Trump, the Art of the Deal, Negotiations 101 & Tariffs
Negotiations Expert Explains Why Trump Fails To Get Deals Done at Daily Kos (Mar 7, 2025)
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/3 … -Get-Deals
An intro to Distributive Bargaining (Trump) vs. Integrative Bargaining
Thoughts, criticisms, accolades, and/or commentary?Trump thinks like a private sector bandit. The leader of the free world must see things in a different and broader scope. That is always asking too much from a man like Donald Trump.
Cred, That’s a common criticism, but I see it differently. Trump’s private sector mindset is exactly what made him effective in many ways. Government leaders often get bogged down in bureaucratic inertia, while Trump approached problems with a results-driven, no-nonsense mentality. He wasn’t afraid to challenge the status quo, renegotiate deals, or demand accountability—things that career politicians often shy away from.
A broader scope doesn’t always mean better decision-making. Many so-called “big picture” leaders overcomplicate issues or prioritize globalism over their own country’s interests. Trump’s approach was about putting America first, and while some didn’t like his style, he got real results—renegotiating trade deals, strengthening the economy, and confronting long-ignored problems. You may not agree with his methods, but to dismiss him as incapable of seeing the bigger picture ignores the many ways he reshaped policy to benefit Americans.It is a common criticism and an accurate one from my view. The President of the United States is not just another CEO. I expect my leaders to use the art of persuasion to get their agendas enacted, and I insist that the rules of governance be followed. So, the ends do not justify the means, if you don’t play by the rules you are dangerously illegitimate.
Results driven does not mean using the Constitution as toilet paper considering it a mere inconvenience. He does not have authority to do whatever he likes outside of Constitutional restraints. If he can do that now, how much more liberties will he take to the point that America is no longer a representative democracy?
Trump oversimplifies matters by ignoring the rule of law far too frequently. Policies like ignoring court rulings are playing foul. I have not seen any real benefit out side of graft, saber rattling and taking what progress we have made toward more fair and equitable society back at least a century, well before Trump was even born.I think I get where you're coming from, but times have changed. A lot of people feel the "rules of governance" have been twisted to serve political interests rather than the people. When those rules become a roadblock to real change—or worse, a tool for one side to suppress the other—it’s natural that people push back. The art of persuasion is great, but what happens when the other side refuses to engage in good faith? Maybe the real debate should be about whether the rules themselves make sense anymore.
No one’s saying the Constitution should be ignored, but it’s also not a static document meant to freeze the country in time. The problem is that many so-called “Constitutional restraints” have been selectively enforced, often depending on who’s in power. People are pushing back because they see those in charge bending the rules when it suits them while demanding strict adherence when it doesn’t. If the system isn’t working fairly, doesn’t it make sense to question whether some of these restraints actually serve the people—or just the political class?
If Trump is "ignoring the rule of law," then what do we call it when courts are openly weaponized for political ends? When agencies enforce rules based on ideology rather than equal application? The idea that we've been making steady "progress" assumes everyone agrees on what progress looks like. Many Americans feel that the last few decades have led to increased government overreach, a loss of personal freedoms, and policies that favor special interests over working people. If pushing back against that is considered "playing foul," maybe the rules themselves need to be questioned. Blindly defending the system as it exists ignores the fact that trust in institutions is crumbling—and for good reason.
At the end of the day, in my view, the real issue isn’t Trump—it’s the growing divide over what "following the rules" even means. If the system is only fair when it benefits one side, people will push back. Maybe instead of blaming one man, we should ask why so many feel the need to fight the system in the first place.Sharlee, the Constitution as our guiding document does not change. If you want to change the law, use the proper tool. So, We of the left, in turn, accuse the Republicans and the Right of not acting in good faith.There are the two sides and the referee is the Constitution.
I don’t trust the Right and we may well devolve into a civil war type conflict that regardless of the winner, America as we have all known it will cease to exist. Then no one will be in a position to gloat over a victory.
Yes, it is true the Constitution is not a static document, but changes to it need to be as prescribed therein. We can all have the same arguments about bending the rules from either side of the political spectrum. Both sides are wrong. I have different concerns about a “fair system” than you have. Trump is running into many rough patches, he may well not be the universal savior that you all seem to think that he is? If rules are changed without regard to our guiding document, the guard rails disappear. Then there is no line that anyone grasping for power beyond what is authorized will take to him or herself.
Trump has openly declared war using the justice system to harass those attorneys that were just doing their jobs in prosecuting him. So who is doing the abusing?
Many Americans do not include this one. I fervently believe that Trump and Trumpism is the greatest threat to our democracy since its founding.
We have courts that make the determination as to what “following the rules” means, but Trump has resisted even abiding by their decisions and rulings. So, where does that leave us? If someone as mild mannered as Chief Justice Roberts has to remind Trump that he is not allowed to intimidate the federal judiciary, perhaps he should listen. But will he?"We have courts that make the determination as to what “following the rules” means, but Trump has resisted even abiding by their decisions and rulings. So, where does that leave us? If someone as mild mannered as Chief Justice Roberts has to remind Trump that he is not allowed to intimidate the federal judiciary, perhaps he should listen. But will he?" Cred
Trump has questioned court decisions for the same reason many Americans do—because not all rulings are necessarily fair, just, or free from political influence. The judiciary is not infallible, and courts have historically made decisions that were later overturned or widely criticized. Challenging rulings is not the same as refusing to abide by them; it’s part of the legal process. Appeals exist for a reason, and pushing back on questionable rulings is a fundamental right in our legal system.
Trump’s skepticism toward certain court rulings stems from concerns about judicial overreach, activist judges, and inconsistent applications of the law. Many of his criticisms revolve around judges making politically motivated decisions rather than interpreting the law objectively. His pushback is not unprecedented—presidents and politicians from both parties have criticized the judiciary when they felt decisions were unfair or damaging. Even Obama famously rebuked the Supreme Court during a State of the Union address over the Citizens United decision.
As for Chief Justice Roberts, his role is to defend the judiciary, but that doesn’t mean Trump’s concerns about biased rulings are unfounded. The real issue isn’t whether Trump listens to Roberts but whether courts remain neutral arbiters of the law rather than political actors. If the judiciary is beyond criticism, then democracy suffers because questioning authority—even judicial authority—is essential to maintaining checks and balances.I believe that Trumps interpretations are over the top. I see a schism in the court that is developing, Justice Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts have shown resistance to the Trump revolution and the ruling may end up as another 5 to 4 against Trump. We will see.
The judiciary is not beyond criticism but on the other hand neither are the
Executive or Legislative Branches. Obama may have rebuked a court decision, but he abided by it regardless. Will Trump do the same?
Just my view --- Honig’s analysis presents an interesting take on Trump’s negotiation style, but it oversimplifies both Trump’s approach and the complexity of international bargaining. While it’s true that Trump often employs distributive bargaining—seeking maximum leverage and pushing for advantageous deals—this doesn’t mean he is incapable of integrative negotiation when necessary. In fact, his track record in both business and politics suggests a more flexible approach than Honig acknowledges.
For example, Trump’s renegotiation of NAFTA into the USMCA was a case of integrative bargaining. While he took a tough stance at first, he ultimately reached a deal that benefited all three parties—U.S., Mexico, and Canada—proving that he could operate beyond a zero-sum framework. Similarly, his trade negotiations with China involved a mix of pressure tactics (tariffs) and incentives (offering improved terms in other areas), which is far more strategic than Honig suggests.
Honig also assumes that other nations engage solely in integrative bargaining, but that’s not reality. China, for instance, often uses aggressive, state-backed economic policies that force partners into lopsided deals. Trump’s hardline approach was a direct response to this, aimed at forcing China to the table rather than accepting the status quo. While there were short-term costs, especially for farmers, the long-term goal was to establish fairer trade practices—a goal that even some critics admitted was overdue.
Furthermore, Honig's argument that Trump lacks strategic foresight ignores his broader geopolitical maneuvering. He understood that making economic moves against China would also require strengthening relationships elsewhere—hence his efforts to bolster alliances with India, Japan, and Europe. While his tactics were unconventional, they were not as one-dimensional as Honig claims.
The idea that Trump operates purely on a win/lose basis also fails to consider his ability to shift strategies depending on the situation. Yes, he thrives in high-stakes, aggressive dealmaking, but he also recognized when to compromise—whether it was securing a revised NATO funding agreement, negotiating peace deals in the Middle East, or brokering agreements with Mexico to curb illegal immigration.
Ultimately, while Honig's perspective is worth considering, it underestimates Trump’s adaptability and ignores the fact that global negotiations are often a mix of both distributive and integrative tactics. Trump’s approach may not have been traditional, but dismissing it outright fails to acknowledge the results it produced.I vehemently disagree with the thread woven within your garment.
"tsmog profile image85tsmogposted 25 hours ago
Negotiations Expert Explains Why Trump Fails To Get Deals Done at Daily Kos (Mar 7, 2025)
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/3 … -Get-Deals
An Intro to Distributive Bargaining (Trump) vs. Integrative Bargaining
Thoughts, criticisms, accolades, and/or commentary?"
I took time and offered a comment, sharing my views. I thought the article worth reading, and adding a lengtht view. You come back with a glib over used line... Oh well. Do you ever come off the fence? No really
I will step away, I shared my thoughts, and hopefully, others will join in and share theirs on the article you offered..
And there we are. A depression started. And Trump being Trump not going to reverse these tariffs.
All financial experts are against tariffs but of course The Donald thinks it's a good idea and wants to proof he is right. He can't backtrack without loosing face. So it will be for the next president to clean up the mess!! (and trust)
The Chinese have already answered and Europe will answer this week.
Our candidate for the Nobel Peace Price has started an economic world war!
The result is that the US becomes isolated. Japan and China are already talking with each other finding new markets. Many countries will leave the US for what it is and find different markets to sell their products.
Breaking down is easy, building up is difficult.
This tariff war will have consequences for a long long time. Meanwhile the US citizen has to pay the price, literally, for more expensive consumer goods. And inflation will rise mortgages and insurance.
March 28, 2025---Trump won two cases today in the Courts of appeals. As I shared, we can trust the courts to weed through the facts and rule with good faith.
A federal appeals court lifted an injunction that had been blocking the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from implementing cuts at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). This decision enables the Trump administration to proceed with plans to dissolve USAID and integrate its functions into the State Department.
AP News
Appeals court rules Trump can fire board members of independent labor agencies
As of March 28, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that President Donald Trump can remove Democratic members from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
AP NewsSo the courts and the judges are just great when they rule in his favor but rogue when they don't?
Kind of defeats the purpose of having an independent review board if you can just stack it with your sycophants. Might as well just get rid of it and file all grievances in Federal court. I honestly think that's SCOTUS will make the correct decision on this. These independent boards were created for a very specific reason. I see this being as a 7-2 to overturn.I approach it on a case-by-case basis and offer a very straightforward perspective. I've always believed that, in the end, it's the courts—through appeals and the Supreme Court—that ultimately determine what is just.
As a rule, I remain neutral on legal actions coming out of Washington. I engage in some debate, share a basic perspective, and occasionally follow a hunch. Naturally, I’m pleased when a prediction of mine turns out to be accurate.
I assume you're talking about the USAID case. Yes, the former USAID employees who brought the case can petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the appeals court's decision. However, the Supreme Court is not required to take the case.
Based on what we know, it's unlikely that the Supreme Court will take up this case. The justices tend to focus on cases with broad constitutional significance, conflicts between circuit courts, or major questions of federal authority. If the appeals court ruled in favor of the Trump administration and there’s no direct contradiction with previous rulings, the Supreme Court may see not intervene..
