Trump’s Day One: A Bold Agenda to Reclaim America
Continuing to deflect and brazen enough to believe people are that stupid to believe this BS...Didn't take Trump long to blame Biden and not accept blame for his failed economic policies. Worst first 100 days in Presidential history.... Blaming Biden for his 1st quarter? Whose draconian policies eroded consumer confidence, reaching a 5-year low in April? Who dropped Biden's 43,000 Dow to 40,000, including a historic 2000 pt free-fall for one day? The GDP shrinkage is on his watch alone....
How does this work? His deflection and blame is so embarrassing.
Do Maga folks realize how absolutely gullible this man believes you to be? Up Is down and right is left...Pakistan Calls on Trump To Help Prevent Nuclear War With India...
My God, these people don't realize they're asking the wrong person?
But how did Trump let the situation between these two countries escalate to this point??
https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-paki … ia-2066116Fox News recently reported that the Trump administration released a list of 57 alleged "hoaxes" propagated by media outlets and critics during the first 100 days of President Donald Trump's second term. While the full list is extensive, here are 12 notable examples highlighted in the report:
Fox News
Signal Chat Leak Mischaracterization: An article by The Atlantic was labeled a "hoax" for allegedly misrepresenting leaked Signal messages between Trump officials as containing war plans, which the administration denied.
Fox News
Gender Experimentation Funding: Claims circulated that millions were spent on gender experimentation on mice during Biden’s term, which the Trump administration disputed.
Fox News
Russia Collusion Narrative: The administration criticized the continued promotion of the Russia collusion narrative, referencing the Steele dossier and its connections to the Perkins Coie law firm.
Fox News
Liz Cheney Assassination Claim: Fox News host Sean Hannity addressed and debunked claims that Trump called for Liz Cheney to be shot and killed, labeling it a "desperate hoax."
Fox News
Voice of America Controversy: The administration accused major media outlets of illegal reporting and virtually abolished Voice of America, citing biased coverage.
Fox News
Misrepresentation of Trump's Economic Policies: Critics alleged that Trump's economic policies favored the wealthy, a claim the administration refuted by highlighting job growth and wage increases.
Environmental Regulation Rollbacks: Media reports suggested that Trump's rollback of environmental regulations would lead to environmental disasters, which the administration contested.
Healthcare Policy Misstatements: Claims that Trump's healthcare policies would leave millions uninsured were labeled misleading by the administration.
Immigration Policy Criticisms: The administration challenged narratives that its immigration policies were inhumane, emphasizing border security and legal immigration pathways.
Tax Reform Misconceptions: Reports suggesting that Trump's tax reforms disproportionately benefited the rich were disputed by the administration, citing middle-class tax relief.
Alleged Suppression of Scientific Research: Claims that the administration suppressed scientific research, particularly on climate change, were denied by officials.
Education Policy Allegations: Critics argued that Trump's education policies undermined public schools, a point the administration refuted by promoting school choice initiatives.
.Trump is working to bring in critical resources, like rare minerals, to boost the manufacturing of some of our most sought-after products, including electric vehicles, batteries, semiconductors, renewable energy technology, and defense systems. Yesterday, he signed a deal with Ukraine that will supply the U.S. with rare minerals needed to build what we require in the future. His focus is on making the U.S. more self-sufficient by securing access to the essential building blocks of tomorrow. He is also removing burdensome regulations that have stifled growth, creating a more favorable environment for domestic production. By ensuring we have the materials and resources we need, he’s aiming to reduce our reliance on foreign sources and lower tariffs on the imports that are necessary for manufacturing, ultimately helping to strengthen our economy and industrial capabilities. This is a man with vision, and it’s unfortunate he isn’t being appreciated for his dedication to making this nation a better place for all.
Trump's 230+ y/o toilet paper.
“They say separation between church and state … I said, ‘All right, let’s forget about that for one time,’” Trump said during a Rose Garden event celebrating National Prayer Day.
“They said, really there’s separation. I don’t know. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I’m not sure, but whether there’s separation or not, you guys are in the White House where you should be, and you’re representing our country, and we’re bringing religion back to our country, and it’s a big deal.”The separation of church and state clause in the US Constitution was intended to make certain there was no government religion like in the UK had the Church of England.
The words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the U.S. Constitution, but the concept is enshrined in the very first freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Known as the establishment clause, the opening lines of the First Amendment prohibit the government from creating an official religion or favoring one religion (or nonreligion) over another.
The separation of church and state enables all Americans to practice their deeply held beliefs in private and in public.
Today, President Trump honored the National Day of Prayer with a ceremony at the White House and signed an executive order to establish a Presidential Commission on Religious Liberty. This new commission, chaired by Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, will advise the White House on protecting religious freedom, supporting parental rights in education, defending houses of worship, and promoting free speech and school choice. It's encouraging to see national leadership taking concrete steps to uphold the role of faith and conscience in American life.
Before sparks start flying...
Yes, President Trump would be within his constitutional rights to establish a Presidential Commission on Religious Liberty as part of his administration.
Presidents have broad authority to form commissions: U.S. presidents regularly create advisory commissions to study issues and provide policy recommendations. These commissions have been formed on topics ranging from bioethics to opioid abuse to civil rights.
Religious liberty is protected under the First Amendment: As long as the commission does not promote one specific religion or infringe on the rights of others, it would be in line with the Constitution. The government may discuss and protect religious freedom, as long as it does not violate the Establishment Clause (i.e., it doesn’t endorse or establish a religion).
Past precedent exists: For example, President George W. Bush created the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, and President Obama had a similar office. These did not violate the Constitution because they worked with religious organizations while staying within legal boundaries.
Yes, Trump can lawfully create a commission focused on religious liberty, provided it respects the constitutional limits, meaning it must not favor or impose any particular faith or interfere with the religious freedoms of others.From 2007 through 2011, the Senate Finance Committee investigated six megachurch televangelists, including Paula White-Cain's ministry Without Walls International Church, that had been accused of misusing charitable, tax-exempt funds. The Palm Beach Post
The Guardian: In March White was criticized for a video in which she appeared to offer “seven supernatural blessings” for the price of $1,000, including the assignation of a personal angel. White, whose preaching has been described as adhering to “prosperity gospel” theology – the belief that praying will result in financial gains – said the blessings would also include prosperity and “increase in inheritance”.
Newsweek: Multiple Christians have criticized White-Cain in the past, but she has recently faced backlash for her online Passover Season sermon on March 23, in which she asks people to give to Paula White Ministries.Thanks for sharing your perspective. While I understand that some people have concerns about Paula White-Cain’s past, I don’t think that should overshadow the broader significance of what took place on May 1st. The event at the White House was meant to recognize and celebrate people of all faiths — something I deeply support. To me, the focus should be on the inclusive spirit of that gathering, not just one individual who happened to participate. If we constantly zero in on flaws, we risk missing the value of efforts that aim to unify and uplift diverse religious voices.
I was pleased to hear President Trump establish a Presidential Commission on Religious Liberty as part of his administration.
Trump doing what he does best....lying.
He claims that gas has hit a $1.88 in three states... Either the man is a pathological liar or he just thinks his followers are that stupid...pick one.
https://x.com/JerryFreundNY/status/1918284422433943919
Trump's commencement speech at the University of Alabama was a disgrace, bragging about tech elites kissing his ass while ignoring grads' futures. His ego overshadows any real leadership, proving he cares more about flattery than the American people. What a shameful, embarrassing display.Can anyone explain this? The man just isn't all there...or he isn't that bright. Probably a combination of both..
https://x.com/Matt_VanDyke/status/1917972456544874994Inflation rate--- Coming down monthly.
Date Value
March 31, 2025 2.39%
February 28, 2025 2.82%
January 31, 2025 3.00%
https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_inflation_rate
It’s a Jobs Friday with a tariff twist
The already fragile U.S. economy came under further focus Friday morning with the release of the April jobs report, which showed slowed but solid growth. U.S. employers added 177,000 jobs in April and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 4.2%, according to the report released by the Labor Department.
There’s little in the numbers to suggest that Trump’s tariffs took a substantial toll on the job market as of mid-April. The numbers are better than expected: Economists surveyed by Bloomberg estimated that employers added 130,000 jobs last month and expected the unemployment rate to remain steady, which it did (and which it has since May 2024).I'm confused though. Trump just attributed the GDP numbers that just came in to Biden. And even said that the next quarter GDP numbers would largely be Biden also... But these job numbers are Trump's?
It's getting hard to keep track when he parses out what he doesn't like,even after 100 days, to Biden yet takes credit for things he does like as his own... I'm calling BS.I shared my perspective without referencing Trump's view on the current stats, so I’m not sure why you brought him into the discussion. It would be more helpful to stay within the context of my comment, which focused on the positive direction of the economic statistics, even in the midst of an ongoing tariff war. That was the point I made. Biden, for his part, played no role in initiating or confronting the trade imbalances—he didn’t have the resolve to address them.
It seems there's often a lack of attention to context in your responses. Please reread my comment carefully. I didn’t credit any individual for the economic performance this month.
What I did say was that, as of mid-April, the numbers show little evidence that Trump’s tariff war significantly harmed the job market. In fact, the data came in stronger than expected, and that’s not opinion, that’s backed by statistics. I am concentrating on the here and now.
Too often, your commentary lacks balance. I make an effort to see every side of an issue, and I value open-minded discussion. That’s not something I find reflected in your approach..
Anyone here lucky enough to live in one of those states that Trump claims have $1.88 gas....or GASP was he lying AGAIN??
What does AAA say . . .
At the link next is by state for gas prices (Average) all grades for May 2, 2025. The header columns for the grades can be sorted. For regular Mississippi is the lowest at $2.661.
https://gasprices.aaa.com/state-gas-price-averages/Here in Michigan, we are at $278. Fluctuates between that and $287. But who knows what tomorrow will bring? Our gas always goes up in the summer.
Trump said three states are enjoying gas at $1.88... appears to be another lie. Or he's just confused? Just like the Garcia knuckle tattoos.
Judge Beryl Howell has ruled that Trump’s executive order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie is unconstitutional; permanently blocks the administration from implementing or enforcing the order in any way...
In her opinion, Howell wrote that Perkins Coie was targeted because the firm “expressed support for employment policies the President does not like, represented clients the President does not like, represented clients seeking litigation results the President does not like, and represented clients challenging some of the President’s actions, which he also does not like.”
“That,” she wrote, “is unconstitutional retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple.”
Another win for the rule of law. A blow to his retribution campaign...To use his own words... A deranged lunatic:
this is disrespectful and a vile. Many Catholics are, or should be, dismayed.
Regarding all other people, I hope they realize that this is not normal. This is megalomania. It’s the kind of thing a delusional person would do.Where was all this concern for Catholics when Biden's DOJ was putting pro-life Catholics in jail for praying outside abortion clinics?
The left has a long history of being abusive to Catholics.
Their hypocrisy knows no boundaries.What about, what about, what about....the DOJ did not jail people for simply praying.
I'll assume you support dear leader's vile deranged photo. Lol does maga have any red lines? Is there anything that he can do or say that you folks will not wholeheartedly support?
Folks support such a grotesque photo and yet wonder why Maga is likened to a cult?
I'm also guessing that maga believes that MS13 was really tattooed on Garcia's knuckles ... Like Trump tells you. Or that has has hit $1.88 in some states.... The man is a lying liar who lies incessantly."Is there anything that he can do or say that you folks will not wholeheartedly support? "
No. They are "pot committed". They've done this to America twice now and have invested too much of themselves to admit their mistake (s). Trump recognized this element in our society from the beginning.
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" Trump remarked at a campaign stop at Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa, in 2016. "It's, like, incredible."
It is incredible.
Deleted
He'd better be careful. God will only let -even him - go so far . . .
I wasn't aware. Thanks for sharing allowing me the opportunity to look about to see what was what. The bottom line is it is simply reprehensible. There is no justification for it (Period).
I wonder what the Religious Liberty Commission would have to say about it. I am sure there are speculators on it. We've already seen deflection and rationalization put into place.I thought he couldn't go lower than January 6.
This is not America. This is not who we are.
But it is who he is.Pope Convicticus Felonius the First
Notice how quiet maga's are on the issue. Fake Christians.The next meme Trump, the felon and sexual predator, will probably repost is one on the Sistine Chapel ceiling of God (with Trump's face superimposed) reaching down to Adam.
Pope Convicticus Felonius the First
——-
Now that’s rich!!!
Trump’s stubborn defense of an obviously doctored image raises serious questions about his mental state and decision-making ability. Either Trump is lying to justify his actions, or he cannot distinguish between reality and make-believe.
Trump doesn't make a difference between truth or falsehood. That's not his objective. He wants to be in the news. He lives as a tv personality and truth is irrelevant in his point of view. All that counts is that people talk about him.
NYS Catholic conference weighs in on Trump's Pope photo...
"There is nothing clever or funny about this image, Mr. President. We just buried our beloved Pope Francis and the cardinals are about to enter a solemn conclave to elect a new successor of St. Peter. Do not mock us."
But please, tell me more about how he is a man of faith...A man of faith is not just in the religious circle. You get that clear.
The title of this forum presupposes the answer that is expected. To believe the title one has to believe America needs "reclaiming". Reclaiming from what? Reclaim it from all the good the President Biden did in his four years? Why do we need to "reclaim" that? Shouldn't we build upon it?
What I see Trump's so called "bold agenda" doing is driving America into a deep recession accompanied by steep inflation - otherwise known as Stagflation from the Nixon era.
The first quarter numbers of a contracting economy solely due to Trump's tariff machinations already have us one foot in the grave. Any expert worth their salt is predicting the second quarter report of even more contraction will seal the deal.
There is already much anecdotal evidence that inflation is on the rise. And with the "de minimis" exception going away and tariffs starting on auto parts today, the inflation report in June should show a steep increase both month over month and year over year.
Here is a selection of indications inflation is rising as we speak.Egad, this man is President of the United States and he does not know nor appreciate the basic premise of American Law?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-interv … 6368828305"I think the good parts are the Trump economy and the bad parts are the Biden economy because he’s done a terrible job,” referring to his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden.
Sounds like a 10 year old...
Here are a few examples of Trump "reclaiming" America.
