Understanding Trumponomics
Trump and Musk and their cohorts are laying off and/or firing tens of thousands of federal workers who are more than likely going to end up in the unemployment lines. He is placing tariffs on imports which will end up costing consumers more for goods and services.
Their rational is they are reducing the size of the federal government and payroll and making plans for new jobs.
However, aren’t taxpayers going to have to pay for these out-of-work people? How is that putting more people to work? Aren’t we and they going to pay more for goods and services Aren’t Trump’s tariff’s a tax on imported goods and services? Why would corporations pay higher labor costs for workers here than lower labor costs from foreign companies?
Here is what Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, who is a professor of public policy emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley says about Trump’s tariffs.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets … &ei=12Do you really find it reasonable that other countries impose massive tariffs on US products...but we do not return the favor out of fear of their reaction?
Do you really believe that with the deportation of millions of illegal aliens there won't be jobs begging for those that were laid off? They may not like them, but they ARE there.
Do you really believe that a year from now those same workers will still be drawing unemployment? You cannot figure out that by then we will be saving money?
I didn't believe Trump's report of the Canadian tariff on our milk and milk products...until I checked. Yes, it can be as much as 270% for milk and 314% for milk products. Before you decide we should not impose tariffs you might want to actually CHECK what is being done TO us.The Canadian tariffs caught my attention, too. I first saw them in a meme list. They're outrageous. So I looked.
"Oops" could be one explanation, but "manipulation" would be a better one. I wouldn't plant my flag anywhere near this hill.
The tariff numbers appear true, but the insinuations aren't. It is claimed (by industry reps from both sides) that US dairy imports have never been charged those high tariff amounts, that the US applies the same tariffing structure (with similarly very high numbers) on Canadian dairy imports, and that the rates and quota numbers for both nations were agreed upon in the USMCA deal and signed by Pres. Trump. He is bashing a deal he made.
GAThank You. I don't think he knows what the hell he is doing. That's why he is constantly flip-flopping. But the market knows, that's why it is going down the tubes.
Don't get too excited. My point didn't have anything to do with the president knowing what he is doing. It was only about the use of the Canadian example.
Sec. Rubio stated a clear goal: to reset the baseline of world trade with the US. The attack on USAID could be seen as the same thing—resetting that baseline.
That doesn't seem like a bad thing.
GAI was listening to him [Rubio] talk about the situation in Yemen today...
He is well aware of the harm done over the last 4 years, how the Houthis are armed by Iran, how Iran was funded by the Biden Administration, how so many problems have arisen that weren't... 4 years ago.
If changes needed to be made and waste and fraud cut out of the system in 2016... well what you can consider to have occurred 2021 to 2024 is a swindle combined with sabotage of many relationships and what was in the best interests of America the Nation.From tariffs to Yemen. That was a leap.
But then, it wasn't. It fits the 'reset/realign' goal.
GA
This would not surprise me in the slightest. I just don't see Trump as really understanding what he is doing with tariffs. Or what he has done in the past, for that matter.
I'm still working on the tariff thing. I have a train of thought that I can't shake. What if the tariffs aren't being used as an economic tool but as a realignment tool?
Realignments and resets forcing new considerations. America first.
Look at the past headlines of his tariff battles. All wins. Look at the global turmoil he can create with just a threat. No one knows what to expect.
Although there are legitimate arguments against that characterization, there are just as valid arguments for it.
Idiot or master of the deal? What's more important, words or actions? If it's a binary choice, I don't think he's an idiot.
GA
Your first paragraph: Tariffs are a tax on imports. It doesn't matter what country is doing it. Did you even read the link?
Second paragraph: I said nothing about deportation of millions of illegal aliens. It's about federal workers losing their jobs..
Third paragraph: Same as second one
Fourth paragraph: Trump is fixated on his beautiful Tariffs. He uses them as leverage and a weapon against other countries to manipulate them.. I don't think he really understands or cares how they really work. And then he lies about the benefits he reeks from them.
Just like in his first term. He lied about the tariffs for farmers. He said we gained 39b from that. In actuality, we lost 39b and then he had to subsidize their loses.But you didn't address the point of the second/third paragraph.
Trump couldn't do a better job of tanking the market. You are correct, her has combined mass layoffs of Federal workers and fiscal tightening... always recessionary.
