Trump’s Day One: A Bold Agenda to Reclaim America
He is so far gone...
Trump this morning in the Hall of the capitol after meeting with GOP Reps.... “If we had honest elections, I think I would've won California, I would've won New York. I even think I would've won Illinois."
Delusional.!!!!! And again the Trump supporters here will be either silent or agree with him.
It is not a done deal yet, but the BBTB Trump promised to NOT TOUCH MEDICAID might reach the House floor today. Guess what it proposes:
House GOP lawmakers are proposing nearly $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and food stamps.
Who will be impacted most? By sheer numbers it will be poor and somewhat poor whites. By percentages, it will be, of course, minorities. Now, many of Trump's Cult members will have to show how loyal they are to Trump and not complain when their Medicaid and/or SNAP benefits are reduced or disappear.
How likely is that? Pretty likely given that roughly 38% of those who voted for Trump in 2024 are enrolled in one or both programs.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/21/politics … posed-cutsOh but trump said they’re not cutting “anything meaningful.”
That’s rich...I guess to him, the 14 million Americans who will lose their healthcare aren’t “meaningful.” and SNAP?
Millions going hungry... "Not meaningful"In MAGA and Trump's fanciful world, it really isn't "meaningful" even though a reasonable chunk of MAGA will pay the price for their blind loyalty.
Another "Bold" idea from Trump, (remember, you voted for a felon, tax cheat, and sexual predatory, I didn't) - 'Let my rich tax cheat friends get away with it'
One of the people leaving the IRS says this:
"“I brought in three or four times my salary, from people who didn’t pay their taxes,” Bryan, a former IRS revenue officer who agreed to speak to CNN on the condition his full name is not used, said."
Trump has or is reducing the IRS by 24% (and they were already short-staffed). 49% of those will be auditors or revenue officers
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/21/politics … s-trump-dgOne the "Bold Agenda" items Trump is going to be forever infamous for is like any dictator worth their salt, weaponizing the Department of Justice to go after any and all who displease the mob boss.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/21/politics … mey-mciverMortgage rates climb over 7%. Likely due to Moody's downgrade of the US credit rating. Home ownership is looking increasingly impossible for today's young people isn't it?
I guess that will be minimized by saying it didn't it the 8% under Biden. (But once it gets to 10%, all you will get is silence)
Trump's BOLD AGENDA for Target Stores has led to this:
First they caved to Trump's pro-discrimination stance by ditching DEI and then they can't recoup their losses by raising prices in the face of Trump's punishing tariffs:
"New York
CNN
—
Target was already facing a very public revolt from some of its most loyal customers. Now it’s warning about tariffs.
The company said Wednesday that sales fell last quarter, driven in part by customer backlash to Target’s reversal on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. Target also cut its guidance as President Donald Trump’s tariffs push up costs for the company.
Target’s sales at stores open for at least a year tumbled 3.8% last quarter. Fewer customers visited Target and spent less when they shopped. Target also cut its financial outlook, a sign Target’s problems won’t go away quickly. The company expects sales to decline by low single-digits this year.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/21/business … ei-tariffsOne part of Trump's so-called Bold initiative was to tariff the world. Look how that isn't turning out.
Another part was to lower prices. Instead, he is increasing them.
A third was to end the war in Ukraine. His last word on the subject is he may just "walk away".
A fourth was to dismantle FEMA and let Americans suffer through catastrophes with Trump no lifting a finger to help. He appears to be reneging on that a bit and might help "a little".
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/21/politics … risti-noemI have proved it before and and will continue to prove it - Conservatives do not know how to run an economy. The latest indication is that the Bond Market is telling us that investors think America is NO LONGER a safe haven to park their money. WHY?
"Why the bond market is suddenly freaking out over the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’"
I even wrote a book explaining and enumerating all the instances throughout American history that Conservative Economic Theory tanked the American economy. They are about to do it again for something like the 25th time.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/22/investin … et-selloff"World leaders have a huge new problem: Trump’s Oval Office smackdowns"
Why would any self-respecting world leader stoop so low as to come to the oval office just to be insulted by the Ugly American Bully?
I am so embarrassed for us but MAGA simply loves this uncivil behavior from their cult leader.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/21/politics … g-analysisMore lies.
Trump photo of dead 'White farmers' is from Congo, not South Africa...
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/tr … 025-05-22/The whole thing. Like the haitians eating pets, the hands tattoo, etc. Remember the sharpie on the hurricane trajectory map? MAGA believes and repeats every stupid thing he says.
And the ones that know better, have no testicles or ovaries to say anything and contradict the dumb king.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump- … 025-05-21/So there Trump sits in the Oval office, dramatically LYING to the leader of South Africa to his face.
But, in any case, neither Trump nor MAGA care about his incessant lying. Isn't that what they love about him?
Doesn't it just boggle the mind how such a large segment of our population can just sit back and watch Trump tear America apart? Shame.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/22/us/harva … l-studentsFeels like we're sliding into authoritarianism faster and faster but I smell another loss for him on this one. How can this be legal? Trump is a petty vindictive man.
It is clearly not legal, moral, or ethical. But remember who we are dealing with here - a serial felon and sexual predator.
(I noticed that the Trump voters on this forum must not disagree with that assessment of Trump because they NEVER push back and say he is not those things.)
The 220 top buyers of Trump's memecoin will have dinner with him at his golf club tonight.
The average price of admission is $1M per person.
Trump is literally selling access to government to the highest bidders... And he's refusing to release the guest list lol
Maga... Tell me this is perfectly fineMAGA says "THIS IS PERFECTLY FINE" if Trump does it, but not anyone else.
Fine, all the people who are not wealthy and voted for Trump will be the recipient of the beautiful “orange shaft” within their nether regions. It is as Ronald Reagan once said, “once people feel the heat, they will see the light……..
So much for Conservatives on the Supreme Court following the written word or intent of the Constitution.
Any first year civics student knows, that it is Congress who makes the laws and, so long as it is not successfully vetoed, the Executive's job to carry out what Congress has directed. Well, the
"Supreme Court won’t reinstate top federal labor officials in a victory for Trump’s firing powers"
They said, when not staying the firings, the Conservative, while overturning YET ANOTHER PRECEDENT, that “Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the president,” the court wrote in its unsigned opinion, “he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents.” Left unsaid of course is "regardless of whether that violates the CLEAR INTENT of Congress!
Said more succinctly, "we think the Constitution makes the Executive a dictator". Moreso now that they protected him from illegal acts while exercising his dictatorial powers.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/22/politics … ring-powerNow Trump's BBTB, which will ruin America's credit rating further than it already has, was strongarmed through the House, the Senate is all set to cause it problems. Here is who is lined up against it so far, besides the Democrats:
Sen Lisa Murkowski - Less Medicaid cuts
Sen Mike Rounds - sale of the military radio frequency spectrums
Sen Josh Hawley - Less Medicaid cuts and wants more child tax credits
Sen Ron Johnson - Need to cut more of everything
Sen Rand Paul - doesn't want the debt limit raised
Sen John Thune - wants the Senate to write its own bill
Sen Collins - Less Medicare cuts
Sen Kevin Kramer - more Medicaid cuts
And so it goes. With luck, this won't pass for many more months giving the market time to weigh in on how terrible this bill is.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/22/politics … ill-senateCurrent News--- The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 unsigned order on May 22, 2025, declining to reinstate two independent agency board members, Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), who had been dismissed by President Donald Trump. This decision interpreted the Constitution as granting the president the authority to remove such officials "without cause." The Court's order did not address the broader constitutional question of presidential authority over independent agencies, leaving that issue for future consideration.
Gwynne Wilcox: As an NLRB member, Wilcox was seen as opposing some of the Trump administration’s labor policy changes, which aimed to reduce regulations on businesses and reshape labor relations in a way the administration favored. Her removal was part of a broader effort by Trump to replace labor officials with appointees who supported his deregulatory priorities.
Cathy Harris: As a member of the MSPB, which oversees federal employment and protects merit-based hiring and firing, Harris was also viewed as a roadblock to the administration’s efforts to reshape federal personnel policies. The administration wanted board members more sympathetic to its goals of reforming federal workforce rules.
In my view ---- I was genuinely pleased with the decision. The president needs to have the clear authority to remove anyone he feels is unnecessary or not doing their job effectively, exactly as he sees fit.Do you agree now - Trump is not a Conservative. Trump is not a Republican. Trump is not even an American!?
Trump, the dictator, felon, and sexual predator, just ORDERED Apple to make iPhones in America of be hit with a 25% TARIFF!!! (at least it FINALLY broke through his mental fog about who actually pays the tariffs)
What American does that??????