Given the Supreme Court's history and current composition, I think it's unlikely they will take up this case. The Court tends to avoid cases that are primarily about administrative restructuring unless there’s a significant constitutional question at stake.
Recession is coming before end of 2025, generally 'pessimistic' corporate CFOs say: CNBC survey.
Key points:
The economy will enter a recession in the second half of 2025, according to a majority of chief financial officers responding to the quarterly CNBC CFO Council Survey.
CFOs describe themselves as generally "pessimistic" on the overall state of the U.S. economy and uncertain about the stock market.
95% of CFOs said policy is impacting their ability to make business decisions, and many said while Trump is delivering on promises, his administration's approach is too chaotic, disruptive and extreme for businesses to navigate effectively.
Extreme"; "Disruptive"; "Aggressive"; "A wild ride," were some of the other ways CFOs portrayed their current view.
It all adds up to a majority of CFOs (60%) saying they expect a recession in the second half of the year'.
"The Trump administration appears to be sending the U.S. economy in the wrong direction . Sending it into a period of slower growth and higher inflation. In the past few weeks, the administration enacted steep tariffs on a wide range of imports from America’s top trading partners and threatened more; has laid off tens of thousands of federal government workers; and has frozen payments already appropriated by Congress for farms, Head Start facilities, economic development programs, and more."
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/25/recessi … urvey.html
https://www.americanprogress.org/articl … direction/In February 2025, the annual inflation rate in the United States Decreased to 2.8% from 3.0% in January, slightly below the anticipated 2.9%.
Trading Economics
Key contributors to this inflation rate include:
Food Prices: Increased by 2.6% year-over-year.
Energy Costs: Experienced a 0.2% Decline, a reversal from the 1.0% rise in January.
Trading Economics
Core inflation, which excludes volatile food and energy prices, Rose by 3.1% over the past 12 months, however Down from 3.3% in January.
Not sure I would call this bad. March's numbers will be coming out on April 10.
Market up today 400--- but fluctuating.
Trump said he "couldn't care less" if foreign car prices go up after he imposed 25% tariffs on imported cars.
"The message is congratulations, if you make your car in the United States, you’re going to make a lot of money,"
Trump indicated consumers could avoid tariffs by buying vehicles built entirely in the U.S., but industry experts say there’s not a single one with all-domestic parts and assembly..
OH WELL...as usual absolutely nothing is thought through. Fingers crossed that the majority of magas have to purchase a new car under this regime.Today's Rose garden blathering...
"Trump’s Misleading Claim on Canadian Dairy Tariffs..."
To support his plan to increase tariffs, President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that the Canadian government charges U.S. farmers a 250% or 270% tariff on dairy products exported to Canada. That’s misleading. There are rates that high on the books, but they would only be charged if U.S. exports exceed predetermined tariff rate quotas, which the dairy exports don’t come close to meeting.
Below these quotas, American dairy sales to Canada face zero tariffs.
the BS is flying fast and furious..
I love how he's talking about putting our citizens first while just today cuts were announced at HHS affecting the meals on wheels program and the low income heating assistance program...
The man has no grasp of history either. As evidenced by the way he talks about Smoot Hawley.
Fact checkers are going to be busy with this one.
https://www.factcheck.org/2025/04/trump … y-tariffs/Unfortunately, Americans have proved facts do not influence how they vote. How many experts in their assigned fields who worked for Trump in his first administration warned - in no uncertain terms - us of his dangerous/deranged behavior and decision making? Did it make a dent with his minions?
The facts about Trump are indisputable. Start with his felony convictions. Look at his unqualified appointments. The key to his success is the permission he has given people to be unprincipled and cruel. And they love him for it.
Read the comments on these discussion boards.
"All Trump had to do was start telling people the economy was good now. Take over in the middle of an economic expansion and then, without changing the underlying trend line, convince the country that you created prosperity. That’s what he did when he won his first term, and it is what Democrats expected and feared he would do this time....
But Trump couldn’t do the easy and obvious thing, apparently because he did not view his first term as a success. He considered it a failure, and blamed the failure on the coterie of aides, bureaucrats, and congressional allies who talked him out of his instincts, or ignored them. The second term has been Full Trump, as even his most delusional or abusive whims are translated immediately into policy without regard to democratic norms, the law, the Constitution, public opinion, or the hand-wringing of his party."
He couldn't leave well enough alone, could he? We are in deep, deep trouble.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar … al/682274/During the Liberation Day festivities Trump claimed that the Great Depression "would never have happened" if the US continued tariffs.
Not only did the US continue tariffs, it actually increased them, which worsened and prolonged the US and global depression.
The Smoot-Hawley Act 1930 significantly reduced global trade.
Trump just reenacted the Smoot-Hawley disaster..only worse. The world is far more integrated now, and his tariff tantrum is a wrecking ball aimed at the global economy and America’s own. Tariffs didn't work then, why would they work now? Again, is he that stupid or does he think you are that stupid? I always think it's a little of both..
It's like he hasn't even seen Ferris Bueller LOL
https://x.com/AdamJSchwarz/status/1907540039535382851And we thought this man wasn't too bright...wow
https://x.com/CountryFirstRep/status/19 … 7972067531
And Reagan??
https://x.com/bizhq2050/status/1907565253048807506
Party of Reagan?.. tell me he's wrongWow is right. Compare that to orange man and his magas. Today's GOP is a disgrace.
"What's interesting about our country, if you study history, is that there are some 'isms' that occasionally pop up. One is isolationism and its evil twin protectionism and its evil triplet nativism. So if you study the '20s, for example, there was an American-first policy that said, 'Who cares what happens in Europe?'" Bush said. "And there was an immigration policy that I think during this period argued we had too many Jews and too many Italians, therefore we should have no immigrants. And my point is that we've been through this kind of period of isolationism, protectionism and nativism. I'm a little concerned that we may be going through the same period. I hope that these 'isms' pass."
Trump's 'Liberation Day' is here! Free me from the tyranny of my stable 401(k)! | Opinion
WOOO-HOOOOO! Welcome to President Donald “Tariff Man” Trump’s "Liberation Day"!
I’ve been waiting for this day like it’s Christmas in April, and I am PUMPED AND READY to be liberated from whatever it is President Trump will be liberating us from. It might be the tyranny of low-priced goods or the weighty yoke of a strong stock market. I’m not sure.
What I do know is that our liberation will come via tariffs, which are always great and effective. I know that because the president says they are always great and effective and goober-ish “economists” say they are not. SHUT UP, NUMBER-NERD ECONOMISTS! WHY WOULD I BELIEVE YOU WHEN I CAN BELIEVE A MAN WHO WANTS TO SELL ME A BIBLE WITH HIS NAME ON IT?!?
Hell yeah! I know Liberation Day will be a good thing because the president of the United States used three exclamation points. GET PSYCHED, AMERICA!!!
Tariffs have been totally decided on but you know could also change...
That is all fantastic because if there’s one thing markets hate, it’s uncertainty, and I’m sick and tired of the so-called markets being coddled by liberal certainty. The stock market is off to its worst start since 2022, and I, for one, am thrilled to be liberated from the chance of an early retirement.
Is it possible Liberation Day might lead to rising prices, stagflation or, as Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi told CNN, “a serious recession” and “a wipeout for the economy”?
Sure. But the epic loss of jobs will be worth it because President Trump will have liberated us from the Biden economy, which received harsh reviews from researchers at the University of Chicago who noted it “far outpaced that of our peer nations” while cruelly creating low unemployment and higher business investment.
Like all wars America intentionally started without reason or provocation, this trade war Trump has smartly launched might require us to build our own backyard Retirement Gardens, engage in some light food rationing, and possibly send one or two of our children to work the mines so we can pay rent.
But if that’s the price of liberating us from a strong economy that, until a few months ago, was the envy of the world, so be it.
CNN recently reported: “Consumer confidence has crumbled, unemployment fears have spiked, and inflation expectations have surged to multidecade highs.”
HUZZAH! If that’s what FAKE NEWS CNN is reporting, then Trump must be doing something right.
The New York Times reported: “Trade policy experts agree that American consumers will most likely bear the cost of the new U.S. tariffs.”
That’s right, lamestream media. I will gladly pay more for everyday goods and products if it liberates me from having to pay less for everyday goods and products. Sometimes, being a patriot means not believing in math. Losers.
Anyway, I hope my fellow Americans have a joyous Liberation Day and relish the freedom of potential economic ruin. You have my gratitude, President Trump. I’d send a thank-you card if only my Retirement Garden held the $20,000 necessary to buy one."
God help this country. Maga, you own this BS 100%.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ … 760930007/Senators introduce legislation requiring congressional approval for tariffs...
They know we're up shits creek at this point ... these people are a day late and a dollar short.
A bipartisan pair of U.S. senators introduced legislation on Thursday that would require Congress to approve all tariffs within 60 days.
Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa., and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., proposed the measure.
Looks like these at least some of these Republican fools are maybe going to try and get some of their power back?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/live-up … =120449471Well that was fast...
Stellantis pauses some Mexico, Canada production, temporarily lays off 900 US workers due to tariffs
Stellantis is pausing some production in Mexico and Canada and temporarily laying off hundreds of workers in the U.S. as the automaker tries to navigate President Donald Trump's latest round of auto tariffs.
"We are continuing to assess the medium- and long-term effects of these tariffs on our operations, but also have decided to take some immediate actions, including temporarily pausing production at some of our Canadian and Mexican assembly plants," Chief Operating Officer Antonio Filosa told employees in an email Thursday, when Trump's 25% tariffs on imported vehicles and auto parts took effect.
Who thinks that these workers will be happy to be liberated from their jobs? OH WELL... I'm sure they'll lose these jobs soon enough.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/s … ue-tariffsThe layoffs took place in Canada, and Mexico, not the US--- the decision to lay off workers in Canada and Mexico instead of the U.S. is often driven by the goal of maintaining cost-efficiency, adhering to trade agreements, and navigating labor market conditions. Auto companies generally aim to preserve their higher-margin operations in the U.S. while making strategic adjustments elsewhere in the supply chain. As Stellantis CEO, stated
"We are continuing to assess the medium- and long-term effects of these tariffs on our operations, but also have decided to take some immediate actions, including temporarily pausing production at some of our Canadian and Mexican assembly plants," Chief Operating Officer Antonio Filosa told employees in an email on Thursday, when Trump's 25% tariffs on imported vehicles and auto parts took effect.
Cost of Outsourcing Production: Although Mexico and Canada offer lower labor costs than the U.S., these savings can be negated by the potential tariffs. If car parts or finished vehicles need to be imported back into the U.S., the costs could rise significantly due to tariffs, potentially making it more expensive than keeping production in the U.S.
The company will be TEMORARILY pausing production at the Toluca Assembly Plant in Mexico on April 7. It will simultaneously pause production at its Windsor Assembly Plant in Canada for two weeks. Those operations are expected to RESUME the week of April 21."
This indicates auto companies are listening, and their bottom line is profit. The tariff makes it too costly to have plants in other countries.Are you contradicting the news reporting of fox??
They used it right in the title...
"Stellantis pauses some Mexico, Canada production, temporarily lays off 900 US workers due to tariffs"
"About 900 employees at US factories were temporarily laid off"
"Stellantis said the pause in production at the plants will impact "some employees at several of our U.S. powertrain and stamping facilities that support those operations"
It's just common sense that if they're going to lay off workers in Canada and Mexico then those parts are not going to arrive in this country, leaving workers here with nothing to do... The domino's will fall. This bunch has got us in a real mess.No, I suggest you slow down and read my comment I quote Fox's article.