"Can you guarantee the American people, here and now, that there will be no recession on President Trump's watch?" Kristin Welker asked Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent ...
Bessent responded: "You know there are no guarantees. "
I think we all know where we're headed. It's such a shame because Biden had the economy on an upward trajectory.If the feds quit borrowing and inserting those trillions into the market there likely WILL be a recession. Hopefully not a severe one, but a recession.
But not one anywhere near the size we would see if the DON'T quit borrowing. Just for me, but I would rather see a recession (shades of 2008) rather than a full blown depression as in 1930. The collapse of an economy is not a pretty thing.
37 Trillion dollars of Debt
2 Trillion dollars spent more, each year, than they bring in
1 Trillion dollars spent, each year, on the interest on that Debt alone
Wake up... the Bill is Due"Trump’s tariffs will be paid by the poor – while his tax cuts help the rich"
And he's convinced y'all to do it with a smile on your face.
But remember when trump promised during his first go-around to reduce the national debt... then his tax cuts made it surge. Yeah, that happened.He is working hard to reduce the debt--- my money is on DOGE. And the poor will be able to seek out jobs, and a better way of life. I smile at this concept. Hand-up instead of handouts.
I don't think you really addressed the idea of tax cuts for the top 1% being funded by the rest of us...
People Power--- I took my time with this one. Your thread offered many avenues for thought. I did a google dive, and in the end, added just my view.
Regarding the federal layoffs: Yes, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is cutting government jobs, but many of these positions were created in the past few years, particularly under the Biden administration. Between January 2021 and November 2024, the federal workforce grew from approximately 2.89 million to just over 3 million employees, reflecting a 4.8% increase. In fiscal year 2023 alone, the federal government hired over 200,000 new employees, marking an increase of more than 45,000 from the previous year. In total, nearly half of all federal employees were new hires since 2019, with over 1 million new employees brought on between October 2019 and September 2023. The people laid off aren’t necessarily going straight to unemployment lines—many will transition to private sector jobs, especially if government cuts lead to a stronger economy with more private hiring. The argument that taxpayers will still have to pay for them ignores the long-term benefit of reducing government payroll and pension obligations.
Tariffs: Yes, tariffs increase the cost of imported goods, history shows this to be true--- but the idea behind Trump's tariffs is to incentivize companies to manufacture in the U.S. Instead of sending money overseas and keeping wages low, tariffs push businesses to invest in American workers. During President Trump's second term, the United States has seen significant foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows, though specific figures directly attributable to his policies are not distinctly separated in available data. Global FDI reached a record $41 trillion recently, with the U.S. being a major recipient. I notice that so far, no one has mentioned that Trump is pushing for reciprocal tariffs. Isn’t this something that many, including much of the media, are overlooking? It’s a concept that’s pretty hard to argue against, isn’t it?
So a quick question, what are your pure thoughts on reciprocal tariffs? I hope this question can be answered in the context I put it--- not anything that relates to Trump but relates to the concept of reciprocal tariffs.
Historically, the U.S. has thrived when it prioritized domestic production. Corporations already pay higher labor costs in many developed countries, yet they continue to operate there because of infrastructure, workforce quality, and consumer demand. The goal is to make it worthwhile for companies to produce goods here rather than rely on cheap labor abroad.
History shows that strategic tariffs—like those used by countries such as China—have helped build industrial strength. It’s not a simple issue of “taxing” consumers; it’s about long-term economic independence. If done right, in my view, tariffs can help create sustainable, well-paying jobs in America rather than relying on low-cost imports that gut domestic industries. Is it not time for change?
At the end of the day, Trump’s agenda is a bold and highly progressive one—just not in the way the term is usually used. Much of what he’s pushing hasn’t been tried before in modern America, but he was given a clear mandate to move forward with his strong vision. Whether people agree or disagree, there’s no denying that he’s delivering exactly what he campaigned on. It’s a new path, and time will tell if it reshapes the country for the better.Yes, he campaigned on doing something that had already failed in his first administration... Tariffs did not bring manufacturing back. If anything corporations became more resourceful and found new manufacturing locations in places like Vietnam and Cambodia. Why are some folks pretending that these are new ideas when we have an extensive record of Trump's first time failures to look back on?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/31/busi … china.htmlIn less than two months ---In Donald Trump's second term (2021–2025), significant investments were announced, contributing to the U.S. economy. For instance, Apple pledged a $500 billion investment, creating 20,000 new U.S. jobs. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/02/ … our-years/
Eli Lilly committed $27 billion to U.S. manufacturing.
https://www.reuters.com/business/health … eb%2026%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20Eli,duties%20from%20the%20Trump%20administration.