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/23/economy/ … riff-apple
(and he doesn't even know Apple (or Mattel) is not a country - yet MAGA, mostly a cult, loves him for it, ROFL)And remember how they were so outraged that Harris even dared to look at price gouging? Called her a communist and a socialist...LOL . And now? Bullying of private institutions and corporations is just dandy.
Directing how and where American companies produce stuff... planned economies and production demands are the actual stuff of Communism.
I'm guessing that Tim Apple didn't buy into the crypto dinner and now he's being punished LOL...Doesn't this remind you of a real life Godfather -
“I had a little problem with Tim Cook,” Trump said last week in Qatar. “I said to him, ‘Tim, you’re my friend. I treated you very good. You’re coming in with $500 billion.’ But now I hear you’re building all over India. I don’t want you building in India.’”
What American does that?
25% tax on Apple products while singling out the CEO by name for retribution, 50% tax on European goods, expulsion of foreign students, bill passed with most debt in history, while hosting a dinner for people who gave you $300+ million. All in the last 24 hours.
The Golden Age!Ah yes, yet another Bold Agenda item designed to ruin America's economy (market way down again) - "“Therefore, I am recommending a straight 50% Tariff on the European Union, starting on June 1, 2025.” - D Trump.
What American does that?Another Big Beautiful Bold Agenda item - Screw Everyday Americans!
"The Trump administration is giving businesses a free pass from a wide variety of enforcement actions.
Boeing, Capital One, Southwest Airlines and Coinbase all faced legal action from the Biden administration, which accused the companies of cheating their customers, the government or otherwise acting improperly.
But multiple federal agencies under President Donald Trump have dropped those suits."
What American does that to Americans?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/23/business … tion-casesLarry Summers: (the one economist MAGA loves) 'If Harvard can't resist these steps towards tyranny, who can?' - What does he mean 'steps towards' tyranny? Doesn't he know we are already there now?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/23/politics … ers-digvidThe Big Bueatiful bill is now in the hands of the Senate. This bill will be one more promise kept.
Here's a factual summary of the provisions in the 2025 "One Big Beautiful Bill" (H.R. 1), reflecting its legislative intent and the language found in the bill:
Tax Relief and Economic Growth
Permanent Tax Cuts: The bill extends and makes permanent the individual and corporate tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, including a $1,000 increase in the standard deduction for individuals, heads of households, and married couples through 2028.
The Guardian
Tax Deductions: Introduces new tax deductions for tips and overtime pay, aiming to reduce the tax burden on workers.
Child Tax Credit: Increases the child tax credit to $2,500 through 2028, providing additional financial support to families.
SALT Deduction Cap: Raises the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap from $10,000 to $40,000 for taxpayers earning under $500,000, benefiting high-tax state residents.
MAGA Savings Accounts: Establishes "Money Accounts for Growth and Investment" (MAGA accounts), providing $1,000 per child to promote savings and investment.
Healthcare Reforms
Medicaid Work Requirements: Implements work requirements for Medicaid recipients above the federal poverty line, aiming to encourage employment and reduce dependency.
Gender-Affirming Care Restrictions: Prohibits Medicaid from covering gender-affirming treatments, including hormone therapy and surgeries, for individuals of all ages.
Abortion Services Funding: Bans federal funding for clinics that provide abortion services, redirecting resources to other healthcare priorities.
Them
Border Security and Defense
Border Wall Funding: Allocates $46.5 billion for the construction and modernization of border barriers, enhancing national security infrastructure.
Business Insider
Immigration Enforcement: Provides $5 billion for improvements to Customs and Border Protection facilities and $4.1 billion to hire additional Border Patrol and CBP officers, increasing enforcement capacity.
Advanced Defense Systems: Invests $25 billion in an advanced missile defense system, known as the “Golden Dome,” to bolster national defense capabilities
Education and Workforce Development
Pell Grant Eligibility: Increases eligibility for Pell Grants and introduces Workforce Pell Grants targeted at trade school students, expanding access to higher education and vocational training.
Student Loan Reforms: Replaces previous student loan forgiveness programs with more stringent repayment options, aiming to ensure fiscal responsibility and sustainability.
Fiscal Policy and Government Spending
Debt Ceiling Increase: Raises the national debt ceiling by $4 trillion to prevent default and ensure continued government operations.
Defense Spending: Allocates an additional $150 billion in defense spending, focusing on modernizing military capabilities and enhancing national security.
Tax-Exempt Status Revocation: Empowers the U.S. Treasury Department to revoke the tax-exempt status of nonprofits determined to support terrorism, strengthening oversight of charitable organizations.
These provisions reflect the legislative language and intent as outlined in the bill. The full text of the "One Big Beautiful Bill" is available on the official Congress.gov website.And the impact on medicare? Folk support the triggering of paygo?
I have no issue with the recent changes to Medicare. In fact, I think they’re sensible and well thought out. If people take a step back from the media noise and actually read the details, they’ll see these changes aren’t harmful at all.
Under the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," sweeping changes are proposed for Medicaid, introducing mandatory work requirements for certain adult recipients. Here’s a clear summary of what those changes include:
Work Requirement Overview
Beginning in 2026, adults aged 19 to 64 who are enrolled in Medicaid under the ACA expansion, primarily low-income, childless adults, must engage in a minimum of 80 hours per month in activities such as:
Employment
Job training
Education
Volunteering or community service
Participants must report their compliance twice each year. Failure to meet the requirement or properly report activities can result in the loss of Medicaid coverage.
Exemptions from Requirements
The following groups are exempt from the work requirements:
Individuals under age 19
Pregnant women and those receiving postpartum care
Seniors (typically those 65 and older)
Disabled individuals
Primary caregivers for dependents or disabled family members
Veterans
State Implementation and Oversight
States will be required to set up systems to enforce and monitor the new work requirement rules. They must also handle exemptions and determine which beneficiaries are subject to the mandates. The federal government will oversee state compliance with these new obligations.
Projected Impact
The new requirements are expected to result in millions losing coverage over time, either due to non-compliance or difficulties with reporting. Previous attempts to implement similar mandates at the state level have led to unintended coverage losses tied more to paperwork burdens than actual failure to work.
Additional Changes
Beginning in Fiscal Year 2028, states must redetermine eligibility for Medicaid recipients under the ACA every six months. This rule aims to keep Medicaid rolls limited to individuals who remain eligible, but it also adds to the administrative load on both beneficiaries and state agencies.
These changes reflect a policy shift toward linking public assistance to employment and civic participation. I argue it encourages independence and personal responsibility, while opponents caution about the risk of cutting off essential healthcare for vulnerable populations.
Medicaid has been abused for decades. And our government has done nothing until now.
Here is a factual response.
There is a reason America's credit rating just took a hit and why the bond market is weakening. That is because this BBTA will add $4 trillion to $5.6 trillion dollars to the national debt, depending on which independent, nonpartisan estimate you look at. Add in another $600 billion in increased interest payments while your at it. (And this doesn't count the even larger increase in interest payments driven my the lower U.S. credit rating.)
And that is even AFTER you account for $967 billion cut in Medicaid and SNAP, $500 billion from cutting clean energy credits which will dump more pollutants into the air, and another $147 billion from other sources.
Investors are fearful because the BBTA will probably bankrupt America.
But all that is OK, because the average America benefits. Of course that is BS.
It is estimated that the top 1% will see a tax reduction of $44,000 each.
But that is OK, because those middle class people earning between $51,000 and $100,000 will see a WHOPPING $815 tax reduction each.
Guess where some of those "tax savings" come from. You are right, from the bottom 10% who are projected to see 4% DECLINE in resources due to the reduction in Medicaid, SNAP, and other benefits.
Yeah, who needs those kinds of Promises Kept?"Here is a factual response." ECO:
How dare you suggest that my comment isn't factual? Are you implying that the information posted on Congress.gov is inaccurate? I recommend you stop replying to my comments altogether. Take a step back and leave me alone. Others might tolerate your attitude, but I won’t. I will be very honest, I have no respect for your views or the way you communicate.Where did I do that? You took the time and trouble to point out what you posted was "factual", well so did I? Why do you have a problem with that?
Trump's Big Bold Agenda Promises this - To Continue the Transfer of Wealth From the Poor to the Rich that he Started in 2018
To explain what that means, I’ll use two key measures of inequality: the Wealth Gini Index and the Income Gini Index. Both scale from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates perfect equality (wealth or income evenly distributed across society), and 1 means total concentration (all wealth or income held by one person or a tiny group).
We’ve never seen perfect equality, and near-total concentration hasn’t occurred in modern democracies—but it likely did exist in medieval feudal systems.