As of April 30, 2025 federal receipts are down $430 billion for the fiscal year, mainly due to noncompliance and DOGE.
At BEST, DOGE as future savings of $25 billion. This comes from the "reported" $160 billion in PROJECTED savings and an estimated COST of $135 billion. Most experts think the projected savings are highly inflated meaning the Trump-Musk team has and will cost us BILLIONS of dollars.
In addition to costing us lots of money, Trump and Musk have upended and destroyed hundreds of thousands of federal worker and federal contractor's lives.
Finally, current estimates are that Trump's foreign aid policies have ALREADY led to an estimated 210,000 lost lives and a projected, over the next 15 years, 25 million lives lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Departmen … hatgpt.com
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586- … hatgpt.com
THIS IS WHAT MAGA VOTED FORWell, Trump himself said it, Feudalism is the next big thing?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-po … 75d39c9a8aPlease take my comment as constructive, just offering another perspective to consider. As you know, I enjoy critiquing articles and engaging in thoughtful discussion. At the very least, I read your post out of respect, and I appreciate you sharing it.
The HuffPost article by Baptiste is a clear example of media narrative-shaping rather than fair economic analysis. It claims the Trump administration is trying to convince Americans that "poverty is good," a loaded and misleading interpretation of what appears to be broader messaging about long-term economic transition and self-reliance. The piece opens with the claim that the economy is shrinking and blames it squarely on Trump’s policies, despite the fact that one quarter’s GDP contraction doesn't constitute a trend, nor does it justify panic. Economic indicators are mixed, not disastrous: job creation has been steady, inflation is cooling in certain sectors, and markets are volatile for a number of global reasons, not just U.S. tariffs.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s remark about cheap goods not being the "essence of the American dream" is interpreted in the worst possible light. Rather than seeing it as a call for economic resilience or domestic manufacturing, HuffPost frames it as a justification for poverty. That’s not an honest reading. In fact, it sounds more like a policy philosophy that places value on strengthening internal production, even if it means short-term adjustment. Similarly, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s quote about generational factory work is spun as some dystopian return to feudalism. But that assumes a condescending view of working-class labor, many Americans would rather have steady, well-paying jobs in domestic factories than be dependent on unstable global supply chains.
The article also ignores a basic truth: the Trump administration ran in 2024 on restoring American industry, cutting foreign dependence, and encouraging domestic growth. These transitions take time and, like any restructuring, they can have friction, but that doesn’t mean they are failures or that Americans are being gaslit. The HuffPost piece prematurely declares a verdict on economic policy while downplaying the damage inflation and supply chain breakdowns did under the Biden administration. It’s one thing to hold politicians accountable; it’s another to misrepresent the situation to fit a narrative of doom.
Yes, Americans should ask hard questions. But they should also be aware when a media outlet is selecting facts, editorializing quotes, and crafting a message designed to stir outrage rather than offer balanced insight. As of May 2025, we simply don’t have enough data to claim Trump's economic policies are failing, and in fact, some indicators are cautiously optimistic.
I am staying optimistic at this point. I just have a feeling we are headed in the right direction. I am feeling very positive about the tariff war, and I think it will produce fair trade and bring more investment to our shores. I do realize there are plenty of economists with dire warnings. Keeping the faith."The piece opens with the claim that the economy is shrinking and blames it squarely on Trump’s policies, despite the fact that one quarter’s GDP contraction doesn't constitute a trend, nor does it justify panic." - Really?
First. according to most economists, Baptiste was correct, the economy DID shrink and THEY put the blame squarely on Trump. Most economists think that reversing directions from a steady growth under Biden a around 2,5% to -.3% contraction is a Very Big deal - especially since they tie it to Trump's, not Biden's, policies.
You might have had a point about the 1st Qtr being a one-off except that many economists are predicting a significant slow down for quarter 2 and even more later in the year. The optimism is sort of like when Biden and the Fed said inflation was going to be temporary and not too bad in 2021, That optimism may disappear given we are on the cusp of soaring inflation and job losses from the tariffs.
Yes, Trump did run on the UNREALISTIC return of industry to America. But the basic truth is that unless you want to lower the standard of living for everybody, that will never happen in any meaningful way in America.
Why? Because America has transitioned to being primarily a Service Economy where far fewer resources are devoted to manufacturing or agriculture.
Its just like him lying about a broad lowering of prices (deflation) on Day One (or any other day for that matter). Frankly, he conned the people into believing that.
Historically, the United States has never experienced broad-based deflation of the type Trump has promised following a major inflationary period—such as the surge in 2021–2022—absent a significant recession or economic collapse.
Said another way - Once prices rise across the board in America, they don’t fall—unless the economy crashes. That’s held true after every major inflation wave, including 2021–2022.
BTW, the damage inflation caused and the supply chain breakdown, while happening during Biden's term are not the result of any Biden policy - that myth has been thoroughly debunked. To imply that it was Biden's fault is misleading in my opinion."Yes, Trump did run on the UNREALISTIC return of industry to America."
But he has also said...
"We’re going to raise hundreds of billions in tariffs; we’re going to become so rich we’re not going to know where to spend that money.”
His statements are contradictory and worse, he doesn't seem to understand how tariffs actually work.President Trump has FALSELY claimed that tariffs are generating up to $3 billion per day in revenue. That is a lie, surprise, surprise.
However, data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Treasury Department indicate that daily tariff revenues have averaged between $227 million and $263 million, substantially lower than the figures cited by the administration
To-date, his tariffs have collected $69 billion. The real figure is more like $57 billion since we were already getting $6 billion a month under Biden with his well thought out, strategic, targeted tariffs.
And the $57 billion is a very far cry from the "trillions and trillions" Trump said last month he was going to raise. Another LIE MAGA loves to hear.
I read your comment carefully, and while I appreciate the detail, I have to push back on both the tone and the content. First, it comes across as dismissive and condescending, as if any differing opinion is rooted in ignorance rather than legitimate disagreement. Starting with “Really?” and using exaggerated capitalization to mock points isn’t a conversation; it’s a put-down.
Now, on the substance: I understand that some economists blame Trump-era policies for the economic downturn, but there are also many who argue that the current contraction is more closely tied to global instability, post-COVID supply chain challenges, and ongoing inflation that began under Biden’s watch. To act like this debate is settled and all blame rests with one administration oversimplifies a complicated situation.
Regarding deflation and the manufacturing push, yes, it’s a tall order, but calling it a con ignores a very real concern many Americans share: that we've become overly reliant on foreign supply chains. Aspiring to strengthen domestic production isn’t a lie; it’s a policy direction. You may disagree with the feasibility, but dismissing it outright doesn’t address the concerns behind it.
Also, let’s not forget that Trump won the election with the second-most votes of any president in U.S. history, and there was record-breaking turnout in the last two elections. You are correct that turnout rates in 2020 and 2024 were historically high. In fact, the 2020 election saw approximately 66.9% voter turnout, and the 2024 election saw about 65.3%. Both of these figures are among the highest in recent history. However, they still fall short of the 1876 record, where over 82% of eligible voters participated in the presidential election. So many certainly voted for and appreciated his agenda, which resonates with a large portion of the population. That should count for something in the overall narrative of his political support.
Lastly, your statement that the inflation and supply chain crises had “nothing” to do with Biden’s policies seems just as political as the blame you accuse others of placing on him. I’m not claiming he caused everything, but to say his actions had no impact at all feels disingenuous.
We clearly see things differently, but debate should be about ideas, not insults.
I am not an economist, Sharlee but:
Many trade experts are skeptical that even the threat of higher tariffs and political pressure from the White House are enough to spur companies to make such strategic pivots. More commonly, they note, the decision on where to locate factories hinges far more on factors including labor and energy costs; tax rates; political instability; and the regulatory environment.
India, for example have educated work forces that work for a fraction of American wages and regulatory restrictive costs. Will the threat of tariffs bring a significant amount of our manufacturing capability home? Will the trade off be worth it? That is the question. In the face of global competition, will those working in a revived American manufacturing scenario receive living wages?
Many companies has pledged to increase their investment within the country, so we will see....While it's true that factors like labor costs, energy prices, tax rates, and regulatory environments heavily influence where companies choose to locate factories, it's also important to consider the broader impact of political pressure and tariffs. While the immediate effects might not be drastic, the long-term consequences could shift the landscape over time. Tariffs can create a financial incentive for companies to reconsider where they manufacture goods, especially as the U.S. seeks to reduce its reliance on foreign supply chains. Even if India, for example, offers lower labor costs, tariffs could make it less financially attractive for companies to continue manufacturing there if those goods face higher duties when imported back into the U.S.
Plus, reviving American manufacturing doesn't just have to be about competing with low-wage countries; it's also about ensuring high-quality products and creating jobs that pay well and offer better benefits. The wages of workers in the U.S. could rise as industries shift back home, but only if the government creates an environment that supports workers and employers alike with incentives for skilled labor, training programs, and fair wages. It’s also worth considering that some companies, recognizing these challenges, have already pledged to increase domestic investment, signaling that the potential for a revived manufacturing sector might be greater than it initially appears. In the long run, the question isn't just about tariffs, it’s about creating a sustainable, competitive advantage that keeps American manufacturing strong while ensuring workers benefit from it.
Fair trade does not mean cutting off all imports from other nations; rather, it’s about creating a more balanced global economy where wealth and job opportunities are shared more equitably. By ensuring that trade agreements are structured to benefit both sides fairly, we can foster an environment where countries, including the U.S., continue to engage in global trade but also retain and grow their own manufacturing sectors. This approach allows for more opportunities for U.S. workers while still respecting the advantages that international trade can offer, such as access to lower-cost goods and diverse markets. Ultimately, fair trade can be a way to both strengthen domestic industries and contribute to a more interconnected, prosperous world economy.
I agree --- it is a wait and see."Tariffs can create a financial incentive for companies to reconsider where they manufacture goods,"
Isn't it contradictory to claim that tariffs will bring manufacturing back to the United States while simultaneously granting exemptions to large corporations from those tariffs?
So if the primary goal of Trump's tariff policy is to protect and revive U.S. manufacturing by making imported goods more expensive and thereby incentivizing companies to produce domestically. When exemptions are granted to major corporations, especially on products that make up significant portions of imports, such as electronics and semiconductors, the exemptions weaken the incentive for reshoring ..
Right??Also, the question for those who think forcing manufacturing back to the U.S. is a good thing is: Am I willing to lower my, and everybody else's, standard of living to do so?
Research shows, as I point out in an article poorly titled A Quick Primer on the Growth of Nations and Why Manufacturing Will Not Return to America that is nations gain wealth they transition from one stage of development to another. They are:
1 - Agrarian
2 - Manufacturing
3 - Service
History bears that out. While any nation has aspects of all three stages, it is a matter of which stage consumes the most resources and is beneficial to the citizens at large. A few nations are still at stage one (South Sudan, for example), most nations are at stage two, and a few nations, America being one of them, is at stage three in their development of wealth accumulation.
Trump wants to drive us back to stage two.
Think about this. Republicans love to say the government should run just like a family budget. So let's put what Trump is doing in those terms to see if makes any sense at all.
Definition of a Trade Deficit (which Trump says are "unfair"): When one nation buys more, in terms of dollars, from another nation than the other nation buys from the first one. For example, Americans buy $10 billion worth of stuff from China, and the Chinese consumers buy $5 billion worth of stuff from America. That results in a $5 billion trade deficit from America's perspective.
Trump's "claim" is that China is being unfair to America because it doesn't buy an additional $5 billion worth of stuff from America. So to try to fix that, he makes the stuff America buys from China 145% more expensive with the goal to get Americans to stop buying things from China or pay more money (inflation).
Does anyone disagree with that description?
Now put it in terms of the family table. You need toilet paper and you go to Walmart to buy it. You need other things as well, so you go to Walmart to buy that. In total, you spend $1,000 on things you need from Walmart.
BUT, Walmart buys nothing from you, do they. So, relative to Walmart you have a $1,000 trade deficit
So, to use Trump's logic, the one people want to "wait and see" on, you should retaliate against Walmart in some fashion for being unfair to you and to force them to buy things from you to eliminate the trade deficit.
Now, people like me, Credence, Willowarbor, and almost all economists recognize how silly and self-defeating Trump's logic is.
Personally, I don't want to "wait and see" if America suffers from what Trump is doing. It is a given (based on mathematics and history) that Americans, especially MAGA, will pay the price of Trump's ignorance, permanently."Personally, I don't want to "wait and see" if America suffers from what Trump is doing. It is a given (based on mathematics and history) that Americans, especially MAGA, will pay the price of Trump's ignorance, permanently." Eco
WOW! Now, a psychic too... And especially MAGA will pay --- you mean some will escape your dire prediction of "paying"? I see the MAGA will take the brunt for some reason, you did not share.
Your words here are so hyperbolic, but I must say you have no choice but to wait and see... How does that suit you? Or will you be doing something to avert the wait?
I think it is also wonderful that you speak for Cred and Willow. I am sure they appreciate it.Where are they hyperbolic? It is simple math and logic, no psychic talents needed.
Trump's strongest demographic included white men without college degrees, particularly in rural or small-town settings. Those are exactly the people who will be hurt most by Trump's stupid policies.
As to Credence and Willowarbor, I read what they write and draw my conclusions. I am guessing you don't (or don't remember what they say).I don’t presume to speak for others—that would suggest I know their thoughts and feelings on a particular issue. I suppose if someone feels comfortable speaking on behalf of a group, it means they’re confident they truly understand where the others stand. That said, I will admit I do see a strong resemblance in our shared ideologies and, at times, in our communication styles. So I regret bringing up the subject.
"Your words here are so hyperbolic, but I must say you have no choice but to wait and see... How does that suit you? Or will you be doing something to avert the wait?"
But, We all will be ready pounce on him like a panther the very moment his failure becomes clear to all that voted for him. I will wait and see for that."But, We all will be ready pounce on him like a panther the very moment his failure becomes clear to all that voted for him. I will wait and see for that." Cred
Do you feel your sentiment keeps him up at night? Or does that kind of negativity keep you up?
