nonfiction books on trade written by Navarro."

and, finally, file this under "you just can not make up this extraordinary bullshit":

WH Adviser Peter Navarro uses ‘alter ego’ Ron Vara to push tariffs

"CNBC’s Kayla Tausche reports that White House advisor Peter Navarro uses an alter ego to promote tariffs."

jfc.

alasdair

 

[4DQSAR]

Liz Truss was British PM for a whole 49 days. The reason? She managed to crash the economy with, and you will never guess, tax breaks for the ultra-rich, higher taxation for everyone else. But so OBVIOUS was it that a recession would result and therefore nobody would risk spending on anything but basic needs, the stock market want into a tail spin.

As I said earlier - look at Brexit. Learn the dumb things we did. Britian isn't a shining success but a cautionary example.

 

[alasdairm]

@LucidSDreamr @Voxide - this thread discusses the trump presidency. personal back and forth would be better in private.

please? and thank you.

alasdair

 

[brokedownpalace10]

President Trump’s Tariff Formula Makes No Economic Sense. It’s Also Based on an Error.

President Donald Trump announced tariffs on practically every foreign country (and some non-countries), ranging from a 10 percent minimum all the way up to 50 percent. He described the tariffs as reciprocal; however, they are nothing of the sort.

www.aei.org

"But even if one were to take the Trump Administration’s tariff formula seriously, it makes an error that inflates the tariffs assumed to be levied by foreign countries four-fold. As a result, the “reciprocal” tariffs imposed by President Trump are highly inflated as well.

Though in effect the formula for the tariff placed on the United States by another country is equal to the trade deficit divided by imports, the formula published by the Office of the US Trade Representative has two additional terms in the denominator that just so happen to cancel out: (1) the elasticity of import demand with respect to import prices, ε, and (2) the elasticity of import prices with respect to tariffs, φ.

The idea is that as tariffs rise, the change in the trade deficit will depend on the responsiveness of import demand to tariffs, which depends on how import demand responds to import prices and how import prices respond to tariffs. The Trump Administration assumes an elasticity of import demand with respect to import prices of four, and an elasticity of import prices with respect to tariffs of 0.25, the product of which is one and is the reason they cancel out in the Administration’s formula.

However, the elasticity of import prices with respect to tariffs should be about one (actually 0.945), not 0.25 as the Trump Administration states. Their mistake is that they base the elasticity on the response of retail prices to tariffs, as opposed to import prices as they should have done. The article they cite by Alberto Cavallo and his coauthors makes this distinction clear. The authors state that “tariffs [are] passed through almost fully to US import prices,” while finding “more mixed evidence regarding retail price increases.” It is inconsistent to multiply the elasticity of import demand with respect to import prices by the elasticity of retail prices with respect to tariffs.

Correcting the Trump Administration’s error would reduce the tariffs assumed to be applied by each country to the United States to about a fourth of their stated level, and as a result, cut the tariffs announced by President Trump on Wednesday by the same fraction, subject to the 10 percent tariff floor. As shown in Table 1, the tariff rate would not exceed 14 percent for any country. For all but a few countries, the tariff would be exactly 10 percent, the floor imposed by the Trump Administration."

Trump’s Tariff Formula Is Still Wrong. Maybe That’s Why No One Will Admit They Created It.

The White House only chose to defend its formula after four days, via an official who did not want to be named. The only logical explanation is that no one is willing to admit they created or implemented the formula in the first place.

www.aei.org

And he has now dropped all tariffs but China's to the floor of 10%

 

[TheLoveBandit]

you mean deducting your state and local taxes on your federal return?

YES!! I forgot to mention it, but you are absolutely correct. In my reading up on it there are like 10-20 states that allow this federal tax deduction. It is NOT just California, though that was were I was focused when looking into it. I failed to mention other states allow it as well. So, thank you.

I wonder - if Trump can lower taxes for everyone and get the US budget much lower...how will that impact the states? Those deductions should be smaller, making 'in state tax' payments higher, helping the states use that money closer to it's citizens. I'd love to see fed gov't taken to bare bones and as much of that money returned to state level collection/allocation as possible. Just my .02 on it.

it is a lot of biden crap but i'd argue, even after this clarification, the statement that "he is just undoing Biden's crap" with eos is, still, laughable nonsense.

