Trump’s Day One: A Bold Agenda to Reclaim America
From Nobel laureate Paul Krugman...
'...But back to that UK “deal.” Nobody knows what will eventually come out of it, but we can be sure of one thing: It won’t lead to any significant opening of the British market to U.S. goods. Why? Because that market was already wide open before Trump stomped in.
The most important thing to understand about Trump’s trade war is that it’s an attempt to solve a problem that only exists in his imagination. He keeps insisting that other countries are engaged in unfair trade, but the reality is that most of our important trading partners impose very low tariffs on U.S. products:
You could argue that China is less open to trade than the tariff number suggests, because the government plays such a large role in the Chinese economy. But for Britain, Canada and the European Union Trump’s tariffs are a huge, destructive attempt to fix something that wasn’t broken. These nations can’t stop doing bad stuff on trade because they weren’t doing bad stuff before Trump came along.
What about America’s trade deficit? As economists have repeated ad nauseam, this deficit doesn’t reflect unfair foreign trade policies. It is, instead, the flip side of large flows of capital into the United States, which historically reflected the fact that the U.S. was perceived as an attractive place to invest. Even if Trump manages to score some actual deals, as opposed to concepts of deals, they won’t change that logic. If his strategy does manage to reduce the trade deficit, it will do so only by destroying America’s attractiveness to foreign investors, which may be an achievable goal.
But let me go back to the point that Trump’s tariffs are a response to a problem that didn’t exist. That’s actually an observation that goes beyond trade policy. The Trump team likes to claim that it inherited an economy in terrible shape. Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, keeps claiming that the economy needs a “detox.”
In fact, however, when Trump took over the U.S. economy was in very good shape. Unemployment was around 4 percent, while inflation was at most a fraction of a percentage point above the Federal Reserve’s target of 2 percent. Our productivity growth was the envy of the world. We had a trade deficit, but as I said, this mainly reflected America’s attractiveness as a place to invest.
It's true that Goldilocks now seems to be leaving the building, but that’s entirely — entirely — due to Trump himself. In discussing the Fed’s decision to leave interest rates unchanged, Jerome Powell repeatedly talked about “uncertainty,” but the only reason things seem much more uncertain now than they did a few months ago is the chaos Trump has created.
Anyway, aside from the attempt to bully the Fed, you should be worried by Trump’s evident disconnect from reality. Prices are, in fact, going up, with a notable upturn in the inflation expected by businesses
So should we celebrate the trade deal that will be announced today? No. It won’t solve any of the problems Trump has created. It will, if anything, offer Trump the temporary illusion of success, encouraging him to create even more problems."
https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/will … ix-what-heThe more I look at the first deal, the more I like it! Trump is "shopping" and paying Walmart prices.
I think this new U.K. trade deal is actually a really smart move, and it's surprising how little attention it's getting in the media. Sure, the deal does lower tariffs on some U.K. goods, but the bigger picture here is that this shift is all about decreasing our dependence on China. By making it more affordable to import steel and aluminum from the U.K., we're not only scoring these critical materials at a lower price, but we’re also getting them from one of our long-time allies, which is a huge win.
Plus, the U.K. has agreed to take more of our agricultural products, like beef, lamb, and dairy, which is great news for U.S. ranchers and farmers. Lots of happy farmers out there tonight knowing they'll have more access to international markets for their goods. This is a strategic play that focuses on securing essential resources from a trusted partner while reducing reliance on China, which has been a major concern for national security and economic stability. Hey-- Trump always says, "I love farmers, and they love me".
The U.K. is also an important source of machinery and industrial equipment. With lower tariffs, U.S. manufacturers may be able to import more of these goods at a cheaper price compared to what they were paying for Chinese-made machinery, which had previously been hit by tariffs. On top of that, the U.K. is home to a number of pharmaceutical and chemical companies. With reduced tariffs and increased access, the U.S. could see lower prices on certain drugs and chemicals that were previously more expensive when sourced from China.
Trump is clearly moving America away from depending on China, and I'd bet China is not very happy today seeing this shift. Instead of focusing on the details of tariff reductions alone, the broader vision of strengthening U.S.-U.K. relations while cutting ties with China is worth more attention. This could have long-term benefits for both trade and global strategy.
I can't wait to see who is next.They just talked about a framework today though no deal has been signed.
Funny, apart from under George W Bush we never had US tariffs on UK steel and aluminium, throughout the duration of EU membership.
Outside of the EU, Trump applied them..
Starmer just last year...
"Britain is going to be the only major economy that no longer makes its own steel..."
Steel production?
2025
China with about a billion tons a year is #1
USA with 79 million is #4
UK with 4 million is #35
The UK hardly produces aluminium and its steel industry virtually bankrupt.
The tariff reduction on UK steel is a nothing burger.As far as beef? I'd be looking for that to fall through...
It's unlikely the UK will significantly increase beef imports due to chemicals, specifically hormones. The UK has long-standing bans on hormone-treated beef imports, and I'm guessing this policy is unlikely to change, despite pressure from the US.
There just really isn't a market or desire for American beef in the UK
The UK imports approximately 14% of its beef supply. so they are pretty self-sufficient but when they do import... It comes from Ireland, Australia and New Zealand"As far as beef? I'd be looking for that to fall through..." Willow
Well, you can keep your fingers crossed or pray on it.
Agree on the crap we put in our food, but maybe Bobby will work n following what so many nations have banned for sooo many years.
What Deal? There is no deal.
In what way did this framework "move America away from depending on China" one iota?
What things were we dependent on from China that we will now import from the UK?
I didn't know we were dependent on China for Beef or for Ethanol. Ditto for airplane parts, it is news to me that Boeing is dependent on China for the parts it uses to build its planes.
When did we become dependent on China for cars?
What is that saying about making a silk purse from a sows ear? Personally, given the lack of real, substantial substance in this framework, I agree with Willowarbor, this is just a photo op for Trump so he can say he ALMOST completed a deal.But I asked questions about your view. Are you going to back your view up?
OK - here is what is in the "deal"
1. No change to Trump's 10% tariffs
2. Trump had raised the tariff on UK cars to 27.5%. He lowered that to 10% for the first 100,000 cars. The UK exported 92,000 cars to the US in 2024, consequently there is no real benefit to UK car makers. The tariff on UK cars prior to Trump was 2.5%.
Net effect: UK auto exporters are worse off than before, U.S. consumers face higher car prices.
3. UK steel and aluminum will enter the US duty-free. This returns the playing field back to what it was prior to Trump. Net Effect - Zero
4. US will return tariffs on aerospace items back to the pre-Trump level. UK committed to buying $10 billion of Boeing aircraft - WHICH they were already doing. Net Effect - Zero
5. The UK will eliminate its 19% tariff on ethanol up to 1.9 billion liters. The US exported about 1 billion liters in 2024 . Net Effect - a win for US agriculture for current sales and allows room to double the exports
6. The UK will eliminate their high tariffs on beef that meets their safety standards for the first 13,000 metric tons and the US will do likewise (they were almost has high as the UKs). The UK exported 96 tons of beef to the US while the US exported 13,000 tons to the UK. Net Effect - Remember, it was the UK importer who paid the UK tariff and the US importer who paid the US tariff. With the tariffs going to zero, the US will continue to be able to export its 13,000 tons while the US may buy more beef from the UK since we don't have to pay the duty. - Winner UK, I think.
7. The UK agreed to lower its average tariff from 5.1% to 1.8% while the US maintains its 10% tariff (up from 3.8% in 2024). Net Effect - This MAY increase US exports to the UK a little but the US will continue to suffer higher prices for UK imports. - Not sure who wins here.
While this "deal" is not a nothingburger, it is clearly not what Trump hyped it to be. This won't move the needle much."OK, so! After a month of negotiations, we finally have a “full and comprehensive” trade agreement with our old pals across the pond". - says an analyst. Let's look at a more concise picture of what was in the ... I am not even sure it is a "framework" anymore.
"Here is what the US and the UK announced Thursday: President Donald Trump’s team took the US tax on British imports from 10% to *checks notes* 10%. Yes, it is the exact same tariff rate that Trump announced on April 2, but with some fun new carve-outs:
British cars: That Bentley you’ve had your eye on was going to be taxed at 27.5%, but now it’s only 10%. Great news for that sliver of Americans in the market for a Land Rover, Jaguar, Rolls-Royce or Aston Martin. No other consumer goods were mentioned.
Planes: British companies can now send plane parts to the US tariff-free. In return, British Airways is expected to order 30 Boeing 787 Dreamliner jets, according to Bloomberg." - They were already doing that BEFORE Trump upset the applecart.
Steel and aluminum: Taxes on steel and what the Brits call “aluminium” (adorable) will be scrapped." - Guess what the tariffs were BEFORE Trump started screwing everything up? - That's right - 0%
Beef: Both countries get a bunch of tariff-free exports on commodities including beef and other agricultural products.
That’s honestly it — there are no more details, as both sides said specifics are still being ironed out. It’s not all that surprising, given that traditionally trade deals require months or even years of painstaking talks.
“A trade agreement where the details are still being negotiated is not an agreement,” said Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM, on social media. “This does not provide the clarity necessary to lift the fog of uncertainty created by a trade war of choice.”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/09/business … l-nightcapAnd rock bottom has found a basement folks....
Trump appoints Fox News host Jeanine Pirro, as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia...
With Jeanine and Pete Hegseth in charge, America is back and ready to drink all other countries under the table!
just another pick that MAGA has to pretend like they are fired up for Jeanine. Humiliating and completely pathetic. Good God it never ends.With all the chatter on this subject, I’ve grown weary of trying to make my point and share my perspective. I’m hoping this comment says what I need it to. After this, I’m stepping back from the conversation, at least until there’s some actual, concrete news on a given deal. So, have your fun, but I won’t be taking part in the back-and-forth or the frivolity.
As trade continues to be a defining issue in global economic policy, I’ve been following Donald Trump’s approach to trade negotiations with interest. While critics often label his tactics as aggressive or protectionist, I see something different: a deliberate and pragmatic strategy rooted in fairness, reciprocity, and national interest.
My view is shaped by listening to Trump, his trade representatives, and figures like Scott Bessent who have helped articulate the goals behind these negotiations. What I observe is a tailored approach, one where each deal is crafted based on the specific dynamics between the United States and the partner country.
Take the United Kingdom, for example. The tariffs between our two nations already appeared fair. The aim there wasn’t to punish, but to rebalance in a way that benefits both sides. The U.S. sought increased access for its exports while making it easier for the UK to bring certain products into our market with improved terms. To me, this is exactly the kind of good-faith, mutually beneficial agreement that trade should be about.
I expect the same pattern will apply to other nations as well. Trump has said repeatedly that he wants fair deals, not one-sided advantages. This mindset doesn’t create trade wars; it creates clarity and balance.
China, of course, presents a unique challenge. The trade imbalance is vast, not simply because of tariffs, but because China doesn’t purchase nearly enough American goods. I don’t believe the solution lies in dramatically changing tariff structures at this point. Instead, I support what Trump has often emphasized: China needs to start “shopping.” If we can negotiate meaningful commitments from them to increase imports of U.S. goods, that would be a major win.
Such an outcome could spark significant growth for American companies and even encourage businesses to expand domestically. If U.S. manufacturers know they’ll have better access not only to China but also to other global markets through improved trade deals, we could see a resurgence in investment and job creation here at home.
The deal with the UK may well serve as a precedent, an example to other nations that the U.S. is open to fair and balanced trade that benefits everyone involved. That’s how I see it. Trump’s strategy isn’t reckless. It’s measured, principled, and, if executed well, potentially transformative for American economic strength.
I see he has lowered tariffs on China. Bessent will go into this weekend's talks with China, showing we are looking to be fair to an extent, and up for making a deal that cou;d benefit both nations. This will be the one to watch.What goods do you think China should purchase from us to balance the trade deficit? Would it be the same goods we purchased from them before the tariffs? What do you think would make Trump and company happy?
The way I see it, Trump has to have bad guys that he can blame or he can't exists. Trump is a master at dividing and conquering. That's why he has to have what he calls the fake news and MAGA news, In actuality he and MAGA are living in an alternate reality, Bringing back manufacturing is an alternate reality that doesn't exist.
We already have state of the art manufacturing and innovations. Our universities are losing those who are the innovators to other countries because he doesn't understand the Israel/ Gaza conflict.. He does what I call blanket coverage actions. Deportation is an example.. He deports thousands of people and then he sorts out those who shouldn't have been deported. The same thing with DOGE, they lay off thousands of people and then they realize some are essential like the nuclear energy controllers and then try to higher them back again.I always enjoy our back-and-forths, and as you can see, I’ve already beaten this dead horse across several pages. That said, I’ll keep this reply a bit more restrained out of respect, since you haven’t really been in the thick of this particular debate.
I appreciate you jumping in, but I’ve got to push back on a few things you said because some of it just doesn’t add up, in my view.
The idea that we’re "losing talent to other countries" because of Trump’s policies, especially after just 100 or so days in office, just doesn’t hold water. Immigration and talent migration are complex issues that take years, sometimes decades, to shift meaningfully. You can’t pin a brain drain on someone who’s barely had time to name all his staff yet. Plus, let’s be honest: universities started internationalizing long before Trump. There are a dozen other factors at play, including better offers abroad, global competition, and even lifestyle preferences. So if we’re losing innovators, let’s look at the broader context, not throw it at Trump as a knee-jerk reaction.