WHITEHOUSE.GOV
Additionally, the Chips Act, enacted during this period, spurred over $500 billion in semiconductor manufacturing investments from companies like Intel, Samsung, and TSMC.
FT.COM
https://www.ft.com/content/bec74539-098 … 33f9d5835e
These efforts, among others, culminated in over $1 trillion in new investments during Trump's second term.
WHITEHOUSE.GOV
This is historic, and he is just getting started. Odd how anyone could have the view that Trump is not bringing in new investments, and most likely due to the threat of tariffs. Companies will look for the best places to invest, where costs will;l be less. This is just how they stay very profitable. They don't dwell on emotional ideologies or only on where are the best most profitable ways to do business--- and Trump is offering that option."Additionally, the Chips Act, enacted during this period, spurred over $500 billion in semiconductor manufacturing investments from companies like Intel, Samsung, and TSMC.
FT.COM
Are you giving credit to Trump for the CHIPS act??About that Apple investment.... I do believe that that investment was a reaffirmation of a previous commitment...
PRESS RELEASE
April 26, 2021
Apple commits $430 billion in US investments over five years...
Apple today announced an acceleration of its US investments, with plans to make new contributions of more than $430 billion and add 20,000 new jobs across the country over the next five years
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/04/ … ive-years/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmoo … ally-mean/Yikes offered the wrong link. Feb 24, 2025,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityar … 0000-jobs/
"In a press release, Cook said the company’s new “$500 billion commitment” includes a doubling of its “Advanced Manufacturing Fund” from $5 billion to $10 billion and building a new “advanced manufacturing facility in Houston.”
The factory in Houston will be used to manufacture servers the company plans to deploy to support its artificial intelligence platform, Apple Intelligence.
The expanded Advanced Manufacturing Fund—which the company first announced in 2017 to support “high-skilled manufacturing jobs”—includes a “multibillion-dollar commitment” toward chipmaker TSMC’s new manufacturing facility in Arizona.
The investment will also cover the creation of an academy in Michigan to “train the next generation of U.S. manufacturers,” further research and development investments and “Apple TV+ productions in 20 states.”
In a bid to expand its AI offerings, the company said it will add to its data center capacity in North Carolina, Iowa, Oregon, Arizona, and Nevada.
Of the 20,000 people Apple plans to hire over the next few years, the company said a “vast majority” of them will be “focused on R&D, silicon engineering, software development, and AI and machine learning.”"No, I did not offer the wrong link. Apple offered this money in 2021 as I cited...
I [posted what Apple has come forth within March 2025. It seems you are questioning Forbes's reporting of the added money Tim Cook has said he will invest. Actually, it is very hard to keep up with the many big and small investments Trump has accomplished.
I think you should go back and look at the links that were offered... How does the current investment overlap with the investment made under the Biden administration? The math and the accounting is not clear..
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/04/ … ive-years/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmoo … ally-mean/For a clear distinction between the two investment pledges, you can refer to the following sources:
Apple’s 2021 Commitment: The $430 billion investment was detailed in Apple’s official press release, which focused on its plans for U.S. manufacturing, including new jobs, increased capital in various tech initiatives like 5G, and further investments in U.S. innovation. This was announced in April 2021. (Apple Newsroom, 2021).
Apple’s 2025 Commitment: The $500 billion investment commitment announced in February 2025 is part of Apple's ongoing strategy to increase U.S. manufacturing capabilities, including new projects such as a manufacturing facility in Houston for artificial intelligence hardware and a doubling of its U.S. Advanced Manufacturing Fund. This plan is distinct from the previous $430 billion commitment, as it includes additional funding and new initiatives. (Apple Newsroom, 2025).