In the U.S., wealth inequality has always been high. During the Gilded Age, when so-called robber barons dominated the economy, the Wealth Gini Index is estimated to have been around 0.84. That level of concentration persisted into the Roaring Twenties, just before the Great Depression.
The Great Depression and World War II were what historians call "The Great Leveler." Those crises, combined with major policy shifts, drove both income and wealth inequality down. By the late 1940s, the Wealth Gini Index had fallen to around 0.72.
From 1947 to 1980, under both Democratic and Republican leadership, the U.S. made a sustained effort to keep inequality in check. As a result, wealth inequality remained relatively stable, with the wealth Gini Index hovering around 0.70.
However, the 1970s brought high inflation and oil shocks, and by 1982, the Wealth Gini Index had crept up to about 0.765.
Then came the Reagan Revolution, which included tax cuts similar in spirit to those Trump would later enact. Following Reagan’s policies, the Wealth Gini Index rose significantly—reaching 0.80.
The Clinton administration's tax increases on the wealthy helped slow this trend, and inequality remained relatively stable through the 1990s. By 2000, the Wealth Gini Index had edged up only slightly, to around 0.81.
The Bush tax cuts pushed inequality higher again, though the 2008 financial crisis itself tempered some of that rise. By 2010, the Wealth Gini Index had reached about 0.82..
Obama's eight years added only another 0.018 to reach 0.83 in 2016.
Then came Donald Trump. Within three years of his 2017 tax cut the Wealth Gini Index hit a record high of 0.86—a level not seen since the 1920s.
Although the COVID-19 pandemic briefly reversed that trend, knocking the index slightly down to 0.85, it has remained at that historic elevated level through 2024.
I'll repeat this for the Gini Income Index next.The Income Gini Index has followed a broadly similar trajectory to the Wealth Gini Index, though it diverges somewhat in recent years. Historically, this index has ranged from a low of 0.376 in 1947 to a high of 0.494 in 2021.
In 1928, just before the Great Depression, income inequality peaked at its previous high of 0.489.
The twin shocks of the Great Depression and World War II dramatically compressed income inequality, bringing the Gini Index down to 0.376 by 1947, the lowest level on record.
The index remained relatively low through the mid-20th century, even during the economic turbulence of the 1970s. By 1980, it had crept up only modestly to 0.398.
But with Reagan’s tax cuts and broader deregulatory agenda in the 1980s, income inequality began to rise more sharply. By the time Bill Clinton took office in 1994, the Income Gini Index had climbed to around 0.44.
Clinton’s tax increases on the wealthy helped slow the upward trend. As a result, the index rose only moderately during his presidency, reaching 0.462 by 2000.
The Great Recession that began in 2008 tempered the impact of George W. Bush’s tax cuts, and the index rose only slightly to 0.469 by 2010.
Under President Obama, the Gini Index increased by just 0.012 points, reaching 0.481 by 2016.
Then came Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, which set a new record for income inequality. By 2019, just three years into his term, the Income Gini Index had surged to 0.494, surpassing even the 1928 high.
Unlike the Wealth Gini Index, however, income inequality fell significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic, due largely to massive government transfers and stimulus programs. The index dropped to 0.414, where it remains as of 2024.
Whether it stays there is uncertain — but history suggests that another round of tax cuts is likely to send it rising once again, as has happened after nearly every major tax cut of the past century.
Willow, regarding Paygo. One upside to Trump’s 2025 "One Big Beautiful Bill" is that it contains significant tax cuts and pro-growth policies designed to stimulate the economy, create jobs, and encourage investment. By lowering taxes on businesses and individuals, the bill aims to increase economic activity, which could lead to higher tax revenues down the line, even if it looks like it increases the deficit upfront. This growth-driven approach is meant to help shrink the deficit over time, potentially offsetting some of the costs that trigger PAYGO rules.
Regarding PAYGO, it’s important to remember that while the bill does increase the deficit on paper, automatic cuts under PAYGO are not set in stone. Congress has the ability to pass waivers or implement targeted offsets to prevent those automatic spending cuts from taking effect. The bill itself includes measures to promote innovation, energy development, and workforce expansion, all of which could contribute to a stronger economy and improve the government’s fiscal situation.
So, while PAYGO is a standing rule designed to enforce fiscal discipline, it’s not guaranteed that the bill will cause harmful cuts. The bill’s emphasis on economic growth and investment creates pathways to mitigate potential PAYGO-triggered cuts, giving lawmakers options to balance fiscal responsibility with the bill’s goals.
It's very possible the Senate will bring up PAYGO waivers to offset the problem. Waivers have been used before to prevent automatic cuts from kicking in on big spending bills, like with some of Biden’s major legislation.
Interestingly ----The last time PAYGO actually triggered automatic sequestration cuts was in the early 2010s, shortly after PAYGO was reinstated in 2010.
Since then, Congress has mostly managed to avoid PAYGO cuts by passing waivers.
Summary:
PAYGO is more of a disciplinary rule than an actively enforced penalty.
It mostly serves as a reminder that new spending or tax cuts should be paid for.
Only when Congress refuses to waive it or offset costs do automatic cuts happen.
If you want, I can look up specific examples of automatic PAYGO cuts from the past or detail how often waivers have been passed!
Interestingly ---
PAYGO was reinstated in 2010, it did lead to automatic sequestration cuts starting in 2013 due to the failure of Congress to offset new spending or tax cuts.
What was cut?
The automatic cuts under PAYGO were part of a larger budget enforcement mechanism tied to the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011, but PAYGO also played a role in requiring offsets.
In 2013, sequestration triggered across-the-board cuts to both defense and non-defense discretionary spending, reducing budgets by about 8-9% for most programs.
These cuts affected a wide range of federal agencies and programs, including:
Military and defense spending
Education
Health programs (but mandatory programs like Social Security and Medicare were largely protected)
Various government operations and services
Important nuance:
While PAYGO requires mandatory programs (like Medicare and Social Security) to be offset to avoid cuts, the actual sequestration cuts mostly impacted discretionary spending, since mandatory programs have different rules for budget control.
The sequestration cuts resulted from the failure of Congress to reach a deficit reduction deal, and PAYGO was part of the overall budget enforcement framework.
PAYGO contributed to budget discipline efforts in the early 2010s.
The sequestration cuts starting in 2013 were a broad austerity measure that affected many federal programs but did not deeply cut mandatory programs like Medicare or Social Security. Due to mandatory programs having different rules for budget control. These rules still apply today. So, should it be a worry that Medicare could be affected? It seems it's well protected.Waivers require a supermajority. This government doesn't have a supermajority for absolutely anything.
More investments! hard to keep up----
President Donald Trump on Friday said he had approved a deal for Nippon Steel to buy U.S. Steel, reversing a position he took during the presidential campaign after the Japanese manufacturer agreed to pour more investment into the United States.
“This will be a planned partnership between United States Steel and Nippon Steel, which will create at least 70,000 jobs and $14 Billion Dollars to the U.S. Economy,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “The bulk of the investment will occur in the next 14 months.
Trump will visit the steel plant next Friday for a “BIG rally,The latest signs that the "Bold Agenda" and the One Big Beautiful Bill (NOT) is driving inflation.
1. Consumer Sentiment Decline: The University of Michigan's Consumer Sentiment Index fell to 50.8 in May, marking a 30% decline since January and nearing record lows. This drop is attributed to concerns over tariffs and inflation, with nearly three-quarters of consumers spontaneously mentioning tariffs in surveys . [Advisor Perspectives; Fox Business; derivgroup.com]
2. Retail Sales Slowdown: Retail sales growth decelerated significantly, rising only 0.1% in April compared to a 1.7% increase in March. This suggests that the initial surge in spending due to tariff fears is waning, potentially leading to reduced consumer spending in the coming months . [Business Insider]
3. Price Adjustments: Major retailers like Walmart, Mattel, Best Buy, Shein, Temu, Ford, Subaru, Procter & Gamble, Stanley Black & Decker, and Adidas have indicated plans to raise prices in response to ongoing tariffs, despite temporary reductions. This move could further dampen consumer spending and confidence . [Financial Times]
4. Shift to Discount Retailers: Consumers are increasingly turning to discount retailers such as T.J. Maxx and Marshalls, which have reported better-than-expected earnings. This trend reflects a shift toward value-oriented shopping amid economic uncertainty. [AP News]
5. Multigenerational Living: There's an uptick in multigenerational households, with 17% of homes purchased in 2024 being multigenerational—the highest on record. This suggests that individuals are consolidating living arrangements to mitigate financial pressures. [Politico]
6. Increased Gold Purchases: Amid economic uncertainty, there's a notable increase in gold investments. Demand for gold bars rose by 13% year-over-year in Q1 2025, with gold prices up 25% this year. This surge indicates that both investors and the general public are seeking safe-haven assets. [Business Insider] For my 60th birthday, my company bought me a $780 (I think) $50 gold coin, today it is worth $3,358!