The Welker interview with Trump was one hot mess
Here he is AGAIN lying about gas prices
https://x.com/Ronxyz00/status/1919036469043183886
Here he is lying about winning the youth vote...
https://x.com/Patterico/status/1919049748318708130
He cannot take responsibility for anything... Can't even identify when the economy will become completely his..
https://x.com/CalltoActivism/status/1919065540590490041
Is it his responsibility to uphold the constitution? He doesn't know..
https://x.com/TheMaineWonk/status/1919033276204790170
Does the Constitution guarantee due process?.. he's not sure about that
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1919028930280923396
The fact check of this absolutely ridiculous interview...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- … rcna203513What is sad to know is that MAGA is aware of all that and their subservience to Trump is so profound that they think that is normal behavior.
I have to wonder why people "step-away" when their so-called "Fact" are challenged. There is nothing wrong with opinions, especially when they are factually based. But even when it isn't and one must form conclusions from known data, it still must not be biased as it often using incorrect terminology like "often" when it is just "occasionally".
In any case, we have a moral duty to point out false claims when they are made.In a one-two punch the Republicans are about to realize their dream of a less safe, consumer unfriendly America. They think they have figured out a way to get past the filibuster and pass a Republican-only law that will 1) strip the executive branch from making many regulations and 2) eliminate many that are already on the books.
But why do we have regulations in the first place? [u]Almost all of them are to stop companies from hurting either the consumer or the planet.[/b] Somehow, in the Republican mind, that is a bad thing.
But this move goes hand-in-hand with the Trump (please don't forget he is a felon and sexual predator) agenda to Make America Less Safe Again, such as cutting way back on CDCs ability to save lives, elimination federal research into how to save lives, and similar things.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/0 … n-00319030I just read that the European Union and France are allocating €600 million to attract scientists, from the U.S., who feel restricted by Trump's policies and anti science attitude.
Scientists are leaving the US as the political climate restricts their research...America is going to definitely experience a brain drain.
I have read a bit about this a few years ago--- There is factual evidence supporting the idea that some scientists are leaving or avoiding the U.S. due to the political climate. For example, between 2010 and 2021, the number of scientists of Chinese descent leaving the U.S. increased from 900 to 2,621. A 2021 survey showed that 61% of Chinese-American scientists had considered relocating abroad, with 72% feeling unsafe conducting research in the U.S. The Trump administration's China Initiative, which aimed at investigating espionage, disproportionately affected Chinese-origin scientists, making many feel unwelcome or fearful of conducting research here.
Over 1,200 scientists and policy experts left agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the Trump administration, and the EPA continues to struggle with staffing shortages, hindering its climate goals. Countries like the EU, France, and the UK have also launched initiatives, such as the EU's "Choose Europe for Science" program, to attract U.S.-based scientists, offering substantial funding for researchers in fields like health, AI, and climate change.
These trends demonstrate that the political climate, particularly in terms of policy and immigration, has influenced some scientists' decisions to leave or reconsider working in the U.S.I was not really talking about a few years ago, although the US leaving the Paris accord drove a lot of scientists working in the climate field to Europe as well.
I'm talking about today. The effect Trump has on the field of environmental and climate science, infectious disease control, medicine.I have read that the Trump administration implemented cuts to federal research funding and halted various scientific initiatives, leading to uncertainty and instability for many scientists' jobs. He has had huge layoffs at several agencies. I would guess many were researchers. I don't know enough about the "whys" of it to converse on the subject. I guess many will leave due to being unhappy with Trump's policies, or they need jobs. He has made a budget reduction, prioritized reducing the size of the federal government, including shrinking the budgets of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). His administration viewed some federal science and environmental programs as wasteful or as overreaching in regulation.
I think this was a bad move."I think this was a bad move."
-and I agree with you.
Not sure what showing one group out of many shows, but that same study also noted the acceleration in departures occurred in 2018.
Well, the EPA doesn't have to worry about "climate goals" now, do they. America has basically stopped research into the coming catastrophe resulting for man-made global warming.
America, by Trump EOs official has our head in the sand like some Ostrich
They are "elites" so Trump and MAGA (and therefore America) do not need them.
Ha, that's what they're called?
It's classic.. Education, science and arts are one of the first attacked by authoritarian governments. Smart people can be critical and change ideas in the society.That probably explains why MAGA lost the ability to think critically.
Yes, probably.
I also think that a lot of Trump supporters have no proper information. They don't follow politics or think about the consequences of governmental actions. A lot of what Trump does is only news worthy for half a day.
In the end people can't follow it anymore.
It wouldn't surprise me that a lot of people voted Trump simply because he was the most well known figure. He dominates the news.There is also this - a few studies now show that stations like Fake Fox News are the ONLY source of information for many of those on right, including MAGA. It creates an echo chamber that only reinforces MAGA's preconceived bias and drives them further and further away from reality.
Peter: You can't make a "today argument" with MAGA and not get a "whatabout" counter argument.
So much craziness going on, missed this one. Something for maga to cheer about??
Education Department stops $1 billion in funding for school mental health...
The Trump administration says it will stop paying out $1 billion in federal grants that school districts across the country have been using to hire mental health professionals, including counselors and social workers.
The U.S. Department of Education is telling impacted districts that the Biden administration, in awarding the grants, violated "the letter or purpose of Federal civil rights law."
The grants were part of the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act — a bill passed in the aftermath of the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, in which a teen gunman killed 19 elementary school students and two adults and injured 17 people. The bill, among other things, poured federal dollars into schools to address rising concerns about a student mental health crisis.
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, and the mental health funding that accompanied it, enjoyed considerable Republican support even in the years after it passed.
"Too often, adolescents with untreated mental health conditions become the very same perpetrators who commit acts of violence," wrote three of the law's Republican supporters — Sens. John Cornyn of Texas, Susan Collins of Maine and Thom Tillis of North Carolina — in a 2024 opinion piece.
The endgame was "to prepare and place 14,000 mental health professionals in schools," says Mary Wall, who oversaw K-12 policy and budget for the U.S. Department of Education during the Biden administration.
Wall says about 260 school districts in nearly every state received a portion of the $1 billion — in the form of five-year grants, which were paid out in installments.
Now, it appears those districts will have to find a way to do without the money they had planned for but will not receive....
OH WELL, YOU KNOW WE'RE ALL LEARNING TO DO WITH LESS AREN'T WE
And the reason the administration is giving for the cuts? Oh yeah, you guessed it their favorite fallback.. DEI
I'm pretty sure at least some of you are beginning to see just exactly what the false DEI narrative has been crafted for...
https://www.npr.org/2025/05/01/nx-s1-53 … tal-health"The Trump administration is moving to cancel $1 billion in school mental health grants, saying they reflect the priorities of the previous administration.
The Trump administration is moving to cancel $1 billion in school mental health grants, saying they reflect the priorities of the previous administration.
Grant recipients were notified Tuesday that the funding will not be continued after this year. A gun violence bill signed by Democratic President Joe Biden in 2022 sent $1 billion to the grant programs to help schools hire more psychologists, counselors and other mental health workers.
The Department of Education decided not to continue funding these grants BEYOND the initial award TERMS. These grants are intended to improve American students’ mental health by funding additional mental health professionals in schools and on campuses. Instead, under the deeply flawed priorities of the Biden Administration, grant recipients used the funding to implement race-based actions like recruiting quotas in ways that have nothing to do with mental health and could hurt the very students the grants are supposed to help," said Madi Biedermann, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Communications with the department. (Note quote)
A new notice said an Education Department review of the programs found they violated the purpose of civil rights law, conflicted with the department’s policy of prioritizing merit and fairness, and amounted to an inappropriate use of federal money.
The cuts were made public in a social media post from conservative strategist Christopher Rufo, who claimed the money was used to advance “left-wing racialism and discrimination.” He posted excerpts from several grant documents setting goals to hire certain numbers of nonwhite counselors or pursue other diversity, equity and inclusion policies.
“No more slush fund for activists under the guise of mental health,” Rufo wrote.
The Education Department confirmed the cuts. In an update to members of Congress that was obtained by The Associated Press, department officials said the Republican administration will find other ways to support mental health.
“The Department plans to re-envision and re-compete its mental health program funds to more effectively support students’ behavioral health needs,” according to the notice.
President Donald Trump's administration has cut billions of dollars in federal grants deemed to be related to DEI and has threatened to cut billions more from schools and colleges over diversity practices. The administration says any policy that treats people differently because of their race amounts to discrimination, and it argues that DEI has often been used to discriminate against white and Asian American students."
https://www.scrippsnews.com/us-news/edu … hatgpt.comYep, fantastic. Cuts to mental health under the guise of DEI.... They really do think people are that stupid. She's not sure if the Constitution guarantees due process. He doesn't know if he has to uphold the Constitution but this? This is something he chooses to do? Sickening.
And yes, they're not funding it beyond what was initially slated so that means the efforts, the programs are going away.. disappearing... Won't be there anymore. What is this administration's plan to replace these programs? thoughts and prayers??
So, it appears that our sister democracies around the world are beginning to see the light and change course all thanks to Donald Trump.
Hope springs eternal. The current outrage just might have thoughtful Americans finally seeing the light as well.
https://www.salon.com/2025/05/05/the-wo … -trumpism/I think trump's re-election is tanking the global far right by reminding the world how destructive their policies are when actually put into practice.
The right is great at rhetorically channeling anger into campaign fuel. But they are terrible at governing, and plainly stated... their ideas suck.Greetings Willow, another timely and most interesting article that you might like and enjoy
https://www.salon.com/2025/05/06/our-fo … saving-us/I’ve heard people say that Trump’s reelection is “tanking” right-leaning politics globally, but I just don’t see that as true at all. His return to the presidency in 2024 clearly shows that a large portion of Americans still support his message, and his influence continues to resonate across conservative movements worldwide. Take Argentina, for instance, Javier Milei was elected president on a libertarian, anti-establishment platform. In Italy, Giorgia Meloni’s conservative government is still going strong. Sweden’s center-right coalition holds power with backing from the nationalist Sweden Democrats. Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France is polling very well ahead of the next election. And let’s not forget the UK, where Reform UK, led by Richard Tice and boosted by Nigel Farage, has been rising in support and gaining attention as a serious political force.
So is it fair to say right-leaning politics are failing globally just because some recent elections didn’t go that way? I don’t think so. Politics swings back and forth everywhere, and people are voting based on national concerns, not just Trump’s personality or policies. These movements are evolving, not disappearing. I try to stay optimistic and see the bigger picture, it’s not about one person, but about how ideas are connecting with voters around the world.I think these are some of the facts you missed in the article. I believe they are referring to the shellacking the hard-right took in the Canadian and Australian elections where the hard-right candidates were once ahead in the polls (until Trump arrived on the scene). There is also the beating the alt-right took in Germany recently.
The comment you are responding to was a response I left to one of Willow's posts. Not sure what article you are referring to.
"Willowarbor wrote:
I think trump's re-election is tanking the global far right by reminding the world how destructive their policies are when actually put into practice.
The right is great at rhetorically channeling anger into campaign fuel. But they are terrible at governing, and plainly stated... their ideas suck." willow
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/362 … ost4369179That would be Willow responding to Credence's Salon article that you thought was factless.
The world is now reversing course to reject TrumpismYes, I left Cred a detailed personal critique of the article. After that, I responded specifically to one issue raised in Willow's comment, focusing solely on that particular point. I simply added food for thought on this issue.
"Willowarbor wrote:
I think trump's re-election is tanking the global far right by reminding the world how destructive their policies are when actually put into practice.
The right is great at rhetorically channeling anger into campaign fuel. But they are terrible at governing, and plainly stated... their ideas suck."
Sharee I’ve heard people say that Trump’s reelection is “tanking” right-leaning politics globally, but I just don’t see that as true at all. His return to the presidency in 2024 clearly shows that a large portion of Americans still support his message, and his influence continues to resonate across conservative movements worldwide. Take Argentina, for instance, Javier Milei was elected president on a libertarian, anti-establishment platform. In Italy, Giorgia Meloni’s conservative government is still going strong. Sweden’s center-right coalition holds power with backing from the nationalist Sweden Democrats. Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France is polling very well ahead of the next election. And let’s not forget the UK, where Reform UK, led by Richard Tice and boosted by Nigel Farage, has been rising in support and gaining attention as a serious political force.
So is it fair to say right-leaning politics are failing globally just because some recent elections didn’t go that way? I don’t think so. Politics swings back and forth everywhere, and people are voting based on national concerns, not just Trump’s personality or policies. These movements are evolving, not disappearing. I try to stay optimistic and see the bigger picture, it’s not about one person, but about how ideas are connecting with voters around the world.
Yes, "suck" they do. It only works for the billionaire oligarchs and those who believe that they are losing control, but can't or won't define what that "control" entails, whose fears are so easily stoked.
Yes, that IS good news that others are beating back the threat of Trumpism. Hope they can keep it up before Trump wants to make Australia the 52nd state.
They seem to know what we don't:
There is no education in the second kick from a mule.I like that aphorism, I'll try to remember it. And so apropos.
I always try to stay optimistic, but I have to be honest, this piece feels more like an emotional opinion than something grounded in facts. It doesn’t include quotes, hard data, or even name specific candidates from the elections it references. Just saying that countries like Canada and Australia voted against “Trump-like” leaders without explaining their actual platforms or why voters made their decisions feels like a stretch. People around the world vote for all kinds of reasons, local issues, economic concerns, leadership style, not just to make a statement about Trump.
Also, the language is pretty harsh and one-sided. Calling people demagogues or saying they want to destroy the Constitution doesn’t open up discussion; it shuts it down. I get that the author feels strongly, and that’s fair, but when you make big claims like that, it’s important to back them up. I think we should always aim for honest conversations that stick to what’s true and avoid demonizing everyone we disagree with.
Do you think these kinds of opinion pieces could be problematic? I mean, do they only present one side to an issue? It feels like they reinforce division more than they help anyone understand what’s really going on.
In the end, I believe most people, whether on the left or the right, want what’s best for their families and their country. We may see things differently, but writing each other off as villains doesn’t help anyone. Let’s keep our eyes open, our minds sharp, and our hearts hopeful. That’s the only way we’ll move forward together.Understand the concept of optimism, but that does not include blind faith contrary to the realities on the ground.
Everything that comes from a left wing source is subject to emotionalism and exaggeration? I have said the same about rightwing oriented media. Yes, the article is opinionated but so is some much ofmthe right wing rags out there.