Now, about your question—what should China buy from us? The real question is: what can’t they buy? We’ve got plenty of high-value products and services that China would benefit from, and the only reason they’re not buying more is because they’ve manipulated the playing field for years. Here’s just a sample of what we could and should be selling them in greater volume:
Aerospace: Boeing planes (massive market if not artificially blocked)
Energy: Natural gas, oil, and coal
Agriculture: Soybeans, corn, wheat, beef, pork, dairy
Automobiles and auto parts
Semiconductors and high-tech equipment
Pharmaceuticals and medical devices
Financial services
Entertainment and media
Education services (universities, online platforms)
And if this all works out, and we do sell more to China, it cou;d well translate to profit for American farmers, engineers, and manufacturers. That kind of revenue doesn’t just vanish, it gets taxed, which goes toward funding our roads, schools, defense, and yes, even the social programs many on the left prioritize. More exports mean more jobs, better wages, and more money flowing into the federal budget. And look, it’s fair to say China has more goods to export, but pretending the U.S. couldn’t be exporting a whole lot more to China is just not grounded in reality. Because we could if they would agree to take more of our goods. China blocks U.S. goods through a mix of high tariffs, red tape, and selective regulations, like safety standards or licensing delays. They also subsidize their own industries, limit imports with quotas, and pressure companies to hand over tech. Even without formal bans, “buy Chinese” policies and political retaliation make it tough for U.S. products to compete fairly. We need a new trade deal to accomplish a fair playing field.
As for the whole “Trump needs a bad guy” narrative, I mean, come on. Every president plays some version of that game. Obama blamed Bush. Biden blamed Trump. It’s part of the political cycle. The real question is whether the strategy leads to better deals and a stronger America. So far, Trump’s approach to China has at least made them sit up and take notice. Before him, we just got talked into circles while the trade deficit ballooned.
Lastly, this idea that bringing back manufacturing is “alternate reality”? That’s kind of a slap in the face to the working class in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan who’ve actually seen their plants reopen or expand due to trade renegotiations or investment incentives. No, we’re not going back to the 1950s. But smart, tech-driven manufacturing can absolutely thrive here again if we negotiate wisely and enforce trade laws.
So yeah, fair trade isn’t some MAGA fever dream. It’s common sense. And pretending Trump’s trying to drag us back to the Stone Age just ignores a lot of nuance in what’s actually going on."The idea that we’re "losing talent to other countries" because of Trump’s policies, especially after just 100 or so days in office, just doesn’t hold water. " - Will this change your mind?
- 2025 survey by Nature of over 1,600 scientists - Result: 75% said they are contemplating departing - because of Trump
- If you only look at post-doctoral students, that percentage rises to 80%!
- Research centers across Europe are seeing a surge in applications from American scientists.
- Likewise, given the deep dissatisfaction of scientists and professionals other nations have greatly stepped up their recruitment offering them a much less hostile environment to do their work.
- From the May edition of Foreign Affairs -
Research centers in cities including Barcelona and Madrid are reporting dozens of applications from U.S. scientists. Promising and distinguished researchers of Chinese origin in fields essential to U.S. competitiveness—artificial intelligence, robotics, mathematics, and nuclear fusion—are leaving leading U.S. research universities to return to China.
Also, keep in mind, it is those who are wanting to leave who are saying that it is Trump who is the reason.
Bottom line, with 3 and 3/4 years to go, Trump has plenty of time to make America Last in scientific research.Interesting information... Certainly food for thought.
It's also worth considering that some scientists may have lost their jobs or faced cuts in funding due to budget reductions in federal agencies during the Trump administration, which could have contributed to their decision to leave the U.S. For example, under Trump, there were significant cuts proposed to various science-related programs, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NASA, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). When these agencies face budget cuts or staff reductions, researchers might be forced to look for more stable funding or better career opportunities elsewhere. It seems odd that so many would be making this decision just three months into Trump's term. I could understand this, Trump is shaking up many agencies where scientists work. But others that are not in Government, it seems odd they would decide to leave their jobs, as well as their country, due to a president that actually won't be in office for but 4 years.
If job security or funding availability became uncertain for scientists working in government research roles or at federally funded institutions, it's entirely plausible that some would have sought out positions in countries with stronger research funding, more stable environments, or greater political support for scientific endeavors. The loss of funding or positions within U.S. research agencies could very well have pushed some scientists to explore opportunities abroad, particularly in places that are actively investing in science and technology to attract international talent.
This adds another layer to the reasoning behind the survey findings, suggesting that financial and institutional instability, not just political policies, could be a significant factor in the rising number of scientists contemplating leaving the U.S.It would have been nice if Trump had thoughtfully planned out all these "reductions", but he didn't. It was a slash and burn of everything he didn't like and America is going to pay a terrible, terrible price for that stupidity.
"Just three months in..." - It was the way Trump went about it, without thought but with nasty and mean rhetoric. They are smart enough to see the obvious and are running away to safer environs.Counterpoint: It's a common critique to say Trump “slashed and burned,” but that oversimplifies what was, in many cases, a deliberate attempt to reduce bureaucracy, cut excessive regulation, and prioritize American interests. While not every move was perfect, framing it all as reckless or "without thought" ignores both the policy rationale behind many of the decisions and the longstanding conservative goals they fulfilled.
Take deregulation, for example, Trump’s administration targeted rules that were seen as burdensome to businesses, particularly small businesses and energy producers. Cutting red tape was intended to boost economic growth and domestic job creation. Critics often cite the tone of Trump’s rhetoric, but substance and intent matter more than style when evaluating policy outcomes.
Additionally, it has been reported that this administration views some agencies as overbloated due to a hiring surge during President Biden’s term. While I haven’t deeply researched that line of thinking, I’ve read that many of the layoffs in question involved relatively recent hires. If that’s accurate, it would suggest a course correction rather than a wholesale dismantling of institutions.
And regarding the claim that people are “running away to safer environs”—many industries actually flourished during the early Trump years, particularly before COVID-19 hit. Unemployment hit record lows, especially among minority communities, and manufacturing saw a modest revival. Were there missteps? Of course. But dismissing the entire policy approach as “stupidity” ignores results that even some critics begrudgingly acknowledge.
I did find a source indicating that many of the federal employees laid off were in departments that had seen increased hiring during the Biden administration.
https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2025/ … hatgpt.comI have eyes and they see "slash and burn" with no forethought. Why do you think they had to ask so many of them back because they fired critical people. "Slash and Burn" also fits with the avalanche of court decisions saying what they were doing was illegal and told Trump to stop doing it. Many of those decisions were from Trump appointed judges. Even they couldn't stomach how Trump was going about it.
I lived through a Reduction in Force when I was a civil servant. While I disagreed with the necessity of it (and was later proven correct), Clinton and Gore did it the right way, the legal way and without harming federal workers. As I recall, Gore (who was in charge of the process) didn't have to FIRE a single employee.
Just too bad it cost the taxpayer so much money in order to deliver less quality service.I have eyes and they see "slash and burn" with no forethought. Why do you think they had to ask so many of them back because they fired critical people. "Slash and Burn" also fits with the avalanche of court decisions saying what they were doing was illegal and told Trump to stop doing it. Many of those decisions were from Trump appointed judges. Even they couldn't stomach how Trump was going about it.
I lived through a Reduction in Force when I was a civil servant. While I disagreed with the necessity of it (and was later proven correct), Clinton and Gore did it the right way, the legal way and without harming federal workers. As I recall, Gore (who was in charge of the process) didn't have to FIRE a single employee.
Just too bad it cost the taxpayer so much money in order to deliver less quality service.
Further, the federal civil service ranks have been relatively stable from 2000 - 2020, growing only by about 120,000 in that period.
Under Biden, it grew 420,000 - a very large figure taken at face value. But a little research will show why such a large increase:
1. Staffing up for the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (you know, the one Trump promised but never delivered on)
2. Staffing up for the CHIPS and Science Act
3. Staffing up for the Inflation Reduction Act
4. ALL those required hiring more engineers, project managers, and environmental specialists to manage and execute large-scale projects across various agencies. Those are the people Trump is laying off willy-nilly.[b]
5. Expanding the federal workforce to handle the aftermath of the Pandemic.
6. Succession Planning Amidst an Aging Workforce. That means bringing on new talent BEFORE the old talent retires. [b]They are the ones Trump also fired
7. Implementation of the VA PACT ACT which greatly increased the need to service the resulting 33% increase in veteran enrollment.
8. Coming into office in 2021, Biden saw that the civilian workforce was seriously understaffed - example, we are still short 13,000 air traffic control officers.
So, rather than say the growth in federal employment is all bad, it really helps to know why.The total amount we spend on payroll for federal workers is about $336 billion a year.
That’s 1% of gross domestic product, and not quite 5% of total federal spending. The government payroll for other developed countries is typically 5% of GDP.
The federal government employs about 3 million workers, a figure that excludes active-duty military personnel.
Marketplace.org
One of my children is a GS-15. In layman's terms that means she'd be Gibbs' boss's boss on NCIS. Three probationary employees under her were threatened with firing in February. They were new hires only because it had taken so many months to fill their positions with people with the expertise to do the specific work required.
Fortunately, through reorganization their jobs were saved, which the public should be grateful for because each one was mission-essential.
If you are unfamiliar with that term, then you don't know enough about the workings of government - in this case of the DOD - to support DOGE.Thank you for laying out your position so clearly. There's a lot to unpack.
I agree that context is vital when evaluating federal workforce growth. Simply citing raw numbers without understanding the drivers behind them can lead to misleading conclusions. You're right to highlight that several Biden-era legislative packages, like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, CHIPS Act, and Inflation Reduction Act, required expanded federal staffing to implement effectively. That said, we should also consider whether this expansion is being managed efficiently and yielding measurable results for taxpayers. The concern some have isn’t necessarily with hiring per se, but with whether we’re getting improved services or just ballooning bureaucracy.
Regarding the "slash and burn" accusation aimed at Trump: it's fair to criticize aspects of how his administration handled downsizing efforts, particularly when some court rulings, even from Trump-appointed judges, found certain moves legally questionable. However, there's a competing perspective worth exploring. Trump and his team often argued that the federal government had become bloated and inefficient, a claim many Americans resonate with, especially after dealing with slow or unresponsive federal services. His actions, while arguably abrupt or messy, were aimed at shaking up what he and his supporters saw as a deeply entrenched bureaucracy resistant to reform. Whether one agrees or not, the motive wasn’t necessarily to destroy government but to streamline it, albeit with mixed execution.
It’s also worth noting that Trump wasn't alone in attempting to reduce the size or influence of the federal workforce, past presidents, including Reagan and even Obama in some respects, made similar efforts to restructure or reorient federal employment priorities. The key question isn't whether cuts or growth are inherently good or bad, but whether they serve the public well.
In summary, you’re absolutely right to emphasize the importance of informed context, and you’ve laid out legitimate reasons for recent workforce increases. But it's also fair to scrutinize whether either administration, Trump’s in cutting or Biden’s in expanding, delivered a more responsive, effective government in the end. That’s where I think the real debate lies.Yes, Trump and team argue that the gov't has 'gotten' bloated, specifically in Biden's term. Now you have to decide whether they were telling the truth. The data suggests strongly that they are lying.
To the degree that Biden's growth initiatives are successful, and they have been so far, that sort of answers your question of whether the hirings were appropriate.
I am a retired civil servant and I can tell you that in almost all instances, we were always pushing for more people, not because we liked having them around, but because they kept expanding our mission.
It got so bad during the Clinton-Gore RIF that my office, who supported the Air Force's procurement effort had to tell the Assistant Secretary of Procurement NO simply because we didn't have the assets to do it ourselves or money or time to hire more expensive contractors to do it. My office was not unique in that regard.
Because of that RIF, the civilian workforce got a lot "dumber" (because most (90%) our federal workforce is "non-clerical"), in other words, it was the highly trained professional and technical staff that were let go (none or very few were fired, however). As a result of that dumbing down of the federal workforce, we could no longer provide the kinds of critical services people expect of our government. America became less safe.
I am glad to see my points are being defended with sources, not just opinion and interpretation. You missed my point entirely. The reason the universities are losing talent is because of Trump's treatment of Palestinian student protestors.
Trump and company don't care or understand that Gaza has been turned to rubble and the Palestinians have become starving refugees in their own land. Thanks to Netanyahu and his excuses of looking for Hamas.
Now he is starting to rebuild the north and occupy it with Israelis. Trump even said he would like to make it the Riviera of the mid-east.
Marco Rubio has the power to deport and jail anyone who indicates they are anti-Semitic as a terrorist threat to our nation, just by his decree. Why would any research scientist or students who agree with their protest want to stay in this country under those circumstances?
Let's just keep it simple. It's not nuanced or complex. Who are the bigger terrorists to the Palestinians students and researchers, Netanyahu or Trump?Deregulation - By and Large, most regulations are there to prevent one party from harming another party. So, by definition, unless the regulations being removed are targeted and well-thought out (not a hallmark of Trump) massive deregulation will lead to great harm and not necessarily economic growth.
Yes, massive deregulation has at times helped the U.S. economy, but the benefits have varied widely by sector, and unintended consequences have often followed. In some cases, deregulation unleashed competition and innovation, while in others it contributed to financial instability, monopolization, or environmental harm.
Airline Deregulation - For the most part it brought flying in reach of everyday Americans because of competition. But that competition has largely disappeared and now we have only four major carriers. Who was hurt? Airline workers and small cities.
Trucking Deregulation - Its main benefit was increased efficiencies and lower prices. The downside was lower wages for truckers and unions lost market share.
Telecommunications Deregulation - Not so beneficial in the long-term. It did allow for more competition to start with the accompanying lower prices, but that quickly disappeared and now we are left with few competitors, higher prices, and TERRIBLE service.
Financial Deregulation - an abject failure that led to the 2008 Great Recession. Trump and the Republicans are about to do it again as the barriers to corrupt financial practices have been removed allowing for a repeat of 2008.
Environmental Deregulation - also an abject failure which has led to increased global warming, higher emission of harmful gases, The downsides are many: increased respiratory illnesses, increased cardiovascular disease, premature deaths mainly in the very young and very old, increased toxic emissions from coal-fired plants, and increased health costs overall. This leads to short-term gain for the industry but long-term cost burdens for taxpayers and future generations.
As with everything else he does, Trump is taking a much more costly and economically hurtful meat cleaver approach rather than use a scalpel.