7. Aldi: An employee from Aldi warned shoppers that food prices in stores are expected to "skyrocket" due to upcoming tariffs. Customers have already observed a consistent upward trend in pricing, with examples such as Aldi-brand coffee rising from around $5 to over $8.
8. Yale Budget Lab Report: A report from Yale's Budget Lab estimates that recent U.S. import tariffs could sharply increase grocery costs for American households. The average family may see up to a $4,900 annual increase in grocery expenses if shopping behavior remains unchanged, with fresh produce costs climbing over 5% due to the U.S.'s reliance on imports for many food items.
[Food & Wine] - NOTE - that was about the same estimate as the pandemic-caused inflation in 2021-2022 began to take effect.
The [US Sun]
Walmart said the Price Hikes should really start being felt in ONE WEEK. We will see.The RUSH TO AUTHORITARIANISM from Trump's Bold Agenda.
Journalists who cover the US military say they are extremely concerned by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s constraints on press access at the Pentagon. They say the newest restrictions, outlined Friday night, appear to be “a direct attack on the freedom of the press and America’s right to know what its military is doing.”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/24/media/pe … ss-hegsethThe Bold Agenda introduces the Trump ERA of FEAR in America.
"Francisco Ayala and his wife have canceled the cruise they planned to take to see the Northern Lights this year. The reasons are complicated.
Ayala is a natural-born US citizen, and his wife is a naturalized citizen. But given reports of people — even with legal status — being detained and questioned at US borders, Ayala said taking a trip out of the country for fun doesn’t seem worth the potential risk.
Ayala also sees another problem: the economy. “The writing is on the wall … The moment I saw the market volatility, I’m like, ‘Yep, this is not going to be good.’”
My wife and I have discussed doing the same thing for our June trip. We are both native-born Americans, but that doesn't seem to bother Trump one bit. If he wants to disappear you, he will try.It's a tough time to have any shade of brown skin...
Here is one example of a lady who could see the writing on the wall…..
https://news.yahoo.com/news/moved-europ … 03707.htmlQuite poignant -
"Four years after leaving the U.S., I find myself right back where I began: reeling from the impact of an American sociopolitical crisis. But this time is different. I’m no longer under the impression that I can outrun the 77-million-person mob that voted in favor of racism, misogyny, violence and corruption. All I can do is join the rest of the world in bracing for what comes next."
Another aspect of "Trump's Bold Agenda to Screw America" is a willi-nillie, thoughtless slash and burn of gov't consulting contracts.
Once upon a very long time ago, when I was a young cost analyst for the federal government, agencies were filled with in-house experts—professionals who provided the specialized knowledge needed to deliver quality services to the American people. That began to change in 1995, when President Clinton decided to shrink the civilian defense workforce. (We warned at the time that it was a bad idea—but who listens to experts anymore?)
To their credit, Clinton and Gore at least had a plan. They pursued their goal deliberately, with forethought, and implemented workforce reductions in a way that protected federal employees. (Thank God they were Democrats who actually cared about people’s lives.)
They achieved their objective: the federal workforce got smaller. But there was a catch. They claimed it would save money. It didn’t.
Yes, spending from the civilian pay related appropriations dropped significantly, just as they promised. But spending from the appropriations that pay for contractors rose by even more.
Why? Because the mission didn’t shrink with the workforce. The agencies were still expected to carry out the same responsibilities, at the same standard, only now without the internal expertise to do it. So, the government turned to contractors—and that costs money. A lot of money - and a lot of expertise that the federal workforce used to maintain and now doesn't.
Now, Trump has a slightly different goal than Clinton - Gore did. Trump wants to cut entire budget without regard to who it hurts within and without gov't and how much it will hurt America.
He claims it will eliminating waste, reducing bureaucracy, and prioritizing national interests. Given the way he is going about it, It will do NONE OF THOSE THINGS.
For example, behind the scenes Trump has been cutting thousands of consulting contracts, many of which exist because the gov't no longer had the expertise to do after the Clinton - Gore cuts. Like his other cuts, this effort is going to make things much worse for Americans and will ultimately cost much more money to fix the damage.
Here some examples of "savings" and the damage they will cause:
including $43 million for oversight and protection of private information in the federal insurance marketplace.
$14 million for health care support within the Department of Veterans Affairs
$16 million for assisting relief efforts in Texas following last year’s Hurricane Beryl and other natural disasters have also been marked as terminated
- "For decades, the government has grown increasingly reliant on the private sector to perform functions once handled by federal employees, a shift done ostensibly to control costs by having companies compete." - As I mentioned before, my and other's analysis shows conclusively it costs more to hire contractors than pay federal workers.
One contract with a roughly 50-person research firm, MEF Associates, that helped states improve employment and other supportive services for welfare recipients facing domestic violence, mental health, substance use and other issues was cut in April.
a $33 million contract for logistical support following Tropical Storm Helene in Asheville, North Carolina (which DOGE claims to have canceled) - Keep in mind, Trump is also cancelling FEMA!
a $155 million award to build out a system to help prevent veteran suicide
$132 million toward human resources services to help veterans transition back to civilian life.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/2 … s-00362158The considered reductions by Clinton and Gore were done properly. You remember the “Outsourcing” craze of the 1980s under Reagan? It was quietly later when it was revealed that contractors proved more expensive than federal employees.
Lack of Industry Best Practices:
Agencies often fail to follow industry best practices, such as clearly defining roles and responsibilities, conducting thorough spend analysis, and establishing savings goals.
This can lead to inefficient contracting processes, difficulty benchmarking labor rates, and ultimately, higher costs for similar services.
2. Inadequate Training and Expertise:
Government employees responsible for overseeing outsourcing may lack proper training and technical expertise, making it difficult to evaluate contractor performance and manage projects effectively.
This can lead to a dependence on consultants and a lack of in-house capacity to support procurement teams.
3. Difficulty in Managing and Monitoring Outsourced Projects:
Agencies may struggle to effectively monitor project progress, track spending, and ensure that contractors meet agreed-upon performance metrics.
This can lead to projects exceeding budgets, timelines, and quality expectations.
4. Cost Overruns and Higher Contractor Salaries:
Contractors may be paid significantly more than federal employees for comparable work, potentially negating any cost savings.
Additional costs associated with contract management, legal fees, and renegotiations can also add to the overall expense.
5. Lack of Control and Flexibility:
Long-term contracts can limit government flexibility and adaptability, making it difficult to respond to changing needs or unforeseen circumstances.
Outsourcing can also lead to a loss of control over project execution and quality, particularly when relying on contractors with limited experience or expertise.
6. Data Security and Privacy Concerns:
Outsourcing can introduce new risks related to data security and privacy, as contractors may have access to sensitive information.
Ensuring that contractors adhere to appropriate security protocols and regulations can be challenging.
7. Impact on Government Workforce:
Outsourcing can lead to a decline in the quality of the government workforce as experienced employees are replaced by contractors.
It can also create a two-tiered workforce, with contractors facing lower wages, fewer benefits, and limited career opportunities.In both Reagan and Clinton's case, the mission of the agencies impacted didn't change; just who was doing it did.
What Americans don't realize yet is Trump is cancelling or diminishing the mission of many government agencies entirely. Who will feel this pain the worst? Probably rural Trump America.This should not be surprising; Trump has made no secret that he is not a fan of socialism and is not presiding over a nanny state. His concept of government does not include being the parent to 350,000,000 children.
Why provide more to the wealthy class, by way of tax breaks then? Breaks that we can't afford. Breaks that reduce revenue?
What you really mean is why allow the wealthy class to keep what they have earned?
The answer is as plain as can be from a moral standpoint. From a greed standpoint not so much, though.What do tax breaks to the wealthy do to reduce the national debt and budget deficit? Isn't that what the GOP wants? It's a simple case of revenue versus expenses.
If the wealthy would pay their fair share, it would certainly help. Trump thinks by summarily destroying federal agencies will reduce the national debt and the budget deficit. Using a chain saw ain't going to hack it. No pun intended..
It's the same way he does everything, rip it apart and then put it back together again. That's what he has done with federal agencies and the tariffs, thus causing the manipulation of the markets for the wealthy who can take advantage of market volatility.
That is also a sign of no forethought of the consequences of his actions for those who don't have that advantage."If the wealthy would pay their fair share"
"Fair" is paying the same amount for the same thing. We all pay taxes to live in America; "fair" is to all pay the same thing. Not a percentage of a varying amount and certainly not a higher percentage of a higher amount. Or can you rationalize how it is "fair" for one person to pay 1,000 times what another does for the exact same product?