It would be coincidence when one nation having elections wheremthe conservatives were clearly slated to win, have the tables turned in short a time, but all three, Canada, Australia and the retrenchement of the right wing party in Germany is beyond coincidence and has a cause. Is it the threat of Trump and shenanigans here in the states?
Experienced democratic societies are aware that democracy and rule of law are absolutes and not a matter of caprice and convenience of those having been elected. As Peter has said, there are still many European states allowing the right wing troublemaking parties and groups remain gaining power and influence, but any retrenchment, however slight, is welcome and something to be really optimistic about. What accounts for the sudden change in electoral prospects in the subject countries practically overnight?
Cmon, Sharlee, why do you keep propping this man up? He clearly dismisses the Constitution and denies knowledge of its most important precepts, as POTuS. What sort of man would even admit to such ignorance from the position he holds? He has said this as confirmed by alternate media sources, so it is not leftist spin. How do you want to rephrase the words that he clearly uttered?
I won't and can't trust anyone in his position who is willfully ignorant and indifferent to this nation's guiding document. Sharlee, such a man IS a villain. Why would he admit to such a thing?
The opinion pieces gives us ideas to ponder over from both sides, how factual they are depends on how widely similar information has been disseminated among various journalist publications. I am not going to believe one source while the other 99 says otherwise. I will check the other side, but are their claims substantiated when checked against the preponderance of media sources?I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but I’m a little surprised by the tone and direction you took. My comment wasn’t about defending any one politician, I was critiquing the style and structure of the article itself, not its conclusion. I pointed out that strong claims should be backed up with facts, regardless of political leaning, and that demonizing the other side rarely leads to productive dialogue. That’s not blind faith or propping anyone up; that’s a call for standards and fair-minded discussion.
You seem to have assumed I was endorsing Trump, when in fact I never mentioned support for him or anyone else. My concern was with how opinion pieces, left or right, sometimes generalize or inflame rather than inform. I actually agree with you that threats to democratic norms are serious and should be addressed, but I also believe how we talk about these issues matters. If we want people to listen, we have to resist framing all disagreement as dangerous or ignorant. That was my point.
If we're going to move forward, we need to engage with what’s actually said, not just react to where we assume someone is coming from. I’d really like to continue the conversation with that mutual respect in mind.I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but I’m a little surprised by the tone and direction you took. My comment wasn’t about defending any one politician, I was critiquing the style and structure of the article itself, not its conclusion. I pointed out that strong claims should be backed up with facts, regardless of political leaning, and that demonizing the other side rarely leads to productive dialogue. That’s not blind faith or propping anyone up, that’s a call for standards and fair-minded discussion.
You seem to have assumed I was endorsing Trump, when in fact I never mentioned support for him or anyone else. My concern was with how opinion pieces, left or right, sometimes generalize or inflame rather than inform. I actually agree with you that threats to democratic norms are serious and should be addressed, but I also believe how we talk about these issues matters. If we want people to listen, we have to resist framing all disagreement as dangerous or ignorant. That was my point.
I think the disconnect here may stem from the fact that I’m offering a different perspective. My views come from a combination of personal research, life experience, and values I’ve developed over time. I don’t take anything at face value anymore, because I don’t think that’s wise.
What I’ve noticed, though, is that some in this space, including yourself, at times, don’t seem open to viewpoints that challenge your own. That’s fairly common; most people prefer ideas that reinforce what they already believe. What feels unusual, though, is how quickly disagreement here gets labeled as ignorance or moral failure, rather than being engaged with thoughtfully. That tendency doesn’t foster honest discussion, it shuts it down. If we really care about democratic values and critical thinking, then we should welcome different perspectives, not treat them as threats.You use your narrative to subvert or dance around what is clearly before us all. If you ignore or threaten the rule of law and democracy, then in my opinion, you are a demon. And Trump has demonstrated his disdain for both on constant occasions. I don’t dance around or mince any words in that regard.
I believe that the threats to democratic norms are not just a consideration but is at the very heart of why I dislike and distrust Trump generally. This offense supersedes anything else he is doing and does, regardless as to how much it is ill advised. These are absolutes in my mind and anyone that threatens those concepts is akin to one attacking the referee. You are really telling me now that you never endorsed Trump? why do you literally go to your grave in giving him support? I can debate without equivocation based on what Trump HAD SAID, not what I believe he means.
There is no accommodating people who accept the alternative of tyranny and despotism while saying that deviating from democratic norms is a mere inconvenience. Such rhetoric from the President precludes the very unraveling of our society.
So, let’s look at what Trump ACTUALLY SaYs, and not what conservatives using their universal translator interpret it to mean.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … ortations/I am not sure we are talking about the same thing --- I simply critiqued an article you posted. Nothing else. I did not seek to give support to anyone, nor did I show any bias. her is my original comment
"I always try to stay optimistic, but I have to be honest, this piece feels more like an emotional opinion than something grounded in facts. It doesn’t include quotes, hard data, or even name specific candidates from the elections it references. Just saying that countries like Canada and Australia voted against “Trump-like” leaders without explaining their actual platforms or why voters made their decisions feels like a stretch. People around the world vote for all kinds of reasons, local issues, economic concerns, leadership style, not just to make a statement about Trump.
Also, the language is pretty harsh and one-sided. Calling people demagogues or saying they want to destroy the Constitution doesn’t open up discussion; it shuts it down. I get that the author feels strongly, and that’s fair, but when you make big claims like that, it’s important to back them up. I think we should always aim for honest conversations that stick to what’s true and avoid demonizing everyone we disagree with.
Do you think these kinds of opinion pieces could be problematic? I mean, do they only present one side to an issue? It feels like they reinforce division more than they help anyone understand what’s really going on.
In the end, I believe most people, whether on the left or the right, want what’s best for their families and their country. We may see things differently, but writing each other off as villains doesn’t help anyone. Let’s keep our eyes open, our minds sharp, and our hearts hopeful. That’s the only way we’ll move forward together," Shar
I rarely get involved in conversations about what Trump says—it’s often frustrating and feels like a waste of energy. Sometimes his words are taken out of context, and other times he says things that are clearly inappropriate. While I have occasionally weighed in on specific comments, I generally try to steer clear of those debates.
"You use your narrative to subvert or dance around what is clearly before us all."Cred
Do you speak for all of us? Even the 74 million that voted for him?
I’m not trying to dance around anything, I just believe it’s important to look at all sides before jumping to conclusions. If we only stick to one narrative, we risk missing the bigger picture. I’m open to honest discussion, not just repeating talking points, or ranting over anything I have no real power over.Demagogues - But isn't that an accurate description of Trump based on years of observing him? If that is accurate, then how can it be "harsh" or "one-sided"?
Calling Trump a "demagogue" is one thing, but using that label to dismiss his supporters is both lazy and condescending. You're essentially saying that tens of millions of Americans were duped by a showman, rather than considering the possibility that they made informed, rational decisions based on lived experience.
People supported Trump not because they were manipulated, but because they were tired of being ignored by both parties. They watched their jobs go overseas, their communities decline, and a political class get richer while telling them everything was fine. Trump spoke directly to those issues. That’s not demagoguery, that’s connecting with voters.
It’s easy to stereotype from a distance. It’s harder to admit that millions of people might have valid reasons for rejecting the status quo. You don’t have to agree with them, but if you care about democracy, you should respect their right to think for themselves instead of writing them off as mindless followers.
That kind of dismissive attitude doesn’t solve anything, it only deepens division, shuts down conversation, and guarantees that people will dig in harder. I have come to understand that if we want to understand the country we live in, we need to listen instead of labeling." You're essentially saying that tens of millions of Americans were duped by a showman, rather than considering the possibility that they made informed, rational decisions based on lived experience." - Sharlee, I understand the impulse to defend millions of voters as rational actors. But Trump’s entire brand is — and always has been — the art of the con. Ask yourself how it can be “informed” or “rational” to elevate a man who is simultaneously:
1) A convicted felon
2) An adjudicated sexual abuser
3) Indicted for orchestrating an attack on his own government
4) Indicted for willfully mishandling state secrets
What kind of decision-making process brushes all that aside? And we are not even talking about his reprehensible behavior.
Invoking Occam’s razor helps: the simplest explanation is usually the best. Aside from those honestly fooled by his magical promise to slash prices without causing a recession (economically impossible), many MAGA loyalists display the hallmarks of systematic indoctrination.
Think Jim Jones rather than Jeffersonian deliberation.
Dr. Bandy X. Lee, a Yale forensic psychiatrist, mapped this dynamic in her book Profile of a Nation: Trump’s Mind, America’s Soul. On page 119 she reproduces the “Formulation of Trump Followers,” a 2017 briefing prepared at the request of members of Congress. It details the psychological mechanisms by which demagogues override critical thinking and bind followers to them.
I’ve studied several other works on coercive persuasion, and the pattern is remarkably consistent: constant repetition of grievance, manufactured fear, and a charismatic figure who presents himself as the sole savior. You can watch the process unfold any night on right-wing media.
So, no—I’m not being dismissive, nor am I slapping on lazy labels. I’m trying to understand why people ignore glaring facts. If you’d like a deeper dive, I explore the evidence in my series “What Makes MAGA and Cults Tick....”
Until we confront the psychology at play, we’ll keep mistaking a practiced con for rational choice.
Gone? But you return to labeled President Trump, with your usual and old harsh labels. How would you take it if one describe you daily with only one tag of your negative failings?
I rarely get involved in conversations about what Trump says—it’s often frustrating and feels like a waste of energy. Sometimes his words are taken out of context, and other times he says things that are clearly inappropriate. While I have occasionally weighed in on specific comments, I generally try to steer clear of those debates.
———
I find that odd, Sharlee, because what Trump actually says and states without equivocation is the “crux of the matter’. How can you dismiss his very words verbatim discounting democracy and the rule of law? There is no questions that has clearly made such statements, so it cannot be denied or spun out of existence. That is the “bigger picture” and is a threat that is unprecedented in its temerity. His words are related to his actions and it is not mere politics to hold anyone accountable for what they actually say. Allowing someone to express themselves and reveal their intent in their own words is considering “their side” from their own words. I expect anyone that purports to be my President to laude and support our Constitution and its precepts and not cast doubts on his understanding clearly delineated in his own words.
I do have the power in not supporting people who make statements like this and if you can find it in your being to accommodate this, then we are from two different worlds, without a doubt.
If this is the sort of stuff being purveyed and believed by the right wing of America, we are all truly in a great deal of danger.
Well, there is still a lot of right wing populism at work in most European countries. It's a hard fight. But what you see is that the right wing popular parties in Europe distance oneself from the Trump way of doing politics.
Still there are a lot of extreme right wing popular parties who are gaining votes. (and govern like in The Netherlands, Italy, Hungary, Sweden, Austria to name a few..)Peter, out of curiosity is most of the rightwing populism in Europe based on immigration based issues as they are here?
Although overall immigration is a topic used, it is slightly different per country.
If I speak for the Netherlands for what I know. The biggest party the PVV (Party for Freedom...) has as a election topic immigration, but it also had some social topics like lower renting homes.
At the moment it is ruling with a coalition of the new Farmers Party, also a right wing populist party who made its fame by being against the planes to reduce CO2 by the farmers by the last government. It's against a lot of plans protecting nature and fighting climate change.
The slogan Nexit (Netherlands exit) is not used anymore as the right-wing parties have seen that leaving the EU is an unpopular topic. (as Brexit was/is a disaster.)
The minister of immigration (populist right wing) wanted to declare an emergency so she could push through more radical laws. But the civil service who checked all the numbers said that there was no reason at all to call for an emergency. The real numbers and the numbers made up by the minister (Trump style) were far apart.
The Dutch government did start out with a Trump style kind of yelling but the news and journalists and comedians were correcting the president and its ministers. The minister president also has far less power than in the US.
The system is different as the government in the Netherlands is always a coalition of a couple of parties (4 at the moment.) with also 12 parties in the opposition (Mostly left wing, some center and some right-wing).
So there are 16 parties in total. I think personally it's much more a democracy (you have more flavours to choose from) and as parties have to work together in the government the policies have to be negotiated.
Womp...Womp...
Oil industry that Trump wants to ‘drill, baby, drill’ has taken a beating since he took office
"President Donald Trump's wants to "drill, baby, drill" but his first 100 days in office have been rough for oilfield service firms.
Baker Hughes and SLB see investment in drilling slowing this year as oil prices fall because of growing supply and concern over a recessionary slowdown.
The outlook could get worse still if tariff rates increase, Baker Hughes CEO Lorenzo Simonelli said."
U.S. crude oil prices have fallen below $65 per barrel, down more than 20% since Trump's second term began, making it unprofitable for many companies to boost production, according to a survey by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
Oilfield service firms Baker Hughes, Halliburton and SLB are warning that investment in exploration, drilling and production will slow this year due to falling oil prices. Shares of Baker Hughes and SLB are down more than 20% since Trump's inauguration while Halliburton has slumped 32%.
The S&P 500 energy sector has fallen more than 11% since Jan. 20, more than the broader market's decline of nearly 8%.
SLB CEO Olivier Le Peuch told investors last week that Trump's tariffs are causing economic uncertainty that could hurt demand, while the group of producers known as OPEC+ is accelerating supply faster than originally anticipated.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/29/oil-com … ating.htmlA bad thing, right? A very bad thing when oil prices fall.
That IS what you're saying, isn't it?Why don't you tell me? Do falling oil prices have negative consequences for oil-producing nations and the broader economy? HINT: yes, yes they do.
But you divert from the "drill baby drill" promise...
The closely-watched oil patch survey released last week exposed an emerging gap between Trump’s MAGA movement and the financial interests of some of its biggest corporate funders.
"The administration’s chaos is a disaster for the commodity markets,” one comment compiled by the Dallas Fed reads. “‘Drill, baby, drill’ is nothing short of a myth and populist rallying cry.”
“I have never felt more uncertainty about our business in my entire 40-plus-year career,” another commenter said.
https://www.desmog.com/2025/04/04/oil-e … -industry/Yes, it is a bad thing if you are Trump who falsely thinks he is going to drive other prices down by drilling more oil in the US. Who is going to do the drilling? Certainly not domestic oil companies.