California's Electricity Deregulation - an abject failure as well that led to rolling blackouts, corrupting, price fixing, with much harm to the customers.You raise important points about deregulation having both benefits and drawbacks, and I agree that not all deregulation is inherently good or bad; the outcome often depends on execution and context. For example, you're right that airline deregulation initially increased access and affordability, though market consolidation is now a concern. The same is true with trucking, efficiency gains came at a cost to wages and union strength. That said, it's worth noting that competition in telecom and airlines, while reduced, is also influenced by regulatory capture and barriers to entry, not just deregulation itself. On financial deregulation, the rollback of Glass-Steagall and other Clinton-era reforms contributed to the 2008 crisis, but it's a stretch to place current blame solely on Trump; Dodd-Frank remains largely intact, and bipartisan efforts, such as the 2018 bill easing rules on midsize banks, were supported by Democrats as well. Environmental deregulation is more concerning, and I agree that in many cases, the long-term public health costs outweigh short-term industry gains. But not all of Trump’s regulatory rollbacks lacked precision; for example, some focused on outdated or duplicative rules, a point even nonpartisan groups have acknowledged. Still, the broader concern about using a “meat cleaver” versus a “scalpel” is valid, especially when reforms come without a strong cost-benefit analysis.
Deregulation is a complex tool, it can drive innovation and growth when used thoughtfully, but when applied too broadly or without foresight, it risks serious unintended consequences.I took a look and found the following:
While duplicate and overlapping regulations may have been undone, ChatGPT couldn't find any examples, even on deep research.
I can't really disagree with much of what you wrote. But take on it isn't quite a complex. Government creates a regulation to protect something from something else. As best as I can tell, they serve no other purpose.
Obviously, these regulations can have far reach consequences and will
probably piss somebody off, normally the person or company doing the harm.
For example, why did airline regulations come about? Initially, back in the 1930s (didn't realize it was that long ago) planes regularly fell out of sky, so regulations were created to protect the flying public. Also, back then airlines were financially unstable and often went bankrupt leaving passengers stranded. A third reason is that air travel was becoming strategically important especially after WW II, a national security asset. It was necessary to develop a robust route network for military and civil reasons, not the least of which was leaving rural areas devoid of service.
Airlines were treated as a public utility just like railroads and utilities. In this case, their fares, entry to the industry, and routes were all regulated. This created a safe and dependable service to the public and national interests, albeit, more expensive.
It was commonly thought, at least by me, that President Reagan was responsible for deregulating the airlines. Nope, to my surprise it was President Carter! Anyway, what drove it?
1. The public demand for lower prices and more flying options.
2. Little incentive for innovation and cost cutting
3. The rise in popularity of free-market economics.
What happened upon deregulation?
1. Fares dropped (more like plummeted)
2. Dozens if new entrants
3. Smaller rural cities were left unserved
4. Increased financial instability with an increasing number of bankruptcies
5. Wages and job security for pilots, flight attendants, and ground staff declined as airlines cut costs.
6. After an increase in "frills", those were cut back and it became more and more uncomfortable to fly. I am old enough to remember enjoying flying - not any more. Even 1st Class isn't so 1st anymore on domestic flights.
7. Rural areas were ignored.
8. Cancelled and delayed flights have increased dramatically.
The point of the above was to illustrate the need for regulation and what happens if you do a poor job of deregulation.
"Running away" - they aren't leaving because of Trump 1.0, to which you directed you examples, but to Trump 2.0 and his anti-elite war.
I think it can be difficult to pinpoint a single reason why someone chooses to leave the U.S. to live and work in another country. People are individuals with unique motivations, and I can understand that some may feel disillusioned enough by Trump’s agenda to make that decision. That said, I personally find it a bit surprising, given that America elects a president every four years and regularly votes in new representatives. Agendas and leadership change. To me, it seems that this kind of choice likely involves more than just one political figure; a range of personal and political factors may be at play.
You certainly right about complexity, but not in this case where the people who want to leave today say it is because of Trump. I presume they are not lying.
I sort of wish, with some caveats, that Americans "regularly votes in new representatives" was true, but it is not. Yes, they vote every two years, but they return 72% of the representatives back into office.
I am pretty sure I have become a fan of sort of term limits (but not age limits).
I also wish the House would exercise their Article 1 powers and get rid of gerrymandering.
Boeing - China (like the UK) have already been buying Boeing aircraft in large numbers, so they don't need to "start" buying them. Also, Boeing is reliant on China for a lot of its parts. This is the symbiotic relationship that Trump destroyed. Also, China is on a long-term project to produce their own in-house equivalent.
Energy: Natural gas, oil, and coal - the thing is China doesn't need American energy, they get plenty from other sources at lower cost.
Agriculture: Soybeans, corn, wheat, beef, pork, dairy - China does need American soybeans and to a much lesser degree pork products. Prior to 2018, America was China's main supplier of soybeans (Brazil was a secondary source) and they were buying all that they needed without being wasteful. After 2019, they increased their purchases from Brazil such that it became their MAIN SUPPLIER, and they have diversified to other countries as well such as Argentina and Russia. Trump did that and by the time Trump is done, American farmers will probably have lost a major customer for our soybeans.
- Automobiles and auto parts - China is self-sufficient in this area except for American luxury cars. So why would they waste money buying something they don't need.
- Semiconductors and high-tech equipment - Yes, China does need this from America and it was buying all that it needed and that America would let it buy. Could they buy more? Probably, but why?
- Pharmaceuticals and medical devices - Yes, China needs these from the United States. But the problem is that the United States limited what could be bought and left China wanting. So, in this case, America won't let China increase its volume of purchases.
- Financial services - I had to chuckle at this one. No, China doesn't need financial services from us.
- Entertainment and media - No, China doesn't need this but it certainly could loosen its political controls and allow more in.
- Education services (universities, online platforms) - China doesn't need this either, but would probably buy a lot of it - IF our national security allowed it.
Bottom line, China had been buying all that it needed or was allowed to have from America. Buying more just because you can makes no sense whatever. It would seem to me, what is limiting China from buying more of some things they might want are American barriers."Lastly, this idea that bringing back manufacturing is “alternate reality”?" - [i]I would have added the words "on the scale that Trump is talking about"
Sure, a manufacturing plant may open here or there, but not on any scale. That era has past us by whether you realize it or not.
Point taken. Best photo I've seen this week
Yes, my number one debate mate, I'll admit, I can't keep up with everything going on these days. I've turned a little cranky, and this topic? It's a real brain pretzel. Honestly, it's so complex that I totally get and respect the different views you all have shared. My friend, I will catch you on the flip.
You said "I see something different: a deliberate and pragmatic strategy rooted in fairness, reciprocity, and national interest."
What can you point to that leads you to that conclusion?
You said "What I observe is a tailored approach, one where each deal is crafted based on the specific dynamics between the United States and the partner country." - I guess I have to ask, have you seen the other plans where we haven't? How do you know they are "tailored" or is that what you hope they are? His tariffs certainly weren't tailored.
Are you thinking that all his thrusts forward and all the retreats when things weren't looking good were part of some sort of well thought out plan. They seem transactional, spur of the moment things to me.
I fail to see any great accomplishment. His actions remind me of the firefighter who sets a fire in order to be declared a hero by unsuspecting people when he puts it out.No, I haven’t been involved in or aware of any of the other negotiations taking place. My earlier comment didn’t quite reflect where I was coming from, so I’ll clarify my line of thinking.
My view is based on what I’ve heard directly from Trump, his trade team, and voices like Scott Bessent, who, in my opinion, have done a solid job explaining the intent behind these negotiations. From what I’ve seen, (the UK deal) Bessent appears to be shaping a strategy that prioritizes fairness and mutual benefit. , I believe each trade deal is, and should be, crafted to reflect the specific dynamics between the U.S. and the country we’re negotiating with.
Take the UK, for example. From my perspective, the tariffs between our countries already seemed reasonable. The goal there wasn’t to punish anyone, it was about fine-tuning the terms so both sides walk away with a better, more balanced deal. The U.S. aimed to expand opportunities for its exporters while making it easier for the UK to access our markets under improved conditions. That, to me, is what responsible trade looks like. Not every deal has to be combative; trade should be grounded in fairness, not punishment.
I hope this makes sense. I view the UK trade agreement as a significant achievement; it signals to other nations that the United States is committed to pursuing fair and balanced trade relationships. As PeoplePower insightfully pointed out, one challenge we face is the disparity in exports between the U.S. and China. China exports substantially more to America than we do to them, and currently, our manufacturing sector does not match theirs in scale. However, there is still room to negotiate a fair agreement that increases the volume of American goods exported to China. While trade between the two countries may never be perfectly balanced, it could become more mutually beneficial, especially for American businesses that have products with strong market potential in China.
Trump, the felon and sexual predator, is about to cross the Rubicon with his insane desire to get rid of virtually all immigrants - Suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus!! which means he wants to do away with DUE PROCESS I will say it again, Trump wants to suspend DUE PROCESS, the most fundamental right on which America was founded.
The King of England didn't want Americans to have due process and now the King of America doesn't either.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/09/politics … rant-judgeHere is a tiny piece of Justice in a sea of Orwellian pain - Tuft University's student, Rümeysa Öztürk, was finally released from her black hole in Louisiana even though Trump tried to delay it more.
Thank God for an independent judiciary where Trump-appointed judges are routinely slapping Trump's Putinesque police state down where bands of KGB agents, oops, sorry, ICE agents kidnap people never to heard from again.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/09/us/rumey … il-release"Thank God for an independent judiciary "
Abraham Lincoln was the first president to suspend the 5th Amendment's guarantee of Due Process. He detained thousands of southern sympathizers and saboteurs. The Supreme Court shot him down (no pun intended) saying ONLY Congress can do that. Congress, after the fact, gave Lincoln such power.
Likewise, in 1871, Congress gave Ulysses S. Grant the power to arrest White Supremist (the KKK in this case) in South Carolina without due process. The result was It temporarily suppressed White Supremacist violence.
Trump must have gotten his idea to suppress due process by executive order from Franklin Roosevelt. FDR issued an EO to intern only Japanese Americans during WW II. White American's of German and Italian decent were left alone. The Supreme Court, in 1944, upheld this policy and is now considered one of the worst rulings they have ever made, right up there with the Dobson decision which limited the rights of women in America and Dredd Scott which held that Blacks are not US citizens.
Post 9/11, George Bush - Bush simply did it and asked permission later (which is what I suspect Trump will do here). He interned enemy combatants at Guantanamo and denied the Due Process. Four different Supreme Court decisions said even these people were to be given Due Process.
With today's conservative Supreme Court, I wonder if they will take the opportunity to overturn yet more precedents.
In Trump's self-appointed mission to "purify" America the "Pentagon orders military academies to review books for possible removal"
As I recall, all dictators from Hitler to Putin did similar things.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/09/politics … view-books
GOD, there is going to be so much to repair staring in 2028 once this senile, one-man wrecking ball is gone.They already removed books from the Nimitz Library at Annapolis back at the first of April. 381 books were removed. The link next is a list of the books that were removed. With a glance you get the jest of the intent. Nefarious, yup!
https://media.defense.gov/2025/Apr/04/2 … dium=emailYep, it seems there focus was to erase Blacks and LGBTQ from history.
True, but Trump, the felon and sexual predator, and MAGA are going to try.
Try what? The result would be a disaster...like Adolf Hitler? Try to eliminate all the Jews.
I'm not the only one who says the felon, Trump, and Musk will cause MILLIONS OF DEATHS. Bill Gates chimes in as well.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/09/tech/bil … -criticismDo many nations bear the burden of "MILLIONS OF DEATHS"? Not just Trump?
Have you seen the post I shared a couple of days ago highlighting that numerous countries are significantly reducing their humanitarian aid contributions? This isn't an isolated incident; it's part of a broader global shift where nations are reallocating funds from foreign aid to bolster their military and defense budgets. Given this widespread trend, shouldn't we be addressing this as a global issue rather than viewing it solely through a national lens? Here are a few examples ---
United Kingdom
The UK has decreased its foreign aid budget from 0.5% to 0.3% of gross national income (GNI), while simultaneously planning to raise defense spending from 2.3% to 2.6% of GDP by 2028.
CNNYes, I’ve previously shared similar information about other countries and noted that their rollbacks in humanitarian aid were deeply troubling. However, I also emphasized that the United States has historically provided around 43% of global humanitarian funding—far more than any other country—because it’s both morally right and strategically beneficial. The next largest donor, Germany, contributes roughly 12%, and the rest—over 100 other nations—make up the remainder.
Trump slashed the U.S. contribution by about 68%, reducing our share to just slightly above Germany’s current share. While other countries did scale back their aid between 2018 and 2024, only a handful made cuts in 2025, and none came close to the scale of the U.S. pullback.
And crucially, when those other nations reduce funding, the impact is marginal. But when the United States makes a cut of that magnitude, the consequences are immediate and deadly. The burden of those deaths, and the unraveling of critical humanitarian systems, lies largely with Trump and the United States.I appreciate the points you've made, and I see the perspective you're conveying. However, I believe there are additional considerations worth addressing when discussing the U.S. foreign aid cuts under the Trump administration.
The argument presented here raises an important point about the role of the United States in global humanitarian aid, and the significant consequences of a dramatic cut in funding. However, while it’s undeniable that the U.S. has historically been the largest contributor to global aid, there are several layers to consider when assessing the impact of these cuts.
First, the assertion that other nations’ aid cuts are "marginal" while the U.S. cut is “immediate and deadly” overlooks the complexity of global humanitarian systems. While it’s true that the U.S. has historically contributed around 43% of global aid, other countries, particularly Germany, the UK, and the EU, have also been consistent contributors and are capable of stepping in to help fill some of the void. Yes, the U.S. cut was substantial, but it’s also worth considering that global institutions like the United Nations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and multilateral aid programs are not solely reliant on one donor. The U.S. cut may reduce the scope of some initiatives, but it does not necessarily lead to a “collapse” of global humanitarian systems. Germany and others have ramped up efforts to fill gaps, even if they don’t completely replace the U.S. contribution.