The full essence of what the CEO stated--- Context matters
Fox article ---"We are continuing to assess the medium- and long-term effects of these tariffs on our operations, but also have decided to take some immediate actions, including temporarily pausing production at some of our Canadian and Mexican assembly plants," Chief Operating Officer Antonio Filosa told employees in an email on Thursday, when Trump's 25% tariffs on imported vehicles and auto parts took effect.
Cost of Outsourcing Production: Although Mexico and Canada offer lower labor costs than the U.S., these savings can be negated by the potential tariffs. If car parts or finished vehicles need to be imported back into the U.S., the costs could rise significantly due to tariffs, potentially making it more expensive THAN keeping production in the U.S.
The company will be TEMORARILY pausing production at the Toluca Assembly Plant in Mexico on April 7. It will simultaneously pause production at its Windsor Assembly Plant in Canada for two weeks. Those operations are expected to RESUME the week of April 21."
I think you need to read more than a headline or choose a line that suits your narrative.
You as always jump into something you know little about all the big three stockpile. They keep ample stockpiles... Automakers stockpile parts and materials as part of broader risk management strategies, especially if they anticipate disruptions. For example, due to unpredictable factors like geopolitical events or trade disputes, GM, Ford, and Stellantis may hold stockpiles of specific components or materials they know are critical to their assembly lines.
It would seem they will be forced to start moving back into the many plants that they kept and maintained for just such an event. With the auto industry it's all about profit. I don't think you need to worry about the auto industry. The foreign ones will be most affected.
In my view, the auto industries knew this was coming and are now having to make some hard decisions. They are not political, they are all about making cash. They will do what is best for the bottom line."About 900 employees at US factories were temporarily laid off"
What context is needed? 900 people are not going to work...
As a result of the pause, 900 workers at the company's Warren Stamping and Sterling Stamping plants in Michigan, as well as its Indiana Transmission Plant, Kokomo Transmission Plant and Kokomo Casting Plant, are being laid off.
In a letter sent to employees Thursday morning, Antonio Filosa, Stellantis' Chief Operating Officer for the Americas, said the automaker is continuing to assess the impacts of tariffs on its operations.
Howard Lutnick... I believe he's the commerce Secretary, you know the one who said only fraudsters call if their social security checks don't show up... Had another little gem today... He said "we will see leaping employment starting today"
What is wrong with these people?
https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/st … s-midwest/Are you concerned about the citizens of Canada and Mexico being laid off for a few weeks? But do you know how many U.S. citizens lost their auto jobs under NAFTA? It's estimated that around 850,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs were lost between 1994 and the early 2000s, with a significant portion of those coming from the auto industry as companies shifted production to Mexico and Canada. Now, as automakers look to bring more manufacturing back to the U.S., many workers in Canada and Mexico will inevitably be affected.
"Who thinks that these workers will be happy to be liberated from their jobs? OH WELL... I'm sure they'll lose these jobs soon enough." Willow
But it’s also true that many of those jobs may not last much longer.
Trump is liberating America. As the President of the United States, he is working for the people of this country. Mexico and Canada have their own elected leaders to govern and worry about their citizens.
I feel very liberated seeing the man I voted for take bold steps to keep his promises and put Americans first."Are you concerned about the citizens of Canada and Mexico being laid off for a few weeks?
I'm more concerned that 900 Americans are currently laid off due to Trump's ill-conceived tariffs. I'm more concerned for the people who were about to retire soon and have lost a huge chunk of their savings to this recklessness. I know that is inconsequential to the rich folks out there but most of us view these actions as irresponsibility to a level that has never seen before
Trump is liberating america? LOL from what our 401ks? Our jobs? Reasonable prices?They do not care about US workers.
GOP senator says he ‘won’t apologize’ after telling fired HHS employee he ‘probably deserved it’
Sen. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) on Wednesday said he “won’t apologize” for telling a fired Health and Human Services (HHS) employee that he “probably deserved it,” after video footage of the exchange was widely circulated on social media.
The viral video showed former HHS employee Mack Schroeder approaching Banks in a Senate office building on Tuesday and asking him about the mass layoffs at HHS. Schroeder, who noted that he personally was among the fired HHS employees, asked the senator how he would ensure residents in his state got the services they needed.
“You probably deserved it,” Banks told Schroeder, referring to Schroeder’s termination. When Schroeder asked why, Banks told him, “Because you seem like a clown.”
Banks, in a video posted to the social platform X on Wednesday, further dug his heels in, refusing to “back down” from his position.
“The Democrats and the left-wing media have lost their minds because I told a left-wing activist in the halls of the Senate office buildings yesterday what I really thought: A clown is a clown, who’s chasing senators through the halls with a cellphone, complaining about losing a left-wing woke job in the federal government that should have never been a job to begin with,” Banks said in the video Wednesday.
“I won’t back down. I won’t apologize for it,” he continued. “I support President Trump and the DOGE effort 100 percent to cut wasteful spending and woke jobs out of the federal government, and we’re just getting started.”
Schroeder said in an interview on CNN that, at HHS, his job was focused on working on programs that “support people with disabilities and older adults.” But Schroeder told CNN that he was not asking Banks about getting his own job back but was instead asking Banks how he would help his constituents who feel the impact of the job cuts.
“First of all, I didn’t ask him, ‘What is he doing to help me get reinstated in my position?’ I wasn’t asking, ‘Why did I get fired? What are you going to do to make sure me and other employees get their jobs?’ I was just asking, ‘What are you doing about the social services that are being cut specifically for people with disabilities?’ And his response was just that I deserve to get fired,” Schroeder said.
https://youtu.be/dVt5xONeJsk?si=4vhDhIxXqLdnoC6TLike I've always said, cruelty IS the point.
Your comment is so hyperbolic, in my view... You're predicting, and I must say you have little right to speak for others. What was reckless was NAFTA. But you seem to now divert into predicting what others think and are possibly lost in the market.
Why no tariff on Russia? And we slapped Israel with 17% yet they are at 0% on our goods...
They levied tariffs on Heard and McDonald Islands, an external territory of Australia, and Jan Mayen, a Norwegian territory in the Arctic Ocean. Both are uninhabited by humans.... DUMBASSES
This is such a sloppy mess enacted by half wits.Why do the poorest Nations receive the highest tariffs under the Trump scheme?
https://m.economictimes.com/news/intern … 939467.cmsWhy? Trade Imbalance: The U.S. has a significant trade deficit with Cambodia, exporting approximately $264 million worth of goods to Cambodia while importing about $9.9 billion in Cambodian products. The administration views this imbalance as detrimental to U.S. economic interests and aims to address it through higher tariffs.
The Trump administration imposed a 37% tariff on Bangladeshi imports, primarily due to the following reasons:
New Age Daily
Perceived Trade Imbalance: The U.S. claims that Bangladesh imposes a 74% tariff on American goods. In response, the administration introduced a "reciprocal tariff" set at half of that rate, resulting in the 37% tariff on Bangladeshi exports.
Methodology of Tariff Calculation: The administration's tariff formula calculates duties based on the trade deficit ratio with each country. Nations with larger trade deficits relative to their exports to the U.S., like Bangladesh, are subjected to higher tariffs under this approach.One guess as to why the poorest nations in the world have a trading deficit with our country...
And the claim that Trump's tariffs are reciprocal? the actual calculation the administration used is not reciprocal at all.
Matching countries’ tariffs dollar for dollar is an incredibly difficult task, involving poring over each country’s tariff schedule and matching a complex array of products, each of which has a different charge for any variants. Much too difficult for The simple minds in this Administration.
Instead they used quite a simple calculation: the country’s trade deficit divided by its exports to the United States times 1/2. That’s it.
As to the poorest nations? the bluntness of the formula as applied to economies which cannot afford to import much from the U.S. inevitably lead to a high rate : 50% for Lesotho in Southern Africa, 49% for Cambodia in Southeast Asia. Tell me about the economy of Lesotho and what its citizens can' afford to buy from us.
Again, this is just idiocy.
https://x.com/opinion/status/1907838826367640025
"Conway isn't alone in trying to explain away the impacts of Trump's tariffs on the conservative news network. Fox News host Harris Faulkner's doublespeak on the subject drew comparisons to North Korean state media. Fox News’s Jeanine Pirro urged viewers to ignore the economic pain they were feeling on Thursday for the sake of patriotic dedication to the president.
“I don't really care about my 401k today. You know why?... I believe in this man,” Pirro said. “Who’s complaining? Wall Street. Too bad, he’s helping the middle class. I think it’s gonna be over this summer.”
-------
There is no such thing as patriotic dedication, just idiotic. For, Trumps sake, there damn well better be results and I am not waiting indefinitely.The clearest evidence it's a cult...
“I don't really care about my 401k today. You know why?... I believe in this man,” Pirro said.As for the cult, it has to be the only plausible explanation, ruling out an epidemic of "mad cow"
Let's ask them now, how do they like dem apples?
https://news.yahoo.com/news/finance/new … 15736.html
Imagine, the last stock market meltdown of this magnitude was in 2020, and after this, all I hear from Trumpers is happy talk? Have faith in the Fuhrer.
How long are we expected to wait for return to normalcy, this time?
As stocks plummet AGAIN and we barrel toward a likely self-imposed recession, as prices rise thanks to Trump’s ignorant and archaic obsession with tariffs and companies cut workers loose, I hope to hear Republicans.. the rich, the poor and the in-between applauding. Because this is exactly what you wanted. You were inconsolable crybabies about eggs but now you need to suck this up.
He promised y'all tariffs and he has wielded them bigly.
And from the allegedly stable genius responsible for this economic suicide, this is what we heard Wednesday as he announced the tariffs: “An old-fashioned term that we use ‒ groceries. I used it on the campaign. It's such an old-fashioned term, but a beautiful term. Groceries. It says a bag with different things in it.”
What the actual hell? Your economic lives, your retirement accounts and your ability to put food (groceries!) on the table are being hijacked by a guy who seems to think we've never heard of “groceries.”
That’s a perfect window into the wildly outdated and bizarre thinking behind Trump’s decision to impose tariffs not seen since the Smoot- Hawley...famed for its skillful exacerbation of the Great Depression.
In the “Historical Highlights” on the U.S. Senate’s website, the 1930 tariff act is described as “among the most catastrophic acts in congressional history.”. LOL
Part of the administration’s argument for starting a trade war with these tariffs boils down to this magical thinking: Tariffs will lead to a boom in U.S. manufacturing, which will return America to the glory days of the middle class having good-paying factory jobs.
That overlooks a number of significant issues.
Willy Shih, a professor of management practice in business administration at the Harvard Business School, recently told PBS that if you bring manufacturing from a lower-cost foreign country to our higher-cost country “you have to set up a factory and you have to hire the work force, and you have to train the work force and bring in your suppliers.
What's going to pay for it? Your product cost is going to be higher.”
If China can make a perfectly good widget at a reasonable cost why do we want to make widgets here only to pay more for them?
Douglas Irwin, a trade expert at Dartmouth College, recently told Bloomberg radio that due to automation, even if factories returned to the United States, “jobs would probably not follow.”
We had an economy that was strong and the envy of the world a matter of months ago. Now? It is being led off the cliff by a collection of wannabe robber barons and babbling, old-timey snake-oil salesmen.
Trump campaigned on immediate relief and success. And yet folks are now losing their retirement savings, the odds of a global recession have been raised to 60% by JP Morgan and grocery prices really haven't budged.
But hey, this is what Republicans wanted, right? You voted for the "Tariff Man". You voted for the guy who recently discovered groceries and his phalanx of billionaires who will now spend their days telling you to suck it up, endure a "little pain" and rest assured that everything will work out great....you got it.