Yes it is a LOT of Biden crap. I am not seeing where I said "he is just undoing Biden's crap" . I checked, but can't see where I gave that limiting 'just' about Trump's EOs. He (Trump) is in fact doing a LOT more than just undoing Biden EOs. And hell yes, I voted for this!

 

[TheLoveBandit]

I have to again call bullshit on you, sir. Any study I've seen did not lump Islamist extremists with right wing. Actually, this ⬇︎ particular comparison not only says that the left is less associated with violent acts, it separates right wing and Islamists and says the level of violence from the right is equal to that of Islamists
...
As does the right wing, apparently. The study does say that Islamists do more violence worldwide.

You say this, then quote me as I stated I don't know if the Islamic violence is included. I simply didn't know and said as much. Call BS all you want. We can agree the Islamists are very violent globally. Shall we set them aside since we both seem to be talking about western/US violence, which may exclude the Islamist portion?

Here, I'll pause and explain that I may have likewise misinterpreted your words. There is 'the right' (law biding conservatives) and there is 'the extreme right' (supremecists, racist organizations bent on violence for political means) which are two different entities. Same as there is 'the left' (law biding liberals/progressives) and the 'extreme left' (antifa, BLM, organizations given to voilence for political means). Would you agree with this? If so, can we agree the extremists are the ones on either end? You can stand with your statement of right > left in terms of voilence, but it ought be constrained to these smaller groups. My questioning the numbers is my trying to understand who is defined in those groups when those numbers are presented?

But, you do have to admit that the number of crazies compared to the size of the movement is quite small.

Again, it depends. Are these violent Tesla protesters compared to 'the left' or 'the extreme left'. I would suspect, given the implment violence, they are a part of that small far group. Compared to the larger 'left', yeah, small numbers. Compared to the active group that does this? I really can't tell as I don't think there's any available numbers on how many make up that group. Is there any data for comparison of these 'more violence from the (extreme) right'? Who is in that group, how many people? I'd count them in the extreme fringe group if they are utilizing violence, but are they 'quite small' compared to the size of the movement?

And, as I said, they have been roundly condemned by the much larger group protesting DOGE at Teslas. I suppose all I should say is, trying to make the protestors guilty by association might be a bit of a straw man.

Edited to add: I hope the ones doing vandalism and arson are prosecuted to the full extent of the law and pray things never escalate to physical violence.

You will also find that 98% of 'the right' has condemned the J6 persons who did violence at the capital, and would want them to be jailed as well. But we want justice, not blanket abuse of the law for fear and retribution. There are many 'ring leaders' who have NOT been identified and held accountable - we want that addressed. There are the ones who spent 4y in jail, often with rights denied (these stories are coming out now that they are freed). Held longer than should be sentenced for non-violent offenders = abuse of authority. And now being sought for prosecution in their home states for related charges. You will find nearly all people from the right acknowledge there was violence, and it should be punished, but appropriately for those who committed violence - equal under the law. Then we watch blue cities and states turn loose repeat offenders, change the legal structure to be unequal under the law, and we wonder what is going on. We're ALL Americans, and we should all be held to the same law, same punishment, same expectations of civil activity to be non-violent. And yet....

At least now, Fed DOJ is looking to hold those Tesla '(mostly peaceful) protestors' accountable for their actions.

Agreed. It is unbelievable the level of dissension we have risen to in this country in the few years since Trump came on the political scene.

I remember the warnings when he was running the first time that he was dividing Americans further apart. I don't think anyone could have guessed how quickly it would get bad, though, or how bad it would get. We can't even watch the same news networks now, and people seem to have divided into their factions.

This actually started with Obama*. He turned America against it's law enforcement, he is the one promoting racial divide (making the Trayvon Martin murder a racial thing, if he had a son...). Obama was the one pitting Americans against one another before Trump even considered running for office. He laid the seeds for this divide.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/11/opinions/obama-farewell-speech-sexton/index.html

Conservatives fire back at Obama, say he sowed the division that led to Trump

\

www.usatoday.com

*While Obama had the presidency and all that media following, I will state unequivocally that I heard such division before he took office, and I heard it from the right in the voice of Ruch Limbaugh. Through Clinton, Bushes, and into Obama I heard his radio show at times on a lunch break and nearly everything was presented as 'Us' and 'Them', how 'They' are attacking our life, our freedom, etc. I listened to hear what the 'other side' was saying about our President, but what I heard was a lot of division to the point where it made me sick and I tuned into country music. Ftr, I cannot stand country music.