Additionally, while the U.S. cut has been steep, the context matters. Cuts were made under the Trump administration as part of a broader “America First” strategy, focusing on redirecting resources towards domestic priorities. The argument here is valid that these cuts could have detrimental effects, particularly in areas like health and emergency relief, where the U.S. was the largest donor. However, a significant portion of the U.S. foreign aid was also tied to military assistance, which serves not only humanitarian purposes but also strategic goals. These cuts, while harsh, must be viewed in light of the larger political context: Trump's foreign policy stance often favored reducing U.S. global involvement and shifting the burden to other nations, rather than promoting a unilateral reduction in aid for humanitarian reasons.
Moreover, while the U.S. reduction may have caused some immediate impact, it doesn’t necessarily follow that all the blame for the “unraveling” of humanitarian systems lies solely with Trump and the U.S. aid cuts. Many global crises require multilateral responses, and countries, particularly in the EU, have worked to scale up their efforts where possible. The failure to fully compensate for U.S. cuts doesn’t negate their contribution or responsibility in handling global crises. The claim that the cuts are “immediate and deadly” needs to be contextualized by looking at how other nations have stepped in, as well as how international organizations and NGOs have adapted.
Lastly, it's worth noting that the scale of cuts to U.S. foreign aid, while large, wasn’t permanent in nature. Foreign aid funding can be cyclical, and changes in leadership can often result in policy shifts. The Biden administration, for example, has signaled a return to multilateralism and a focus on re-engaging with international partners on issues such as climate change and global health.
In conclusion, while the Trump administration’s cuts to U.S. foreign aid were significant, the larger picture must account for the dynamic global landscape of aid. Other countries have responded to the crisis, albeit with varying levels of success. The argument that U.S. cuts have led to a disproportionate, deadly impact needs to be tempered with the recognition that international efforts are ongoing, even in the absence of full U.S. participation. The scale of these cuts is one factor, but the ability of the global system to adapt should not be underestimated.And in the meantime millions of people die.
You see, the thing that I look to is first and foremost, is it morally right (unquestionably) and second, does it help our nation security (absolutely)
You might be surprised to know that America is dead last of the top 9 contributors in terms of percent GDP. The UN Office of Development Assistance says that to really help those in the most need that each nation should devote a Whopping 0.7% (that is .007) of their GDP.
Only FOUR nations meet or exceed that goal and the US wasn't one of them. They were in order of giving is Luxemburg, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark with 1.05%, 1.02%,0.99% and 0.77%, respectively.
America comes nineth with a measly 0.22% and THAT was before Trump draconian cuts.
Frankly, I am embarrassed!
Wait. It is the responsibility of US citizens to support the world's poor? And it is OUR fault if we decline and they die?
Who made you God?Lol God would most certainly say it is our responsibility.
Which is why I asked. Eso says it is; is he now God?
But I rather doubt that even the Christian version of God would tell us that it is our responsibility to take from others whatever we wish in order to give it to someone else. My concept of God does not include instructions to steal, whether legally or not.
True. True.
And spoken like a true liberal that ignores the crux of the question because you don't like the answer.
Trump last year on Harris's anti-price gouging effort:
"She wants price controls. And if they worked, I'd go along with it, too. But they don't work. They actually have the exact opposite impact and effect."
Trump now: I am lowering prescription drug costs by executive order....
Just another effort at going around Congress and yet another effort that will be bottled up in courts and result in absolutely nothing useful for the American people... Biden already did the real work of empowering Medicare to negotiate prices through the Inflation Reduction Act.
When Biden tried to lower drug prices, he was a communist and Trump rolled back his efforts. When Trump does something similar he is a savior??
And this challenge from the Democrats is absolutely brilliant..
Anyone thinks that Mike Johnson will bring this bill to the floor?? LOLI suppose one would need to read the full bill before answering such a complicated question. Unfortunately, most bills are presented in a way that seems harmless at first, only to later reveal all the "add-ons" and hidden provisions. I'd like the chance to read the bill myself. Has one been written by Ro? And considering how this media blurb was framed, it might be political. He is up in 2026 for reelection. It could be pushing an agenda or influencing public opinion before people have all the facts, especially if the content is selectively highlighted.
That was not my question... My question was, is there a bill? I was serious, I would like to read it. If there is no actual bill, this, in my view, could look like politicking.
Do you feel that lower drug prices would not be a good thing? Thus far, I have not witnessed many reductions in Drug prices. It would seem Trump is going to once again try. And we both know we will see lawsuits by the dozens coming his way on this EO. I hope he wins... I love a fighter, one that goes in and blows it all up. That's why I voted for the guy.Well since Trump just unveiled pharma price control, I'll give Khana a few days to get it written but he claims it will mirror Trump's EO. A good way to see who is really politicking. Let's see if a republican co-sponsor steps up
I believe he and Bernie sponsored a bill on the issue a few years ago. I did not read the bill, it did not make it beyond the committee stage. I don't remember why. So, I guess Ro's blurb could have been referring to his work with Bernie and the bill they presented.
Lowering drug prices by price control of the pharmaceutical companies? How does that work? Can one explain how trump's executive order will actually LOWER the price of prescription drugs.?
Seems like socialist style price setting to me... Remember when everyone screamed over Harris's...
Trump last year on Harris's anti-price gouging effort:
"She wants price controls. And if they worked, I'd go along with it, too. But they don't work. They actually have the exact opposite impact and effect."
Trump now: I am lowering prescription drug costs by executive order....
He has really been a major flip flopper on just about everything
How does an executive order, with absolutely no weight of the law behind it, lower prescription prices?
Biden actually passed a law that actually forces Big Pharma to drop prices over time....
But really, I'm baffled. Do folks think that big pharma is just going to say okay, we're lowering prices now??This is all I've read on the subject: the EO that Trump signed today.
"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. The United States has less than five percent of the world’s population and yet funds around three quarters of global pharmaceutical profits. This egregious imbalance is orchestrated through a purposeful scheme in which drug manufacturers deeply discount their products to access foreign markets, and subsidize that decrease through enormously high prices in the United States.
The United States has for too long turned its back on Americans, who unwittingly sponsor both drug manufacturers and other countries. These entities today rely on price markups on American consumers, generous public subsidies for research and development primarily through the National Institutes of Health, and robust public financing of prescription drug consumption through Federal and State healthcare programs. Drug manufacturers, rather than seeking to equalize evident price discrimination, agree to other countries’ demands for low prices, and simultaneously fight against the ability for public and private payers in the United States to negotiate the best prices for patients. The inflated prices in the United States fuel global innovation while foreign health systems get a free ride.
This abuse of Americans’ generosity, who deserve low-cost pharmaceuticals on the same terms as other developed nations, must end. Americans will no longer be forced to pay almost three times more for the exact same medicines, often made in the exact same factories. As the largest purchaser of pharmaceuticals, Americans should get the best deal.
Sec. 2. Policy. Americans should not be forced to subsidize low-cost prescription drugs and biologics in other developed countries, and face overcharges for the same products in the United States. Americans must therefore have access to the most-favored-nation price for these products.
My Administration will take immediate steps to end global freeloading and, should drug manufacturers fail to offer American consumers the most-favored-nation lowest price, my Administration will take additional aggressive action.
Sec. 3. Addressing Foreign Nations Freeloading on American-Financed Innovation. The Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative shall take all necessary and appropriate action to ensure foreign countries are not engaged in any act, policy, or practice that may be unreasonable or discriminatory or that may impair United States national security and that has the effect of forcing American patients to pay for a disproportionate amount of global pharmaceutical research and development, including by suppressing the price of pharmaceutical products below fair market value in foreign countries.
Sec. 4. Enabling Direct-to-Consumer Sales to American Patients at the Most-Favored-Nation Price. To the extent consistent with law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) shall facilitate direct-to-consumer purchasing programs for pharmaceutical manufacturers that sell their products to American patients at the most-favored-nation price.
Sec. 5. Establishing Most-Favored-Nation Pricing. (a) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, the Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and other relevant executive department and agency (agency) officials, communicate most-favored-nation price targets to pharmaceutical manufacturers to bring prices for American patients in line with comparably developed nations.
(b) If, following the action described in subsection (a) of this section, significant progress towards most-favored-nation pricing for American patients is not delivered, to the extent consistent with law:
(i) the Secretary shall propose a rulemaking plan to impose most-favored-nation pricing;
(ii) the Secretary shall consider certification to the Congress that importation under section 804(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) will pose no additional risk to the public’s health and safety and result in a significant reduction in the cost of prescription drugs to the American consumer; and if the Secretary so certifies, then the Commissioner of Food and Drugs shall take action under section 804(j)(2)(B) of the FDCA to describe circumstances under which waivers will be consistently granted to import prescription drugs on a case-by-case basis from developed nations with low-cost prescription drugs;
(iii) following the report issued under section 13 of Executive Order 14273 of April 15, 2025 (Lowering Drug Prices by Once Again Putting Americans First), the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission shall, to the extent consistent with law, undertake enforcement action against any anti-competitive practices identified within such report, including through use of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as appropriate;
(iv) the Secretary of Commerce, and the heads of other relevant agencies as necessary, shall review and consider all necessary action regarding the export of pharmaceutical drugs or precursor material that may be fueling the global price discrimination;
(v) the Commissioner of Food and Drugs shall review and potentially modify or revoke approvals granted for drugs, for those drugs that maybe be unsafe, ineffective, or improperly marketed; and
(vi) the heads of agencies shall take all action available, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, to address global freeloading and price discrimination against American patients.
Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii.) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The Department of Health and Human Services shall provide funding for publication of this order in the Federal Register.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 12, 2025.
I did not take away from Biden’s work with the pharmaceutical companies, nor would I—we were not discussing Biden or Harris. I am fully aware of what Biden accomplished. A key provision regarding Big Pharma in the Inflation Reduction Act is that it empowers Medicare to negotiate prices for certain high-cost prescription drugs, which had been prohibited under previous legislation. The law also caps out-of-pocket costs for seniors on Medicare at $2,000 per year starting in 2025 and includes penalties for drug companies that raise prices faster than inflation for medications used by Medicare beneficiaries. His success in this area should not hamper Trump from making some further changes if elected; in fact, building on this progress should be encouraged. I never saw a true plan from Harris.
I am not sure who said what, but the outcome might be. I will wait and see what transpires.I do not understand this order whatsoever. If we’re serious about lowering drug prices, we need a full rollout of Medicare negotiations under the IRA...BUT just a month ago Trump signed a separate EO that actually delays Medicare negotiation for many pills (small-molecule drugs) from 9 to 13 years...a giveaway to pharma.
For me, this EO is big talk about slashing prices with absolutely no binding power.
I completely support lowering drug prices but we need policy with teeth to do it. At the end of the day, Executive Orders won't lower drug costs and the Republicans in Congress are not going to the enact the laws necessary to fight the pharmaceutical industry.This is so much BS, hyperbole, and lies, it hardly deserves comment other than this.
The reason the US does not get what he calls MFN prices is because America, unlike all other developed nations, has refused to allow the government, with one exception, to negotiate prices with drug manufacturers.
Biden broke the mold by doing it the right way, he got Congress to pass a law to allow Medicare to negotiate prices for a handful of drugs and then more later. They join the VA as the only gov't purchaser of drugs. (Thank you President Biden). Why doesn't Trump try that approach as opposed to coming off as the new age Ugly American? It worked for Biden.After taking the time to read the EO, I must disagree. I did a ton of research to decipher what I read. In my view, President Trump's Executive Order today is a significant and bold step toward ending the unfair pricing practices that have burdened American consumers for far too long. By demanding that drug manufacturers provide the U.S. with the most-favored-nation price, the lowest price offered in any developed nation, Trump is taking action to ensure that Americans no longer subsidize the costs of pharmaceuticals for the rest of the world. The order taps into the president’s legal authority to influence trade practices, pharmaceutical pricing, and federal health policy, focusing on pushing for fairer drug prices and ending the exploitation of American taxpayers. The order also calls for collaboration between agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Department of Commerce, who will work together to ensure that U.S. patients get the best prices for pharmaceuticals. Additionally, it empowers HHS to facilitate direct-to-consumer sales and works to eliminate anti-competitive practices in the pharmaceutical industry. While there may be legal challenges ahead, particularly in areas involving international trade agreements and antitrust concerns, Trump’s EO takes advantage of the powers the president holds under fair trade and national security laws. Although the path forward may be complex, this is a necessary move to tackle price discrimination and bring down the high costs that American consumers are forced to bear, ultimately making medications more affordable for those who need them. This is a powerful step that shows President Trump is focused on putting Americans first and addressing global pricing imbalances that have lasted too long.
Yes, President Trump has the authority to sign an Executive Order (EO) like this, but its effectiveness and implementation will depend on several factors, including legal challenges, cooperation from federal agencies, and negotiations with drug manufacturers and foreign governments. The president has broad authority to issue executive orders to manage the operations of the federal government, as long as these orders are consistent with existing laws and the Constitution. This EO primarily targets pricing practices and trade relations, areas where the president has significant influence through agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). The legality will hinge on the interpretation of existing laws that govern drug pricing, trade agreements, and international relations. The EO also taps into U.S. trade laws, under which the president has the power to impose tariffs, address trade imbalances, and take action against foreign nations that act in ways harmful to U.S. interests. The EO’s section on addressing "foreign nations freeloading on American-financed innovation" could be framed under these powers, allowing the president to push for changes in international drug pricing policies.
Thanks to provisions in Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, Medicare is now authorized to negotiate prices for a limited number of high-cost prescription drugs, a change from prior law. While this does create some precedent, broader or faster efforts to negotiate prices across a wider range of drugs or expand the scope beyond what the law currently allows could still face legal and political pushback. Trump’s EO builds on this evolving landscape and directs HHS to explore further ways to bring down drug prices, including benchmarking against international rates. Another critical component of the EO focuses on combating anti-competitive practices by drug companies, including price-fixing or other monopolistic behaviors. This could involve the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice, which have the authority to take legal action under antitrust laws like the Sherman Antitrust Act. However, enforcing such measures against pharmaceutical companies could also run into legal challenges.