And where is he today? He bugged out early yesterday for a golf weekend, on our dime, how Marie Antoinette out of him..What a day...
China announced it will impose retaliatory tariffs of 34% on US imports. They also announced they will restrict exports of 7 types of rare earths, start an anti-dumping probe into medical CT X-ray tubes from US, halt imports of poultry products from the US, and add 11 US defense companies to their “unreliable entity” list. Oh boy...
… The rare earth export ban is the one that is really going to hurt, because some of these are mined almost exclusively in China and are used in many high-tech products including EVs.
… Trump then responded with this post from the golf course: “CHINA PLAYED IT WRONG, THEY PANICKED - THE ONE THING THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO DO!”
… Yes, the Chinese who passes 5-year budgets are panicking. It’s what they’re known for. But not our boy Trump. He’s a steady hand on the economy....LOL
… USA Today: “Most of the 200 million iPhones Apple produces each year are made in China. Of the consumer goods affected by the 54% tariff, iPhones could take the biggest hit from the sharp hike. Consumers could see prices jump as much as 43%. In that scenario, Wedbush Securities analyst Daniel Ives said an iPhone could cost as much as $3,200.”
… Financial Times: “If it endures, Trump’s decision to enact sweeping tariffs on US trade partners will go down as one of the greatest acts of self-harm in American economic history. They will wreak untold damage on households, businesses and financial markets across the world, upending a global economic order that America benefited from and helped to create.”
… CNBC reported that JP Morgan raised their estimate on the likelihood of a recession up from 40% last month to 60% now. Bruce Kasman, head of global economic research: “These policies, if sustained, would likely push the US and possibly global economy into recession this year.”
… Wharton’s Jeremy Siegel to CNBC: “I think this is the biggest policy mistake in 95 years.”
… Powell then announced he has no intention of doing anything for at least a month since US policy is so volatile and unstable that it makes it impossible to predict where the economy is going.
… Meanwhile Trump skipped the dignified transfer ceremony at Dover AFB of 4 US service members who died in a training accident in Lithuania so he could fly to Miami to attend a golf dinner at his golf resort. Fox Nat Security correspondent Jennifer Griffin: “Trump will remain in FL and will not travel to Dover AFB for the dignified transfer of 4 American soldiers who died during a training exercise in Lithuania. COOL
Golfing away while the economy burns to the ground.
… CBS reported that Trump will also be speaking at a $1 million dollar-a-person candlelight dinner tonight at Mar-a-Lago. All the funds raised will go to Trump’s super PAC....NICE TOUCH.
With anger boiling over and nationwide protests planned for Saturday, Melania Trump is getting out of dodge, announcing that White House spring garden tours will be canceled: "This decision has been made out of an abundance of caution and to ensure the safety of all within proximity to public demonstrations planned near the White House on Saturday."
… 1,100 ‘HandsOff!’ protests are scheduled in all 50 states.
… Fencing was also put up around the White House today.
… Trump seemed to indicate he isn’t going to back off tariffs anytime soon with this all-caps post: “MY POLICIES WILL NEVER CHANGE. THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO GET RICH, RICHER THAN EVER BEFORE!!!”
Who's going down with the ship? We are in deep.Trump's tariff plan is akin to a business requiring all suppliers to be customers. In addition, as customers they need to buy an equal, or greater, amount of products, in cost, than they supplied.... Make it make sense
The analogy—“Trump’s tariff plan is like a business requiring all its suppliers to also be customers, and to buy as much or more than they supply”—falls apart under even mild scrutiny.
To begin with, international trade isn't the same as a private business arrangement. Countries aren’t suppliers and customers in the same sense that a company would treat its vendors. Trade relationships are multifaceted and based on mutual benefit, not transactional symmetry.
Trump’s proposed tariff strategy is about incentivizing domestic production and reducing trade deficits—not demanding "equal or greater" purchases from other countries. The point of tariffs is to make imports more expensive so that domestic alternatives become more attractive. It’s not about forcing a one-to-one balance sheet between trading partners.
If a business tried to operate like the analogy suggests—telling suppliers they must become customers and buy more than they sell—it wouldn’t last long. It would alienate partners and destroy any functional supply chain. Trump’s plan, flawed or not, doesn’t suggest this kind of reciprocal overreach. It's aimed at strategic leverage, not enforcing an artificial balance of payments from every trade partner.
So no, that analogy doesn’t “make it make sense”—it confuses trade policy with an unrealistic business scenario that no serious economist would use as a valid comparison.AI didn't get the nuances...
Case in point: "If a business tried to operate like the analogy suggests—telling suppliers they must become customers and buy more than they sell—it wouldn’t last long."
BINGOI am afraid you did not get the point. But my view is my view. You don't look at this issue as I do. Trump's tariff policies were designed with the intent of reducing trade imbalances, but they did not directly demand that nations buy more from the U.S. than they sell to it. Instead, the goal was to address what he viewed as unfair trade practices, such as countries benefiting from U.S. market access without reciprocating in a way that he considered fair. Trump's tariffs, particularly on China, were meant to incentivize other nations to buy more U.S. products and reduce the U.S. trade deficit by making foreign goods more expensive.
I think I have more than shared my view on the issue. I am becoming repetitive.
Let me get this straight... I buy $100 worth of stuff I need. You only buy $20 worth of stuff because that's all you need. So I’m going to charge a tariff on your $20 to make it “equal”.
Make it make sense."So I’m going to charge a tariff on your $20 to make it “equal”."
Figure out what "it" is and you will have your answer. You can listen/read what Trump has said more than a few times to find out, for he has made it exceedingly plain.
Make it make sense...
if China sells a screwdriver for $10 dollars, and now you put Tarrifs on it to make it $20 dollars, but the American one was $15 dollars, and now buy that one… you still paid 50% more for a screwdriver.... Curious, seems the one getting screwed is the middle class....The argument that tariffs are hurting the middle class because they raise prices oversimplifies a much more complex issue. In the example given—where a $10 Chinese screwdriver becomes $20 due to tariffs, and the American one costs $15—it might seem like consumers are getting “screwed” by having to pay more. But this ignores the purpose of tariffs entirely. Tariffs aren't designed to lower immediate costs; they’re meant to protect domestic industries, reduce dependency on foreign goods, and rebuild the capacity to manufacture essential products at home. If we always choose the cheapest import, domestic manufacturers can’t compete, and eventually, we become fully reliant on countries like China for even the most basic tools. That’s not just bad economics—it’s a national security risk.
Supporting domestic products—even at a slightly higher price—keeps money circulating in the U.S. economy. It helps American companies grow, creates jobs, supports families, and contributes to local communities through taxes and wages. Over time, the growth of these industries could also bring down prices through competition and scale. Plus, the idea that foreign goods are always better just because they’re cheaper overlooks quality and safety standards. Many imported products are less durable or produced under poor labor conditions. So yes, tariffs may make some products more expensive in the short term, but they’re part of a broader strategy to strengthen the U.S. economy, protect jobs, and ensure we aren’t left vulnerable to the whims of foreign suppliers. That seems like a smarter long-term play than chasing the cheapest price tag today.
This is about the future, and hopefully, in the decades to come reduce our growing debt.“But this ignores the purpose of tariffs entirely. Tariffs aren't designed to lower immediate costs; they’re meant to protect domestic industries, reduce dependency on foreign goods, and rebuild the capacity to manufacture essential products at home.”
That is quite convenient, Sharlee, but that explanation was not provided by Trump during his campaign. Excuses will not suffice no matter how elaborate. The price of eggs rise and regardless of good times predicted by Trump in the future, nobody is feeling it.
Midterms are coming up and this be patient, wait stuff is going to have limited value…
Inflation is still inflation…..You cannot be serious. Trump has been, from day one, most interested in bringing manufacturing back to the US. He has not made that a secret, nor has he made it a secret that he thinks tariffs will do that. If you did not understand that it is that you didn't listen.
"The price of eggs rise and regardless of good times predicted by Trump in the future, nobody is feeling it."
Again, you cannot be serious. Unless you think Trump waited for the bird flu epidemic to kill all the chickens and THEN put a tariff on the remaining farmers still selling eggs in the country that produced them?I am quite serious, I don’t care what Trump says, the proof is in the pudding.
Trumps thoughts do not rise above his head. He campaigned on reversing the inflation during Bidens term that all of you have been harping about. I am going to insist upon results or else he and his administration are going to be made just that much more uncomfortable. If prices rise on the next CPI report, he should be pummeled into a pulp. Explanations or excuses for failure will not be warmly accepted.It was coming down slightly, as shown by the Feb start. I hope we see it once again heading downward.
You can't stop inflation until you stop spending more than you are bringing in ...
Now the problem is compounded by interest on the debt (so glad Biden added another ten trillion or so to it)... a trillion dollars is now wasted on servicing the interest payments alone, each year.
I hope all those LGBTQ+ plays they funded in Pakistan and the hundreds of billions doled out to foreigners to come here and collect Social Security was worth it.I completely agree with you. The national debt is a major issue, and with interest payments now reaching a trillion dollars a year, it’s evident that our current fiscal trajectory isn’t sustainable. We certainly need more revenue, but to generate that, we must focus on fostering an economy that creates good-paying jobs, attracts investment, and ensures fair trade practices.
Well, we have another week to find out if the economy can remain resilient after Trump puts his proposals in place.
With all he is doing, I would consider that almost a miracle. The boat is rocking, and I see no calm seas at his point. Although, as I have always said, Trump has great karma. He seems to always come up winning.
Maga folks have put Musk on a pedestal but over the last few days he has been very critical of the tariff policy. He has declared Peter Navarro, the architect of the tariff scheme, a moron and dumber than bricks...LOL I agree with him 100% on that one...Is the honeymoon over? At this point, Navarro is the only one who thinks the tariffs are a good idea.
I’m totally keeping my eye on the ball here. The noise, infighting, and personal jabs don’t move me—I care very little about the fodder or the street-level bickering between voices trying to dominate the conversation. I’m focused on one leader: Trump. I’m watching what he’s saying, what he’s doing, and how he’s proceeding with his agenda. I’m also keeping a close eye on the actual outcomes in his court cases, not just the headlines. At the end of the day, it’s results that matter to me. Everything else is just background chatter. My attention is on Trump, and his administration, as well as Congress.
In my opinion, neither of them truly influences Trump’s decision-making. By now, most people should understand—Trump takes advice, but ultimately, he listens to one person: himself. From the start, I believe his intention has always been to negotiate fair trade. That’s been clear from the beginning, even in his early talks with Netanyahu. He’s also stated that many nations are now reaching out, wanting to negotiate. The truth is, he’s never claimed he wouldn’t negotiate—quite the opposite. Negotiation has always been part of his approach.I am focused on Trump as well, terrified of the danger and threat that he foments here and around the globe.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. What danger are you talking about? He seems focused on addressing America's issues. Yes, there are a couple of wars escalating, but he’s clearly outlined his stance on both. If you're ready for peace, come hear him out. Yes, Trump announced that peace negotiations with Iran concerning its nuclear program are scheduled to begin this Saturday, but he offered no further details. One thing Trump doesn't do is let the grass grow under his feet. He’s juggling many challenges and doesn’t seem afraid to take on any that come his way. He is very hard to keep up with.
Take a moment just to ponder what Maga would be saying right now, at this very point in time about the circumstances we find ourselves in as citizens and as a country if Kamala Harris was currently POTUS.... Folks wouldn't be calling any of this "addressing America's issues". Just imagine what Maga would be calling it...