It’s seems that people are too stupid to be trusted to elect leaders. So democracy should be abandoned in favor of letting someone who “knows best” make the decisions. This is exactly where I think trump supporters are at even if most won’t admit this is where they are at.

I think you are VERY close with this, but slightly off the mark. For Trump supporters, yes, they likely looked to Trump's first term wanting him to be a savior (hence the 'God King' memes and crap). He wasn't. He proved that in spades, but your point is wanting someone 'elite' to fix our problems. His second term is more of the same, mostly by the fact that we elected him to achieve some/most of his campaign promises which would be addressing the problems we face. The way our gov't works is we elect leaders with the expectation they will do for us what we want. They've failed, repeatedly, on both sides. But this deference to someone 'wiser' has been shattered to a large degree. We used to look to the media to investigate situations and give us the unbiased facts so we could decide for ourselves if something was good or bad. MSM abandoned that agreement in pursuit of pushing agendas and narratives. Their 'expertise' was thrown out the window, particularly as they became spoon fed by Democratic admin (Obama, then Biden). Even when Trump was in his first term, media didn't try to remain unbiased, they went all in on bashing Trump, then covering for Biden, now back to bashing Trump. Facts aren't even optional at this point, they are flat out ignored. Similarly, Covid broke the public's faith in 'the science'. Those 'experts' we looked to lied to us. Worse, they weren't held accountable (yet). What 'experts' in any field remain at this point with any sense of respect from the public? I'd say none. So, seeking of 'experts' was shoved down out throats and proven a lie. At this point, we are still hoping elected officials can execute our will - both halves of the public want this from their elected officials. We'll see if it ever happens.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Why do you think the use of Signal equates to hiding things? Hiding it from who? And how?

Pardon me while I put on my tinfoil for a bit. First, lemme ask this - any employer you ever work for say you have to have a specific app on your phones? Wouldn't you get suspicious on WHY they want you to have that app? I have, and I was suspicious, but I accepted that it's part of the deal in having the job - I can always go find one without that requirement. But this is the US Gov't, with more resources than anyone else on earth. Why would they be outsourcing their secure communications to a 3rd party? Wouldn't they have their own privately developed secure communications systems? I would wager yes, they do. And it's part of why DoD never supported use of Signal, and more specifically DoD felt use of Signal violated the gov't records retention requirements by being 'outside' the gov't systems. Bottom line, for any gov't worried about security, one would expect they either have their own home brew so they keep total control over it, or they repurpose an existing product (like Signal) to achieve the same goals safely and securely.

Next, let's look at the history and use of Signal. One of the main funders of the start up was Open Technology Fund, led by Abbey Li as she left Radio Free Asia. The purposes aligned - provide secure communications for journalists in heavily controlled regions. Radio Free Asia, along with Radio Free Europe, are getting shut down as more USAID funded propaganda outlets. My point here being >tightens the tinfoil to restrict cranial blood flow< USAID was set up as a CIA operation. For anyone choosing to argue otherwise, please read JFK's fights with the CIA and shut down of the International Cooperation Administration (ICA), how the CIA was using that for such efforts abroad, and how the CIA simply moved over to USAID created in the vacuum of ICA closure. Accepting that USAID has done good work in the world, it is also well known they have done bad work in the world, all in an effort to access and control information. This leads to funding efforts like Signal so as to have backdoor access and thereby visibility into 'secure' comms around the globe. Yes, I know how nutty all this may sound, but there is legs to it.