The order mandates that several federal agencies, including the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the USTR, and the Department of Commerce, work together to implement the policies. They’ll need to issue regulations, communicate with pharmaceutical manufacturers, and develop enforcement mechanisms. This may involve negotiating with drug companies to adopt "most-favored-nation" pricing, and possibly certifying certain drugs for import from other nations to lower costs. HHS will be tasked with facilitating programs to allow consumers to buy drugs at the most favorable prices directly from manufacturers. This will likely require creating new frameworks for importing drugs safely and ensuring that public health standards are maintained. The EO calls for action to address global pricing discrimination, which could involve diplomatic efforts or trade sanctions. The U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of Commerce will likely work on negotiating with other countriesThen why doesn't he simply do what Biden did and get Congress (Republicans oppose this BTW) to allow ALL government agencies who need to buy drugs to negotiate pricing? Is he incapable of doing that?
Better yet, why doesn't he set up an office that negotiates prices for all of government?
All his EO does is reinforce what everybody knows to be true, the only way Trump can get things done is through BULLYING everybody - like is doing in the EOYes, pushing hard and getting things done is what he does—and many of us recognized early on that he’s a guy who breaks through barriers, shakes things up, and works relentlessly to deliver on his promises. He’s also sharp enough to see that Congress is broken. He wasn’t sent to Washington to play politics, he was sent there to fulfill the promises that got him elected. So, blame Trump if you want, but don’t forget: it was we the people who sent him back.
What is in the bill? Trump's EO would be the bill - exactly as written.
Reducing Drug Prices was just ONE of Biden's major achievements.
- For the first time ever, Medicare is allowed to negotiate drug prices for 10 of the most popular drugs. Unless Trump stops it, and he might since Biden did it, the negotiated price reductions will start in 2026
--- This will save Medicare more than $6 billion in the first year
--- It will save Medicare beneficiaries $1.5 billion and that is just with the 10 drugs being negotiated. There are 15 more drugs in the pipeline if Trump allows it.
- Medicare beneficiaries will see reduced coinsurance for 64 Part B drugs from January 1 to March 31, 2025.
- Savings for individuals vary, with some beneficiaries potentially saving between $1 and $10,818 per day, depending on the medication and treatment regimen.
- Starting in 2025, annual out-of-pocket expenses for Medicare Part D enrollees will be capped at $2,000. (unless Trump cancels it)
- The cost of insulin for Medicare beneficiaries has been capped at $35 per month. (unless the Trump cancels it)
That is why I voted for Biden - he got things done!I did address this a bit in a comment reply to Willow--- "I did not take away from Biden’s work with the pharmaceutical companies, nor would I—we were not discussing Biden or Harris. I am fully aware of what Biden accomplished. A key provision regarding Big Pharma in the Inflation Reduction Act is that it empowers Medicare to negotiate prices for certain high-cost prescription drugs, which had been prohibited under previous legislation. The law also caps out-of-pocket costs for seniors on Medicare at $2,000 per year starting in 2025 and includes penalties for drug companies that raise prices faster than inflation for medications used by Medicare beneficiaries. His success in this area should not hamper Trump from making some further changes if elected; in fact, building on this progress should be encouraged. I never saw a true plan from Harris." Shar
This was just one of Biden's accomplishments.What you said that prompted my rebuttal was Thus far, I have not witnessed many reductions in Drug prices. To me that implies previous administrations, including Trumps, has done next to nothing in addressing drug prices.
It makes sense, so Trump and the Republicans will reject it.
Donald Trump’s Impact in His Second Term: Strong Diplomatic Moves
In his second term, President Donald Trump continued to make strides in international diplomacy, particularly with India and Pakistan, as well as in mitigating threats from the Houthi rebels in the Middle East. One of his most significant achievements in the second term was his involvement in de-escalating tensions between India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed nations. Trump actively engaged both sides, offering to mediate peace talks, especially following the tensions that escalated in early 2025. Trump stated, "If they want my help, I will be there to help. We cannot afford to let two great countries, India and Pakistan, go to war." His willingness to act as a mediator helped create an environment for dialogue between the nations, reducing the risk of full-scale conflict.
In the Middle East, Trump's second term saw him effectively curbing Houthi attacks on international shipping lanes. The U.S. had been on high alert after the Houthis, backed by Iran, targeted commercial ships in the Red Sea. Trump quickly took action to protect shipping routes vital to global trade. In response to the attacks, Trump authorized increased military operations and sanctions on Houthi leaders. He emphasized, “We are committed to ensuring the free passage of ships, and we will act decisively to protect international commerce.” His decisive actions not only halted the direct threat posed by the Houthi rebels but also reinforced the U.S. stance on securing maritime safety in the region.
Through these efforts, Trump's second term demonstrated his continued focus on global security and diplomatic negotiations, positioning him as a leader who isn't afraid to engage in high-stakes international issues.
Now working on the Iran Nuclear deal--- Stay tuned.While both Pakistan and India agree that Trump had a role in facilitating communications between the two, it appears that it was Pakistan's initiative that got the ball rolling.
I was pleased to see the Trump administration quickly step in and demonstrate the fortitude to help de-escalate tensions between two nuclear-armed nations. Their willingness to intervene and facilitate communication played a key role in bringing both sides to the negotiating table, preventing what could have become a far more dangerous conflict. In my view, Trump is stepping up regarding foreign affairs and advocating peace over war, doing his best to bring negotiations over needless deaths. Throughout history, U.S. presidents have often been viewed as the de facto leaders of the free world, and this moment reaffirmed that role.
The administration is currently engaged in negotiations for a nuclear deal with Iran, and we can only hope for a successful outcome.
Just think, America once had a nuclear deal with Iran [u]that worked[/b] until Trump, the destroyer, destroyed it. That "brilliant" diplomatic move allowed Iran to be on the verge of being a nuclear power.
And like the fireman starting the fire, Trump wants credit for putting out the fire his previous dumb actions caused.The administration is currently engaged in negotiations for a nuclear deal with Iran, and we can only hope for a successful outcome.
In my view, Biden had the option to reintroduce Obama's deal with Iran, but instead, he lifted Trump’s sanctions, effectively enriching Iran. This decision likely contributed to instability in the Middle East, as well as providing Iran with the resources to expand its nuclear program. Biden's approach has been a failure, and it will take years to address the damage caused by these actions. The country is left in a challenging position, and recovery will be difficult. I don’t defend this view in any respect, as I feel it would be unintelligent to discuss it further at this point.Killing the Iran nuclear deal was one of Trump's biggest failures...
Here is another outcome from Trump's so-called "Bold Agenda" - less oil production.
"Hurt by weakening demand and depressed prices, US oil output is now expected to shrink in 2026, S&P Global Commodity Insights projected on Monday. S&P estimates that US oil production will dip to 13.3 million barrels per day in 2026, a 130,000-barrel decline from its 2025 forecast."There are conflicting accounts of how the ceasefire between India and Pakistan was negotiated. While Islamabad praised US involvement, New Delhi downplayed it... "keen to portray the ceasefire as a victory and saying that the neighbors had worked together “directly” on the truce."
Question... Would anyone like to go on record as far as supporting Trump's potential acceptance of a luxury aircraft from Qatar?
As best as I can tell, it will be a continuation of his violations of the emoluments clause - it is transferred to his non-existent library has he claims it will be.
If DoD is allowed to repurpose it, then Thank You.
Also, not understanding how trump's EO will actually lower drug prices? These are price controls.
I thought price controls were marxist, socialist, leftist policies that MUST be avoided?Before the media and social outlets twist Trump's executive orders out of context, I want to clarify a few points. Trump's executive orders aimed at lowering drug prices were not about implementing traditional price controls, as some critics claim. Price controls involve government-imposed caps on the cost of goods and services, which can distort market dynamics and often align with socialist or Marxist economic policies.
However, Trump's EO focused on increasing transparency and fostering competition within the pharmaceutical industry. For instance, it encouraged importing cheaper drugs from other countries, required drug companies to disclose prices in TV ads, and aimed to lower drug costs for people with Medicare. These measures were designed to increase market competition, not set fixed prices.
This approach, rooted in free-market principles, sought to create an environment where prices would decrease naturally through competition, rather than government-imposed price limits. While it’s true that some forms of market intervention may sound similar to price controls, Trump's strategy was more about stimulating competition, which aligns with capitalist principles rather than socialist ones.
In short, Trump’s EO was not about setting price limits but about encouraging competition and transparency to drive down costs without resorting to the price controls often associated with socialist or Marxist systems.
Hopefully, some will read the EO. Facts matter. I think facts on the EO will aid in a good conversation.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential … hatgpt.comHe attempted something very similar in his first Administration and it was completely obliterated in the courts. Why would it be any different this time? None of this is new.
So a plane load of South Africans have landed and been given refugee status.... Welcomed with open arms.
Granted P1 Visas as 'refugees' gives them a pathway to citizenship and makes them eligible for government benefits...
Meanwhile...Trump and Noem are getting ready to send back refugees from Afghanistan who risked their lives for American soldiers.
Make it make sense.President Trump is delivering results in his second term, and the numbers speak for themselves. In April 2025, the U.S. economy added 177,000 jobs, surpassing expectations and keeping the unemployment rate steady at 4.2%, a level it has maintained since May 2024. This reflects a resilient labor market, even amid global uncertainties. The economy continues to show strength, with key sectors like healthcare and transportation seeing significant growth. Trump’s leadership in strengthening the job market has been a critical element of his administration’s success.
Beyond domestic achievements, President Trump has been actively working on securing peace and stability on the global stage. He’s already brought 47 Americans home from being held hostage or imprisoned abroad, showing his unwavering commitment to protecting American citizens. Additionally, his creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has streamlined federal processes, cutting through red tape to ensure the government works better for the people.
Trump’s international diplomacy continues to shine. Currently, he’s in the Middle East on a tour aimed at securing even more foreign investment to strengthen American industries. His diplomatic efforts between President Zelensky and Putin are a perfect example of his hands-on approach to solving global conflicts. Today, he mentioned that if his schedule permits, he’d be willing to jet in personally to help mediate negotiations between the two leaders.
On the domestic front, Trump is focused on key issues like border security and fair trade. Under his leadership, the U.S. saw the lowest number of illegal border crossings in history. He’s working hard to deport migrant criminals quickly, though his efforts are hindered by ongoing court challenges. Still, he remains steadfast in his commitment to keeping America safe and securing the border.
Today, he also signed an Executive Order aimed at lowering drug costs, a move that will help make healthcare more affordable for families across the nation.
President Trump has initiated renewed nuclear talks with Iran. The negotiations are being led by U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, with Oman mediating the discussions. The talks have progressed through multiple rounds, focusing on issues such as uranium enrichment levels and sanctions relief. While challenges remain, both sides have expressed a willingness to continue dialogue.
From securing American hostages to promoting foreign investment, tackling border security, lowering drug prices, and renewing international agreements, President Trump continues to prove that he’s the leader America needs. His second term is off to a fantastic start, and the best is yet to come.
When it comes to President Trump, his deeds speak volumes. While words can often be debated, his actions over the past few years are undeniable. From securing historic peace agreements like the Abraham Accords to his tireless efforts in bringing home American hostages, Trump’s accomplishments are rooted in real outcomes. His focus on economic growth, job creation, and reducing drug costs has had a lasting impact on everyday Americans. Whether it's tackling border security, working on fair trade agreements, or promoting foreign investment, his deeds showcase a relentless drive to strengthen the nation. Trump’s actions, more than his words, are what truly define his legacy.Everything old is new again?
With the help of Elon Musk's Grok...
"In 2020, then-President Donald Trump posted several times on Twitter (now X) about executive orders aimed at lowering prescription drug prices, particularly focusing on a "Most Favored Nation" policy to align U.S. drug prices with those of other countries."
Trump did the exact same executive order on dropping pharmaceutical drugs in 2020 and even tweeted about it. I think he knows the courts won’t allow it....again.Don't you agree, this is exactly how an anti-business dictator would act?
"The White House took aggressive aim at Amazon last month after the company considered displaying the added cost of tariffs on some items, with Trump putting in an angry call to Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. Trump also threatened Mattel last week after the toymaker said it planned to raise prices because of tariffs."
Now Trump, the mob boss, has a host of other businesses to dictate to: Black and Decker, Home Depot, Avocado Green Mattresses', UPPAbaby (strollers), to name a few Some items are not seeing prices go up, they are simply not being sold anymore.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/13/business … ower-toolsIn my view, Trump was genuinely angry and chose to push back openly—and I actually see that kind of transparency as a valuable quality. I can’t read Trump’s mind, of course, but it’s reasonable to assume he saw Bezos as not fully supporting the push for fair trade and decided to call him out directly.
The May inflation report is out (for April) and shows a small decline, it came in under expert expectations. Initial analysis thinks that is plausible.
One must keep checking whether the report is realistic given that Trump is prone to control the numbers.A lot of Trump supporters (just so they don't forget, let me point out he is a convicted felon and sexual predator) are crowing about his amazing "win" in negotiations with China.
Is it though? Let's take a real world analogy - putting out fires Would you "crow" about Joe putting out a big fire if you knew he created it just so he could get the accolades? I hope not.
Well, that is what happened here. Trump, and only Trump, is responsible for this tariff mess, including the one with China. Just like the firefighter in my analogy, Trump caused it in order to get credit for solving it. And it is all because of his 1) dangerous narcissism and 2) his ignorance of Econ 101 on how tariffs work and what they are good for.
And worse, is "fix" just turned the roaring fire of 145% into a large fire of 30%. The thing is, it is still a fire.
Trump's biggest "win" here isn't with tariffs, it is with his distortion of reality.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/13/business … e-nightcap"Is it though? Let's take a real world analogy - putting out fires Would you "crow" about Joe putting out a big fire if you knew he created it just so he could get the accolades? I hope not." ECO
Your comment relies on a level of conjecture that doesn’t hold up under closer scrutiny and frankly makes little common sense. Suggesting that Trump intentionally created the "fire" of trade tensions just to take credit for putting it out ignores decades of bipartisan acknowledgment that our trade deals, especially with China, have long disadvantaged American workers and industries. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have promised to renegotiate these deals for years, yet few have ever taken meaningful action. Trump, unlike his predecessors, actually followed through.