We disagree on how to fix things. The liberal method is to throw money at it; my method is to try and actually fix it so it no longer needs fixing (or the money to fix it every day, month or year). I think Trump hangs more to my method than simply throwing money around. Time will tell if he does the right thing, although a great many people will say "No" regardless of what his end result is.The Republican plan, explodes the debt and the deficit even further. The plan brings in little revenue. All to extend tax breaks that favor the wealthy. How is this responsible?
The question was "how is it fair", not "what will it cost?". Are you changing the subject by replying to a specific comment about something you don't want to discuss?
Whether the plan will "explode the deficit" remains to be seen. Personally, I believe it will, for liberals will not tolerate cost cutting, but other experts are positive it will reduce, not "explode" it.Lol... Liberals won't tolerate cost cutting? They're not in the majority right now. Republicans will own 100% of whatever is eventually passed.
Fair? What is fair about a tax scheme that is skewed to allow those in the upper brackets to keep more of their income versus those in the lower portion?
There is not one expert that feels that this bill will reduce the deficit. Not one.When has a tax cut EVER cut the debt? It has always increased it while never delivering the promised growth. Yes, I am being categorical about that because it is true. In the medium to long-term, every major tax cut has either failed to deliver what it promised or made things worse.
In fact, here is a tidbit I learned today while researching this. President Reagan had to enact a Tax Increase in 1982 to offset the damage his Tax Decrease of 1981 did.
According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), over his four-year term from January 2021 through January 2025, President Biden approved approximately $4.7 trillion in new ten-year debt through legislation and executive actions. This includes significant spending measures such as the American Rescue Plan, infrastructure investments, and various social programs.
CRF
Trump's Proposed "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" (OBBBA):
The Tax Foundation estimates that the tax provisions and spending changes in the proposed OBBBA would increase the federal deficit by about $2.6 trillion between 2025 and 2034 on a conventional basis. On a dynamic basis, accounting for projected economic growth, the deficit increase would be approximately $1.7 trillion over the same period.
Tax Foundation
Did you have concerns regarding the legislation that Biden pushed through? Did you have concerns over the debt Biden added?
While the BBB is projected to add significantly to the national debt, the amount is less than the debt added during President Biden's term. Those concerned about the national debt should consider the fiscal impacts of policies from both administrations. The proposed BBB would add to the deficit, but its projected impact is less than the debt increase that occurred during President Biden's tenure.I'm a little confused because you're mentioning an increase in the deficit and an increase in the debt...both of which the Republican bill will do. In terms of debt created, I'm not sure it's fair to compare debt created during the time of covid to what this Republican bill is bringing now.
Currently, Republicans want America to accept the idea of increasing both the debt and deficit in order to disproportionately advantage the wealthy class.Trump's latest tax bill, known as the **"Big, Beautiful Bill,"** is projected to **increase the national debt by $3 trillion to $4 trillion** over the next decade. The bill extends the **2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act**, which already contributed to rising deficits, and introduces **new tax breaks**—such as eliminating federal taxes on tips and overtime wages.
### Key Fiscal Impacts:
- **Deficit Increase**: Independent analyses estimate the bill will **add between $3 trillion and $4 trillion** to the deficit over the next ten years.
- **Debt Ceiling Increase**: The bill includes a provision to **raise the debt ceiling by $4 trillion**, allowing the federal government to continue borrowing through the **2026 midterm elections**.
- **Stock Market Concerns**: Investors have expressed concerns about the bill's impact on the economy, leading to **bond market volatility** and a **drop in stock prices**.
- **Medicaid & Social Program Cuts**: To offset some costs, the bill includes **cuts to Medicaid and food stamps**, which could result in **millions losing coverage**.
- **Republican Opposition**: Some GOP lawmakers have called the bill a **"debt bomb"**, warning that it could **fuel inflation and increase borrowing costs**.
Despite concerns, Trump has encouraged Senate Republicans to **make changes** to the bill before it becomes law. The Senate is expected to **revise key provisions**, including tax cuts and spending reductions, before sending it back to the House for final approval.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … l-deficit/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 747173007/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … r-AA1FyMAI
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … r-AA1FgOkxWhile these provisions do not explicitly name Trump, they align with policies that **favor high-net-worth individuals and business owners**
Trump's new tax bill, the **"Big, Beautiful Bill,"** includes provisions that could benefit him personally, particularly through **tax breaks for high-income earners and business owners**. Here are some key aspects:
- **Extension of 2017 Tax Cuts**: The bill makes permanent the tax cuts from the **2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act**, which significantly reduced corporate tax rates and provided benefits to wealthy individuals.
- **Real Estate Tax Benefits**: The bill **maintains deductions** for real estate investors, which could benefit Trump given his extensive holdings in the industry.
- **Elimination of Estate Tax**: The bill **phases out the federal estate tax** by 2028, which could allow Trump and other wealthy individuals to pass on assets to heirs with **minimal tax liability**.
- **MAGA Accounts**: A new provision creates **tax-free savings accounts** for newborns, which some critics argue could disproportionately benefit wealthy families.A lot of what was said can definitely be debated, and much of it is based on projections or interpretations, not hard facts. For example, the claim that the bill will add $3–4 trillion to the deficit comes from budget analysts who use models and assumptions to make those estimates. They're educated guesses, not guaranteed outcomes, and different groups might come up with different numbers.
The part about raising the debt ceiling is also often misunderstood, it doesn’t actually increase spending on its own; it just lets the government keep paying bills it's already committed to. As for market reactions, like stock drops or bond volatility, those can be influenced by all kinds of things, not just this one bill. The same goes for the talk about Medicaid and food stamp cuts, those impacts depend on the final version of the bill and how states handle changes. And sure, some Republicans are pushing back on it, but that's normal with big legislation; there’s always a mix of support and opposition. Bottom line, this is a blend of facts, projections, and political viewpoints. It helps to look at which parts are locked in and which are more up in the air."Trump's latest tax bill, known as the **"Big, Beautiful Bill,"** is projected to **increase the national debt by $3 trillion to $4 trillion** over the next decade."
Wow! That's a [i]huge[i] drop from Biden, who increased it twice that much in only 4 years! I would prefer to see the debt drop, but also recognize that that simply isn't going to be possible, politically or realistically, for a few years. Hopefully Trump can enact enough spending cuts to get to that point in this term.Which President Contributed the Most to U.S. National Debt?
Lincoln and FDR. But in recent times?
Joe Biden, and Donald Trump (in his first term) presided over the the two largest increases in terms of dollar amounts...
https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by … osevelt%20(FDR,economic%20recession%20in%20modern%20history.
My point was to highlight that both Biden’s policies during COVID and the proposed Republican bill would increase the deficit and debt. However, the scale and context are different. Biden’s spending happened during an unprecedented global crisis, which required large investments to support the economy and public health. The Republican bill, on the other hand, is proposed in a very different economic environment.
Also, I wanted to emphasize that while both parties’ policies add to the debt, it’s important to consider who benefits from the spending and tax changes. Your concern about Republicans favoring the wealthy is something many share, and it’s worth discussing how fiscal policies impact different groups.
I’m not arguing one side is perfect, just encouraging a balanced look at the fiscal impacts from both administrations
If we wanted to be "fair" then why don't we pay people for the actual value of the work they do instead of a discounted amount so that the owners can profit from it?
But in relation to the folks at the lower end of the pay scale, why can't they keep more of what they earn also? You seem to be saying that it's okay for the wealthy class to keep what they earn but it's okay to grab the earnings, disproportionately, from the bottom percentages. Why?
That's a fair question, and the truth is that throughout modern U.S. tax history, people who earn less have consistently paid lower tax rates, and in many cases, no federal income taxes at all. This principle was reinforced under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) signed by President Trump and continues under the new tax bill passed in 2025. Under the 2017 tax reform, tax brackets were lowered across the board, meaning that everyone — from low-income to high-income earners, paid a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than before. One of the most significant changes for lower earners was the near doubling of the standard deduction. This meant a single filer didn’t owe federal income taxes on the first roughly $12,000 of income, and married couples on the first $24,000. On top of that, refundable tax credits such as the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit were expanded, allowing many lower-income families to receive money back even if they owed little or no taxes.