I realize everyone claims 'we can't access the comms on Signal'. Now, consider, would the CIA allow such an app to be used across our gov't agencies if they did NOT have access? And would they NOT want acess when it is the most used platform for militaries around the world? I suggest they would absolutely want it used widespread so long as they have access. Why else would they have encouraged it under Biden

Under the Biden administration in 2024, CISA released a "Mobile Communications Best Practice Guidance" for "highly targeted individuals," who were defined as high-ranking government officials or politicians who are "likely to possess information of interest to these threat actors." The document specifically addressed high-targeted politicos and officials, though it noted the guide was "applicable to all audiences."


"CISA strongly urges highly targeted individuals to immediately review and apply the best practices below to protect mobile communications. Highly targeted individuals should assume that all communications between mobile devices – including government and personal devices – and internet services are at risk of interception or manipulation. While no single solution eliminates all risks, implementing these best practices significantly enhances protection of sensitive communications against government-affiliated and other malicious cyber actors," the guide reads.

All this begs the basic question - why would I, presumably sane person, ztake you down this rabbit hole of conspiracy? Because I do not trust our gov't and have full faith they will do anything and everything they can for control. The above may or may not be true to varying degrees, but it is possible. With my view of our gov't, I find it plausable. And, ultimately, I cannot believe our intelligence offices would allow something like this to exist without their finger in it.

What's the acronym, PEBKAC?

I was unfamiliar with that particular term, and looked it up. Thanks for the reference. I'm used to the concept, but under different names. And agree, it exists everywhere, and always will. Can't cure stupid.

Isn't that a bit of a myth? Unless the OS is secure, neither is an application running under that OS?

I freely admit not to knowing the OS those particular Signal users were using, but I've read that the US government has a list of requirements for secure communication and has done for some years.

Aye, there are a lot of issues with Signal and other applications like it, despite their claim to security. This is widely acknowledged. However, for now, what better alternative do we have?

 

[TheLoveBandit]

If you expected Mexico to pay for the wall and for Trump to not rip America apart and make everyone hate each other….you aren’t even worth having a discussion with as you are so far gone.

Well, many of us did not take him literally and trusted he had a means in mind of getting them to pay. For example, the 'stay in Mexico' policy from his first term meant that those dimmigrants were residing on Mexico's side of the border = not on our dime for support while they waited. As for paying for the actual wall, he wasn't going to walk over with his hand out but instead we expected some sort of negotiation that would have Mexico providing more support than 'remain in Mexico' both for immigrants awaiting status change, perhaps more security (as he is getting now from Mexico) in terms of Cartels and coyotes/drug runners, etc. He can't just give them a bill for the wall directly, but he can make them pay for their lax passing thru and blind eye on things. That was what we expected, and didn't get.

As for determining who is worth talking to about subjects...it's a 2 way street. To be listened to, you have to both be willing to hear the other party AND be capable of putting forth something worth hearing. We all get to make that choice for ourselves.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

Similarly, Covid broke the public's faith in 'the science'. Those 'experts' we looked to lied to us. Worse, they weren't held accountable (yet). What 'experts' in any field remain at this point with any sense of respect from the public? I'd say none. So, seeking of 'experts' was shoved down out throats and proven a lie.

Nope, what we are looking at here is the rise of anti intellectualism and cope due to low self esteem about one’s own intelligence.

Also failure to understand how scientific research and advancement happens is a factor. It isn’t the Bible - it’s not that one thing is stated to be true then never changes or evolves again despite the emergence of new data.


#1 science doesn’t involve faith at all. (This is why scientists rarely ever tend to disagree as a community. 1 + 1 =2 is what scientists look at and all agree upon. The public by analogy is mathematically illiterate and suffers from an intelligence inferiority complex ingrained into ppl since a young age and they are mainly just jealous of the money, intellect, and prestige of scientists and they automatically hate scientists and will literally ingest horse paste to spite scientists. Since children people are taught they are “less than” if they don’t have intellect in the typically most difficult areas of academics, math/science


#2 the public is absolutely scientifically illiterate and their opinions and ranting are that of a petulant child. Would you let random construction workers, uneducated news anchors, or coal miners perform open heart surgery on you ? No of course not. Why does these peoples opinion on complex scientific matters even matter to anyone and how are the so arrogant to even have anything to say? They are scientifically illiterate, they are usually poor, they are reacting from a place of jealously and insecurity.