These sources clarify that while both commitments involve similar goals—investing in U.S. jobs and manufacturing—the $500 billion investment is a new and separate pledge from the 2021 commitment.Ok. Got it, so let's not attribute Apple's commitment to investment to Trump.
I was just adding some context—I'm also in full agreement that Apple made investments under Biden, but also under Trump during his first term, and even under Obama. My point was simply to give the Trump administration some credit for the many investments it secured. I'm sure Biden received praise as well when he announced the $430 billion investment.
"January 2021 and November 2024, the federal workforce grew from approximately 2.89 million to just over 3 million employees, reflecting a 4.8% increase."
why is an increase necessarily bad?
Some agencies experienced growth...
Department of State: State Secretary Antony Blinken created new bureaus focused on cybersecurity and digital diplomacy, won direct hire authority for critical positions, and expanded recruitment and retention efforts across the department, which led to a hiring surge.
Department of Veterans Affairs: had a hiring surge after the passage of the PACT Act, which opened up the department’s services to millions of additional veterans.
Treasury Department: The hiring at Treasury virtually all stems from the Internal Revenue Service surging its workforce with funds from the Inflation Reduction Act.
HHS.."The hiring in HHS agencies was a direct response to criticisms and challenges faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Biden administration prioritized rebuilding these agencies, viewing career civil servants as essential to their functioning. This targeted expansion aimed to bolster the capacity and effectiveness of HHS in addressing public health crises and other critical responsibilities"
Growth in civil service jobs isn't always a bad thing
https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2025/ … ce/401945/Willow- "January 2021 and November 2024, the federal workforce grew from approximately 2.89 million to just over 3 million employees, reflecting a 4.8% increase." why is an increase necessarily bad?
Some agencies experienced growth...Willow
You have such an odd way of reading context--- where in he world did I say it was "Bad"--- I posted facts, to add truth to my context, to give a completed picture. Here is the complete paragraph you grabbed a few words from (just like left media by the way do frequently) Note the full context of the paragraph--- "Regarding the federal layoffs: Yes, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is cutting government jobs, but many of these positions were created in the past few years, particularly under the Biden administration. Between January 2021 and November 2024, the federal workforce grew from approximately 2.89 million to just over 3 million employees, reflecting a 4.8% increase. In fiscal year 2023 alone, the federal government hired over 200,000 new employees, marking an increase of more than 45,000 from the previous year. In total, nearly half of all federal employees were new hires since 2019, with over 1 million new employees brought on between October 2019 and September 2023. The people laid off aren’t necessarily going straight to unemployment lines—many will transition to private sector jobs, especially if government cuts lead to a stronger economy with more private hiring. The argument that taxpayers will still have to pay for them ignores the long-term benefit of reducing government payroll and pension obligations."Sharlee
Context matters, not just a few well-chosen words, to turn a paragraph into something that suits a skewed narrative.What was your point of mentioning that federal jobs had increased over the Biden administration?
"What was your point of mentioning that federal jobs had increased over the Biden administration?" willow
Here is my comment, I was addressing the People Powers concerns over federal layoffs--- just offering a view of a possibility of why the current administration is laying off people. I included hiring that occurred since 2019, into the Biden administration. It is clear to me that over-hiring could be a reason that some are now being laid off. I addressed each of People's issues/paragraphs, and took care to respect his thoughts.
My comment -- Regarding the federal layoffs: Yes, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is cutting government jobs, but many of these positions were created in the past few years, particularly under the Biden administration. Between January 2021 and November 2024, the federal workforce grew from approximately 2.89 million to just over 3 million employees, reflecting a 4.8% increase. In fiscal year 2023 alone, the federal government hired over 200,000 new employees, marking an increase of more than 45,000 from the previous year. In total, nearly half of all federal employees were new hires since 2019, with over 1 million new employees brought on between October 2019 and September 2023. The people laid off aren’t necessarily going straight to unemployment lines—many will transition to private sector jobs, especially if government cuts lead to a stronger economy with more private hiring. The argument that taxpayers will still have to pay for them ignores the long-term benefit of reducing government payroll and pension obligations.No one believes that a good majority of these people were doing important jobs? Jobs that will be missed? Jobs that left unfilled will cause a negative impact at least for some? I previously mentioned why some of these jobs were added under the Biden administration. It would appear, as per usual, that doge really doesn't consider the consequences of their actions. They swing the ax and don't look back..