To assume he created the problem solely for self-praise overlooks the reality that the trade imbalance, intellectual property theft, and manufacturing losses to foreign markets were already festering issues, not something Trump conjured out of thin air. It would seem from your analogy that you believe there was no need to renegotiate for fairer trade terms, a position that runs counter to a broad economic consensus, including many economists and union leaders who have long called for reform.
In the real world, putting out a fire is commendable, especially when that fire has been burning quietly and destructively for years while others looked away. Trump may have used bold, even disruptive methods, but dismissing them as self-serving theatrics misses the broader point: he tackled a problem that had been ignored for far too long."A lot of Trump supporters (just so they don't forget, let me point out he is a convicted felon and sexual predator) are crowing about his amazing "win" in negotiations with China."ECO
You keep repeating those labels like a chant, but that doesn’t change the core fact: Trump did what politicians across both parties promised for decades but never delivered, he stood up to China on trade. Whether you like him or not, the results are there. Manufacturing showed signs of recovery, China’s unfair trade practices were finally challenged, and they were brought to the negotiating table. You can criticize his character all day, but dismissing his policy wins just makes the argument sound partisan and shallow.
And let’s be honest, he won the election. With the nonstop media coverage of every case you’re referencing, it’s safe to say voters were well aware of the legal headlines. The majority still made their choice. As for the legal points you mentioned, the felony conviction is under appeal, and the E. Jean Carroll case was civil, not criminal. The jury did not find Trump liable for rape under New York law but did find him liable for sexual abuse and defamation, awarding Carroll $5 million. In a separate civil defamation case tied to Trump's 2019 comments, she was awarded an additional $83.3 million, also under appeal. That context matters, unless, of course, the goal isn’t fairness but simply smearing someone you already oppose.
It comes across as though you’re more focused on bitterness than outcomes, almost as if you’d rather see Trump fail, even if it means the country suffers. Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to hope he succeeds in some areas, especially when the stakes affect all of us?Stood up to china? Trump didn't make a great deal with China. He backed off. On May 11, Trump blinked in his game of economic chicken with China, cutting for 90 days reciprocal tariffs of 125% that he had placed on products from that country while keeping in place tariffs of 30%. Asked at the White House if those tariffs could shoot back up in 90 days, Trump seemed open to that idea..because he has no real plan.
Charles Gasparino, of Fox Business, summed this up nice and neat in a social media post that went viral before Trump spoke at the White House: "Trump raised tariffs on the world, the markets, particularly the bond market – which we need to finance our debt – rebelled. Trump then was forced to back off. End of story."
He calls all of this nonsense a "win" though and many in his base believe it. Why? He, or actually those around him, seize control of the narrative and the idea that you always write yourself in as the big winner. Don't worry about people who know the truth about who you really are. Focus on the followers who want to believe the fabrication, the lack of fact or substance... His so-called drug deal is another prime example.
Certainly Trump remembers his first term as president? Because he tried something similar, though on a smaller scale, with drug pricing then. And a legal case brought that to a swift halt. He and his crew hope that others forgot..
But ultimately, you know what? The terrible betrayal here is that Americans really do pay more for drugs than people in other countries. A responsible president would work with Congress to fix that problem.I don't think the context of my comment indicates a deal was completed. Not sure why anyone in the media or touts would be assuming a deal has been agreed on. I have seen nothing of the sort.
As of now, the U.S.-China tariff dispute hasn't been fully settled. The two countries recently agreed to a 90-day pause on escalating tariffs in order to continue negotiations. This temporary truce was announced on May 12, 2025, and includes significant tariff reductions on both sides— the U.S. cut tariffs on Chinese imports from 145% to 30%, and China lowered its tariffs on U.S. goods from 125% to 10%. While the agreement has been met with optimism in financial markets and is seen as a step toward easing tensions, it's important to note that this is not a final deal. There’s still considerable uncertainty surrounding the long-term trade relationship, and both sides will need to make further compromises if a permanent resolution is to be reached. So for now, the issue remains unresolved, but talks are ongoing.I will spare a thought for the small business owners who had to beg and borrow to pay a $145,000 tax on that $100K shipment of product that happened to arrive while the most extreme China tariff was in place, only to see their president back down with zero Chinese concessions.
It could have been worse, so it's good Trump is caving again. But what now? Aggregate tariffs on China stay around 55%. China could repackage some promises on fentanyl to get that down a bit more but not by much. And we seem stuck with a 10% tariff/tax on all foreign imports.
That's a permanent inflationary tax on us all... including on stuff like bananas and rubber for tires that can't be made in the US. It's a double tax on companies that manufacture in the US...increasing the cost of parts & materials they import and tariffs on what they export.
Add to that the even higher tariff taxes on aluminum and steel, which will hit particular industries like our auto manufacturers hard, and the uncertainty & hesitation anyone investing in America will feel about what crazy thing the administration might do next.
Meanwhile, the global trading system is not reset in our favor as Trump promised, because instead of building a coalition against bad actors like China, he attacked our allies at the same time and then inevitably, had to retreat. Catastrophe averted, but huge harm done.From what I understand, no formal agreement has been reached yet, which is why a 90-day negotiation window was established. I remain hopeful that Trump will secure a fair deal—one that strengthens U.S. exports to China. Ultimately, that’s what matters most: ensuring our businesses have a level playing field when it comes to exporting their products. Trump is clearly focused on addressing the trade imbalance with China, and I believe he's committed to making real progress.
I believe that, in the end, this will turn out to be a major win for Trump. Honestly, I’m not quite sure how to respond to your thoughts; they’re very different from what I’ve observed and what I feel is happening during Trump’s first few months back in office. I’ve been genuinely pleased with what he’s accomplished so far. The first trade deal with the UK is a strong start, and I remain hopeful that the deal with China will be just as successful. I would think he’ll get what he’s aiming for: increased U.S. exports, while also adjusting tariffs in a way that keeps Chinese goods affordable for American consumers. That would be the optimal outcome.
I don’t see Trump’s current move as a cave-in; I see it as an olive branch, a gesture of good faith to keep negotiations moving. He’s made it clear that after the 90 days, he’ll reassess and won’t hesitate to reinstate higher tariffs if necessary. I think we have a bit of a wait to see if this deal even comes to fruition.The "trade deal" with the UK amounts to rich folks being able to purchase luxury British cars at a lower tariff and consumers here in America paying more for British goods they consume.. I don't really think it's the big success he is playing it up to be.
Tell me—strictly in terms of the goods we import from China and what they import from us—what exactly was unfair?
I’m not talking about China’s non-tariff barriers, or their theft of U.S. intellectual property, or their espionage against American industry. Why not? Because those weren’t part of the deal. They weren’t on the table. They weren’t what Trump focused on in his latest actions.
You say Trump didn’t cave. But did you not believe him when he said the following?
MARCH 2025 – In response to ongoing trade imbalances, Trump raised tariffs to 20%, stating unequivocally that “the U.S. would not back down” until China addressed the concerns raised by his administration.
APRIL 2025 – During a press briefing, Trump declared: “We’re not going to reduce tariffs just to get them [China] to the table. They need to come with serious proposals first.” That made clear tariff reductions were off the table without meaningful concessions.
MAY 2025 – “I’m unwilling to preemptively lower tariffs on China to unlock more negotiations.”
And yet—on May 9, he preemptively agreed to lower tariffs to 80%—before China gave up a single thing.
That’s not strategy. That’s not strength. That’s caving. You can call it an olive branch if you want, but it completely contradicts the tough-guy, “never back down” image Trump built his trade policy on. Either his words meant something—or they didn’t.I'm not sure how China ever becomes more open to American goods unless these non-tariff barriers are eased. Am I wrong?
But also something that is rarely discussed? The Chinese have a stronger preference for non-American foreign goods. Can we persuade them to want or like our goods more?In my research, China doesn't "need" anything more from us beyond things we have banned for national security reasons. That isn't to say they don't "want" more of certain things, like soybeans, but Trump's previous tariff incentivized them find other sources.
As a result of Trump, our soybean farmers lost significant market share for their product (yet they voted for him anyway, that is how strong the cult is on them.)
May 13, US Inflation Rate is at 2.31%, compared to 2.39% last month and 3.36% last year. This is lower than the long-term average of 3.28%.
Headed in the right direction. Now this is something we can all be happy about.Mild April Inflation Captures Early Stages of Tariff Effects
Inflation was relatively mild in April, but economists said tariffs will end a recent lull and push up more prices in the coming months.
The consumer-price index rose a seasonally adjusted 0.2% in April, the Labor Department said Tuesday. Analysts interpreted the report as good news primarily because it didn’t reveal bad news, including meaningful effects of higher tariffs that could show up later this summer. That month-over-month reading matched the forecasts of economists polled by The Wall Street Journal.
You can’t take a lot of comfort in this report,” said Andy Schneider, U.S. economist at BNP Paribas.
Year-over-year inflation cooled to a 2.3% increase in April, a four-year low. That was below the 2.4% that economists had expected and below March’s annual rate.
"It’s not completely irrelevant but there’s this big shock looming that hasn’t had time to be felt yet,” he said.
Markets were muted, a sign that investors think it is too early to gauge the full impacts of Trump’s tariff policies.
The April inflation reading gives Federal Reserve officials little reason to change their wait-and-see stance, because officials are bracing for cost increases or distortions as tariffs take their full effect.
Still, for the Fed, the April inflation numbers will be treated like observing sunny weather ahead of a widely anticipated storm where the rainfall remains highly uncertain.
Prices were up over the month for a few categories exposed to tariffs, including furniture, car parts and audio equipment.
Prices fell for airline fares, which could be a sign that people are holding off on vacations. Prices were also down for used cars and trucks, despite a rush of people buying vehicles to try to get ahead of inflation.
Many businesses have tried to hold off so far on passing tariff costs along to customers, in part because they are unsure of the level of tariffs that Trump will ultimately impose. The peak of tariff pass-throughs might not arrive until the summer, economists said.
I haven't seen a statement though, did Trump claim his administration has credit for these numbers or is this still under Biden??
https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/cpi-i … d2?mod=mhpTrump announced he is lifting sanctions on Syria, and remarks that he's doing it as a favor to MBS.
"Oh, the things I do for the Crown Prince."
But also...sanctions lifted just after its new leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, a former al-Qaeda fighter linked to the deaths and injuries of dozens of American troops, proposed building a Trump Tower in the country....
Lol diplomacy or corruption in plain sight??Oh! I missed the fact that he apparently wants to bribe Trump. I thought Trump had had a moment of clarity.
Trump in 2017 calling Qatar "funders of terrorism". They are though, aren't they?
Qataris allow Hamas leadership to reside in their country and enjoy their stolen billions.... Really? We support Hamas now?
Maybe instead of a plane, trump could have Qatar donate dolls and pencils to our nation's children LOL
https://x.com/CalltoActivism/status/1922063401041203303Last month, the Trump Organization, run by Trump’s sons Eric and Donald Jr, announced a deal with developers Dar Global and Qatari Diar to build a Trump International Golf Club featuring 18 holes and a series of Trump-branded luxury villas within a larger government development.
Elsewhere, state-backed funds from Qatar were part of a $6 billion funding round for Trump adviser Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI, and a fund from Qatar is also invested in the private equity firm of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.Before Trump began his visit to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, his sons Eric and Donald Jr. had already traveled the Middle East extensively in recent weeks. They were drumming up business for The Trump Organization, which they are running in their father’s stead while he’s in the White House.
The Trump family’s business interests in the region include a new deal to build a luxury golf resort in Qatar, partnering with Qatari Diar, a real estate company backed by that country’s sovereign wealth fund. The family is also leasing its brand to two new real estate projects in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia’s capital, in partnership with Dar Global, a London-based luxury real estate developer and subsidiary of private Saudi real estate firm Al Arkan.
The Trump Organization has similarly partnered with Dar Global on a Trump Tower set to be built in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and an upcoming Trump International Hotel and luxury golf development in neighboring Oman.
During the crypto conference, a state-backed investment company in Abu Dhabi announced it had chosen USD, World Liberty Financial’s stablecoin, to back a $2 billion investment in Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange. Critics say that allows Trump family-aligned interests to essentially take a cut of each dollar invested. Then there’s the Saudi government-backed LIV Golf, which has forged close business relationships with the president and hosted tournaments at Trump’s Doral resort in South Florida.
The president announced in January a $20 billion investment for U.S. data centers promised by DAMAC Properties, an Emirati company led by billionaire Dubai developer Hussain Sajwani. Trump bills that as benefiting the country’s technological and economic standing rather than his family business. But Sajwani was a close business partner of Trump and his family since long before the 2016 election.Grifters gonna grift. They aren't even trying to hide it this time around. I never want to hear about Hunter again...
That and the crypto currency deals is proving this will be the most corrupt administration in American history.
Just continues to prove you can NEVER trust a word Trump says.
Oh my, another one that didn't age well ... Trump lecturing Hillary Clinton during a debate on the evils of money from Saudi Arabia and Qatar...
https://x.com/MrJohnson860/status/1921894341296951559Wondering...
Why couldn't Noem answer a simple question about a photo in front of her...
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1922670321812783610
Also .. why was RFK JR swimming in sewage?? This is incredibly grotesque. He is currently being questioned before the Senate health committee and sounding like a complete nut job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQTOJBgD6UY
These people are just embarrassing...Well let's not forget about Tulsi..
Apparently telling the truth is a fireable offense in this administration. Contradict Trump’s narrative, and you’re out—even if it’s backed by intelligence.
Tulsi Gabbard fired the top two officials at the National Intelligence Council after the council authored an assessment that contradicted Trump’s rationale for invoking the Alien Enemies Act and deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members without due process...