Even a scientist with an expertise in synthetic chemistry knows enough to know that their opinions of virology don’t mean shit. But Rick Rickenson the plumber that cleans up shit for a living has very strong opinions on cutting edge virology. This comes from a place of deep insecurity and lack of self esteem about their own intelligence.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

Well, many of us did not take him literally

Is it too much to ask for the president of the US to speak literally and and not always be “just joking”

This “he was just joking” line is getting really old.

Trump can’t lose. Anything he lies about “he was just joking”. ….anything blatantly illegal he does “he was just joking”

If he confesses to rape on tape “he was just joking”

And if it actually works “see I told you he would keep his promise”

Really a winning strategy

 

[brokedownpalace10]

My, but you do go on.

You say this, then quote me as I stated I don't know if the Islamic violence is included. I simply didn't know and said as much.

No you didn't. You said...

One point that may cloud the issue is how Islamists are viewed, yes, even domestically in the US. Such a hard religious bent driving such actions is most likely viewed as 'right wing', and I can't/won't argue against that. .

What you do is a Gish Gallop, sir. You throw so many things out there without respect for the truth that it makes it impossible to refute them all and then (you hope) it's assumed that many of your assumptions are accepted. At this point, why should anyone believe anything you say?

 

[brokedownpalace10]

"CISA strongly urges highly targeted individuals to immediately review and apply the best practices below to protect mobile communications. Highly targeted individuals should assume that all communications between mobile devices – including government and personal devices – and internet services are at risk of interception or manipulation. While no single solution eliminates all risks, implementing these best practices significantly enhances protection of sensitive communications against government-affiliated and other malicious cyber actors," the guide reads.
[/yquote]

I covered this in a previous post. It say highly targeted individuals should use encrypted communications like signal for all of their day to day communications. Government and personal devices and even internet services. Says nothing about classified or sensitive communications. I linked the whole memo in a previous post. I also linked the entire Dod memo proscribing Signal specifically previously.

 

[-=SS=-]

I think you are VERY close with this, but slightly off the mark. For Trump supporters, yes, they likely looked to Trump's first term wanting him to be a savior (hence the 'God King' memes and crap). He wasn't. He proved that in spades, but your point is wanting someone 'elite' to fix our problems. His second term is more of the same, mostly by the fact that we elected him to achieve some/most of his campaign promises which would be addressing the problems we face. The way our gov't works is we elect leaders with the expectation they will do for us what we want. They've failed, repeatedly, on both sides. But this deference to someone 'wiser' has been shattered to a large degree.

The deference to others is precisely why democracy can not work so long as the tools of education, media, and anything that programs the minds of the people is out of the hands of the people itself (or they are subjected to it). If you are conditioned a certain way from birth, what use is democracy? You will vote along certain lines because that's how you've been conditioned.

People love deference of power much like they love charity. It provides a convenient excuse, a cover, for their own duplicity. If it all goes to shit, blame the politicians. If it goes well, take credit for voting them in. All while you sit on the sofa and your ass continues to grow in size, whilst a million people in some third-world shithole give their existence just to mine the materials used in your TV's and phones.

Neither side really wants the change they think they want. We're addicted to images of what we think we want. No one has really spent the time to investigate themselves thoroughly.. which makes voting all the more pointless.

I realize everyone claims 'we can't access the comms on Signal'. Now, consider, would the CIA allow such an app to be used across our gov't agencies if they did NOT have access? And would they NOT want acess when it is the most used platform for militaries around the world? I suggest they would absolutely want it used widespread so long as they have access. Why else would they have encouraged it under Biden

Signal, TOR, Bitcoin, and of course the internet itself (ARPAnet). There isn't a signal damn piece of communications technology that is secure, because all of them were created by the DoD and its subsidiary agencies without exception. People like to hope there's some good guys bucking the system, but it's not like that.. the best minds work inside the military industrial complex and they have right from the inception of the telegraph system in the 19th century.. because knowledge is power.

Your local law enforcement can't get around it for now, though as power continues to centralize this line will diminish and they will be able to. But if you're a high profile target.. forget about it.. they know exactly what you're saying.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Tarriffs

Pretty goofy. They applied tariffs to uninhabited nations...