Let’s use some common sense here: Trump won, and he won running on a very clear, very unapologetic agenda. None of what he's doing now should come as a surprise to anyone paying attention. He campaigned on these policies and goals, and he’s doing exactly what he said he would do. While Democrats may find his approach and agenda appalling, for those of us who voted for him, this is not shocking—it’s expected. We cast our votes for action, not rhetoric, and what we’re seeing now is the follow-through.
To answer your question. Take a moment just to ponder what MAGA would be saying right now... if Kamala Harris was currently POTUS.” It’s worth addressing that with equal common sense. If Kamala Harris were in charge and pursuing a sweeping left-wing agenda, pushing executive action, ignoring the concerns of the other half of the country, and accelerating policies seen as divisive or radical by conservatives, MAGA would absolutely be vocal. The media would be filled with accusations of overreach, socialism, or worse—and you can bet it wouldn’t be framed as “addressing America’s issues.” So yes, if the shoe were on the other foot, the narrative would flip, and the outrage would be loud. But the difference is, Trump was elected on his agenda. That’s the mandate he’s acting on.
Well, Sharlee, I am going to go with the economic experts and not Trump policy. The entire planet is up in arms over Trump tariff policies, even the Penguins in Antarctica are taking offense. Creating an unnecessary economic upheaval around the world is dangerous.
Trumps saber rattling threats to Greenland are both tyrannical and unprecedented.
Trumps attitude of asking forgiveness instead of getting permission to take liberties with the rights of citizens is dangerous for us all, not just illegal migrants.
Everything the man touches turns into excrement. The wars that he said that he would end as are you have said are in fact escalating, is this the Prince of Peace that you all have been boasting about?
I don’t like impulsive approaches to things, Trump seems to believe that he is free to do whatever he wants, and if you want to know something, he isn’t.
Adherence to the Constitution comes first and foremost, not his intuition or opinion.Did you feel he would not act on what he campaigned on? He does seem to think he has the right to do what he promised. We see many lawsuits, and this should, by all rights, keep him in check. I think we can depend on that. He will certainly be making the SC earn their keep.
But, I will say that his and anybody’s else’s luck will run out sometime. I will wait for it. Calm seas? No, Titantic awaits.
Fiat currency is still fiat currency...
Fraud and corruption...
When you step past the politics ... Stop playing the blame game... Look at financial realities...
https://youtu.be/gAipoqRmDW4?si=ArEUM8PdzO1-TnZg
The can has run out of road ...there is no where left to kick it.Tariffs are a huge source of corruption and favoritism.
The financial realities are quite evidently seen in the markets. You are a trader, do precipitous falls in the market and the loss of millions of dollars for those investing sound like “not a big deal” to you?
The typical liberal cannot or will not look beyond today. Do that and it will help you understand.
But, the typical conservative are experts at looking at and living beyond yesterday….
I’m not sure this argument holds up. Many Republicans today are backing an agenda that could actually be described as radical—supporting a president unlike any we've seen before. His ideas are bold, unconventional, and in many ways, progressive. In my view, Trump has fundamentally changed the party. I don’t think many would want to go back to the way things were. Ironically, that might be why so many Democrats are in a panic—because we’ve outpaced them in pushing a transformative vision.
I am not sure many long for much of yesterday... We want change and are willing to break any and all molds, and are willing to go beyond traditional methods or expectations to achieve our goals.I don’t know if I care so much for the way things are going.
“I am not sure many long for much of yesterday... We want change and are willing to break any and all molds, and are willing to go beyond traditional methods or expectations to achieve our goals.”
There is the danger, the Constitution is sacrosanct. You break that “mold” and the guard rails disappear. Is that what you really want to advocate? Trump pushes at the boundaries, daily. I don’t trust any leader that violates the document on which our government is based and that such a suggestion is hardly transformative. We on the left are not going to make easy for this course of action to take place.You're absolutely right—the Constitution is sacrosanct, and once you start breaking that mold, the guardrails that protect our freedoms begin to disappear. That’s not something anyone should take lightly, regardless of political affiliation.
But let’s be clear: despite the constant narrative that Trump is some kind of constitutional wrecking ball, there’s little actual evidence that he’s violated the Constitution. He may push boundaries, sure—but pushing isn’t the same as breaking. That’s why we have a judicial system. And frankly, it’s working. His policies have been challenged in court—hundreds of times—and many have been struck down. Others, like the recent ruling allowing the use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, have been upheld.. That’s the system doing its job.
("Supreme Court weighs in on Trump admin’s use of Alien Enemies Act for deportations
The Supreme Court threw out U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s decision to block the removal of men alleged to be members of a Venezuelan gang to El Salvador without any legal process under the Alien Enemies Act. The 5-4 ruling, with conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining three liberal justices in dissenting, means the Trump administration can try to resume deportations under the rarely used wartime law, so long as detainees are given time to challenge their detentions and whether the Alien Enemies Act is being lawfully applied.") Source https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/su … rcna200147
If Trump—or any president—truly violates the Constitution, they should and will be held accountable. But we shouldn’t confuse political disagreement with constitutional violation. That’s a dangerous conflation. The real safeguard is our judiciary, and so far, it’s proving it can stand up to any president when necessary. Instead of fearmongering, we should respect the institutions in place to maintain balance.
Are there things to watch closely? Absolutely. Every administration deserves scrutiny. But let’s not pretend the sky is falling when the courts, Congress, and Constitution are still firmly in place doing what they’re meant to do.It is not the victory that Trump really wanted. While he is allowed to operate under his weird interpretation of the 1798 law, he is told that those accused MUST be allowed a hearing, which means “due process of law”. That means no more indiscriminate knapsacking of people without evidence that they are here illegally or merely wear a tattoo designating them as part of a gang. The court gives Trump a tremendous amount of latitude in these matters of which I do not approve. With Trump and his surreptitious actions contrary to the proper procedure, I consider that the sky has already fallen and has crashed to the earth.
The drafters of the 1798 law was speaking specifically about foreign invasion, as in time of war. Trump had commented that he would consider El Salvador incarceration for many others beyond so called illegal immigrants and I know that you have heard it. Trump should already have been held accountable for his action against the legal resident that through “administrative error” was sent to El Salvador, and I hope that he returns and take legal recourse against Trump and the administration.
So, do we go after the Mafia a criminal enterprise or Black Lives Matter as a political threat or any other organization that the Trump regime where there is controversy. These kinds of interpretations of established law from the Trump administration could very well lead us down this path. He will simply designate them as domestic terrorists and there is nothing that I would put past this man.All is not lost, Credence. SCOTUS granted the administration's emergency request to overturn the TRO, while legal challenges (regarding the legality of the use of the AEA )remain ongoing. The majority decision said that detainees must still be alerted about their situation and given an "opportunity" to present their case to a judge before being deported from the U.S. I'm sure that the AEA case will make it to them eventually.
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled today on the administration's use of the today --- Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport Venezuelan nationals associated with the Tren de Aragua gang. The Court lifted a lower court's injunction that had blocked these deportations, allowing the administration to proceed under the AEA. However, the Court mandated that individuals subject to deportation must be notified and given the opportunity to challenge their removal in court.
No, they ruled on the TRO. Not on the legality of the AEA. That matter is still working its way through the courts.
The deportations will begin , and those being deported will be given hearings, which I believe is fair. I think many migrants who fear they could be sent back to face prison in their home countries might choose to return voluntarily across the border rather than go through formal deportation. That alone could act as a strong deterrent going forward. I was pleased to see the ruling. I suspect we will see more SC wins as the many cases make their way to the high court.
USA grows oranges,
UK grows apples.
USA bought 100 apples
UK bought 50 oranges
There’s a trade deficit so I’m going to charge you a 10% tariff on Apples because you don’t buy enough oranges
UK consumers don’t like oranges so they won’t buy more... Please, make it make sense..The example they provide oversimplifies the issue and misrepresents how trade and tariffs work. The analogy compares the U.S. growing oranges and the U.K. growing apples, but it’s not how global trade, tariffs, and trade deficits are meant to operate.
Trade is about mutual benefit. The U.S. and the U.K. aren't just exchanging oranges for apples; they're engaging in broader economic exchanges that go beyond a simple one-to-one product exchange. A country might not need to buy more of something just because it’s being asked to. There’s a complex web of factors involved, including the competitive advantages of each country, demand for products, and the comparative costs of producing them. The U.K. might not buy more oranges because they don’t need them, and imposing a tariff won’t necessarily change that—it could just result in higher prices for U.K. consumers, which they don’t want.
Plus, the assumption that the tariff would cause the U.K. to buy more oranges ignores the reality of how tariffs affect prices and markets. A 10% tariff on apples doesn’t force the U.K. to buy more oranges; it simply raises the cost of apples for consumers, likely leading to reduced imports of apples, not an increase in orange purchases. Tariffs are a tool used to incentivize domestic production and encourage countries to reconsider trade imbalances, but they work based on demand, not by coercion. If the U.K. consumers don't like oranges, they won’t buy them just because of a tariff. Instead, the U.K. might look for other suppliers or focus on domestic production to avoid the higher cost of apples.
Your argument overlooks the idea that tariffs are often used to reduce trade imbalances, but they're just one part of a larger strategy that includes addressing domestic industries' competitiveness, creating jobs, and ensuring long-term economic growth. It’s not about forcing countries into equal exchanges for every single product but about ensuring that trade is more fair and beneficial in the long run. The trade deficit might be addressed through structural economic changes, not just through tariffs on individual products that consumers don’t want to buy more of anyway.
Let's say a factory in an impoverished country makes trinkets and exports 100% to US. It imports $0 from US because it is too poor. According to the formula it will have a tariff of ~100%. Now the trinket cost 2X to US consumer and the country gets even poorer and still can't buy anything from US...makes sense??
This scenario presented misses key aspects of how tariffs work and their broader economic impact. In this example, the impoverished country is exporting trinkets to the U.S. but isn’t importing anything from the U.S. because it’s too poor. The argument suggests that imposing a 100% tariff on these trinkets would double the price for U.S. consumers, further impoverish the exporting country, and not solve the trade imbalance. While this paints a bleak picture, it fails to account for the larger strategic goals behind tariffs and the broader context of global trade.
The premise that a 100% tariff would be imposed solely based on the lack of imports from the U.S. is an oversimplification. Tariffs are typically applied to address unfair trade practices or to promote domestic industries rather than just to correct a trade deficit. In this scenario, the goal wouldn’t necessarily be to punish the exporting country, but rather to create a more equitable trade relationship. A tariff could be part of a strategy to encourage the country to open up its market to U.S. goods, but this wouldn’t be the sole impact or purpose of the tariff.
Plus, raising the price of trinkets for U.S. consumers might seem detrimental at first glance, but it’s important to look at the overall effects. If the tariff incentivizes more U.S. domestic production or other countries to enter the market with cheaper alternatives, the economic landscape shifts. This could benefit U.S. workers and industries, offsetting the higher prices paid for imported trinkets.
Your notion that the impoverished country would get "even poorer" because it still can’t buy anything from the U.S. overlooks the dynamic nature of global trade. If the country is only producing trinkets and isn’t in a position to buy from the U.S., that’s a structural issue that tariffs won’t solve directly. However, the tariff could serve as leverage for negotiations that could lead to better economic policies, infrastructure development, or international aid, which would gradually allow the impoverished country to increase its purchasing power over time.
In short, while it’s true that tariffs can raise costs in the short term, the idea that they would permanently harm the impoverished country or the U.S. is overly simplistic. A well-designed tariff strategy is part of a larger set of tools used to foster fairer trade, encourage domestic production, and create more balanced economic relationships. This goes beyond a simple case of raising prices—it’s about long-term restructuring and creating conditions for mutual growth.
Why country specific tariffs rather than product based tariffs?