As for the 2025 tax law currently in place, it continues to prioritize relief for lower-income workers. Expanded deductions and credits have been preserved or increased, and the structure still ensures that those earning less pay less or nothing at all in federal income tax. According to the most recent IRS data for tax year 2022, approximately 31% of all tax filers owed no federal income tax, about 50.7 million out of 161.3 million returns. These individuals typically had incomes below the taxable threshold or received credits that offset their liability. It's also worth noting that even those who don’t pay federal income tax often still pay federal payroll taxes (like Social Security and Medicare), as well as state and local taxes such as sales and property taxes. So, when people ask why those at the lower end of the income scale can’t keep more of what they earn, the answer is: they already do. Both the 2017 and 2025 laws have continued this trend. The broader debate usually focuses on how much more relief should be provided and who should ultimately bear the cost, but the structure of our current tax system does give substantial breaks to lower-income earners.
Looking ahead, President Trump's proposed "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" (OBBBA), which has passed the House but awaits Senate approval, aims to further extend and expand tax relief measures. Key provisions include:
Extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts: The bill seeks to make permanent the tax cuts introduced in the TCJA, preventing them from expiring at the end of 2025.
Increased Standard Deduction: An additional $1,000 for single filers and $2,000 for married couples from 2025 to 2028, benefiting those who take the standard deduction.
Child Tax Credit Enhancement: The credit would increase to $2,500 per child through 2028, with adjustments for inflation thereafter, providing more support to families with children.
No Tax on Tips and Overtime: Income earned from tips and overtime work between 2026 and 2028 would be exempt from federal income tax, directly benefiting service industry and hourly workers.
Auto Loan Interest Deduction: Taxpayers could deduct interest on auto loans for vehicles assembled in the U.S. between 2025 and 2028, up to $10,000 annually, with phaseouts for higher-income earners.
Additional Relief for Seniors: An extra $4,000 deduction for individuals over 65, phasing out at higher income levels, to alleviate tax burdens on retirees.
These proposed measures aim to provide continued and, in some cases, enhanced tax relief for lower-income individuals and families, reinforcing the existing structure that allows them to keep more of what they earn.
It well appears, and actually throughout our history, that the poor are considered, and are not overtaxed.The Congressional Budget Office, estimates income for the bottom 10% of households would fall by 2% in 2027 and by 4% in 2033 as a result of the bill’s changes.
By contrast, those in the top 10% would get an income boost from the legislation: 4% in 2027 and 2% in 2033, CBO found.
Actually, multiple analyses suggest that the Republican tax bill will negatively impact lower-income earners
Why should this be accepted?
Especially when the wealthy game the system such that those on the lower end are artificially paid less than the value of their work.
Why do those on the lower-end have 100% of their income subject to income tax (as well as payroll) while those that simply invest and do NO WORK get a lower tax rate on their capital gains?
Because we are being nanny's to the wealthy don't you see.
We covered that nonsense many times already. Just for the record, we are neither a socialist nation nor a so-called "nanny state". We've gone over the definition of socialism many times, and it is obvious we are nowhere close to being that. As to being a nanny state, we are failing miserably when compared to the rest of the world.
What we also didn't like once upon a time besides socialism is fascism but that is what 76 million people voted for and Trump is quickly moving us in that direction.
I guess one of Trump's "Bold Agenda" items is to do away with States Rights. It took a judge to stop Trump from telling New York how to run its state.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/27/business … on-pricingMore "Bold Agenda". While dismantling America's ability to fight Russian, Chinese, and Iranian espionage, the FBI plans to "get to the bottom" of the cocaine found in the White House visitor's area as well as that criminal mastermind who leaked the Dobbs decision.
One item does seem legitimate is which Trump supporters planted the pipe bombs during the J 6 insurrection.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/27/politics … dobbs-leakSMART - Let's make it easier for kids to get Covid and infect their grandparents with it.
94 people a week are still dying from Coved
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/27/health/c … mmendationHere is another America Last initiative from Trump, the felon and Sexual Predator - choke off America's access to exceptional talent.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/27/politics … pointmentsPart of Trump's so-called Bold Agenda is pardoning fellow felons and tax cheats (and those that contribute lots of money to him - i.e. bribery)
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/27/politics … knows-best
I wonder if those who bribed Trump for a pardon can be prosecuted for it later.It is truly amazing, isn't it, just how fast Trump learns! Just one session watching Biden pardon everyone under the sun for potential future crimes and look what he learned to do!
Of course, it probably helped when "I will never pardon Hunter for anything he did" became a blanket pardon of the man for anything and everything he might ever have done or might ever do.
You should probably thank Mr. Biden for being such a good teacher; it has/will produced thousands of criminals walking the streets. Including Biden Jr.
(I have to admint, though, that I don't understand why only Trump's pardons are wrong - why aren't Bidens, particularly those for future crimes that haven't even happened yet? Or do we not discuss that because, you know, he is a liberal Democrat and exempt from doing wrong?)Do they do that in the Oriental countries or the Arabs? Their chop the head off and rip!
Wonder if we went back to stoning people to death in the public square... Throwing pedophiles from the tops of roofs... would be the fix society needs to get back to some level of proper civil behavior?
The so-called "Bold Agenda's" One Big Beautiful Tax Bill will add TRILLIONS of dollars to the national debt, so say several independent groups who do that sort of analysis.
BS say Republicans because Economic Growth is not factored into the analyses. In fact, Newt Gingrich once told the Republican News outlet Fake Fox News back in 2019 that the CBO be abolished back ... arguing that its math does not appropriately assume tax cuts will spur economic growth.
Well, maybe there is a reason us cost analysts don't include something that will probably NOT happen. In fact, tax cuts have only once significantly improved investment and NEVER grew the economy very much (the rich were too busy reaping their windfall).
For example:
1981 - Reagan Tax Cuts: Short-term spurt in investment due to accelerated depreciation and tax incentives, short-term growth followed by HUGE budget deficits
1986 - Reagan Tax Cuts: Investment DECREASED and no economic growth
2001-2003 - Bush Tax Cuts: Investment was below normal and very limited economic growth until the Great Recession
2012 - Obama Tax Cuts: No increase in investment and prevented an economic downturn.
2017 - Trump Tax Cuts: Reasonable short-term investment increase but the small increase in GDP in 2018 was followed by a decline in growth in 2019.
That is why we don't do "dynamic scoring" - because it simply doesn't pan out and is Republican wishful thinking, just like it is for 2025.
On the flip-side, tax INCREASES often helped.
1982 - Reagan Tax Increase: Increased federal revenue by 1% of GDP and economic growth resumed in subsequent years.
1993 - Clinton Tax Increase: Economy had one of the longest economic expansions ever recorded and helped lead to a BUDGET SURPLUS at the end of his term.
This is why the Democrats keep pushing for a fairer tax structure with the rich paying their fair share - because it works.What do you consider a "fair share" of the tax burden for those earning more than you do? What is your reasoning, beyond "they have money and I want it!"?
One of the reasons the felon and sexual predator wanted back in the Oval Office was to exact REVENGE on those he perceived as foes. He has been very active at least trying to get retribution.
Problem is, Reagan Judges, Bush Judges, Clinton Judges, Obama Judges, Biden Judges, and Trump appointed Judges are telling Trump his attempts are ILLEGAL and Unconstitutional!
But then what do you expect from a FELON?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/27/politics … tive-orderLet's see - Trump originally said he will tell Putin to end the war before Trump took office. Putin laughed.
Then he tales office and the Ukraine war is still going on.
The Putin strings Trump along for the next 4 months making Trump look like a fool.
Trump must like it because he just gave Putin two more weeks. Putin must be ROFL thinking "what are you going to do if I don't".
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … s-05-28-25This is a perfect example of what it is like living in Russia when Putin doesn't like you. The difference is, of course, this is happening in America when Trump or MAGA doesn't like you.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/28/us/petro … il-hearingIt's all politics. How their play it is machi..l... And you see both sides?
Trump Tariffs Ruled Illegal by Federal Judicial Panel
A panel of federal judges on Wednesday blocked President Trump from imposing some of his steepest tariffs on China and other U.S. trading partners, finding that federal law did not grant him “unbounded authority” to tax imports from nearly every country around the world.
On Wednesday, the Court of International Trade, the primary federal legal body overseeing such matters, found that Mr. Trump’s tariffs “exceed any authority granted” to the president by the emergency powers law. Ruling in separate cases brought by states and businesses, a bipartisan panel of three judges essentially declared many, but not all, of Mr. Trump’s tariffs to have been issued illegally.
The ruling gave the executive branch up to 10 days to complete the bureaucratic process of ending them. The Trump administration immediately filed its plans to appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
WHAT A MESS
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/28/busi … court.htmlThe appeal isn't a mess. Let it be heard according to the process of law. And whatever decision taken by the Judges, let the Executive compile.
You do know, don't you, that the "Executive complying" is NOT a forgone conclusion. Trump, the dictator, is already defying other court orders and usurping the powers of Congress (with Republican's help of course).