Anyone else feel that our nation is not very secure or safe with someone like Tulsi having such power?The president is due respect from all who work in his administration regarding his agenda, and an attitude that is helpful. It appears these two have ideas of their own and do not fit under this administration. Trump is within the law to use the AEA with restrictions handed down via the courts, including the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) in deportation cases, particularly concerning Venezuelan nationals accused of gang affiliations. In the case Trump v. J.G.G., decided on April 7, 2025, the Court ruled that individuals subject to deportation under the AEA are entitled to reasonable notice and an opportunity to contest their removal in court, as mandated by the Fifth Amendment's due process protections.
Yes, former President Donald Trump has been authorized by a federal judge to use the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798 to deport certain undocumented Venezuelan nationals affiliated with the Tren de Aragua gang, provided they are given adequate notice and an opportunity to contest their deportation.
On May 13, 2025, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines ruled that the Trump administration could invoke the AEA to deport individuals aged 14 and older who are not naturalized citizens or permanent residents and are identified as members of the Tren de Aragua gang, which the administration has classified as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. However, Judge Haines mandated that these individuals must receive at least 21 days' notice before deportation to ensure they have a fair opportunity to challenge the removal in court.She fired them for their rationale, which was based upon intelligence. When seasoned intelligence officers report that TDA has no link to the Venezuelan government, I think that should be given weight but no, these people were fired for not adhering to the narrative.
"Also Tuesday, another federal judge in the western district of Texas temporarily barred the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport people in that region. At least three other federal judges have said Trump was improperly using the AEA to speed deportations of people the administration says are Venezuelan gang members...."
This issue continues to make its way to SCOTUS. I believe they will make the final ruling in terms of the rationale and conditions to be met in order to invoke this act.
https://www.npr.org/2025/05/14/nx-s1-53 … nnsylvania
Let me ask you point blank though since I think you normally don't shy away from taking an issue head on...
In terms of immigration, are you in favor of trump granting refugee status of the group of South Africans while status has been ended for Afghans?Is it any surprise that he carves out an exception for White people?
Before I forget, I need to give Trump just credit for his second and third really significant positive actions (they don't off-set the many horrible things he is responsible for, but they are on the proper side of the ledger. Those would be:
1. Operation Warp Speed in his first term
2. Getting the last Israeli-American hostage out of Gaza
3. Starting a reproachment with the new leaders in Syria.
I am sure conservatives are bashing Trump in their silos for first, dealing directly with Hamas, where they roundly criticized Democrats for saving Americans the exact same way and second for making friends with a known terrorist who used to kill Americans when he got a chance.
In the both instances, conservatives have proven to have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to American officials working with anybody who was once labeled a terrorist. Obviously, in the case of Hamas, they haven't changed their stripes and are as bad as they come.
In Syria's case, that may not be true. Interim Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, once known by his militant nom de guerre Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, met Trump in Riyadh six months after leading a swift campaign that toppled the half-a-century-old Assad regime, ejecting Iran-backed armed groups and declaring himself leader of the country.
Al Sharaa was placed on the US Specially Designated Global Terrorist list in 2013 for heading al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, known as Al Nusra Front, and allegedly orchestrating suicide bombings across Syria.
Al-Sharaa has said he has rethought his position over the last 10 or 20 years and concluded he had taken the wrong path. In my view, Trump did the right thing in seeing if he could mend relations with Syria.So what next? And do Americans, believe, Syria has now copy western ideologies?
NOW you will personally start feeling the impact of Trumpflation. Walmart is raising prices due to tariffs. All the result of the so-called Big Bold Agenda (to bring America down).
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/15/business … es-tariffsI daresay it won't be nearly as much as Bidenflation was (and which we are still paying for).
I don't know about you, but between energy, food and housing home grown costs are close to 90% of my budget. A few drugs, a few specialty food items (or out of season), a handful of clothes and the budget is shot.I think it’s safe to say that rising prices are a likely consequence of any trade war. Still, I remain hopeful that the negotiations will be strategic, with tariffs adjusted throughout the process to help ease the impact. Watching Trump raise and lower tariffs as talks progress gives me some confidence that his negotiators are managing things effectively. That said, I do expect we’ll see price increases on certain goods, while others may remain unaffected.
In the end, I believe we’ll see some positive results. Will they be spectacular? In my view, no. But will there be improvement? I think yes. I expect we’ll see an increase in exports overall, and even some new goods entering foreign markets as a result of agreements reached through these negotiations.
Higher tariffs lead to higher cost. Higher cost leads to lower demand. Lower demand leads to lower production...means job loss...
You're right! It means job loss...in China.
And it means job creation in the US. Sounds like a positive to me.I have been reading a lot about the problems China has been having.
Yes, recent reports indicate that China is experiencing job losses due to both a slowing economy and the ongoing tariff war with the United States.
According to Reuters, internal concerns among Chinese officials have grown over the economic fallout from steep U.S. tariffs, including struggling companies, job losses, and deteriorating growth forecasts. The Financial Times also reports that both the U.S. and China agreed to a 90-day ceasefire in their trade war, suggesting that both economies were suffering considerably from the ongoing tariff conflict.
Reuters
Financial Times
The Times
Additionally, Barron's notes that despite a recent 90-day truce reducing tariffs, China's economy continues to suffer from a prolonged property market slump, waning consumer and business confidence, and high debt levels. These issues have led to wage cuts and underemployment, particularly among new graduates.
Barron's
We are thus far holding our own --- As of April 2025, the U.S. labor market demonstrated resilience despite economic uncertainties. The economy added 177,000 nonfarm payroll jobs, surpassing expectations of 138,000. The unemployment rate remained steady at 4.2%, with 7.2 million people unemployed.
JPMorgan ChaseWell we are certainly still on Biden's economy because the full impact of Trump's tariff tax have not come into effect. The interesting thing with China though, even if they are feeling economic pain, they sure aren't showing any urgency to negotiate anything. No one in China has to worry about re-election.
This is all I could find on the China-US trade negotiations.
"As of now, the United States and China have not publicly announced the date of their next trade negotiation meeting following the initial discussions in Geneva on May 11–12, 2025. However, both nations have agreed to continue negotiations during the 90-day tariff truce period, which began on May 12, 2025. The joint statement issued after the Geneva talks indicates that future discussions may be held alternately in China, the United States, or a third country, as mutually agreed upon. Additionally, working-level consultations on relevant economic and trade issues may be conducted as required. "
The White House
While specific dates for upcoming meetings have not been disclosed, the commitment to ongoing dialogue suggests that both parties are actively working toward scheduling future negotiations within the 90-day period, set to conclude in mid-August 2025. It would be hard to predict when or where the next meeting will be. Hopefully, they take Trump's lowering tariffs as a good-faith action, and he will not need to reinstate the higher tariffs. I very much agree that if this happens, we will see prices rise. In my view, as of yet, I have not witnessed fallout. But I think we will see some prices go up in the coming months, if businesses feel those tariffs will be reinstated.
"I think it’s partially true that we’re still feeling the effects of Biden’s economy, especially when it comes to prices. Inflation hasn’t reversed sharply, and many of the high costs we saw during Biden’s last year in office are still present. That said, we’re now starting to see clear signs of improvement under Trump’s policies, particularly in job growth and lower unemployment. I believe that’s largely due to his aggressive deregulatory actions, which are giving businesses more freedom to hire and expand. On top of that, we’re seeing a surge in domestic investment, with major companies bringing production back to the U.S. or expanding here instead of abroad. Those shifts don’t just happen overnight, they’re usually the result of a business-friendly environment and confidence in leadership. So while we haven’t yet fully shaken off the inflationary effects of the past, the groundwork Trump is laying appears to be helping to restore momentum in the job market and drive real economic activity.
Well if prices at Walmart continue to go up due to Trump's tariffs, that means less of us are shopping there and Walmart doesn't need as many employees do they? And if I'm spending more for absolutely everything that I need, I probably don't have the money to frequent the restaurants I usually do or the other small businesses... They would obviously suffer also.
No, they will need more employees to explain to all the idiots demanding products when they are not available that they are not available.
You're really grasping here.Oh yeah such a stretch... It's common sense.
LOL Your idea of "common sense" and mine don't match up very well.
But it's a good retort when one knows they're wrong -
"But it's just common sense!".I don't think I'm wrong at all.... Maybe make a better argument of exactly why my post doesn't align with economic principle... When I employ 10 people but my store traffic dramatically decreases, I don't need 10 employees anymore... Yeah, common sense.
Who is grasping? It doesn't look like Willow is; she is just drawing logical conclusions.
The first trade deal --- The UK-US trade agreement signed last week did not result in higher tariffs for either country; instead, it led to selective tariff reductions and introduced new regulatory conditions, particularly affecting UK exports to the US. It also permitted the US to export more to UK.
Trump has repeatedly stated that tariffs are being used as a tool to bring about fair trade, not just to punish other nations, but to level the playing field. I think some people may not fully understand that fair trade isn’t just about tariffs—it involves many variables. These include things like currency manipulation, labor standards, environmental regulations, intellectual property protections, market access, subsidies to domestic industries, and the balance of imports and exports.
Tariffs are just one piece of the puzzle, a pressure tactic meant to push other countries to negotiate better terms. For example, a country might heavily subsidize its industries or block U.S. companies from selling in its market while enjoying open access to ours. That’s not fair trade, and tariffs can help correct those imbalances. Trump’s approach may seem aggressive, but it’s strategic. It’s meant to force negotiations that address all these variables, not just import taxes, but the full structure of how trade is conducted.
Let's consider the first trade deal,
The U.S.-UK trade deal represented a meaningful advancement in economic cooperation between the two nations. Although not a full free trade agreement, the deal introduced targeted measures that boosted key industries on both sides of the Atlantic. One of the most significant components was the reduction of U.S. tariffs on UK car exports, from 27.5% to 10% on up to 100,000 vehicles annually. This gave a major lift to the UK automotive industry, with manufacturers like Jaguar Land Rover set to benefit. The U.S. also removed tariffs on UK steel and aluminum exports, which helped protect thousands of British industrial jobs.
In return, the UK agreed to lower tariffs on important U.S. agricultural goods, including 13,000 tonnes of beef and 1.4 billion liters of ethanol each year, opening major new opportunities for American farmers. The deal also emphasized advanced technology cooperation, particularly in digital trade and artificial intelligence. Both governments committed to fostering innovation and reducing regulatory barriers to help their industries compete globally. Another key provision allowed the UK pharmaceutical sector to avoid new tariffs while delaying contentious talks over NHS drug pricing.
The agreement also included a strategic component: the UK committed to removing Chinese-made INGREDIENTS from medicines exported to the U.S., aligning with efforts on both sides to reduce dependency on China and strengthen supply chain security. (This is so positive.)
Overall, the deal was praised for its practical benefits, targeted approach, and forward-looking stance on emerging sectors. It didn’t attempt to solve everything at once, but it laid solid groundwork for deeper economic integration and future trade negotiations. This is a fair deal that both sides. This is the kind of deal Trump talked about --- fair for both nations. I assume all his deals will be similar."The UK-US trade agreement signed last week did not result in higher tariffs for either country;
the continuation of the 10% baseline tariff on most UK goods means that the overall cost of many UK products in the US will be higher for some items and about the same for others under the new trade arrangement. Correct?
Looks like the only winners in this one are the folks looking to buy luxury British cars.Here is the deal --- under the new U.S.-U.K. trade agreement announced in May 2025, the United Kingdom's tariffs on U.S. goods have either remained the same or decreased.
Under the recent U.S.-U.K. trade agreement announced in May 2025, the United States did not raise tariffs on U.K. goods. Instead, the deal primarily reduced or eliminated certain tariffs that had been imposed during President Trump's second term.
"Key Changes in U.S. Tariffs on U.K. Goods:
Automobiles: The U.S. reduced its tariff on British car imports from 27.5% to 10% for the first 100,000 vehicles annually. Imports beyond this quota remain subject to the higher 27.5% tariff.
BBC
Steel and Aluminum: The U.S. eliminated the 25% tariffs on U.K. steel and aluminum imports, replacing them with a quota system.
Fastmarkets
Ethanol: The U.K. eliminated its 19% tariff on U.S. ethanol imports, allowing up to 1.4 billion liters annually to enter tariff-free.
While these changes represent a reduction in certain tariffs, it's important to note that some tariffs remain in place, and the agreement does not constitute a comprehensive free trade deal. For instance, the U.S. maintains a 10% tariff on U.K. car imports beyond the specified quota, and discussions are ongoing regarding other sectors such as pharmaceuticals and digital services."
BBC
Factually the U.S. did not raise tariffs on U.K. goods in this agreement; rather, it reduced or eliminated specific tariffs that had been previously imposed, aiming to facilitate trade between the two nations.
U.K. Tariffs on U.S. Goods
Ethanol: The U.K. eliminated its 19% tariff on U.S. ethanol imports, allowing up to 1.4 billion liters annually to enter tariff-free.
Reuters
Beef: The U.K. increased its quota for tariff-free U.S. beef imports from 1,000 to 13,000 metric tons per year. However, U.K. supermarkets have indicated they have no plans to stock American beef, citing consumer preferences and food safety standards .
The deal is a very simple deal that benefits both nations. Neither will need to raise prices. It is a very good deal, and our ally is very happy with it, as we should be. It is very fair.
A new national poll released this week is one of the first to indicate a bump up in President Donald Trump's approval ratings after a steady edging down in the president's numbers since he returned to office in January.
Trump stands at 44% approval and 52% disapproval in a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted Monday and Tuesday (May 12-13). The president's approval rating edged up two points – which is within the survey's sampling error – from the previous Reuters/Ipsos national survey, which was in the field late last month.He was serious...
Rep. Ro Khanna has filed to CODIFY President Trump’s executive order lowering prescription drug prices... Who will join him?
https://x.com/nicksortor/status/1922693119398625366It’s very possible that President Trump’s executive order on lowering prescription drug prices could actually become permanent law. With Republicans controlling both the House and Senate right now, and even some Democrats like Rep. Ro Khanna showing support to codify it, this seems like an issue where both parties could find common ground. After all, who wants to be seen as blocking lower drug costs for Americans? Especially with the 2026 elections around the corner, holding out on a popular, bipartisan issue like this could be politically risky for anyone. It feels like a rare opportunity where cooperation might actually happen for the benefit of everyday people. Seems like anyone who votes yes on this one would definitely earn a gold star!