I caught that too--- it would seem also she is soooo sad for the oil companies having bad bottom lines. Go figure. Oil companies look out for investors. OPEC plays a key role in the current situation. The slowdown in U.S. oil production is influenced by several factors, including falling oil prices, which are below $65 per barrel, making it less profitable for companies to drill. Additionally, OPEC+ countries have increased their oil supply faster than expected, putting more downward pressure on prices. Oil companies are also facing pressure from investors to prioritize profitability over production growth, which has led to a focus on efficiency and squeezing more from existing wells instead of expanding drilling operations. Despite Trump's push for more domestic drilling, these market dynamics, including OPEC's influence, are key factors in why U.S. production isn't ramping up as expected. Oil companies do not bend to politics; they only bend to making money.
You're all missing the point. Trump said oil companies were going to do GREAT and THAT is how prices were going to go down by drilling more oil.
While lower oil prices are a good thing, it doesn't help Trump (except for oil itself). But, it is multiedge sword. The REASON they are going down is investors are expecting a recession, or at least much reduced growth.
Also working against Trump's promise of lower prices due to more drilling, poor performing oil companies mean less growth and job loss.
There are only two our three filling stations in my area that are reflection the lower oil prices. In Starke, FL I can and have found gas at $2.62 - $2.72 a gallon. Leave Starke and head East on 100, the cheapest gas I see is $3.09 if you have a Circle K card. Right now, it ranges up to $3.39.
Also, my company has an office in Douglas, WY, in the heart of oil field country. We were expecting a surge of business - NOT.
Is this the way REAL AMERICANS want to "reclaim" our lands by LYING, CHEATING, and STEALING such as Trump, a felon and sexual predator, is doing today?
Just before his meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Carney Trump tweeted this series of LIES-
"President Donald Trump said his main question for Carney is why the US is “subsidizing” Canada. We Aren't
“I look forward to meeting the new Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney. I very much want to work with him, but cannot understand one simple TRUTH — Why is America subsidizing Canada by $200 Billion Dollars (a LIE) a year, in addition to giving them FREE Military Protection (another LIE), and many other things?” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.
The president added that the US is not dependent on Canada’s resources. another LIE)
“We don’t need their Cars (a LIE), we don’t need their Energy (a LIE), we don’t need their Lumber (a LIE), we don’t need ANYTHING they have (a LIE), other than their friendship, which hopefully we will always maintain. They, on the other hand, need EVERYTHING from us! (a LIE) The Prime Minister will be arriving shortly and that will be, most likely, my only question of consequence,” he wrote."
Now, let's settle back and watch the Trump defenders here rationalize that!And then there is this jewel although I am a bit late in discussing this:
"Trump, asked if he has to 'uphold the Constitution,' says, 'I don't know'"
Now, in full discloser, Trump did say he wasn't a lawyer and the subject was the Fifth Amendment about the Due Process he is not allowing people to have.
I guess Trump didn't understand his oath of office, no surprise there.
OK, Trump supporters, minimize and rationalize that!!
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- … rcna204580
More evidence that Trump is senile. Even Biden and anyone who has made it past 5th grade, knows a President must obey the Constitution.The presidential oath of office explicitly requires the President to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".
Apparently he doesn't remember taking the oath"The presidential oath of office explicitly requires the President to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".
Apparently he doesn't remember taking the oath"
Neither do every single one the military members who took that oath but voted to put him in office again anyway.
Trump's so-called "Bold Agenda" is failing again. This time it should be heralding the freezing up of our supply chains - pandemic style.
The final shipments of non-tariffed goods arrived in LA - half empty
"https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/06/business/tariffs-price-increases-shortages-portsCorrection - this was the FIRST shipment of tariffed Chinese goods. Plus, there has been a 37% (and growing) drop off of container ships arriving when compared to a year ago.
This makes the upcoming catastrophe that much closer and is all going to Trump's plan to Make America Isolated Again (and less wealthy)
More Facts from CNN - "Stockpiling boosted the US trade deficit more than expected in March, widening it to a record $140.5 billion as businesses hoarded materials, supplies and consumer goods ahead of the bulk of Trump’s tariffs."
Increased imports which increases the trade deficit was one reason for the negative growth in GDP. Now that the stockpiling in America is over, one would expect a nice bump in GDP next quarter for the same reason. But not so quick.
Exports were more or less flat in the first quarter, but are down significantly even though Trump is making the American dollar weaker. So, the positive impact on GDP from lower imports will be offset by the negative effect from lower exports.
How did Laurel put it? "This is another fine mess you have gotten us into, Olli!"People acting shocked about the trade deficit rising again under Trump’s second term need to take a breath. This isn’t some surprise, stockpiling was expected. Trump made it clear from the start he’d use tariffs to push for fairer trade, just like in his first term. Businesses saw it coming and loaded up before the tariffs hit, which actually gives the economy a short-term boost. Sure, there might be a dip after as companies burn through that inventory, but that doesn’t mean the strategy failed. Also, let’s not act like Trump controls the dollar, that’s up to the Fed and the markets. And if exports are down, that has just as much to do with global demand and trade pushback as anything else. Would it not be wise to take a wait-and-see approach instead of jumping to conclusions? Predictions have a way of backfiring, especially when the full impact hasn’t played out yet.
Why gamble on predictions when the outcome’s still up for grabs?"Trump made it clear from the start he’d use tariffs to push for fairer trade, just like in his first term."
What? Really? Is that the goal of this tariffs scheme?
Trump...
"We're going to raise hundreds of billions in tariffs; we're going to become so rich we’re not going to know where to spend that money."
Also Trump...
"Jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country,"
Trump has promoted tariffs as a means to both raise substantial government revenue and to stimulate a reshoring of American manufacturing by encouraging companies to produce goods domestically.
However, these goals contradict each other, don't they? If tariffs successfully prompt companies and consumers to switch from imports to domestically made products, import volumes will decline, thereby reducing tariff revenue. Conversely, if tariffs raise significant revenue by heavily taxing imports, they may discourage domestic manufacturing growth by making imports too expensive to compete effectively or by disrupting supply chains. Not to mention the obvious fact that a continued revenue stream would be reliant on a large permanent stream of imports.
How does any of this make sense?I am not attempting to be rude. But once again, you divert from the essence of my comment. Which was "More Facts from CNN - "Stockpiling boosted the US trade deficit more than expected in March, widening it to a record $140.5 billion as businesses hoarded materials, supplies and consumer goods ahead of the bulk of Trump’s tariffs."
Increased imports which increases the trade deficit was one reason for the negative growth in GDP. Now that the stockpiling in America is over, one would expect a nice bump in GDP next quarter for the same reason. But not so quick.
Exports were more or less flat in the first quarter, but are down significantly even though Trump is making the American dollar weaker. So, the positive impact on GDP from lower imports will be offset by the negative effect from lower exports."
Your comment misses a key nuance in how tariffs are intended to work as part of a broader economic strategy. It’s not necessarily a contradiction to want both increased revenue in the short term and reshoring in the long term. Think of tariffs as a transitional tool; initially, they do bring in revenue by taxing imports, especially from countries like China where trade imbalances have long existed. That revenue isn’t just about getting rich; it's leverage, a bargaining chip to negotiate better trade deals, and a cushion for industries adapting to a fairer playing field. Over time, as tariffs make foreign goods less competitive, the hope is that companies invest in domestic production, something that may reduce tariff revenue down the line, but with the intended payoff of job creation and stronger industrial independence. The idea isn’t to permanently rely on tariffs for income, but to use them strategically to reset decades of offshoring. It’s a phased approach, not a contradiction, and dismissing it out of hand oversimplifies a more complex economic tactic aimed at long-term national benefit.How do you use tariffs as a revenue stream and bring manufacturing jobs to America at the same time?
They are contradictory to the core. If tariffs are a "transitional" tool they cannot be a permanent source of revenue as to replace the income tax system As Trump has repeatedly stated. Such a scheme would require a continual stream of imports... Which obviously negates manufacturing re-shoring.
This Administration clearly has no coherent direction on tariffs.
So he says tariffs are going to make us so rich we won't even know how to spend all of our money... But only temporarily?Hey, do your research. I have answered that question multiple times. You're on your own.
I believe the administration is doing everything it can to level the trade playing field, and I think we’ll soon get a clearer picture of what’s been achieved and what still needs work. I have full confidence in Trump’s plan to push for fair trade and bring manufacturing back home. The constant negativity feels premature to me, I’m not going to wring my hands unless there’s real, factual cause to do so.Again, sidestepping the issue of trump making completely contradictory statements abou his t tariff goal.
Are we getting wildly rich by a continuous stream of imports? Or are we making way for American legions screwing in iPhone screws?
Or Maga just doesn't care that he's talking out of both sides his mouth and whatever the result is, they will be gleeful about and act like that was what was intended the entire time?
I mean currently he is saying we don't even need to sign deals...
Trump: "Everyone says, 'When, when, when are you gonna sign deals?' We don't have to sign deals ... they have to sign deals with us. We don't care about their market ... they'll either say, 'Great,' and they'll start shopping, or they'll say, 'Not good.' That's okay. You don't have to shop."
So this is the policy now? We don't need reciprocal deals?I am not sidestepping. I have answered the question frequently. I have no need to ruminate. I find it easier to sidestep repetitive questions. I find it odd to continue trolling me with repetitive questions. Maybe ask someone other than me. I am always up for current news, fresh conversation. I just don't see that here anymore.
"Or Maga just doesn't care that he's talking about his mouth and whatever the result is, they will be gleeful about and act like that was what was intended the entire time?" Willow
This again is your view. I myself had and have no doubt he will complete good deals, I expect those results. So yes, I will be very happy to see the results. One thing he has been more than clear on is what he has said he can accomplish.
Would you be disappointed if he actually achieves his goals regarding fair trade and bringing back some manufacturing? Do you secretly hope these plans fail? Personally, I’m all for fair trade and the idea of manufacturing coming back to our shores.
Doesn’t all this negativity start to eat away at you? And won’t it be tough for you if he actually succeeds?If he brings back manufacturing where it doesn't make sense, yes, I would be disappointed because I don't want to be paying more money for things I buy just to satisfy his inflated ego.
As to bring back fair trade, in the main, it was fair to start with and he created a crisis out of whole cloth - at least that is what the numbers say. Do you have any numbers the say differently?
He doesn't call it deals or tariffs anymore. He calls it shopping when a country buys goods and services from us..
In a way he is right. If you shop at a grocery store and pay for the goods. The grocery store takes your money and makes a profit and you get nothing but the groceries which are consumables. Isn't that a trade imbalance? So we are getting ripped off every time we go shopping.I made the exact same point back on page 58 but the response was being called a psychic and being hyperbolic. The meat of the comment, which was what you just wrote, was 100% ignored.
Being a psychic I can understand why, it is impossible to defend against, so deflection is the result.
"Hey, do your research. I have answered that question multiple times. You're on your own.
Well I think common sense tells us all that you cannot have both at the same time. Tariffs as a significant source of revenue require a constant stream of imports. Re-shoring jobs require fewer imports....
There is absolutely no research that claims otherwise.You don't seem to understand trade and trade imbalances. And how leveling the field can bring revenue into the US.
When we talk about trade imbalances with countries like China, we’re looking at how goods are exchanged between nations and the terms of those exchanges.
Yes, when you shop at a store, you pay for goods, and the store makes a profit. But that’s a direct transaction, there’s no larger, ongoing imbalance unless one store is constantly charging you more than what you’re selling to them. In international trade, the imbalance is much more complex and involves tariffs, restrictions, and different pricing dynamics. For example, China imposes much higher tariffs on U.S. goods than the U.S. does on Chinese imports, which makes American goods more expensive and less competitive in China. This essentially limits how much we can sell there. We could sell more if China would agree to fair tariffs. Our businesses would make more with increased exports.
Meanwhile, Chinese goods enter the U.S. with relatively low tariffs, flooding our market at cheaper prices. They make tons of cash exporting to the US due to low tariffsour businesses thrive on selling all Chinese goods. So, we’re dealing with a trade system where the U.S. often ends up at a disadvantage, paying for Chinese goods while struggling to sell American products in China due to higher tariffs. This imbalance leads to the huge trade deficit, which is the real concern, not just what we’re paying at checkout.
Trump is addressing an uneven playing field where one side has a much greater advantage.What is the goal of the tariff plan under trump? To bring back jobs or to be a significant source of revenue?
Which of Trump's many statements regarding tariffs are true? Maga doesn't seem to be able to reiterate what the policy actually is.How does that work?
To bring in significant revenue from tariffs means you have to have a constant stream of imports. To bring back manufacturing jobs means you have significantly less imports.. therefore less revenue...
The goals are contradictory they cannot exist at the same time.
If you want to raise lots of revenue then you would not want to see domestic manufacturing replace those imports: The imports must flow for the revenue to keep coming in, and you don’t want a cheaper alternative that avoids the tax.
And if you want to bring back manufacturing, you want a cheaper domestic product that is an appealing alternative, allowing companies and consumers to avoid the pricier imports entirely.
The end result of all of this is a muddled mess. The public has been fed conflicting policy rationalesI will leave the research to you--- I have a full understanding of what he is hoping to achieve. Tariffs are very complicated stuff. Your best might be to wait and see what the end game will be.
I think Eco might be a good person to help you understand Tariffs. he is articulate. and does careful research. I think he could answer questions you might have.You haven't answered the simple question? How can you use tariffs for a revenue stream and bring back jobs at the same time? there is absolutely no one that believes this can happen at the same time... Trump is pushing very clearly contradictory notions and fully expecting the ill-informed to eat it up.
How do you get enormous revenue without imports? And how do jobs come back if you are counting on import revenue???
"Trade experts point out that tariffs cannot simultaneously achieve all the goals that Trump has expressed.
Many of Trump's aims contradict and undermine one another.
If Trump's tariffs lead companies to make more products in the U.S., American consumers will buy fewer imported goods, resulting in less revenue from tariffs for the government."
Just one source.. but the same analysis has been made by every publication out there from The Wall Street journal to the National Review...
Ana SwansonAndrew Duehren and Colby SmithReporting from Washington. (2025). When It Comes to Tariffs, Trump Can’t Have It All. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/28/busi … tions.html
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/t … duce%20theI have answered your questions over and over. Here is a copy and paste from another comment It is just time to admit we see the issue very differently.