This is a mess, the Supreme Court will straighten it out.
If a Reagan Judge, an Obama Judge, and Trump Judge made it extremely clear that Trump broke the law again, what are the odds that the Supreme Court will say he followed the law?
My guess is pretty slim, but given that two of the Justices are automatic votes for keeping Trump a king, I suppose it is possible.The ruling yet again emphasized the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, ruling that Congress, not the president, holds primary authority over international trade.... When is Congress going to take back their power?
When the Democrats regain control and bring sanity back to Congress.
"The Trump administration says it will go to the Supreme Court on Friday, unless an appeals court grants its request to block the tariffs ruling.
In a new filing at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the administration asks the court to immediately halt the order barring its Liberation Day and fentanyl tariffs.
It calls the order by the trade court a “legally indefensible” action that would block policies central to its economic and foreign policy agendas and threatens to unwind months of diplomatic negotiations."
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c2dekzjg6gzt
As I was addressing your comment, this was reported ---- Update: Just after 3 p.m. Thursday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a brief order granting the Trump administration's request to pause an earlier ruling that voided several of the president's tariffs.
As a result, those tariffs have been reinstated for now.
The businesses challenging the tariffs have until June 5 to respond, while the administration has until June 9 to file any reply, the appeals court said.Please, keep us upatet by June 10, or earlier, June 9.
Crossing my fingers, I just started buying back into the market on this news.
What is wrong with this man? And why doesn't it matter to Maga? Seriously....
The MAHA Report Cites Studies That Don’t Exist
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says his “Make America Healthy Again” Commission report harnesses “gold-standard” science, citing more than 500 studies and other sources to back up its claims. Those citations, though, are rife with errors, from broken links to misstated conclusions.
Seven of the cited sources don’t appear to exist at all.
Epidemiologist Katherine Keyes is listed in the MAHA report as the first author of a study on anxiety in adolescents. When NOTUS reached out to her this week, she was surprised to hear of the citation. She does study mental health and substance use, she said. But she didn’t write the paper listed.
“The paper cited is not a real paper that I or my colleagues were involved with,” Keyes told NOTUS via email. “We’ve certainly done research on this topic, but did not publish a paper in JAMA Pediatrics on this topic with that co-author group, or with that title.”
The anxiety study wasn’t the only one the report cites that appears to be mysteriously absent from the scientific literature. A section describing the “corporate capture of media” highlights two studies that it says are “broadly illustrative” of how a rise in direct-to-consumer drug advertisements has led to more prescriptions being written for ADHD medications and antidepressants for kids.
The catch? Neither of those studies is anywhere to be found.
Those articles don’t appear in the table of contents for the journals listed in their citations. A spokesperson for Virginia Commonwealth University, where psychiatric researcher Robert L. Findling currently teaches, confirmed to NOTUS that he never authored such an article. The author of the first study doesn’t appear to be a real ADHD researcher at all — at least, not one with a Google Scholar profile.
Another medical researcher whose work was cited in a section about how screen time affects children’s sleep told us the MAHA report mischaracterized her study.
“The conclusions in the report are not accurate and the journal reference is incorrect. It was not published in Pediatrics. Also, the study was not done in children, but in college students,”
Jr. is a quack and a liar...
And to top it off? Jr. Is threatening to bar government scientists from publishing in leading medical journals. There really is an incredible assault on the educated in this country. An all out effort to squash intelligence.
https://www.notus.org/health-science/ma … ion-errorsLet me repeat this TRUTH you just wrote - There really is an incredible assault on the educated in this country. An all out effort to squash intelligence.
Why? Because the more educated you are, the less likely you are to vote for felons, sexual predators, and dictators.Absolutely. And more proof?
"Secretary of Education Linda McMahon defended the Trump administration’s ongoing war on higher education on Wednesday, saying universities should be able to conduct research, provided they are abiding by the administration’s goals."
She says that Universities should "be in sync". With the administration...
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/19 … 7043458125That tells me she, like MAGA, has fully bought into the Trump is Putin is Dictator paradigm.
Supreme Court limits judges' authority to block infrastructure projects over environmental concerns
Justices say courts must defer to agencies unless their decisions fall outside a 'broad zone of reasonableness'
Implication: In the end, this decision makes it harder for environmental groups to use the courts to block infrastructure projects. Agencies will now have more leeway to greenlight projects without being overruled by federal judges, unless their decisions are clearly outside reasonable boundsThat needs context to be understood.
1. In June 2024, the Supreme Court overruled the longstanding Chevron deference doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Previously, this doctrine required courts to defer to federal agencies' reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The Court NOW HOLDS that courts must now exercise their independent judgment in interpreting statutes (the law) and may not defer to an agency's interpretation simply because a statute is ambiguous.
That ruling 'seems' quite opposite of what you are implying.
NOW, jump forward a year and the SAME court ruled this way - the one you are referring to:
In May 2025, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County concerning environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which doesn't give agencies broad policy-making authority. In this case the Court stated that courts SHOULD afford substantial deference to agencies' decisions regarding the scope and content of Environmental Impact Statements, provided those decisions fall within a "broad zone of reasonableness."
Don't defer to the agency, Defer to the agency - which is it?
Well, as it turns out, they can both be true at the same time.
1. When the statute is "ambiguous", the courts cannot defer to the agency's interpretation.
2. When the statute IS the National Environmental Policy Act, then, and only then (for now anyway), the court shall defer to the agency's interpretation of NEPA - so long as it is broadly reasonable.
So, no, the Supreme Court did not limit a judges' authority to block infrastructure projects over environmental concerns unless NEPA is somehow involved.
In the latter case, the judge still must determine if the agency's interpretation is fact-based and is not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law (as is often the case with Trump).My initial comment was unsourced.
More on the court decision. and source from the Court
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 … 5_m648.pdf
The Supreme Court issued its ruling in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County on May 29, 2025. The decision was 8–0, with Justice Neil Gorsuch recusing himself from the case. This ruling limits the scope of environmental reviews required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), allowing federal agencies more discretion in approving infrastructure projects without extensive consideration of indirect environmental impacts.
In simple terms, the recent Supreme Court ruling means:
Federal judges have LESS power to stop infrastructure projects (like pipelines or highways) based on environmental concerns. Instead, government agencies (like the EPA or Army Corps of Engineers) now have more authority to approve these projects, and courts must defer to their decisions as long as those decisions are within a broad range of what’s considered reasonable.
What this changes:
Before: Judges could more easily block projects if environmental laws weren’t strictly followed.
Now, Even if a judge disagrees, they have to go along with the agency’s decision unless it’s way off base.
The big takeaway:
It’s now harder for environmental groups to stop or delay projects through lawsuits. Agencies have more final say, and the courts can't easily second-guess them. This could speed up development and make it tougher to challenge projects on environmental grounds.It certainly WAS sourced. You offered a BBC article (which I reproduced in my rebuttal)
And you didn't say anything I didn't say, although you again left out that their ruling has to do with things covered by NEPA which provides the rules on how to do a proper environmental impact study. If the issue falls outside of the mechanics and technical aspects of NEPA, then judges are to use their own discretion.It certainly WAS sourced. You offered a BBC article (which I reproduced in my rebuttal)
And you didn't say anything I didn't say, although you again left out that their ruling has to do with things covered by NEPA which provides the rules on how to do a proper environmental impact study. If the issue falls outside of the mechanics and technical aspects of NEPA, then judges are to use their own discretion.
And I agree with you, it could speed up development which leads to environmental disasters because it wasn't thoroughly evaluated enough.It certainly WAS sourced. You offered a BBC article (which I reproduced in my rebuttal)
And you didn't say anything I didn't say, although you again left out that their ruling has to do with things covered by NEPA which provides the rules on how to do a proper environmental impact study. If the issue falls outside of the mechanics and technical aspects of NEPA, then judges are to use their own discretion.At this point, it’s obvious you’re more interested in posturing than meaningful discussion. I cited both a respected news outlet and the official Supreme Court ruling, yet you chose to downplay that and push your own narrow take. This isn’t good-faith debate; it’s nitpicking for attention, like a self-appointed authority desperate to be right.
You’ve made it clear you don’t take my words seriously, which is fine; I don’t respect your approach either. What I do find disturbing is your persistence in replying to everything I post. It’s crossed the line from disagreement into trolling, and frankly, it’s creepy. I’m saving permalinks to your replies, which I believe show a pattern of baiting behavior. If you continue, I will report you. Consider this a final warning.Why are deflecting from the REAL point - that you conflated two separate parts from that respected news source to produce something whose meaning that wasn't true. Pointing out misinformation is not, in my world anyway, "posturing" or "downplaying".