Hey, who knows, Trump has good karma. He seems to land on his feet no matter what.
Obviously, not every American can afford the lower price drugs. Some will go for traditional medicine. But the deal is worth doing to lessen suffering.
Here is something to chew on. You know all those tax perks Trump is trying to get past? Well, it is being set up so that they expire as he leaves office!
Do you also know that the "pay-fors", like huge cuts to Medicaid, don't start until the next administration arrives.
It seems like Republicans are real cowards.That sounds like the ACA implementation: get the benefits upfront, but push the hard parts (the "pay-fors" and mandates) back four years until after the next election.
You didn't call the Democrats cowards when they did it.
GAGA, here is your comment with the context added in.
Budget Constraints Drove Some Timing:
The delay wasn’t only political. Rolling out massive systems like exchanges and subsidies required time for infrastructure, rulemaking, and coordination with states.
Some delays were due to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scoring rules and the need to make the ACA appear deficit-neutral over 10 years.
Some “Pay-Fors” Began Early:
New taxes and fees, such as the Medicare surtax on high earners and taxes on tanning salons and medical devices, began before 2014.
The idea that all the costs were delayed is not entirely accurate.
The Employer Mandate Was Also Delayed Later:
The Obama administration unilaterally delayed the employer mandate until 2015/2016, which furthered the perception of “pushing the hard parts back,” but this was after the law was already passed and had started rolling out.
So, in my view, it is not the same thing.It looks like the same thing to me. Same actions, same political goals—as in making things palatable enough to get passed.
Even your rationalizations look like a good fit. Surely the 'one big beautiful bill' is also a massive rollout that will require time for infrastructure, rulemaking, and coordination with states?
GAOn a different note . . . I hope you and your family in your neck of the woods came through the torrential rains with no major hiccups. I read about that one school that was flooded.
We weren't in an affected area. Simple sprinkles all day.
GA
But that is not the way it is set up. In fact, the hard right scuttled a committee vote today because it pushes the Medicaid "pay-for" too far away for the liking (and it doesn't hurt enough people yet)
The MAGA deposit for babies (yep, he called it MAGA) - starts as soon as the bill is passed and ends 2028
Same thing for the $4,000 tax break for seniors. It ends in 2028
An extra $150 billion for DoD outside the normal appropriations process expires in 2029
No tax on tips. Starts now, ends in 2028
R&D Write-offs. Starts now, ends in 2029
Car loan interest deduction. Starts now, ends in 2028
Overtime Deduction. Starts now, ends in 2028
Medicaid work requirements: Kicks in in 2029
End Clean Energy Credits: Kicks in in 2029
Medicaid Address Check: Kicks in in 2029
Shift SNAP costs to States: Kicks in in 2027
Now, save for SNAP, that seems pretty straight forward. An since the bill is still in the works,
Now, what were the ACA "pay-fors" again that were purposely put off until after 2013 or 2014?Beats me. A comparison of the bills' details wasn't the point.
GASorry, I thought it was since you implied the two bills were the same, or at least had the same effect.
I guess Trump couldn't stand the thought of having low inflation and no recession. Here the Bully, Felon, and Sexual Predator goes again, threatening higher tariffs if other nations don't fall in line like his Republican minions do.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/16/business … eals-trump"A northwest Georgia community voted overwhelmingly for President Donald Trump. Now it’s desperately trying to save its residents from being deported. "
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/15/politics … her-digvid"There’s no denying it now: Tariffs are raising prices"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/16/business … s-nightcapAdding to with . . .
May 2025 LSEG/Ipsos Primary Consumer Sentiment Index (May 16, 2025 - Today)
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/may-2025-ls … ment-index
"Washington DC, May 16, 2025--The LSEG/Ipsos Primary Consumer Sentiment Index for May 2025 is at 50.0. Fielded from April 25 – May 2, 2025, the Index is down 2.9 points from last month.
The index has declined for the third consecutive month and is down more than five points over that span. It now sits more than four points below its reading from this time last year."
If you didn't hear any of the ways and means committee debate on the big ugly bill...this is appalling .
The bill raises taxes by up to 74% on people making 15 to 35k a year..
The Top 20% of income earners get 68% of the benefits from the House Republican tax bill.
https://x.com/CopperPipeDream/status/19 … 7888413072Trump just figured out that there isn't time to negotiate tariff agreements with 150 countries. So they're sending letters out....lol. my guess? No one wants to talk to us...
"Donald Trump has said the US will send letters to some of its trading partners to unilaterally impose new tariff rates, suggesting that Washington lacks the capacity to reach individual trade deals".
Highlighting the challenge for the White House to negotiate deals with scores of countries at once, Trump said it was “not possible to meet the number of people that want to see us”.
At a certain point over the next two or three weeks, I think Scott and Howard will be sending letters out essentially telling people – it will be very fair – but we’ll be telling people what they’ll be paying to do business in the United States,” he said.
Hang on a minute... Can someone explain how they will be paying to do business in America? Does he really think that the American people do not understand who pays for tariffs? Does he not understand?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … g-partnersROFL! As the mental health professionals have said - the Big Bully and Felon is obviously delusional.
I know 78 million Americans who refuse to understand that it is THEY who pay the tariffs in the end. I know of another 76 million people who DO UNDERSTAND Trump is raising taxes on them.
Who knows whether Trump's delusion is so far advanced that he really believes China is paying the tariffs.
Saints be praised, Trump lost. Just another chip out from the Trumpian edifice.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-cour … 7429150468Consumer sentiment hits second-lowest reading on record...
The latest University of Michigan survey released Friday showed sentiment hit its second-lowest reading on record. The index slid to a reading of 50.8, below the 52.2 seen last month and the 53.4 expected by economists. The reading was just shy of the all-time low of 50 seen in June 2022....
Uncertainty over trade policy continues to dominate consumers' thinking about the economy," Survey of Consumers director Joanne Hsu wrote in the release. Hsu added that nearly 75% of respondents mentioned tariffs "spontaneously," up from almost 60% in April.
It's sort of does feel like we are going into the covid economy doesn't it? Just without the covid this time...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/consumer … 34248.htmlKind of ironic that he tweeted this back in 2012 even though it never happened.
Now that he’s president, Moodys just downgraded the United States credit rating from AAA to AA1 for the first time in history.
The company cited rising government debt and persistent fiscal deficits.
Yet Republicans and Donald Trump want to raise the debt. Go figureHere is what Trump's Bold Agenda (btw, I don't debate that the term is accurate) will cost you or has cost you so far - and we are just at the tip of the Iceberg.
Beginning near the end of May (today is the 17th) and accelerating into June:
* FOOD
* SEASONAL PRODUCTS
* TOYS, lots of toys
* ELECTRONICS, all types
* BABY PRODUCTS
* HOME GOODS
What has ALREADY gone up because of Trump?:
* Bananas - up 3.17% from Feb to Apr
* Avocados - up33%, year over year
* But food as a category came down.
* Non-alcoholic beverages - up 4.8%
* Energy (not natural gas) - down 6.8% and that was driven by expectations of a recessions and higher Saudi oil production
* Natural Gas - up 29.2%!!
* Electricity - up 6.8%
* Shelter - up 2%
* Medical Care - up 2.4%
* Used Cars and Trucks - up 4%
* Airline Fares - down 32.4% (I guess I bought mine too soon)I don't chip in and comment on such posts because I'm an outsider. My country Nigeria, has her own food and energy crisis.
And I suspect Trump and his 10% tariff on Nigeria is making you crisis worse.
If the coming recession in America goes global, and I am not predicting that it will, then your country will feel that as well.
While Nigeria is not paying Trump's 10% tariff, any exports to the US Nigerian companies may be making are probably going to get smaller as Americans start paying the higher prices that tariff generates.
Either that, or Nigerian business will eat the tariff and lower their profit as a result. This is why we say that "tariffs are a Lose-Lose proposition"Majority of Nigerians are not worry to buy made in America goods.
Politics makes strange bedfellows, or so it is said. I find myself cheering these MAGA hardlines on as they give Trump grief over his BBTB. Granted, their "solution" is worse than the problem, it is nice to see more delay in the passage of what will probably be one of the worst bills ever passed by Congress.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/19/politics … ts-johnsonWhat "solution" could be worse than increasing debt to the point of bankruptcy, bankrupting the world and creating a depression as has never been seen before?
Expecting people to support themselves? Would that be worse? Limiting the fraud in our systems? Would THAT be worse? Would it be worse to come down off the extreme taxes we pay? Would cutting taxes, especially to those evil rich that are paying for our country, be worse than world wide depression?"What "solution" could be worse than increasing debt to the point of bankruptcy,"
How much will this bill in its current form increase the debt and deficit?I don't know. I haven't read it and am not an economic expert anyway. But the claim is that it will decrease both.
We've heard that for years from lying liberals - perhaps it's time to listen to lying conservatives and see if we were wrong and that they aren't lying.Renewing Trump's tax cuts, particularly those benefiting high-income earners, could have significant economic implications. Analysts suggest that extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) would add
**trillions** to the U.S. deficit over the next decade. While proponents argue that lower tax rates encourage investment and economic growth, critics warn that the increased debt could strain federal spending on programs like Social Security and infrastructure.
Additionally, some Democrats are urging Trump to eliminate the **carried interest loophole**, which allows hedge fund managers to pay lower tax rates on their earnings. However, the current GOP tax proposal does not include this change, meaning the loophole would remain intact.
The renewed tax plan also includes **permanent reductions in individual tax rates**, an increased standard deduction, and a **lower corporate tax rate**. While these measures may provide relief for some taxpayers, they could also lead to **higher federal debt** and potential cuts to government-funded programs.
Trump's renewed tax plan has different effects depending on income level. Here's a breakdown:
- **Top 1%**: The wealthiest Americans would receive an **average tax cut of $36,300**. The next richest 4% would see a tax cut of about **$7,200**.
- **Middle 20%**: This group would face a **tax increase of around $1,500**.
- **Lowest 20%**: The poorest Americans would see a **tax hike of about $800**.
- **Corporate Tax Rate**: The plan proposes reducing the corporate tax rate from **21% to 20%**, and further to **15% for companies manufacturing in the U.S.**.
- **Tariffs**: A **20% tariff on imported goods** and a **60% tariff on Chinese imports** could lead to higher consumer prices, disproportionately affecting lower-income groups.As usual, you look primarily at the loss of revenue (tax cuts) but never at cost savings. Trump is trying to reduce spending considerably - will be be successful? Only time will tell, but that bit of it all is what is going to make or break the deficit.
How does one make up for the loss of revenue though?
When the proposed "savings" are taken into account by those responsible for figuring this stuff out - there conclusion, Trump will increase the debt by $8.48 trillion over four years ($1.3 trillion from the BBTB by itself).
"While proponents argue that lower tax rates encourage investment and economic growth," -- Conservatives have used the debunked argument every time they want to make the rich, richer.
History clearly shows these types of cuts do not lead to more growth. I would like to say ever, but when doing my analysis a few years ago, I recall fining one instance where promised economic growth actually martialized.
$1.3 trillion by the end of Trump's term.
MAGA can because Trump did it; he can do no wrong in their fantasy world.
How can anyone make that kind of prediction based only on receipt cuts and never spending cuts? Because that is what liberals are doing; denying any savings and therefore the deficit is massive. Perhaps they should chip in and help cut the budget instead of denying it can be done.
I know for a fact that cost analysts such as those who work for the CBO, GAO, my old office at the Air Force Cost Analysis Agency, and others who figure this stuff out ALWAYS take into account both costs and benefits as well as the time value of money.
And they are estimating, based on the current budgets as of Jan 2025, that Trump will add $8.3 trillion to the debt by 2028 and another $1.3 trillion if his BBTB is enacted.
Again today, trump repeated the blatant lie that gas is down to $1.99.... Why the swarm of reporters stood around silently like trained seals I don't know. Everything that comes out of this man's mouth needs to be challenged on the spot.
So maga what do you call this? Is he cognitively impaired to the point that he can't comprehend the reality of gas prices or is he just a liar or a little of both?
And listen to this lie.. he says he's cutting drug prices by 85% really? So how do I get this? I need a refill do I just go in to the pharmacy and tell them Trump sent me?? Again, cognitive decline? Just a con man? There's absolutely no way that his executive order can lower drug prices
https://x.com/Huberton/status/1924844429145170251
https://x.com/RealAmVoice/status/1924847391347298660He is so cognitively impaired that he can longer remember if what he just said is lie or not.
Have you checked every station in the country? Because Trump did NOT say it was $1.98 average, or even that a single state averaged $1.98. Only that (at least) two sources was selling for that.
As usual you are taking Trump's words and making them into something that was never said."As usual you are taking Trump's words and making them into something that was never said.
REALLY?
Here is what he said.. from his own big mouth..
https://x.com/speechboy71/status/1924874291717210413I doubt she has, but others have and there is no known station with gas at $1.98. And even there were, it would be an anomaly making Trump's statement wildly misleading - effectively a lie!
Also, it seems to be you who are taking Willowarbor's words and making them into something that was never said.
Meanwhile in Barbie world...
Days after the Trump administration threatened to attempt to suspend habeas corpus in an effort to bulldoze due process protections for its mass deportation campaign, one key Cabinet member seems a bit confused about the scheme.
“What is habeas corpus?” Sen. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire asked Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a committee hearing Tuesday.
“Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country, and suspend their right to—,” Noem responded, before a visibly alarmed Hassan intervened.
“Let me stop you,” the Democratic lawmaker interjected. “Excuse me, that is incorrect.”
WOW. I suppose in her defense she hasn't learned about habeas corpus because it doesn't have a corresponding costume?
https://x.com/DemocraticWins/status/1924917898255945826That is un-Fing-believable. What's worse, the Trump supporters here will either ignore it or fib that she had a cold and was tired.
Related Discussions
- 30
Why Drill, Baby, Drill Isn't Working
by kerryg 6 weeks 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
- 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...
- 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.