My first impression was this was incredibly disappointing. Was I surprised? No, in part because of his bull in a china shop approach to things I accept mistakes will be made, in part because upon reading their methodology of macro application for speed rather than a detailed analysis and tarriff for accuracy...well, mistakes will be made. Then I laughed. Then I went back to disappointment, but trust it'll be corrected.

Can anyone who supports or voted for Trump explain to me how these tariffs benefit US citizens?

The people who vandalized gas stations with "I did that -Biden" stickers will now perform a perfect 10 score mental gymnastics routine to explain why Trump raising prices on EVERYTHING and not just gas is a good thing.

Trump and his officials have acknowedged from the start this will be painful to get out of the economic trap the US is in, particularly with decades of overspending and building debt. But those of us who voted for him are willing to take the temporary pain in order to get this corrected, rather than kick the can further and dig the hole deeper for 'someone else' (future generations). We're getting closer and closer to financial collapse - not pinning that on any particular President or administration, this has been a long growing issue largely built by Congress, as they control the purse strings but left their balls at home when it comes time to address over spending.

Lol Basically he's just trying to bully other countries instead of working with them which seems to be his modus operandi in general.

Yes it is. By his nature, he's always been a bully. I suspect this surprises nobody at this point. But the question is is it pointless bullying or does he have an objective in mind and his modus operandi is moving us toward that goal?

the world has changed in the last 45 years and maybe he should change his original hypothesis - so the whole planet has to go along with it for some fucking reason.

It has, and you're right that he was spouting off about tarriffs 45y ago. I want to believe he's adapted a bit since the 80's but I don't know. I can say that 'playing nice' did not work out very well for him in his first term. So this go'round he does not seem to gaf, and he will do what is needed, including being the bully and playing hardball to get what he wants for America. As to the rest of the world having to play along...well, they don't actually. They could cease business with the largest consumer market on the planet, but it would be at their peril. Because we pay for all kinds of stuff, people want to keep selling it to us, which means he has the money and sets the terms. The US can pivot and buy similar goods from other, friendlier countries - it may not be as good, but it will be beneficial to the US and that partner. Who is going to walk away from that? Who CAN walk away from that? This is the leverage he has, and it isn't being a bully just to flex, it is to improve the situation for America and it's citizens.

The Repug budget bill is being hurried through. It has tax cuts favoring the wealthy and SS cuts. Cutting govt programs and tariffs are how they want to pay for it. They have to make us pay for the cuts but use smoke and mirrors to do so. Funny thing is, the budget bill still increases the deficit.

There are the factual activities that occur regardless of someone's take on it, then there is the question of why. The first reason is to put Democrats in congress in a tough spot - be blamed for shutting down gov't or be blamed for allowing a Republican (only) created budget. It's a lose-lose for Dems. Second, if it were a formal budget passed by congress, it would specifically outline where monies had to go and how much. By passing the continuing resolution (CR) it keeps the overall spend as-is, but opens the door for Trump to come back and say 'well, we do not need to spend all this over here, or all that over there'. It doesn't allow him to create new spending efforts, but he can follow up on the DOGE recommendations for cuts and simply not spend everything in the budget, then go back to congress and say 'you overpaid, we are not spending this, take it back'. Which in turn is lowering the budget, hand in hand with eliminating the waste and departments across the current gov't. YES, it will keep the large budget that extends the deficit, but it is a temporary approval with the expectation Trump comes back with savings.

There is part of your statement, though, that I don't follow. The "SS cuts" are administrative, not to benefits, so.....? How is this a bad thing? The other part about tax cuts benefitting the wealthy...yeah, gonna have to say that is supported by the research I'm finding thus far.

We have been witness to the current US government rowing back on tarriffs before now and it's still possible that if other nations specifiy their own tarriffs, the equasion might be recalculated. That said, it's possible that the use of sanctions as a more general threat has produced uncertainty among investors. That might take longer to recover.