Instead, it is getting the truth out that the court of appeals did not say, imply, or otherwise think that either the Plaintiffs case or the Trade Courts ruling was "legally indefensible".
In my opinion, it is that kind of wordsmithing that, how did you put it, "crosses the line from disagreement to trolling". While I don't find what you wrote "creepy", I do find it sad.
News of the Day:
1. The PCE followed the lower CPI that was released at the beginning of May, reaching 2.1%, just above the Fed's target of 2% - GOOD NEWS.
2. Consumer Spending pulled back more than expected, growing only at a 0.2% rate (in the previous month, front-loaded purchases drove it up 0.7%) - BAD NEWS
3. Traffic to Ports continues to be dismal, signally empty shelves and higher prices as the supply chain locks up. - BAD NEWS
4. The FED's GDPNow model lowered its 2nd Qtr expectations to 2.2% growth, down from the previous weeks reading of 2.4%. That took into account the decreasing consumer spending. - BAD NEWS
5. The second reading of the 1st Qtr GDP improved slightly but was still negative. The revised reading showed the economy SHRANK by -0.2%, up from the initial negative 0.3%. - GOOD, but still VERY BAD NEWS.
That may be one reason the pre-market DOW is Down 175 points at the moment.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/30/business … fs-imports
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/30/economy/ … -pce-aprilHere is a wonderful example of what I consider dishonest commenting and on purpose spreading of misinformation.
First it was written that -
""The Trump administration says it will go to the Supreme Court on Friday, unless an appeals court grants its request to block the tariffs ruling.
In a new filing at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the administration asks the court to immediately halt the order barring its Liberation Day and fentanyl tariffs.
True enough and honest reporting. But then it was IMMEDIATALY followed by the dishonest misinformation
It calls the order by the trade court a “legally indefensible” action that would block policies central to its economic and foreign policy agendas and threatens to unwind months of diplomatic negotiations."
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c2dekzjg6gzt
Who do you think the author of that meant for "It" to be? Clearly the intent was to make the reader think it was the Appeals Court who issued the stay that found either the Trade Court's or the Plaintiff's case "legally indefensible". Frankly, that is a LIE.
What is true is that "someone" used the words "legally indefensible" in the BBC article that was referenced - but it was not the appeals court as implied! Frankly, that attempt to mislead is dishonest in my opinion. (You will find it was someone in the Trump administration who said that.)
I think an apology is owed by someone.Another example of how decrepit and dishonest the Trump administration is (as if we needed more examples).
"Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem posted a stunning allegation on Wednesday: A undocumented migrant sent a letter threatening to kill President Donald Trump, promising to “self deport” after the assassination.
“Thanks to our ICE officers, this illegal alien who threatened to assassinate President Trump is behind bars,” Noem wrote in a social media post that included the letter and a picture of the man arrested. DHS also sent out a press release.
The story was picked up by multiple news outlets. The president’s allies used it to highlight what they see as the dangers of undocumented migrants and the work of the administration to boot them out of the country.
The problem: Investigators believe the migrant was a victim of a setup.
Law enforcement believes the man, Ramon Morales Reyes, 54, never wrote the letter, which was sent to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office and other law enforcement agencies, several sources familiar with the matter told CNN.
Instead, investigators suspect the letter was intended to benefit a separate individual who is currently awaiting trial in a robbery and assault case in which Reyes is a victim. They do not consider the threat to be credible.
In investigating the case, agents believe the person may have been involved in sending these letters, claiming to be from Reyes, in an attempt to have Reyes deported before the case could go to trial, sources said."
My initial thought was that the migrant was set up by ICE, for I wouldn't put it past Trump to do such a thing. But it seems it was a criminal trying to stop Reyes from testifying against him.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/29/politics … ning-trumpThis company has a partial solution to global warming (you know, that human population destroying thing that Trump denies exists). It sucks CO2 directly out of the air and captures it, thereby reducing the amount of earth-warming pollution in our air.
Since Trump says global warming is a Democratic hoax, he is defunding Biden's earth-saving climate initiatives and this company (and the world) will pay the price of Trump's stupidity.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/30/climate/ … re-layoffsHere is a great analysis of why Trump and DOGE will end up costing the American taxpayer BILLIONS from the real PTSD inducing cuts to the federal workforce and contractors.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/30/politics … nt-savingsThe article is basically one giant crystal ball convention… LOL. The headlines couldn’t be clearer. All one sees throughout that article --- could, may, possible ---- Ever take a break from CNN? They’ve been caught red-handed again and again just being a megaphone. How’s your guy Tapper holding up? LOL.
I guess we read different articles. The one I read didn't make any predictions where a crystal ball is needed. It used EXPERTS to point out where likely costs of what DOGE is doing will probably occur - that is what analysis does. But it spent most of its time showing how DOGE is lying about almost everything.
With the stroke of a pen, Trump destroyed the lives of up to a million immigrants that were here LEGALLY and leading PRODUCTIVE LIVES leading to the well-being of America.
The "parole" program, which has been around since Eisenhower's days, gives legal status to classes of immigrants who face death, torture, and deprivation at the hands of the governments they use to live under or from gangs that have taken over their countries. The parole program grew out of the compassion American's USED TO SHOW other people.
Now, what this administration has said to these people is to "get the hell out of America, go home and die." Worse, the Conservatives on the Supreme Court agree with that sentiment. They effectively made the lower court challenges mute because Trump will make sure there is no one left to challenge his Machiavellian orders.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/30/politics … ons-paroleIsn't that which I've been saying? It's all a game of politics.
It has gone way beyond politics. It is now in the realm of how much a demented mind can get away with.
Isn't Niccolo Machivallen demented? Every politician except he/she acting as a puppet, fall within the dement state?
President Donald Trump's approval rating has fallen to a new low, according to the nation's most accurate pollster.
The latest AtlasIntel survey, conducted between May 21-27 among 3,469 adults, shows that Trump's approval rating has fallen to 45 percent, while 54 percent disapprove....
AtlasIntel was ranked the most accurate polling company of the 2024 election by survey veteran Nate Silver and was previously named the most accurate pollster of the 2020 election by 538.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-a … ls-2079291This is still what I've been saying these days. Whatever goes up also comes down. Bingo, the rating will go up again.
This site is an excellent resource for tracking the latest Trump-related polls, all in one place. Nate Silver’s site updates daily, using statistical aggregation to provide a balanced, data-driven snapshot. As of today, Trump’s aggregated score sits at 45.9%. Interestingly, Rasmussen currently has him at 53%—possibly the highest approval I've seen him register to date. I check the site daily, looks like he is doing pretty well with his approval rating.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-appr … r-bulletinThank you for this, I had thought Nate Silver disappeared LOL good to see that he is still at it.
When you feed all of this into the average, Trump ends up with a 45.9 percent approval rating and a 51.3 percent disapproval rating. That -5.4 net approval rating is his worst showing since May 18th. But it’s still much better than his second term low of -9.7 back in April. -EMD, 5/31/25
And Yahoo News has Trump at 41% currently. And Rasmussen, as recently as May 23, had Trump at -6 on their approval index.I think he did a good job with the 2024 election, called it pretty close, and it was. I like how he provides all current polls and calculates a score.
Interjecting. I subscribe to Nate's Substack news site. Recently there has been some good articles about poker and he did a good job of covering March Madness.
Anyway, he rates pollsters and polling services. You may be interested just for a guide for how much credence to give a source.
Silver Bulletin pollster ratings, 2025 update (Feb 17, 2025)
https://www.natesilver.net/p/pollster-r … r-bulletin
He pretty much explains the ins and outs of it all as well.Thank you for the link--- I will have a look at it. He is an interesting man.
Extremely interesting. Thank you.
What I found fascinating was that even historically Republican pollsters like Trafalgar and Rasmussen ended up with a Democratic bias.
In reading Original Sin I have a much better understanding on WHY Biden chose to run - hubris, a characteristic that I didn't really associate with him. The theme was that he came from behind so many times before, why should 2024 be any different.
I am about 25% of the way through, coupled with independent research, and it seems many of his "closer" advisors weren't keen on him running as were people like Obama. But, most importantly, is 4 closest advisers were although it doesn't seem they had to suggest very hard.
So far, his so-called dementia doesn't factor into the picture yet. What does is the "perception" of dementia and how people responded to that. I am slowly becoming convinced that he wouldn't have physically made it through another four years and I am already, belatedly, convinced he shouldn't have tried in the first place.
What seems to be the biggest drivers for running, besides the "I can come from behind again" attitude, was an abject fear of what Trump will and is doing to America and the false notion that no other Democrat could beat Trump, especially since Biden did the first time.
I am wondering if that "sense" didn't pervade the polls, even the Republican-leaning one.
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.