First, your concern makes sense at first glance, but it rests on the assumption that tariff revenue and domestic manufacturing are inherently contradictory goals. In reality, they can work together strategically to strengthen the U.S. economy. Tariffs aren’t meant to be a permanent source of revenue; they are a transitional tool designed to protect domestic industries from unfair foreign competition, such as state-subsidized goods, currency manipulation, and poor labor or environmental standards. The initial revenue generated from tariffs can help offset taxes or support industries during this transitional period.
More importantly, tariffs can be used to pressure foreign nations into negotiating fairer trade terms. Once those terms are reached, tariffs can be adjusted or lifted, leading to more balanced and sustainable trade. As domestic manufacturing returns, the decline in import-based tariff revenue is offset by new sources of federal revenue: more jobs, increased payroll and income tax collections, and broader business activity across supply chains. The growth in domestic production also enhances national security and reduces reliance on adversarial or unstable countries for critical goods.
Additionally, tariffs do not need to apply uniformly or indefinitely. They can be targeted and time-bound, aimed at correcting specific imbalances rather than overhauling the entire trade landscape. So while it’s true that fewer imports can mean less tariff income, the larger goal is not to maximize that income forever; it’s to rebalance trade, restore domestic capabilities, and support long-term economic health. In that context, tariffs and manufacturing revival are not in conflict; they’re two parts of a broader strategy aimed at achieving fair trade and national resilience.Trump is pursuing a dual strategy: he is simultaneously working to bring in new investments while also negotiating key trade deals to secure critical resources. A notable example is the emerging trade agreement with Ukraine focused on acquiring rare minerals essential to sustaining vital American industries such as defense, aerospace, electronics, renewable energy, and advanced manufacturing. These minerals are foundational to the production of everything from semiconductors and electric vehicle batteries to precision-guided military equipment and wind turbines. At the same time, Trump is actively seeking to renegotiate or establish new trade deals with every country the United States trades with, aiming to create fairer, more strategic partnerships that align with American economic and national security interests.
I don’t think I’ve ever witnessed a president present such an innovative and comprehensive agenda. Yes, it’s evident that not everyone views it the same way I do, and that’s fair. But it’s also worth remembering that many of these same critics once insisted Trump would never win, and he did, twice. So I’m not so sure it’s wise to underestimate him or try to predict what comes next."Tariffs aren’t meant to be a permanent source of revenue;
This is the theory that you subscribe to? And you believe it is the theory that Trump subscribes to as a goal of his tariff policy? I've asked for folks to State the goals of Trump's policy, not their own ideas about tariffs. How does your belief that tariffs aren't meant to be permanent align with one of his recent statements...
"We're going to make so much money, you won't know what to do with it."
Trump has many times suggested that tariff revenue could replace the federal income tax.
https://x.com/TheFawcette/status/1916957828658696310
That absolutely indicates that tariffs and their revenue would be permanent.... Which would completely negate the return of manufacturing.
Your posts continue to highlighted general tariff use but ignore the very real and very contradictory statements made by Trump. It would seem as though folks are ignoring his statements with their own interpretations of what they think he means...
The bottom line is that his statements exhibit major conflicts.
I am sticking with the actual statements he has made, himself, in terms of what his goals are for this tariff scheme.Here are some numbers that might interest you.
In December 2024, the U.S. collected approximately $7.1 billion in tariff revenue. Dividing that by 31 days gives a daily average of about $229 million.
As of early May 2025, the United States is collecting approximately $330 million per day in tariff revenue, according to data from U.S. Customs and the Treasury Department.
So, this indicates we are not suffering from the tariff war thus far. We are taking in a substantial amount. No one can predict how much revenue the US could take in with fairer trade. Revenue could be substantially higher, as it already is indicating, again, thus far.
Let's take an extremis example - what if Trump gets what he is seeking and zeroing out ALL imports from any sort. A few things he wants will result from that:
1. Trade deficits go to zero, unless somebody is foolish enough to buy America's very expensive products; in that case the trade deficit will be positive.
2. Americans buy 100% of the things they want from domestic sources at highly inflated prices, for most things.
3. Over 10 to 20 years, domestic manufacturing may increase for those items that can be produced in America.
Here is a partial list of things America and Americans would have to do without:
* Anything made with graphite, e.g. steel
* Anything made with high-purity manganese. e.g. steel
* Anything made with chromium, e.g. stainless steel
* Anything made from rare earth minerals. e.g. things for the military and high tech.
* Coffee, except for what can be grown in Hawaii or Puerto Rico
* Anything that uses vanilla, cloves, cinnamon, nutmeg
* Anything that uses cocoa
* Low cost apparel and footwear.
* Low cost consumer electronics
That is just one aspect of Trump's "fair trade" goal. Then there are the short-term shocks.
* 10% - 20% contraction of the GDP
* Hyperinflation
* Supply Chain collapse - which is starting to happen as I write this.
* Labor Market Implosion - an estimated 10 to 20 million jobs lost
* Other nations would retaliate shutting down our exports
* Domestic Industrial Breakdown.
That is Trump's vision of our future.
I have to ask, how can you have a full understanding when it is so obvious that Trump does not?
It isn't Willowarbor who doesn't understand trade and trade imbalances, it is your hero who simply doesn't have a clue.
First, you are only focusing on China, why not Canada and Mexico where the tariffs are non-existent or marginal on both sides and they are larger trading partners than China? Better yet, why is Trump punishing them for being our friends. There is a reason why Trump has no real personal friends and we see it every day from him.
While it is true that China has an average tariff on the US higher than the US has on China (84% vs 21%), how Trump has gone about "leveling the playing field" has never worked in American history What happened in his last attempt at this was an abject failure.
* The trade deficit with China became worse because we bought more from others rather than ourselves - the promised onshoring FAILED to appear.
* In total, Trump's actions cost the US manufacturing jobs. Various studies put the number between 145,000 and 300,000 jobs lost.
* Overall, Trump made American manufacturers LESS competitive due to higher input costs.
* Trump's 2018 tariffs inflated prices to the average family by $1,000 a year.
* China adapted rather than change their anti-competitive ways that Trump said they would.
* Trump's tariffs caused massive retaliation which cost thousands of farmers their business and YOU, the taxpayer, $28 billion bailing the rest out.
* Trump's tariffs caused an 0.3% decrease in our GDP.
Finally, Trump DID NOT meet any of the goals he set.
Now, explain to me, if you can, why you think Trump is going to better this time around when the stakes are an order of magnitude higher. How does that saying go about mental illness? "Doing the same thing over again and expecting a different outcome.
Can you articulate how the field is not already level before he started his war? I'm not talking about Chinese theft of our intellectual property and things like that.
But Trump claims that they AND ALL COUNTRIES are ripping us off. Are you able to explain how they are doing that such that Trump needs to tariff everybody and every thing in the world?
You say you want manufacturing back home. That is the same as saying you want to pay lots more for the things you buy. You can't have one without the other.
Let's not forget the fact that Trump has been lying for weeks about talking to China...Bessent testified yesterday that there had been no talks.
Also a contradiction? Trump said that tariffs would make us so wealthy but now he is telling people they don't need as much? He is now preaching austerity? Most regular folk out here recoil at the idea of billionaires telling the rest of us what we need and in what amount...no thanks
The flip-flopping is at an epic proportion.Well, AI is getting into the fray on tariffs it seems . . .
'Tariff Simulator' Reveals Which Products Will Be Hit Hardest By Trade War published at Newsweek (May 7, 2025)
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-tariff-s … eakingNews
"Interos.ai, a supply chain risk management firm, has developed a "tariff simulator" to showcase the costs for each sector based on differing rates of import taxes.
According to their calculations, based on official trade data, the toy industry would suffer the most should the 145-percent rate on Chinese imports remain in place. The sector would see a fiscal impact—the total cost of imports with the simulated tariffs applied—of $78.5 billion in 2025, based on the $32 billion worth of imports in 2024, and the additional $46.5 billion tariff impact."
Further along arrives . . .
"In separate research from Interos.ai, shared with Newsweek, the company estimated that every year and estimated 457,000 importers bring in popular holiday items like clothing, toys, candy, and jewellery, nearly half of which are sourced from China, India, and Hong Kong. In the four weeks following Trump's Liberation Day announcements, however, Interos.ai found that shipments of these goods has dropped by 53 percent compared to 2024 levels.
Port authorities on the West Coast have already noticed a drastic decline in Asian imports, and warned that many retailers have "hit the pause button" on Chinese shipments,. These effects, they said, could result in product shortages as far off as Christmas."
And, finally . . .
What Happens Next?
"The administration has remained optimistic that it can reach a deal with Beijing, which would result in the country's tariffs coming down "substantially."
In testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services on Tuesday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that the U.S. had not yet engaged in negotiations with China. The administration has confirmed, however, that officials will meet with a Chinese delegation during Bessent's visit to Switzerland on Thursday."It's interesting that AI is now playing a role in simulating the impacts of tariffs. While I understand the concerns raised about potential economic fallout, like the effects on the toy industry and the decline in imports, I can’t help but wonder if the short-term pain might be necessary for the long-term gain of restructuring trade and bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. Sure, there’s the risk of product shortages, and it’s tough for industries that rely heavily on imports, but if tariffs force businesses to rely more on domestic production, could this not lead to job creation and a stronger, more self-sufficient economy down the road?
Yes, the disruption is real. However, the key question here is: How much of this is a painful but necessary restructuring to secure a fairer trade deal with China? The current drop in imports is alarming, but isn’t that kind of the point of using tariffs, to force the hand of foreign markets and companies? If negotiations ultimately succeed and tariffs decrease, we may look back on this disruption as a temporary setback for a much bigger win.
As for the lack of official negotiations, it’s still early, and these things take time. It’s good to hear that discussions are moving forward beyond just Chinese President Xi calling Trump in April. I believe that as other nations begin sourcing products from places other than China, it’ll send a clear message to Xi that it’s time to take these talks seriously and reach a deal. Hey, the UK has even made a trade deal with India, moving away from its dependency on China, which further highlights the shifting global dynamics. This could push Xi to realize that he can’t rely on the status quo much longer.But didn't Trump promise "no short-term" pain? Now he has got you accepting it.
As to "reshoring":
I understand the appeal of the idea that tariffs might be a kind of tough love—temporary pain that leads to a manufacturing renaissance in America. But the reality is, this theory just doesn’t hold up.
First, let’s be clear: tariffs are taxes on American consumers and businesses, not foreign governments. They make imported goods more expensive, and those costs get passed along the supply chain. That means higher prices for families and small businesses, and inflation that hits the most vulnerable hardest.
Second, reshoring sounds good—but it rarely happens. The evidence shows that most companies don’t bring jobs back to the U.S. when tariffs go up. Instead, they shift production to other low-wage countries like Vietnam or Mexico. Why? Because U.S. labor and energy costs are simply too high to compete in many sectors without massive automation or permanent subsidies.
Third, the promised "long-term gain" usually never materializes. Studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the Peterson Institute have shown that recent tariff waves (2018–2021) reduced GDP, raised prices, and didn’t boost U.S. manufacturing employment in a meaningful or lasting way. Worse, history shows the industries protected by tariffs often become less competitive, relying on political favors rather than real innovation.
And finally, the idea of building a “self-sufficient” economy ignores the way modern supply chains actually work. The U.S. economy thrives when it leverages global efficiencies—especially with close allies—not when it turns inward and raises walls.
So yes, there’s pain. But there’s very little or no historical evidence of the gain.
I want to know which is it? On one hand Trump says we need tariffs to bring jobs back and so we don’t have to rely so much on imports. But then In the next breath he is saying the tariffs will replace income tax. How are tariffs going to replace income tax if we drastically reduce what we import because then we won’t have anything to tariff?
Yeah... If Joe Biden were hawking this nonsense maga's hair would be on fire... But Trump talks out of both sides of his mouth telling you two things that cannot possibly exist at the same time and folks eagerly believe him...US intelligence document undercuts Trump’s claims on Tren de Aragua, Alien Enemies Act
Recently declassified intelligence contradicts Trump administration claims that the Tren de Aragua gang is coordinating with the Venezuelan government — undercutting a key basis for President Trump’s invocation of wartime powers to remove people to a Salvadoran prison.
In justifying his use of the 1789 Alien Enemies Act, Trump accused Tren de Aragua (TDA) of coordinating with President Nicolás Maduro — a basis for using powers to go after citizens of an “enemy nation.”
But a document from the National Intelligence Council, first obtained by the Freedom of the Press Foundation and reviewed by The Hill, shows the U.S. intelligence community has not found any coordination between the Maduro regime and the gang.
“While Venezuela’s permissive environment enables TDA to operate, the Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States,” the document states, referring to the gang by an acronym..
So it looks like Trump ignores intelligence reports that conflict with his agenda.... Not surprising.
Two more courts today struck down his use of the act...
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … uela-gang/Ironically Trump's tarrifs are doing what no green lobby group in the US has been able to do; cut oil production and probably destroy the US oil drilling prospects for the near future...
I am seeing that personally. I am in the drug testing business (pre-employments and the like) and have an office in Douglas, WY. We "were" planning on a large increase in volume since Douglas is in the middle of one of the larger oil producing regions.
Well, we are making other plans now that Trump has killed the oil industry.I saw MyEsoteric's reply to you, but decided to delay the dissertation (poke, poke, ;-) ) and grab you.
I read your post as relating to the lower oil prices being a bad thing. Bad assumption? Barring extreme examples, that doesn't seem right.
High oil prices created the fracking industry, and it could only exist with high oil prices. When prices came down the nation benefited, but the fracking industry tanked. Your logic would say that was terrible because it hurt the industry. Is that a bad analogy?
The actions* taken weren't restrictive. They don't constrict the marketplace (an opinion?). Why are lower oil prices a bad thing now?
* "actions" is about increased production and drilling opportunities
GAFalling oil price usually means a lack of demand. Think covid. Are falling prices indicative of a looming recession? It appears that big oil is pessimistic on the future need for oil. Will lay offs ensue?
Oil prices are starting to enter into a bad territory. When we start to get down to this area the oil companies lose money extracting it, potentially leading to layoffs.Your 'lack of demand' works, but so does 'an abundance of supply. Same response to both actions.