And this is the bigger part of the 'tarriff'-a-rama going on. Trump announced them against a large number of countries, with a deadline for implementing them several days out. Now, he can't say "I am just kidding here, we really want to do other stuff with these guys" because he needs to use it for leverage. As we've seen with China, they are fighting back with reciprical tarriffs, and in turn Trump jacked theirs even higher. Ultimately it becomes a game of chicken. We can buy much less of the crap filling the Walmart shelves and it isn't going to hurt us - it hurts them because they no longer have that income. It IS hurting us on more technical stuff as I can attest to factories American companies have in China are reaching a point where we can't maintain production and import to America (I work in computer parts for AI companies). This hurts US and THEM. But, what does China import from the US? Two big factors would be energy in the form of coal (we are one of the top global producers, and they are by far the TOP consumer), and food (we produce more than we need, they are the opposite). Now, who is going to blink first in that situation? We can live without them, they can't live without us.

On the flipside, you have many of these countries holding tarriffs on American products for decades, and we took it because we could...not any longer. Trump is levelling the playing field. By adding tarriffs to American goods, our companies have to pay to reach markets while those countries protect their domestic industries with artificially higher prices on Amercian goods. We have long been at a disadvantage in trade. Trump seeks to level that playing field, allowing fair access to both markets. If a company in one country can produce better than a competitor in another, the better company wins the market while the other has to work harder No more interference, more open markets and fair trade. This makes American companies more profitable if they can reach those markets at competitve pricing. However, if the countries refuse to lower the existing tarriffs on American goods, then we keep the reciprical tarriffs in place making it more expensive for them to ship goods to America (see China above), which leads to more onshoring of industries (outlined earlier in the thread, there is BILLIONS of investment in America being announced, we just need to give it time to show up and create more American jobs). Win-win for the US. Does it suck for everyone else? Yeah, pretty much. Either they have to get competitive on a level field globally, or they don't. The US is one of the few global consumers that can pull this off, and we need to in order to help the American economy*.

It was mentioned in an earlier quote in this post @brokedownpalace10 that the tarriffs are going to help our budget deficit. Well, kinda. Trump's team is shouting about $2b/day in collected tarriffs...um, ok big guy. The reality is that is not sustainable, that's just the 'gotcha' until companies abroad realize he isn't bluffing and they have to pay to complete business. In fairly short order, one of two things will happen. The business will die off as financially unsustainable (we lose buying those imports, they lose the money) or they bring their factories onto US shores (and we get jobs). I believe Trump has to make a big noise on this as a means to bully the other countries to the table and renegotiate trade, which to date 70(?) countries have already cried uncle and are looking to renegotiate. It's working.

*The US economy. Tarriffs are a tool, not a solution. Trump is swinging it like a club to threaten the other countries, and it's working. Commitments to investment in US factories is required to rebuild the American economy that offshored everything over the past few decades. We need domestic production on all ranges of things in order to survive. Yeah, the jobs and subequent GDP increase is needed for our economy to pick itself back up from the recession we've been in, and will likely be worse in the near term, but coming out of it our economy will be much stronger. More than that, Covid showed us how dependent we've become on China for everything. We are currently out of military ammo having left a bunch'o'shit in Afgahnistan and sent a ton to Ukraine/Israel - we are getting dangerously low on being able to defend ourselves, much less to continue to support 'allies'. Moreover, all the masks/medications/etc that Covid revealed are imported NEED to be made domestically so we can survive. Hence, seeing J&J and other pharma groups bring things on shore is HUGE to our survival.

 

[alasdairm]

he's not deleting them. i am.

one more time of asking politely. can you please drop this in this thread?

thank you.

alasdair

 

[alasdairm]

Yes it is a LOT of Biden crap. I am not seeing where I said "he is just undoing Biden's crap"

you didn't say it. somebody else did - electrum i think.

Trump and his officials have acknowedged from the start this will be painful to get out of the economic trap the US is in

then why did he say he'd fix inflation and reduce prices on day 1?

perhaps you and i can agree that, at very least, he knew that was complete bullshit?

alasdair

 

[TheLoveBandit]

right, it's a pretty stark image but i can't help think of this:

alasdair

On the left has a right to vote on their leadership..actually, has a TON more rights than the peron on the right. Also, person on the left holds a weapon presumably to defend themselves, and the scripture they hold speaks to doing so (after turning the other cheek). The one on the right holds a weapon presumably to kill infidels, as the scripture they hold speaks to doing so.