Shouldn't the focus be on products that we make in America, or want to make here again? Shouldn't they be the targets of tariffs, not the countries that make them. And while there are thousands of product categories that are open to tariffs, there are also things it would be stupid to put tariffs on because we don’t make them here and don’t plan to.
For example...we don’t grow coffee in the US, but they do in Mexico, that’s why we imported 65.5 million kilograms of unroasted beans from that country in 2022. Slapping a tariff on all Mexican goods will sweep up coffee.
Bringing manufacturing back? Sounds good but...
Trump is able to do his uninformed tariff song-and-dance because there’s a loophole in our tariff laws that allows the president, during a time of national emergency, to impose emergency tariffs.
Trump declared a state of emergency at the beginning of his administration specifically so he could put his tariffs into place... which means the next president can simply reverse them. What CEO in their right mind is going to invest billions based on that level of uncertainty??
If Trump had any understanding of tariffs outside of his simplistic “you hurt us, we hurt you” worldview, he’d realize the best way to accomplish his stated goal of bringing manufacturing back to this country can be tariffs, but only when they are done carefully and selectively.
If Congress imposes tariffs there’s a far better chance they’ll stay in place long enough to assure American companies it’s worth building new factories. Instead of imposing his tariffs by fiat, Trump should have put them into the form of a proposed bill that he’d then submit to Congress.
But no... We are left with his ham handed approach that will do more damage than good.So if a country simply doesn’t need as much american stuff as the US buys from them they get slapped with a fat ass tariff... Doesn’t matter if their real tariff is 5%, Trumps crew pulls 50% outta thin air...makes sense??
Let's just take one specific example...
Trump's tariffs are calculated as a proportion of the trade deficit the US holds with any country and their exports to the US.
This amateurish calculation means that US consumers will pay the most for items from poor countries (for example diamonds) who due to their poverty cannot afford to purchase US products.
According to Trump's logic, this move will force companies to move their operations to the US.
Apply this to the diamond industry... where will they find ground ore containing diamonds in the US???
Make it make sense....Take a peek at potash used by our farmers for fertilizer and feed for the nutritional value. The U.S. farmers import 90% of potash while 80% comes from Canada. Somewhere around 4 billion $$ worth. Is there an exception on that?
"Canadian potash imports into the U.S. not covered by CUSMA are currently subject to 10 per cent tariffs and that is where they will remain for now.
Trump imposed 25 per cent tariffs on potash on March 4 as part of sweeping tariffs on all Canadian imports coming into the U.S. But on March 6, he placed a pause on the blanket tariffs, exempting goods covered under CUSMA, and lowered the tariff on potash not covered by CUSMA to 10 per cent following pushback by a number of industries, including farming."
https://thestarphoenix.com/business/wha … for%20now.
No it doesn't. Unfortunately most people know as much about tariffs as The Donald does.
Problem is though that the President of the USA doesn't listen to experts. He thinks he knows better than all the financial experts. Same with how he handled COVID. He didn't listen to professionals in the field.
This blind spot in his behavior is now causing a world wide economic crisis.
Trump still acts like a TV celebrity instead of a politician. The whole tariff announcement was a TV show, more like a horse betting event than anything else. For him it is all show. That's why lying is just as easy. In the world of the television nothing is real, all is fake. He himself doesn't see the difference between lies and truths. He lies about things that are obvious to point out.
Trump is living in this fake world he created for himself. But in politics you can't live like a child in a fake world. There are consequences of your actions.
Can anyone put up some credible support for the idea that tariffs reduce trade deficits, imbalances?
Is it possible to have balanced trade with every nation?
Why do trade imbalances exist? Are they a symptom of unfair trade practices, or do they arise naturally from economic forces?
Maga...you folks keep repeating empty talking points while skirting the meat of the tariffs issue.
The reality? Trump's actions have no basis in economic theory.Do your own research and start with Trump's reasoning for tariffs. His agenda is focused on making America stronger and more self-reliant. It’s not just about short-term economics but about building a solid economic foundation for the future. The goal is to create a nation that can rely on its own production, encouraging Americans to buy domestically before turning to imported goods. This vision is about long-term strength and independence, not merely immediate financial gains.
His bold agenda isn’t about dwelling on the past, but focusing on the future—on building a stronger America, one that’s less dependent on fragile global supply chains. It’s about bringing back what we’ve lost. Will it be hard? Absolutely. Will it be worth the fight? In my view, without a doubt. And is he the one to take it on? Yes, he is.I've actually done the research...But you're avoiding any examination of the details? Can you address any of the questions I've posed? This isn't all on you but maga seems to have no answers beyond very superficial talking points...
Trump's reasoning is flawed.. I've posed several questions in relation to economic principles, not one of you have chosen to tackle...
Like I said, do your own research on your questions — they’re not really relevant to why Trump has imposed tariffs across our trade relationships. They don’t even factor in. Trump has broken the traditional mold in how and why he’s using tariffs. My comment gave a solid overview of what he’s laid out during his campaign and now in his presidency. It seems many just can’t grasp his reasoning and can’t get past the fact that he’s using tariffs in a completely different way than any president before him.
"they’re not really relevant to why Trump has imposed tariffs across our trade relationships. They don’t even factor in."
How will tariffs meet the stated goals?
I don't care about his reasoning for using tariffs. He is using them for stated goals, purposes. But there aren't many, of any credible economists who feel that these goals can or should even be met by tariffs.
...Where is the credible support for the idea that tariffs reduce trade deficits, imbalances?
Is it possible to have balanced trade with every nation?
Why do trade imbalances exist? Are they a symptom of unfair trade practices, or do they arise naturally from economic forces?
What about comparative advantage? His tariff scheme completely overlooks this principle.
Riddle me this... Why would a manufacturer start up in the US when even a slight policy change would completely destroy the market? When policy making has proven to be chaotic and erratic?
Would anyone like to address Trump's tariffs in relation to the principle of comparative advantage?
And it just keeps getting worse... Dow futures down right now 1600 points due to Trump's tariffs...S&P 500 futures drop 4%, in advance of trading tomorrow. Not a word from Trump as people’s 401k’s are draining away.
Get ready for tomorrow...it will be a dark, dark Monday in the U.S.Expert Trump named to justify tariff plan hits out: 'They got it wrong
A Treasury expert cited by Donald Trump in defense of his tariffs has a message for the president: “They got it wrong.”
Brent Neiman was one of four economic leaders whose work on trade was held up by the president to justify the international charges he levied last week — immediately prompting a now multi-day market plunge.
“The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative released its methodology and cited an academic paper produced by four economists, including me, seemingly in support of their numbers.
“But they got it wrong. Very wrong. I disagree fundamentally with the government’s trade policy and approach.”
Neiman said his research suggested any tariffs should be much smaller than the figures Trump came up with — a quarter of the size.
He then went on to describe a fundamental lack of understanding from Trump in the economics that he’s dealing with.
Firstly, he’s wrong in his claim that his tariffs would eliminate trade deficits with trading partners, Neiman wrote.
“Trade imbalances between two countries can emerge for many reasons that have nothing to do with protectionism,” he wrote.
“Americans spend more on clothing made in Sri Lanka than Sri Lankans spend on American pharmaceuticals and gas turbines. So what? That pattern reflects differences in natural resources, comparative advantage and development levels. The deficit numbers don’t suggest, let alone prove, unfair competition.”
He then smacked down the formula that Trump used to figure out the tariffs.
He concluded, “I would strongly prefer that the policy and methodology be scrapped entirely.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/opin … rmula.htmlOver the weekend...
'Trump reiterated that the impetus behind the tariff policy is trade deficits: "I spoke to a lot of leaders... from all over the world. ... I said 'we're not gonna have deficits with your country' ... to me a deficit is a loss. We're gonna have surpluses or at worst we're gonna be breaking even."
Okay maga... Make it make sense. When you are the largest, richest country in the world with rabid consumerism, how do you balance trade with individual nations of the world?
I've been told that economics is your folks "strong suit". Go ahead... dazzle us.Look, I get where Trump’s coming from on this. He sees trade like a business deal, and if we’re constantly importing more than we’re exporting, that’s a loss in his book. To him, a trade deficit means we’re getting the short end of the stick, and he thinks the U.S.—being the biggest, richest country in the world—shouldn’t be getting played like that. So he uses tariffs as a way to push back and say, “Hey, if you want to sell your stuff here, you’d better start buying from us too.”
Now, I know we’ve got a massive consumer market and we buy a ton of stuff from everywhere—that’s just how it is. But just because we consume more doesn’t mean we have to accept bad trade deals. Trump’s logic is that we’ve got leverage, and we ought to use it. If we’re the biggest buyer on the planet, why not demand better terms? I’m not saying we can balance trade perfectly with every country, but it makes sense to at least try and get a fair shake.
So in my view, how to make it happen is using our powerful leverage. Which it appears Trump is doing thus far.Do you really think we're going to make shoes here? T-shirts? Widgets? Those aren't the kind of jobs we need or want. Tell me how trade can be balanced or should be balanced between a country like ours and just for example say a country such as Vietnam?
Vietnam is never going to buy as much from us as we do from them.
"Americans spend more on clothing made in Sri Lanka than Sri Lankans spend on American pharmaceuticals and gas turbines. So what? That pattern reflects differences in natural resources, comparative advantage and development levels. The deficit numbers don’t suggest, let alone prove, unfair competition."
The trade deficit is utterly irrelevant. We are the richest country on Earth we will always have more purchasing power. We also have a huge surplus when it comes to services, which aren't reflected in trade. Every nation uses American software and services.
We are not being robbed blind. We are the largest economy in the world. Therefore, anyone we trade with will have a trade deficit as their economy is smaller. Simple math.In my view, Trump is not feeling we will bring back the clothing industry, he is after bigger fish. He's more focused on revitalizing industries like advanced manufacturing, aerospace, semiconductors, and energy—especially oil, gas, and possibly even nuclear. These are sectors where the U.S. can dominate, pay high wages, and maintain national security leverage.
As for trade balance, it’s not about matching Vietnam shirt-for-shirt or shoe-for-shoe. It's about negotiating fair terms so we’re not exporting our wealth and importing dependency. That might mean tariffs, onshoring critical production, and making sure countries like Vietnam aren’t undercutting us through currency manipulation or forced labor.
I see your point. That’s one way to look at it, but in my view, the size of the economy doesn’t excuse bad trade deals. Being the richest country doesn’t mean we should accept being taken advantage of. Comparative advantage is fine, until it becomes a permanent excuse for outsourcing critical industries and weakening our own labor base.
The USA is the richest country on the planet and hence buys a lot of things.
Virtually every other country on the planet is less rich and hence buys less.
This is one major reason why there's a trade deficit.Sure, but being rich doesn’t mean we should be reckless. A trade deficit that guts our industries isn't just a math issue—it’s a strategy problem.
Deficits are natural outcome of international trade. That doesn't make them inherently bad. They are actually an indicator of a strong economy. All I'm saying, is that they are not the boogeyman Trump is trying to make them out to be. His argument is not based on economic principle, he's not making a sound argument with this.
He is trying to fool America into thinking it is getting "ripped off" by the rest of the world when that is just not the case.It’s true that trade deficits are a natural part of international trade and not automatically a bad thing. They can actually show that a country has strong purchasing power and is connected to the global economy. However, consistent trade deficits do come with risks, like increasing national debt, which could eventually put strain on the economy if we keep relying on borrowing. The real issue isn't just the deficits themselves, but what they represent in the bigger picture. I get what you're saying about Trump’s argument—it’s not based on solid economic principles, and he tends to focus on the negative side of things. So, while trade deficits aren’t the “boogeyman” he makes them out to be, they are still something we need to manage carefully at this time.