Reality says there is a 'floor' price, as you say, but if outside actions aren't constrictive or manipulative (same-same?), that's for the market to decide.
GAI wasn't aware that OPEC had increased supply and is going to do it again. So, I checked with ChatGPT and got this.
Oversupply Factors
OPEC+ Production Increases: OPEC+ has announced plans to increase oil production by 411,000 barrels per day starting in June 2025, marking the second consecutive month of output hikes. This move has raised concerns about an oversupplied market, especially amid already low global demand.
Non-OPEC+ Supply Growth: Countries outside of OPEC+, such as Brazil and Guyana, are contributing to the increased global oil supply, further exacerbating the oversupply situation.
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Weakening Demand
Trade Tensions and Economic Slowdown: Escalating trade tensions, particularly between the U.S. and China, have negatively impacted the global economic outlook. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has downgraded its 2025 oil demand growth forecast to 730,000 barrels per day, citing these trade disputes and a broader economic slowdown.
Tariff Policies: U.S. tariff policies have introduced additional uncertainty into the market, potentially slowing global trade and reducing oil demand. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) notes that these policies could weigh heavily on oil prices moving forward.
The bottom line is Willow seems to be right about the likely outcome of lost jobs.
Trump's Inflation is no longer theoretical - it is here and is only going to get worse. I bet people are going to think they had it great under Biden.
FORD - Raising prices on cars made in Mexico 3.8% to 5.6%. They also predict a loss in profits from eating the rest of between $1.5 Billion and $2.5 Billion. That represents a 25% to 42% reduction in profit from 2024!
MATTEL - Raising is going to raise prices. They haven't said by how much, but Barbie increased more that 42% in April. They are also going to reduce the variety of products they sell in America as well as find other, probably more expensive, sources.
Amazon: Over 1,000 products have seen price increases since the announcement of new tariffs. The average price jump across these items is around 30%
Shein and Temu: Both Chinese e-commerce platforms have announced price adjustments starting April 25, 2025, attributing the changes to increased operating expenses due to tariffs .
Ferrari: The luxury carmaker stated it would raise prices by up to 10% on certain models imported to the U.S. starting April 2, 2025, to offset new import tariffs .
Microsoft: Announced price increases for its Microsoft 365 products in 2025, citing changes in market conditions and increased costs .
HP: Implemented price increases ranging from 9% to 20% across various product lines, including printers, notebooks, and accessories, effective from March to May 2025, in response to tariffs .
Lenovo: Pushed out tariff-related price increases for select education models, ThinkBook, and V Series products, effective from March 2025 .
ON THE HORIZON
Best Buy: CEO Corie Barry indicated that tariffs would likely lead to price increases across their product assortment, as vendors pass along some of the tariff costs to retailers .
Target: CEO Brian Cornell mentioned that Trump's 25% tariff plan on goods from Mexico and Canada would likely result in price increases on produce and other items .
Hasbro: While not explicitly mentioned in the provided search results, it's reasonable to infer that Hasbro, as a major player in the toy industry, may also be impacted by tariffs and could consider price adjustments similar to Mattel.
Procter & Gamble (P&G): The consumer goods giant is looking at raising prices on new and existing products due to tariffs, with CEO Jon Moeller stating that price hikes are "likely" .
General Motors (GM): The company expects tariffs to cost between $4 billion and $5 billion in 2025 and is considering price increases to offset some of these expenses .
And MAGA just ignores it or rationalizes it and then says Trump is doing such a great job.I thought this is worth repeating - From the Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … hatgpt.com
I apologize from the get go for the length of this, but the scale of Trump's con is beyond belief!
“You know, we’re resetting a table. We were losing $2 trillion a year on trade, and you can’t do that. I mean, at some point somebody has to come along and stop it, because it’s not sustainable.”
Trump gets two things wrong here. First of all, the goods and services deficit was almost $920 billion in 2024, according to the Commerce Department. So he’s doubling the real number. Second, the United States is not “losing” money on trade deficits. After all these years, Trump still does not grasp this fundamental economic point. Yet he’s basing policy — and steering the United States into economic uncertain times — on this misunderstanding.
“Many criminals — they emptied their prisons, many countries, almost every country, but not a complete emptying, but some countries a complete emptying of their prison system. But you look all over the world, and I’m not just talking about South America, we’re talking about all over the world. People have been led into our country that are very dangerous.”
This is poppycock[/i] (and a good example of how Trump brainwashes people). Immigration experts know of no effort by other countries to empty their prisons and mental institutions. As someone who came to prominence in the late 1970s and early ’80s, [u]Trump appears to be channeling Cuban leader Fidel Castro’s 1980 Mariel boatlift. About 125,000 Cubans were allowed to flee to the United States in 1,700 boats — but there was a backlash when it was discovered that hundreds of refugees had been released from jails and mental health facilities. But there’s no evidence this happened during the Biden administration. Yet again, Trump is basing policy on an invention.
“We’re taking in billions of dollars of tariffs, by the way. And just to go back to the past, I took in hundreds of billions of dollars of tariffs from China, and then when covid came, I couldn’t institute the full program, but I took in hundreds of billions, and we had no inflation.”
This is false. Trump’s China tariffs in his first term took in only about $75 billion — not counting $28 billion in aid to farmers who lost their shirts when China stopped buying soybeans, pork and other products. Inflation averaged about 2 percent in Trump’s term, but was about 1.23 percent in 2020 because of the pandemic. According to Customs and Border Protection, as of April 19, the United States has taken in about $14 billion in tariffs under his International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) declarations. But again, Trump has a fundamental misunderstanding. Countries do not pay tariffs; the burden falls mainly on American consumers.
“Now, if you take a look, the price of groceries are down. The price of energy is down.”
This is false. The consumer price index for at-home food items increased 0.49 percent from February, while retail gas prices are basically the same since Trump took office in January. The price of oil could drop if there’s a recession, as some economists predict.
“It was all going through the roof. And we had the highest inflation we’ve ever had as a country, or very close to it. And I believe it was the highest ever. Somebody said it’s the highest in only 48 years. That’s a lot, too, but I believe we had the highest inflation we’ve ever had.”
This is false. President Joe Biden did not have the highest inflation in U.S. history. Inflation spiked to 9 percent in mid-2022, a 40-year-high, but fell to about 3 percent for the last six months of his term. (For all of 2022, inflation was 6.5 percent.) Inflation was 12.5 percent in 1980, 13.3 percent in 1979 and 18.1 percent in 1946 — and many other years were higher than 6.5 percent.
Higher prices for goods and services would have happened no matter who was elected president in 2020. Inflation initially spiked because of pandemic-related shocks — increased consumer demand as the pandemic eased and an inability to meet this demand because of supply-chain problems, as companies reduced production when consumers hunkered down during the pandemic. Indeed, inflation rose around the world — with many peer countries doing worse than the United States — because of pandemic-related shocks that rippled across the globe.
“No wait, just so you understand: How can we sustain and how is it sustainable that our country lost almost $2 trillion on trade in Biden years?”
Trump’s numbers are wrong. The trade deficit in the Biden years (2021-2024) was $3.5 trillion, but as we noted, no economist would call that a loss. For context, the trade deficit in Trump’s first term was $2.4 trillion — and it went up during his presidency.
“If you look at, more importantly, the companies, the chip companies, the car companies, the Apple. $500 billion. Apple is investing $500 billion in building plants. They never invested in this country.”
This is false. Shortly after Biden became president, Apple announced it would invest $430 billion over five years in the United States. In Trump’s first term, Apple announced a $350 billion investment over five years — which Trump repeatedly credited to his policies.
“Look, that’s what China did to us. They charge us 100 percent. If you look at India — India charges 100-150 percent. If you look at Brazil, if you look at many, many countries, they charge — that’s how they survive. That’s how they got rich.”
This is false. Before Trump became president the first time, China had minimal tariffs on U.S. products and about 8 percent on the rest of the world, and few products were subject to tariffs, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. When Trump imposed tariffs in 2018, China responded with tariffs of about 20 percent, affecting about half of exports. In his second term, Trump has imposed tariffs of 143 percent, and China has responded with 124 percent. China’s tariffs on goods from the rest of the world is now about 6 percent. As for India, its average applied tariff is about 17 percent, according to Office of U.S. Trade Representative, far less than what Trump claims.
President Donald Trump leaves the Rose Garden at the White House on April 2 after announcing a plan for tariffs on imported goods. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
“We’re also, very importantly, because of that, because of the money we’re taking in, those companies are going to come back and they’re going to make their product here. They’re going to go back into North Carolina and start making furniture again.”
This is dubious. North Carolina has a thriving furniture industry, but it increasingly relies on wood from countries such as Mexico — and exports to Canada. Trump’s tariffs will make raw materials more expensive and retaliatory tariffs will price U.S. products out of the market. Already this month, a North Carolina housewares company that supplies Walmart and Target said it would shut down and fire all its employees, in part because tariffs would make materials from Mexico and Asia too costly.
“I’ve made 200 [trade] deals.”
This is false.
“You know, as an example, we have Korea. We pay billions of dollars for the military. Japan, billions for those and others. But that, I’m going to keep us a separate item, the paying of the military.”
South Korea and Japan pay as well. Trump often suggests other countries take advantage of U.S. military might. But it’s a two-way street. “From 2016 through 2019, the Department of Defense spent roughly $20.9 billion in Japan and $13.4 billion in South Korea to pay military salaries, construct facilities, and perform maintenance,” the Government Accountability Office concluded in 2021. “The governments of Japan and South Korea also provided $12.6 billion and $5.8 billion, respectively, to support the U.S. presence.” The U.S. stations 80,000 troops in the region and the GAO “found that U.S. forces help strengthen alliances, promote a free and open Indo-Pacific region, provide quick response to emergencies, and are essential for U.S. national security.”
“We have $7 trillion of new plants, factories and other things, investment coming into the United States. And if you look back at past presidents, nobody was anywhere near that. And this is in three months.”
This is false. At the beginning of April, the White House produced a list of only $1.5 trillion — two-thirds of which came from Apple and an AI project called Stargate that was already under development before Trump took office. Since then, we’ve counted a series of announced investments (Nvidia, Roche, IBM, Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson and so forth) that total perhaps another $1 trillion, though some may predate Trump and others are still vague. Announcements aren’t the same thing as actually breaking ground, so Trump may be counting his chickens before they hatch.
“Because I’ve watched in Portland and I watched in Seattle, and I’ve watched in Minneapolis, Minnesota and other places. People do heinous acts, far more serious than what took place on Jan. 6. And nothing happened to these people. Nothing.” (And that lie has been repeated many times in these forums.)
This is false. Trump justifies his pardoning of Jan. 6, 2021, defendants with a falsehood. People were prosecuted in Seattle and Minneapolis for violence during the 2020 protests after the George Floyd killing, and Trump lauded federal authorities for killing a man suspected in a shooting in Portland.
In Seattle, two people were killed, according to the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data project (ACLED), a nonprofit. Summer Taylor, a Black Lives Matter activist, died when a car rammed into the protests. Another person, 16-year-old Antonio Mays Jr., was shot in an incident that ACLED said was tied to the broader unrest. (Another fatal shooting of a teen was not connected, ACLED concluded.) Dawit Kelete, 30, who drove into the protest on July 4, 2020, killing Taylor and seriously injuring another person, was sentenced to 78 months in jail. The judge said that while there was no evidence he hit the protesters intentionally, his conduct was “extremely reckless.”
Mays died in the early morning of June 29, 2020, while driving a stolen Jeep in Seattle’s Capitol Hill Organized Protest zone, which protesters occupied for three weeks after police abandoned the area. No one has been charged in Mays’s death.
In Minneapolis, one person was killed, according to ACLED. The Max It Pawn Shop was set on fire during protests on May 28, 2020, and then two months later, police discovered a charred body in the wreckage. Surveillance video showed Montez Terriel Lee, 26, pouring an accelerant around the pawn shop and lighting it on fire. Lee was sentenced to 10 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, the Justice Department said.
In Portland, Aaron Danielson, an American supporter of a right-wing group, was shot on Aug. 29, 2020, by Michael Reinoehl, an activist who days later was shot and killed by a federal task force. Reinoehl had admitted the killing but claimed he acted in self-defense.
“Nobody mentions the fact that the unselect committee of political scum, the unselect committee, horrible people, they destroyed all evidence, they burned it, they got rid of it, they destroyed it, and they deleted all evidence.”
This is false. The House Select Committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol said some videos and sensitive evidence were not included in an archive to protect witnesses. But more than 100 depositions, transcripts and other documents are available online and open to inspection.
“I don’t think they’re going to cut $800 billion (out of Medicaid). They’re going to look at waste, fraud, and abuse.”
This is false. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report that an analysis by KFF, a nonprofit health-policy organization, says the only way to reduce congressional spending, as mandated by the House GOP budget resolution, would be to cut $880 billion from planned Medicaid spending over 10 years.
“DOGE has been a very big success. We found hundreds of billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse. Billions of dollars being given to politicians, single politicians based on the environment. It’s a scam. It’s illegal, in my opinion, so much of the stuff that we found, but I think DOGE has been a big success from that standpoint.”
This is false. Even the Department of Government Efficiency website, which has been found to be riddled with errors and double-counting, lists $160 billion in savings. The overall impact is still unclear. Experts think the sharp cutbacks in enforcement at the IRS ordered by DOGE might result in lower revenue, wiping out any of the claimed budget savings.
“We lose $200 to $250 billion a year supporting Canada. … We’re taking care of their military. We’re taking care of every aspect of their lives.”
This is false. In 2024, the deficit in trade in goods and services with Canada was about $45 billion. (Even so, a trade deficit is not a subsidy.) White House officials claim that Trump is also counting military expenditures allegedly spent on behalf of Canada, but when we did the math, the total never came close to $200 billion, let alone $250 billion.
“I happen to like the [Saudi] people very much, and the Crown Prince and the King — I like all of them, but they’ve agreed to invest a trillion dollars in our economy. $1 trillion.”
This is false. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said he pledged $600 billion after a call with Trump in January. We will see if this comes to fruition.