I get where you're coming from, but I think the comment feels a bit speculative. Saying these jobs will be missed is one thing, but without examples or data to back it up, it comes off as more of a generalization. When discussing job losses or changes, it's important to look at the bigger picture and consider all the factors involved. The "DODG" comment doesn't really explain why these decisions are being made or what the real consequences are. It’d be more helpful to focus on specific policies or choices and how they’re actually affecting things, rather than just using broad statements. Also, when we look at Trump's agenda to create a smaller government and cut spending, we see that these changes are part of what’s needed to reach those goals. I knew these changes would be tough and disrupt the status quo, but I really believe we need to address the many issues that have been progressively getting worse, over many decades.
"Saying these jobs will be missed is one thing, but without examples or data to back it up, it comes off as more of a generalization."
I've given example after example in the Doge thread of program cuts that have been made and their real life consequences. I have given specific examples of cuts that harm veterans, students, the disabled, the environment, scientific research, affordable housing, the mentally ill and those with substance abuse issues.
You chose not to address any of those very specific posts.
Is a "smaller" government really that great when it doesn't actually work for the citizens of this country? When all of the cuts just leave a bloody mess behind?I recognize that you feel the program cuts you mentioned impact vulnerable groups like veterans, students, the disabled, and others. However, I think it’s important to take a broader look at the situation. I also provided clear examples of overstaffing in many agencies, not only under Biden but also toward the end of Trump’s first term. I specifically explained the reasoning behind the cuts to a COVID-era food program that was designed as a temporary measure to ensure children in need didn’t fall through the cracks. That program was not eliminated without reason—it was transitioned back to the pre-COVID systems that had been handling food assistance before. So, I haven't ignored your concerns, but I have chosen to debate certain points rather than simply agreeing.
While the cuts you mentioned do impact certain areas, we don’t have enough evidence to definitively say these reductions are causing long-term harm across the board. Staff cuts and budget reductions can be difficult, but they are a reality in both government and private sectors. Businesses routinely make similar decisions, cutting jobs or programs to remain financially sustainable or shift priorities. Government agencies operate under many of the same constraints—budgets are not unlimited, and priorities change. It’s not always ideal, but it’s sometimes necessary to make sure funds are directed where they are most needed, even if that means reducing certain programs or staffing levels.
I have not seen any messes left behind. I am a bit surprised I have not with all the disruption. It would seem you are not looking at the entire picture, and becoming upset over what has as yet occurred.
Here is what I found about reciprocal tariffs. The good and the bad.
Reciprocal tariffs can have significant effects on global trade relations, both positive and negative:
**Positive Effects:**
- **Encourages Fairness:** By matching tariffs, countries may push for more balanced trade agreements, fostering a sense of fairness in international trade.
-
**Negotiation Leverage:** Reciprocal tariffs can serve as a bargaining tool, encouraging countries to lower their tariffs or remove trade barriers.
**Negative Effects:**
- **Trade Wars:** If countries retaliate with escalating tariffs, it can lead to trade wars, harming global trade and economic stability.
-
**Economic Strain:** Higher tariffs can increase costs for businesses and consumers, potentially leading to inflation and reduced economic growth.
-
**Strained Relations:** Reciprocal tariffs can create tensions between trading partners, complicating diplomatic and economic relationships.
The overall impact depends on how these tariffs are implemented and the willingness of countries to negotiate and resolve disputes.I have been looking into reciprocal tariffs. Complicated stuff... I will get back to you later. I want to think about this a bit.
Recently, and NBC and CNN poll showed the popularity of President Donald Trump is at an all time high and the popularity of democrats is at an all time low.
If things were so bad, I wonder why Americans are so supportive of their new president?
LOL all time high? Yeah if you compare it to his last dismal term... 50 days in he has the lowest approval rating of any president for decades at the same period of time... During his 50 days, he has made things noticeably worse . People don't get off their couch to go in protest if they are happy. LOL when maga was crying and whining for the past 4 years about how much they were suffering, I don't think I ever saw a protest.Mike, I agree, the comment makes good common sense. It's interesting to see that despite challenges, the popularity of President Donald Trump is reportedly at an all-time high, while Democrats are seeing low approval ratings. It does raise an important question: If things were as bad as some might suggest, why would so many Americans be showing support for their new president? It seems that, for many, the issues at hand may not be as clear-cut as some portray them. This kind of political shift often signals that the public is responding to what they perceive as effective leadership or a clear contrast in direction.