"He is trying to fool America into thinking it is getting "ripped off" by the rest of the world when that is just not the case."Willow
It doesn’t make sense to think he’s intentionally trying to "rip off" the country. From what I gather, Trump's approach to trade and tariffs isn’t about deliberately harming the U.S., but rather about trying to address what he sees as unfair trade practices that disadvantage American workers and industries.
Statistics clearly show many nations have great imbalances."Statistics clearly show many nations have great imbalances."
Yes and these deficits will most likely always exist but people aren't being honest about why they exist. In my opinion, this tariff war is really all about China but the world including Islands inhabited only by penguins, are being drawn into this needlessly.Many countries manage to maintain significant trade surpluses while keeping their national debts low or even having substantial surpluses, while the U.S. carries a large debt. Trump’s goal has always been to level the playing field and make trade more balanced, which seems like a no-brainer to me. It’s baffling how some people don’t get this. Sure, there’s turmoil right now, but that was expected. In the long run, these tariff adjustments will help the U.S. and bring in more revenue. Personally, I don’t see any major issues with what Trump is doing on tariffs. Both parties have been talking about doing this for decades. I think what’s really bothering people is that it’s a Republican taking bold steps to do what many have been asking for all along.
The tariff impacts on the tech industry...
Wedbush’s Dan Ives says President Trump’s tariffs could set U.S. tech companies back by a decade....
Consider the following...
"The cost structure of the U.S. tech world would make it impossible to compete with China, and this would be a lotto ticket for the China tech landscape," Ives wrote.
The idea is that technology companies, either paying the import taxes or the higher cost of production in the U.S., would be forced to charge more for their products -- making them less competitive versus non-U.S. rivals. All of this clearly would weigh on earnings, and as Ives says, allow companies from other countries such as China to steamroll past American tech players.
Yes, this is just common sense.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2025/04/ … 20players.Hypothetical..
I own a small dessert business. My business has a 100% trade deficit with the grocery store. I’m always buying from them, and they’ve never once bought anything from me.
Now, of course, I take products I buy from the grocery store, turn them into delicious baked goods, and make a 50%+ profit, while the grocery store is running on 2-4% profit margins, but WE HAVE A TRADE DEFICIT! They’re ripping me off with their low, low prices, because they NEVER buy anything from me!
Of course, the alternative is for me to grow, harvest, grind, then finely mill all of my own flour, including into the various mixes of flour that I use for various products, maintain and milk a dairy cow, churn my own butter, make that milk into heavy cream, yogurt, sour cream,, etc…grow cacao, and then turn into all the different kinds of chocolate and baking cocoa… grow and harvest sugar cane, grow vanilla beans, etc, etc, etc…
All of that (plus WAY more), and we haven’t even talked about all the different fruits and nuts I would need, or how I would only be able to offer certain products during certain times of the year, or how a lot of what I said before wouldn’t even be possible in the climate I live in, but I digress.
If all of that wasn’t cost-prohibitive enough to completely wipe out my profits (it would be, and then some), the time commitment and significant additional physical labor certainly wouldn’t make any of it worth the tiny remaining profit.
Now, compare that to the current screeching about the trade deficits we have with other countries. We import raw materials (aluminum, steel, lumber, etc…) from other countries, which would be labor and/or cost prohibitive for us to make, or that we simply cannot produce or source here, and then we take those materials, and turn them into higher profit margin products, which we then export to other countries. It is exactly the same as my example, but on a macro scale.Also, this is not been considered...
Trump would have us believe that we’re the biggest victim of global trade...
Yet..
WTO Director-General wrote on “America’s Big Trade Win”:
—US exports $1tln services a year;
—US runs a $300bln service trade surplus;
—US accounts for 15% of global digital trade ..."
Our digital services exports are not calculated into deficit totals.
This is a lot more valuable than onshoring sweatshops.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary … trade-win/This article makes some good points—yeah, the U.S. is doing really well in services like finance, tech, entertainment, and so on. We’re pulling in big money from licensing, consulting, and a lot of high-paying jobs are coming out of it. No argument there. But what it totally skips over is how this shift didn’t just happen out of nowhere. It ignores the fact that in Trump’s first term, he used tariffs as part of a broader push to rebalance trade. Whether people liked those tariffs or not, they definitely shook things up and forced a lot of companies to rethink how and where they were doing business.
The article acts like tariffs were just gloom and doom, but in reality, they helped kickstart a bigger conversation—and some real action—about where we were falling behind. That pressure pushed more focus into services and innovation, and that shift is showing up now in the numbers. It’s also a little shortsighted to just say “let’s lean into services” like that solves everything. Not every American is going to work in tech or consulting. Manufacturing and production still matter for communities across the country.
So yeah, celebrate the wins in services, but let’s not pretend they came out of nowhere. Tariffs played a role, and the disruption from Trump’s first-term trade policies helped shape the landscape we’re looking at today.""Tariffs played a role, and the disruption from Trump’s first-term trade policies helped shape the landscape we’re looking at today". .
I think folks may be looking back at the first Trump Administration with Rose colored glasses? Or what they think he did but the results don't pan out..
"The three largest U.S. deficits in history will have occurred during the Trump Administration."
"America’s trade gap soared under Trump, final figures show"
"During President Trump's first term in office, the U.S. trade deficit increased. Despite his administration's efforts to reduce the trade deficit through tariffs and other measures, the overall trade deficit grew. In 2016, the year before Trump took office, the trade deficit was around $481 billion. By 2020, it had risen to approximately $679 billion. This is roughly a 41% increase."
https://thefulcrum.us/governance-legisl … de-deficit
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/0 … cit-466116
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business … story.htmlDuring President Donald Trump's administration (2017-2020), significant increases in tariffs led to higher federal revenue from customs duties. Here's a year-by-year breakdown of tariff revenues during that period:
2017: Approximately $38.51 billion
2018: Approximately $53.28 billion
2019: Approximately $77.75 billion
2020: Approximately $68.63 billion
These figures reflect the direct impact of the Trump administration's trade policies, including the imposition of tariffs on various imports, particularly from China.
Under President Joe Biden (2021-2024), tariff revenues continued to be significant, though they varied each year:
2021: Approximately $89.10 billion
2022: Approximately $102.33 billion
2023: Approximately $81.63 billion
2024: Approximately $82.97 billion
At the end of Trump’s first term in 2020, the U.S. trade deficit stood at approximately $676.7 billion, according to the U.S. Census Bureau—a notable increase from the $502.3 billion deficit in 2016, the year before he took office.
Here’s a comparison of the goods and services trade deficits:
2008: $695.9 billion (final year of Bush’s presidency)
2016 Obama last year: $502.3 billion
2020 (end of Trump’s term): $676.7 billion
2024 (end of Biden’s term): $918.4 billion
And now, based on monthly trade numbers for early 2025, we’re on track to exceed a $1 trillion annual deficit if current trends hold:
January 2025: ~$130.7 billion
February 2025: ~$122.7 billion
Two-month total: ~$253.4 billion
Projected annual total: ~$1.52 trillion
This growing imbalance shouldn’t be ignored. In fact, the dramatic rise in our trade deficit over the past decade should be a wake-up call. Continuing down this path reflects, in my view, poor governance and a dangerous level of complacency.
It’s time to take a hard, realistic look at where we’re headed—and how our country is being taken advantage of. Correcting this course isn’t just wise—it’s essential.But prices went up in direct relation to those tariffs? Those items cost more at the time. For example washing machines. The consumer paid the price. Plus, in his first term, Trump presided over one of the largest trade deficits in history. So his tariffs really didn't even have any impact on trade deficit. And to top it off, if so much revenue was pouring in, he probably shouldn't have exploded the debt by almost a trillion by the time he left.
You're right that consumers paid more in some cases, like with washing machines—but the goal wasn’t just about short-term pricing. Tariffs aimed to reduce reliance on foreign manufacturing and pressure countries like China into fairer trade. As for the trade deficit, it’s driven by many factors beyond tariffs—like consumer demand and currency values. And yes, the debt grew, but a huge chunk came from COVID relief spending supported by both parties. Tariffs brought in revenue, but they were never meant to replace broader fiscal policy.
Today---President Donald Trump warned Monday that he would impose "additional tariffs on China of 50%" if Beijing "does not withdraw" the 34% tariffs it announced against the U.S. last week.
--- "China issued Retaliatory Tariffs of 34%, on top of their already record setting Tariffs, Non-Monetary Tariffs, Illegal Subsidization of companies, and massive long term Currency Manipulation, despite my warning that any country that Retaliates against the U.S. by issuing additional Tariffs, above and beyond their already existing long term Tariff abuse of our Nation, will be immediately met with new and substantially higher Tariffs, over and above those initially set," Trump wrote on Truth Social.
"Therefore, if China does not withdraw its 34% increase above their already long-term trading abuses by tomorrow, April 8th, 2025, the United States will impose ADDITIONAL Tariffs on China of 50%, effective April 9th," he continued. "Additionally, all talks with China concerning their requested meetings with us will be terminated! Negotiations with other countries, which have also requested meetings, will begin taking place immediately. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
Getting interesting.As a reminder, when Trump says he is putting massive tariffs on China, or any nation, that means he is putting a massive tax on US
China doesn't pay a single penny.
You, the consumer, do.
When Trump claims the U.S. will receive $1 trillion in revenue from tariffs, that is not money coming from other countries.
That is $1 trillion is coming out of YOUR pocket.Until companies begin adjusting prices again in direct response to new tariffs, it remains speculative to say that prices are currently rising because of them. However, there is a historical precedent that costs can go up, some of which were passed on to consumers. We have no way as of yet to see if this will happen. What we can say with certainty is that it has happened before and that some economists and businesses expect it could happen again under renewed or expanded tariff policies.
What we do have as a confirmed fact is the newly placed tariff revenue taken in by the U.S. government. According to recent reports, the U.S. collected roughly $200 million per day in tariffs in early April 2025, which equates to about $1 billion over a five-day period. I think we need to follow the facts. It is a wait and see if the increase in tariffs will be passed on to the consumer.
Have you seen any evidence that the NEW tariffs are being passed on? O e must also consider that trade deals will be made quickly I some cases, and we will not see prices rise. Yet, have increased revenue from the deals that come about. To soon to even predict the outcome of this trade war.Is there even one credible economist who believes tariffs will not be passed on to the consumer, almost entirely? We are in the first days of these tariffs. As soon as containers are unloaded at ports, we will see the price impacts.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell recently said that the announced tariffs were "significantly larger than expected."
"The same is likely to be true of the economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth," he said....
It's simply wishful thinking to believe otherwiseI agree, it's now a waiting game to see if prices rise—it's too soon to evaluate. It's clear that the tariffs have become stricter in some cases, and I don’t think anyone expected him to impose blanket tariffs on all nations we trade with. We’ve never had a president who governs so outside the norm. In my view, we can't depend on predictions or what’s happened historically. Historically, we’ve never had a president with such a very progressive agenda. In my opinion, the usual variables have been tossed out the window.
In my view, he will rise to the top and set a precedent for future presidents to be bold and prioritize America first.
104% tariffs on China are going into effect at 12:01 AM the White House says.
Think about how many goods you buy which are manufactured in and shipped from China.
Think about how many goods you buy which have components and ingredients which are manufactured in and shipped from China.
anywhere between 60 and 80% of all goods sold at Wal-Mart are sourced from China...tell me maga, what does this mean in the next few days or weeks? There won't be alternative sources that quickly.
Will the increase tonight be the backbreaker for the market ?