In Trump’s first term, he grandly announced he had scored more than $350 billion of business deals during a trip to Saudi Arabia — which he later claimed would create more than 500,000 jobs. (This was his excuse for not punishing the kingdom for ordering the murder of Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi.) Not only were those job numbers wildly inflated, it turned out most of the jobs that would be created were in Saudi Arabia — not the United States.
“They did nothing with the Abraham Accords. We had four countries in there, it was all set. We would have had it packed. Now we’re going to start it again. The Abraham Accords is a tremendous success, but Biden just sat with it.”
This is false. Biden endorsed the Abraham Accords — the normalization of relations between Israel and Arab countries — and focused on bringing Saudi Arabia on board. But the process halted with the Hamas attack on Oct. 7, 2023. In fact, the attack may have been launched to thwart expansion of the Abraham Accords, which suggested normalization was possible with Israel’s neighbors while ignoring the grievances of Palestinians.
AND IN SPITE OF THIS, HE HAS BRAINWASHED PEOPLE INTO IGNORING IT ALL That is so sad.We will see if Trump's first so-called "trade deal" actually has some substance in it or just another of his famous hyperbolic statements and turns out to be another nothingburger. This is with the U.K.
Trump leads with "The agreement with the United Kingdom is a full and comprehensive one that wi..."
Then we read that:
"However, the announcement with the UK will be limited in scope, heavy on future commitments and leave in place the existing 10% universal tariffs Trump placed on virtually all goods coming into the United States during his “Liberation Day” announcement on April 2, according to a US and UK official.
The officials stressed that there were still some details in flux and nothing would be finalized until Trump’s announcement. But the outlines of that announcement include a move to ease the burden of Trump’s 25% auto and steel tariffs on the UK and develop a concrete pathway to a broader trade pact."
That, if true, sounds more like what the mainstream media has been reporting - a framework rather than a final deal.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/07/business … deal-trumpI am pretty certain that we had a trade surplus with the UK last year...
"Solving" problems that don't exist?You are very correct!!! That means the UK should be levying high tariffs on the US for unfair trade practices.
That also means that Trump cannot use the law he wants to use to justify his tariffs (at least against England) because there is no way in the world the US having a trade SURPLUS with the UK constitutes a national security threat.
Bottom line - Trump broke ANOTHER LAW - but, how does that jingle go "TRUMP and MAGA doesn't care". (in case you are wondering, that is from a shingles medicine commercial.)
This is what Trump is doing to business worldwide.
In addition to the billion dollar hits he is causing to Ford and GM's bottom lines I already commented on, Toyota, the world's largest car maker, joins the group forecasting a 21% DROP in profits. Here is what they expect:
Toyota faces the risk of being hit by widespread fallout from Trump’s tariffs, not only from the impact on its US-bound exports but also because of the potential for a downturn in consumer sentiment in the US and elsewhere. Price rises can lead to a decline in consumer sentiment.
The lower profit for the coming year was due to the negative impact from a stronger yen (weaker dollar), as well as higher material prices and the impact of tariffs, Toyota said in a presentation.
Like other global automakers doing business in the world’s top economy, Toyota could face high (US) labor costs and be forced to spend more on investment, if it decides to expand its US production base further.This is how the dictator 78 million of you elected works -
ILLEGALLY fire tens of thousand of federal workers and then 1) ILLEGALLY take over the INDEPENDENT systems put in place by Congress to protect them and 2) ILLEGALLY strip labor unions of their ability to help.
But then what else did Trump voters expect to happen? You KNOWINGLY elected a convicted FELON and SEXUAL PREDATOR!!
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/08/politics … trump-jobsOne down---Lots to go
Trump unveils new UK trade deal, calls it 'incredible day for America'
UK Prime Minister Starmer says deal will 'boost trade' and 'create jobs'
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cn91dxzv4pnt#player
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/tru … ay-americaLaser focused on reducing prices for everyday Americans from day one ..
trump has struck a deal that will lower the price of Rolls Royces, Bentleys, Jaguars, Aston Martin's, Range Rovers, and Minis.
*No other consumer good received carveouts.
Trump's "big" trade deal is with the UK:
- It's a framework not a deal
- They're our 11th largest trading partner
- They're only 3% of US trade (97% to go)
- They already charge average tariffs of only 1% (limited upside)
This was a photo op, with little macroeconomic significance.Bitter much? I watched the press conference today, and it was clear that both sides were genuinely pleased with the outcome. The U.K. representative was visibly enthusiastic about the deal, and President Trump expressed strong satisfaction as well. It’s a win-win in my book. This agreement marks a significant step forward, with the U.K. agreeing to reduce its average tariff on U.S. goods from 5.1% to just 1.8%, which will make American products far more competitive. U.S. farmers stand to benefit from expanded access for beef and ethanol exports, and our aerospace industry just got a massive boost with the U.K. committing to purchase $10 billion in Boeing aircraft. Streamlined trade procedures will also cut through red tape, helping U.S. exports move more efficiently. I truly believe this bodes well for our relationship with the U.K. They may be coming to realize that Trump has been honest and consistent in his push for fair trade. I could not be happier with the fellow for getting this done, and I have real faith that even will see more deals coming soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hKDE5331DcNo deal was signed. All the details have to be hammered out.
Trump failed to mention though how the framework met the objectives of raising revenue or reshoring manufacturing.???
What was announced, a "framework" fails to accomplish any of the three objectives Trump originally put forward leading up to April 2’s “Liberation Day” for levying tariffs on our trading partners.
As a refresher, the first was using tariffs (which Americans pay for) to raise tax revenue to help close the federal budget deficit and pay for an extension of the TCJA of 2017 that is due to expire this year. The second was to bring manufacturing that migrated overseas back to the US, igniting a new “Golden Age” of America. The third was to achieve foreign policy goals.
So what are we cheering here?
None of those three objectives came up in today's announcement. So, what is the point? Trump’s trade war has upended the economy. The uncertainty he unleashed has paralyzed businesses and caused measures of consumer confidence to collapse. Companies are openly warning of empty shelves coming sooner rather than later. And Trump? He thinks empty ports are a good sign!!Noted your view. So different than mine. But thanks for offering it.
So, is your view that Trump actually met his objectives for imposing the most destructive tariff regime that America has known?
Is it your view that this "framework" will bring back manufacturing to America? If so, what manufacturing is that?
Is it your view that this "framework" is raising significant revenue to help reduce the federal budget deficit? If so, how does that work when US tariff's are being reduced? That doesn't make sense.
Is it your view that this "framework" will make up for the cost of Trump's tax cut for the wealthy? Again, where is that money coming from?
While I don't agree this framework is a nothingburger, it is obviously not much and certainly not worth the pain it has caused and the extreme pain it will cause..
"truly believe this bodes well for our relationship with the U.K. They may be coming to realize that Trump has been honest and consistent in his push for fair trade.
But we had a trade surplus with the UK?
The framework...Trump's brilliant strategy was to strike a deal with the UK, a country with which the US already has a trade surplus, that makes UK goods more expensive for Americans while making American goods cheaper for the UK...
Truly a master class in 4D chess, right?
My GodWhat is the likelihood this framework will reduce the SURPLUS the US has with the UK? In other words, will Trump have taken trade that was MORE THAN FAIR to the US and reduced to only Fair? lol. Good job Trump.
free-trade deal this is not. It looks more like a collection of carve-outs relative to the previous base case: UK auto tariffs would come in at 10% rather than 27.5%, steel tariffs would go to zero and the threat of future pharmaceutical tariffs would recede. The overall headline tariff of 10% seems to still be in place; the UK has also offered more market access to the US and a Boeing Co. airplane order.
I just wanted to remind everyone that Trump, that convicted felon, that sexual predator, will probably be responsible for the deaths of OVER 25 MILLION PEOPLE worldwide.
It is that kind of Monster who MAGA wanted as president.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586- … hatgpt.comI read this article thos morning that delved into your concern. It appears not only the US but some other countries have also decided to cut down on hat they give in aid .
"By ELLEN KNICKMEYER
Updated 3:47 PM EDT, May 9, 2025
https://apnews.com/article/trump-humani … 9079c00280
WASHINGTON (AP) — As the world’s humanitarian organizations are triaging their shrinking amount of funding, the head of the International Rescue Committee stresses that the choice is stark: Keeping millions alive in the most vulnerable countries will require pulling some assistance for programs in better-off countries that target everything from climate change to refugee resettlement.
Life-saving food, water and health programs already are shutting down in countries including Sudan, where the closing of 80% of communal kitchens has ended the only access to food for millions. That comes after the Trump administration dissolved the lead U.S. aid agency and terminated thousands of foreign assistance programs.
“There are lives on the line,” David Miliband, president of the IRC, told The Associated Press in an interview this week in Washington, where he also was speaking to lawmakers and Trump administration officials.
“Our point is there’s no way you can keep the aid system as it was,” said Miliband, a former U.K. foreign secretary. As it was, he notes, only 14% of total aid was going to humanitarian efforts, while middle-income countries got more funding than low-income ones.
The triage underway shows the impact of the Trump administration decision to pull the U.S. back from being the world’s single largest aid donor. The United States previously provided about a third of the more than $200 billion in foreign assistance given annually by governments worldwide. The White House last week proposed a budget for next year with an 84% cut to such funding.
Other important European donors, including Britain, say they also are cutting aid as they work to free up more money for defense spending, fearing U.S. changes in European defense commitments.
Miliband and his International Rescue Committee are more explicit than some aid groups in offering their ideas for change in leaner funding times. Countries that are doing OK or are downright wealthy should have some of their donor funding redirected, so it can go to the range of needs of poor countries most affected by war and climate change.
“If you’re looking for a guideline, I would say at least half the global aid budget needs to go to conflict states,” Miliband said. That’s up from about a quarter of total aid now.
Miliband points to climate mitigation in wealthier countries and help for newly arrived refugees to settle in wealthier countries as programs that should be lower priorities for donors in the current harsh aid environment.
With the dust settling from the Trump cuts, aid organizations are looking at how to reorganize to focus on the most vital and strategic aid, said Kate Phillips-Barrasso, a vice president of Mercy Corps, another top humanitarian organization.
“My fear is that we’re going to end up in a world” where donors split their efforts between two poles: arranging financing for infrastructure and economic development in middle-income countries or paying for only the most basic aid “helping people not die” in poor countries, Phillips-Barrasso said.
“I worry about pretty much everything in the middle disappearing,” she said. That would leave the very poorest and most fragile countries never getting the help they need to get ahead of climate change and other threats.
For Miliband and the IRC, donors should focus on getting humanitarian aid, climate help and other vital assistance to 13 poor countries struggling the most with conflicts and environmental damage. That includes Afghanistan, where the Trump administration has cut aid on the grounds that it could benefit the Taliban, and Yemen, where the U.S. recently reached a ceasefire with Houthi militants, who have been targeting global shipping.
The other countries that the IRC identifies as priorities for the shrinking pool of aid funding are Haiti, Burkina Faso, the Central African Republic, Chad, Mali, Mozambique, Somalia, South Sudan and Sudan.
The Trump administration’s cuts already have forced top aid organizations to pull out of entire countries. Groups say that endangers the progress many countries in Africa and elsewhere have made and threatens further destabilization and extremist gains in volatile regions, including the southern edge of the Sahara."You made me look, and frankly I am totally disgusted now. As you implied, Trump is not alone among our former allies to slash humanitarian funding. Of the top 10 donors, every one has or is planning to cut aid. The top 10 account for 66% of the aid in 2024 and the remaining 34% is spread out among roughly 90 other nations or entities.
The United States (25.9% share), from 2008 - 2016 had a "relatively" stable commitment to helping. But, it was limited by the Republican Budget Control Act of 2011. Trump tried to slash foreign aid in his first term but was stymied by bipartisan pushback from Congress. Foreign aid increased under Biden until 2025.
Germany, #2 at 10.5%, started cutting aid in 2023 and plans more.
The EU is #3 at 8%. They began reducing aid in 2024 and intend on continuing to do so.
Japan ramped up aid until 2023, and then began planned, modest cutbacks after that.
The rest of the top began cutting back in 2024 as well, but their impact is more or less trivial.
On the other hand, China is ramping up its very meager humanitarian aid to at least win the PR war of nations who care.
The cut back by Trump will cause by far the most damage and lost lives, but each of the other nations will have blood on their hands as well. What a sorry world we live in.I was very shocked at the article, as you were. This is a lot to unpack. This is a worthy cause to protest over the entire world.
I don't see an emoji for a thumbs up. If I did, I would have used it.
Related Discussions
- 30
Why Drill, Baby, Drill Isn't Working
by kerryg 3 months ago
Contrary to what has been suggested in several posts here over the last few weeks, Obama's supposed imposition of "regulation after regulation, roadblock after roadblock" is not what's holding up domestic oil drilling, it's the oil companies themselves holding out for higher profits.This...
- 32
Oil spill result of corporate negligence and a lack of over sight.
by Stump Parrish 14 years ago
How do we make sure this doesn't happen again you ask? Deregulate further and open more of the gulf to drilling. That could only makes sense to those in the oil companies back pockets.
- 214
Obama's attacks on BP not going down well in the UK
by CMHypno 15 years ago
Obama's attacks on BP are increasingly being viewed in the UK as signs of his anti-British stance. Or is he just trying to pull attention away from his own administration's failures?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … itain.html
- 192
Global Warming is Socialist Propaganda
by Nickny79 16 years ago
Mississippi and Lousiana get snow: http://news.aol.com/article/rare-snow-c … 1200988198So much for global warming. I bet Al Gore was scheduled to give a speech in New Orleans.
- 59
What's the libertarian take on the BP oil spill?
by Don W 15 years ago
Would a free market have prevented this from happening?I'm guessing the libertarian argument would be that the failings of state regulation was a contributing factor. Those failings stemming from the fact that the regulators were in bed (figuratively and literally) with those regulated. Whereas...
- 47
Biden’s Dirty Oil Deal With Venezuela
by Sharlee 2 years ago
What do you think about becoming dependent on dictators for energy? Is this not all half-ass-backward?Wall Street Journal Biden’s Dirty Oil Deal With VenezuelaCaracas gets a sanctions reprieve while the U.S. vetoes a loan to Guyana, a rare U.S. ally in the region."At the United Nations climate...