I see where you're coming from, and I think you’ve made some solid points about the potential benefits of reciprocal tariffs, especially in terms of fairness and negotiation leverage. That said, I’d argue that the real-world application of these tariffs has been somewhat underdeveloped, making it hard to draw definitive conclusions on their overall impact. While the theory behind them sounds good—encouraging balanced trade agreements and leveling the playing field—the actual adoption of reciprocal tariffs has been limited enough that we haven’t truly seen their long-term effects or their ability to bring about those ideal outcomes.
Take Trump’s approach, for example. While he's certainly used tariffs as a tool for negotiation, I think he’s shown some restraint. His administration’s use of tariffs on China, for instance, was more about applying pressure rather than an all-out strategy to escalate trade wars. In fact, Trump appeared to hold back from a full-blown tariff escalation, despite plenty of opportunities to do so. The intention behind his tariffs seemed more about forcing a change in trade practices, rather than triggering a global recession or economic collapse, as one might expect from an all-out trade war.
On the flip side, it’s clear that tariffs still have a cost. The argument about trade wars leading to economic strain is valid. Despite Trump’s strategy, the increased costs for consumers and businesses did show up, particularly in industries heavily reliant on imported goods. While it’s true that China and other countries were pressured to make concessions, there were collateral impacts, especially on American farmers and manufacturers who saw increased input costs or lost access to key markets.
So, while reciprocal tariffs could serve as a useful tool, they are far from a cure-all, and their use seems to be a delicate balance of restraint and calculated risks. There’s certainly potential for negotiation leverage, but it’s important to recognize the fine line between using tariffs to get better deals and risking broader economic consequences. Trump’s approach, while effective in some areas, hasn’t fully answered whether this method can be consistently applied across global trade in a way that avoids the negative repercussions.
Just my view--Trump seems to believe that reciprocal trade would benefit the U.S. because it would create a more level playing field for American businesses and workers. His stance has always been about addressing trade imbalances, particularly with countries like China, where he felt that the U.S. was being taken advantage of with unfair trade practices. By imposing tariffs or using reciprocal trade, Trump has argued that the U.S. can force other countries to treat American goods with the same respect and tariff structures they apply to their own goods. Essentially, if other countries are going to impose high tariffs on U.S. products, he believes it’s only fair for the U.S. to retaliate in kind, creating a situation where trading partners are incentivized to negotiate better terms.
Trump also sees this approach as a way to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. and revitalize industries that were outsourced to countries with cheaper labor. By applying reciprocal tariffs, the idea is to make it more expensive for companies to produce overseas and then sell their products back into the U.S., giving American-made goods a better chance at competing in the market. His argument is that a more balanced trade environment would encourage fairer deals, stimulate domestic production, and ultimately lead to more jobs and a stronger economy in the U.S.
However, his method has been controversial, as critics point out that it could also lead to higher costs for consumers and create global tensions that might harm the U.S. economy in the long run. But for Trump, the goal has been to reduce trade deficits and shift the balance of power in favor of the U.S., even if it means using tariffs as a negotiating tool.
The bottom line is that his plan be successful. We are in for a very wild ride, again my view.
White House touts dips in egg, gas prices as win for Trump's economic policy
'Americans are continuing to see the benefits of the Trump administration,' the White House said
The White House is attributing recent recorded declines in egg and gas prices to the Trump administration's economic policy.
Americans are continuing to see the benefits as the economic agenda of President Donald J. Trump and his administration comes into focus," the White House said in a statement on Monday.
"After years of soaring prices and economic pain, the Trump Administration’s focus on cutting regulations and unleashing American energy is leading to stability for Americans’ bottom lines," it continued.
After months of high egg prices caused primarily by the widespread outbreak of bird flu during the end of the Biden administration and the start of the Trump administration, the cost of eggs has seen a dip.
The national average wholesale price for eggs has dropped more than 47% in two months, according to the White House, adding that the average wholesale price for eggs has declined for three straight weeks.
"The average wholesale price of eggs recorded another huge drop today as the Trump Administration fulfills its plan for long-term affordability by reversing the previous administration’s flawed approach," the statement said.
The national average of gas also continues to drop, which the White House says is because the Trump administration "implements its American energy agenda."
Gas prices are down ten cents from one month ago and 42 cents from one year ago.
Average gas prices are at their lowest level for the month of March in four years.
More than two-thirds of gas stations in the country have gas prices under $3 a gallon, according to GasBuddy, though some states still have an average of more than $3 or even $4 a gallon.
The states with the highest average gas prices are California at $4.66, Hawaii at $4.52 and Washington at $4.08. Still, even these states are seeing noticeable dips from a year ago.
"At this point in Biden’s presidency, gas prices had already gone up 49 cents,"
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/wh … mic-policyThe White House is attributing recent recorded declines in egg and gas prices to the Trump administration's economic policy.
What policy? Specifically. And eggs are still $8.99 a dozen at my store just yesterday... Where are these prices down? And yeah I guess it's down from the 12.99 that they used to be. Has the bird flu run it's course?
It looks like bird flu has eased and demand for eggs due to the insane prices has dramatically dropped... Those would be the reasons for any price decreases... Not so-called Trump policy... Which actually doesn't exist.
Have you seen the way that many other items at the grocery store have gone up??
"Egg prices drop as demand ‘sharply’ falls among inflation-weary customers unwilling to shell out"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 15877.htmlPerhaps you had better move to Idaho. Walmart has a box of 5 dozen eggs for $24, and Costco sold them to me the other day for $21. If you're paying $45, I'd be asking "why".
Idaho is a beautiful place. Took lots of pictures at Sawtooth Lake. The Redfish Lake Lodge. Great state to explore.
Sorry for the side track.If you got up to Sawtooth and Redfish lakes you traveled some beautiful country.
What is unfortunate is that it seems some have forgotten who sent our economy down the tubes. So complain about the guy who must clean up the mess instead of the guy who caused it.
Here in Puerto Vallarta, I am paying at our Supermarkets: Approximately $1.94 USD (around 35 pesos) per dozen.I beg to differ. I think everyone was better off 50 days ago... People sure did have a lot more in their retirement accounts. Biden brought the economy through covid. He lead an economy that was the best in the world... An economy that was on an upward trajectory after the pandemic
Now look at the mess this bunch has us in. Literally on the verge of a recession.Trump brought us through the worst of COVID-19, and our economy did not suffer. Biden put America through 4 years of pure hell, in my view.
I strongly disagree with the assertion that everyone was better off 50 days ago. The economic conditions we’re facing today are not just a result of the administration’s policies but rather a combination of global events, past decisions, and unforeseen circumstances. First, let's address the claim that Biden "brought the economy through COVID." While it's true that the economy rebounded post-pandemic, that recovery was largely driven by the unprecedented fiscal and monetary policies implemented under both the Trump and Biden administrations, particularly the stimulus package Trump offered during his time in office and the Federal Reserve's low-interest rates.to combat Biden running up inflation to 9%.
Biden sent our economy into a spiral with his COVID relief...He over spent and sunk the economy.
Now, let’s talk about the state of the economy today. The assertion that we’re "on the verge of a recession" is more nuanced. In fact, recent data from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) suggests that while growth has slowed, we have not technically entered a recession yet. The unemployment rate remains at historically low levels (around 3.5% as of January 2025), and consumer spending is still relatively strong.
However, inflation is showing slight signs of improvement but is still a concern, and it's important to note that this is not simply a result of the Biden administration’s policies but is also part of a broader global issue, exacerbated by supply chain disruptions, geopolitical tensions like the war in Ukraine, and fluctuating energy prices.
The statement that “people had more in their retirement accounts” 50 days ago might be true, but the stock market has experienced volatility due to a variety of factors, including high inflation, interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve, and global uncertainties. Over the past several years, the stock market saw substantial gains, but recent corrections and volatility are typical in a recovery period. The reality is that market fluctuations are not an indicator of a failed economy but a part of the natural economic cycle.
While the economic situation is challenging, it’s critical to understand that the current state of the economy is a complex issue influenced by a multitude of factors.
The messes are being cleaned up very quickly. Not sure why you are not realizing that reality."However, inflation is showing slight signs of improvement but is still a concern, and it's important to note that this is not simply a result of the Biden administration’s policies but is also part of a broader global issue, exacerbated by supply chain disruptions, geopolitical tensions like the war in Ukraine, and fluctuating energy prices.
Yes, exactly.
"but the stock market has experienced volatility due to a variety of factors, including high inflation, interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve, and global uncertainties.
And the recent huge, horrific losses in the stock market were due to what?
"The Next President Inherits a Remarkable Economy
The high quality of recent economic growth should put a wind at the back of the White House’s next occupant. Whoever wins the White House next week will take office with no shortage of challenges, but at least one huge asset: an economy that is putting its peers to shame.
Trump merely needed to come in and let the economy continue its upward trajectory. Instead, he chose to break it.
https://www.wsj.com/economy/the-next-pr … y-7be2d059
Fed Holds Rates Steady and Predicts Higher Inflation, Slower Growth Ahead..
Not cool.
The central bank penciled in two rate cuts for 2025, but President Trump’s sweeping agenda has injected “remarkably high” uncertainty into the outlook.
Fed officials now see the economy growing only 1.7 percent this year, compared to their initial expectation for a 2.1 percent expansion, and predict the unemployment rate to rise to 4.4 percent. Officials also lifted their forecasts for core inflation, which strips out volatile food and energy prices, to 2.8 percent.
Underlying these forecasts is a significant degree of uncertainty about how exactly Mr. Trump’s policies will take shape and how businesses and consumers will respond. Those unknowns have reinforced the Fed’s approach to stand pat for the moment. To lower interest rates again, it wants to see either more tangible evidence that inflation is indeed back on track to its 2 percent target, or signs that the economy is starting to deteriorate sharply.
One of the biggest wild cards is tariffs. The fear is that these policies, coupled with Mr. Trump’s efforts to slash government spending and deport immigrants, will not only intensify already sticky price pressures but also knock what has been a remarkably resilient economy off course...
All he had to do was come in and preside over an economy that was healthy and on an upward trajectory... He absolutely does not know what he's doing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/19/busi … eting.html
Related Discussions
- 31
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA)
by Sharlee 2 years ago
"The Biden administration awarded $2.8 billion this week to 20 companies after they pledged to honor Democratic goals like diversity, equity, and inclusion as they hire people to build batteries and related components to be used in electric vehicles.The conditional grants are the latest...
- 74
The Dept. of Education Should be Eliminated
by Readmikenow 5 weeks ago
It's time to let go of this institutional tool of the democrat party.Department of Education doesn’t educate anyone or run any schools or colleges. It’s a collection of 4,000 bureaucrats who mostly manage student loans, write rules, oversee various grant programs, and generate paperwork. (The...
- 209
DOGE vs Deep State - Trump’s Efficiency Crusade Left’s Hypocrisy
by Sharlee 2 weeks ago
My View, and added sources on statsAs I reflect on the current political climate, it's evident that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), spearheaded by President Trump and Elon Musk, has become a focal point of contention. The left's vehement opposition to DOGE's initiatives reveals a...
- 102
Tarriffs:Trump, a father of a new Golden Age or is it a Golden Shower?
by Credence2 6 weeks ago
Once again, the great stone head is now calling himself a scholar of economics. He tells us now that the economic turnaround would now "take time", while on the campaign trail he was telling us that it would occur overnight. On March 13th, there will be an assessment of the inflation...
- 73
Trump and his vision of bringing back manufacturing to the U.S.
by Mike Russo 3 weeks ago
.Trump's vision of manufacturing is in the days of billowing smokestacks. assembly lines, and conveyor belts where all kinds of workers are doing their bit and piece to assemble products that come rolling off the assembling lines and that those workers will be paid a great wage..In today’s world,...
- 381
Americans are happy - media concealing it to 'slow support' for Trump
by Readmikenow 11 days ago
Americans are happier with their government than they been for a really, really, long time but that fact is being suppressed by the "liberal media" because members of that industry hope "to slow the support for President Donald Trump and his second-term agenda."That's the...