China literally locked its people up for months during the pandemic. Actually boarded their doors...They are now pledging to “fight to the end.”
The United States had people throwing fits over not being able to buy enough toilet paper at Costco....
This won't end well.China announced it will impose an 84% levy on U.S. goods starting Thursday. This comes after U.S. tariffs of 104% on Chinese imports took effect shortly after midnight.
Dow futures tumble 900 points as China hits back at Trump's tariffs.
Dow Jones Industrial Average futures dropped 906 points, or 2.4%. S&P 500 futures slid 2.1%, and Nasdaq-100 futures declined 1.7%.Right now, the market is up and fluctuating, which shows there’s a lot of buying happening, likely because many major stocks are at low prices. I’m hopeful that this trend will continue, as it seems like a good opportunity for investors to buy while prices are down.
Technical Analysis of Stock Market graphs are far from indicating any market rebound.
I in no way indicate a rebound. I don't think anyone on earth can predict the market. I mean, often our best analysts fail at predicting the market. However, the market has been flucuating in the last few days. This indicates buying swings. This is not a bad indicator.
Ultimately, fluctuating markets often reflect investor sentiment—fear or optimism—about what's coming next. We could use some good news...
There’s no reason to panic over historic findings alone. History gives us useful clues, but it doesn’t always guarantee what will happen next.
Just because tariffs in the past sometimes led to higher prices doesn’t mean we’ll automatically see the same outcome in every case or at the same scale. Markets adapt, supply chains shift, and companies make different decisions depending on the broader economic environment.
Panic usually comes from assuming that past patterns will repeat without question—but in reality, we should observe, gather current data, and evaluate. Being cautious, aware, and informed is smart. Panicking based on what might happen, before we see clear signs often just fuels unnecessary fear or political spin.
It seems you are looking at all the possible negative outcomes. Do you think perhaps it wiser to see what occurs.Historical findings are the most reliable indicator and is better than trying to predict a future under otherwise completely unforeseen circumstances.
Why would you not believe that increased costs would not be felt by the American consumer, businesses are not in business to lose money.
The economy could well find itself in the toilet based on a wait and see attitude.
For Trumps sake, this policy of his had better work……"Historical findings are the most reliable indicator and is better than trying to predict a future under otherwise completely unforeseen circumstances."Cred
As a general rule, indicators are reliable—however, in my lifetime, I've never seen a president push such a radically progressive, "blow it up" agenda. So, I have to ask: can we really depend on these indicators?
"Why would you not believe that increased costs would not be felt by the American consumer, businesses are not in business to lose money." Cred
While businesses aren't in business to lose money, there are factors that could influence whether they pass on increased costs to consumers. While history shows that higher costs often lead to higher prices, competition and demand could influence how quickly or significantly those costs are passed down. Still, businesses will typically try to protect their profits, which usually means higher prices for consumers.
Plus, we have no idea how Trump's tariff deals will play out or how quickly he might secure deals that could bring a win for him, calm the market, and prevent higher prices. In my view, though I don’t like to predict, I believe he will bring a speedy resolution to his current trade war, and it will likely be a win
"The economy could well find itself in the toilet based on a wait and see attitude." Cred
True, but we have no other recourse but to wait and see. Do you feel wringing our hands helps this issue?
"For Trumps sake, this policy of his had better work." Cred
I think the majority hope his polies work. I mean I don't think a majority want our nation to suffer.Shar,
I often like to ask democrats what they would like to do to decrease the national debt. What plan do they have? It is easy to complain about what President Donald Trump is doing. It is much more difficult to provide an alternate plan.
That's the democrats. Complain, complain, complain, but when asked to provide their solution, crickets are heard.
It is hard to take them serious.I completely agree—it's hard to make sense of the Democratic mindset. At one point, many of them were on board with tackling fair trade, reforming immigration laws, and even supporting law enforcement. They seemed to want to negotiate wars instead of just paying for them, and there were many other common-sense policies they once supported. But now, it feels like they've shifted gears. When it comes to addressing serious issues, like decreasing the national debt, they don't seem to have a clear plan. It’s easy to criticize President Trump, but it's much harder to present an alternative solution. As you said, it’s all complaints with no real proposals, and that makes it difficult to take them seriously. I mean, just look at the Democratic party today—it seems to be spinning out of control, with no clear message except "hate orange man." You’d think they’d realize they need new leadership, new ideas, and a new direction.
It's strange that they don't recognize Trump for keeping his promises, yet they fail to grasp that his policies were the reason he won in the first place. Instead, they continue to ruminate on those policies, calling them bad for the country, without acknowledging the support they garnered. His approval polls have remained steady, even during his tariff war, which suggests that a significant portion of the country still supports his approach.You folks control the Congress and the white house.. odd to look for alternative plans or ideas from the minority?? But alternate plans abound from the experts.
Hey major pharmaceutical tariffs on the way... great news for our seniors who already struggle to pay for their meds. #winningThe idea that the minority party, especially one that lost the last election to a candidate they once thought could never win, should be the one offering alternative plans doesn't seem very realistic for the future of the Democratic Party. The fact is, the last election exposed serious issues within the party's leadership, messaging, and connection with the American people. Instead of continuing to place the blame on the opposition, Democrats should be focusing on their own internal reflection, recognizing where their policies failed to resonate, and looking forward to building a future-oriented, inclusive agenda that addresses the real concerns of voters.
Holding onto the past and relying on blaming the other side isn't going to help them recover or regain the trust of the electorate. It only shows them to have no real plan and that they are willing to ignore why Trump won on his message of making America great again.
A significant portion of our trade deficit stemmed from the pharmaceutical sector. In 2024, the U.S. imported approximately $234 billion worth of medicinal and pharmaceutical products, while exports in this category were around $106 billion, resulting in a deficit of about $127 billion.
This imbalance highlights the U.S.'s heavy reliance on foreign-produced medications and medical supplies, underscoring the importance of policies aimed at reducing this dependency and strengthening domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing capabilities.
Can you not see we need fair, balanced trade? Not sure you take into account the huge trade imbalance.I can see that manufacturing and supply chain will not be picked up from across the world today and landed in Louisiana or God knows where else by tomorrow... Can we even make medications at a competitive price here? Again, these things are made elsewhere for a reason. I'm not paying $50 for a t-shirt that Vietnam can produce for $5 and I'm not paying $10 a pill for an antibiotic when other nations can do it for pennies...
Regardless of what a billionaire Lutnik thinks, Americans aren't interested in screwing in tiny screws on iPhones... And probably not working on a pill production line either.
"When it comes to addressing serious issues, like decreasing the national debt, they don't seem to have a clear plan. It’s easy to criticize President Trump, but it's much harder to present an alternative solution...
Like I said, odd to look to the minority for solutions... The Trump budget increases the national debt. Go figure.Willow, when it comes to the trade war, it seems like you're focusing solely on the potential negative impacts on our economy while overlooking the damage the current trade imbalance has already done. It's a complex issue, but one that deserves attention. From what I gather, it seems you're leaning towards the idea of leaving things as they are rather than addressing the problem. This attitude, in my view, is often reflected in left-leaning media coverage. They tend to report only the negatives, ignoring the root problem of the trade imbalance and failing to acknowledge the potential benefits that could emerge from solving it. It's important to look at the bigger picture and consider the long-term gains that could come from correcting this imbalance.
We’re approaching this from very different perspectives. I want to address a long-term issue by tearing it down to the studs and fixing it, no matter how messy things get in the process. I’m not interested in patching over the problems in my home and pretending everything is fine. I choose to gut and remodel, tackling the root causes and ensuring everything is built to last. It seems like you’re willing to ignore the defects, throw on a few patches, and let the situation worsen until it becomes unlivable or eventually has to be condemned.You say the president will increase the deficit, and this is true because we have no surplus to cover any of our expenditures. However, we would bring in more revenue if we fixed our trade deficit. By addressing the trade imbalance and fostering more equitable trade agreements, we could see an increase in domestic manufacturing, exports, and job creation, all of which would contribute to a stronger economy and higher tax revenues. Instead of relying on borrowing to cover the shortfall, focusing on trade reforms could help balance the books in a sustainable way.
Do you feel we should not look for solutions to add to our revenue to cut down on what we need to borrow? It is clear you may not understand that we borrow to keep afloat at this point. Our revenue can't keep up with our budget, and it has gotten worse with each passing year. We need to fix problems and certainly cut back on spending if we are to avoid further increasing the deficit.
In addition, Trump's new bill, focused on cutting taxes, incentivizing businesses to repatriate profits, and reducing bureaucratic red tape, could work to build our economy by spurring investment and job creation. By lowering the corporate tax rate, the bill aims to make America a more attractive place for businesses to grow and expand, while incentivizing companies to keep manufacturing jobs here instead of outsourcing. This could help revitalize the economy, create jobs, and increase the tax revenue that would help address the deficit in the long term."Our revenue can't keep up with our budget,
Then why would Republicans try to pass a budget that is heavy on spending (the tax plan) and lacking in terms of revenue? The tax plan reduces revenue. The rest of us can clearly see that they want to offset the tax goodies to the wealthy by tariff costs picked up primarily by the middle class.... Oh and of course slashing medicaid, Medicare and social security if they can get their hands on it.
"I can see that manufacturing and supply chain will not be picked up from across the world today and landed in Louisiana or God knows where else by tomorrow..."
This is today; what about the future? What about revenue to cut down on what the US needs to borrow?And do you find that there's a desire or a need to have people here, as Lutnick says, screwing in little screws for iPhones endlessly? I don't think so. And meanwhile Microsoft pulled its plans for Ohio data centers.... What large corporation would actually want to base itself in America with a political climate that is so chaotic from day to day? Any type of manufacturing takes four or five years, even more to get off the ground. Trump is doing all of this tariff nonsense by executive order which means the next POTUS can simply wipe it away with the swipe of a pen... That's not the kind of stability corporate folks are looking for.
'Can you not see we need fair, balanced trade? Not sure you take into account the huge trade imbalance.
Trade deficits in many cases are not a bad thing. it indicates a strong nation with huge purchasing power. we cannot and should not expect smaller, poorer countries to buy as much from us as we buy from them. it's common sense, something almost entirely lacking in this admin.
"Plus, we have no idea how Trump's tariff deals will play out ...
But we do? His first term...
During trump's first term, tariffs did not reduce trade deficits and had mixed results on government revenue. The U.S. trade deficit increased despite the administration's imposition of tariffs. While tariff revenues increased, the tariffs also led to higher consumer costs, offsetting potential benefits....
Wait and see? He never should have embarked on this nonsense to begin with.
America’s trade gap soared under Trump, final figures show - Politico. (2021). https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/0 … cit-466116
David L. Nevins. (2025). Just the Facts: Trade Deficits - The Fulcrum. https://thefulcrum.us/governance-legisl … de-deficit
But taking an ill advised course of actions such as these ham-handed, illogical tariffs should have never happened in the first place.... I don't know, when my kid wanted to touch a hot stove I didn't say " well let's just see how it works out...".
While I can understand your concern about the tariffs and their potential impact, the analogy of a child touching a hot stove doesn’t entirely hold up. In the case of tariffs, we’re not dealing with a direct, immediate danger like a hot stove. Instead, we’re in the midst of a complex trade strategy that could ultimately lead to long-term benefits, even if there are short-term risks. I might add, many have wanted fairer trade policies for decades now.
Think of it this way: when my kid wanted to touch a hot stove, I didn’t just let them do it to “see how it works out.” But if my child were standing too close to the stove and I warned them about the potential danger, and they still wanted to test it, I might instead carefully guide them to explore safer alternatives that involve learning from their mistakes without causing irreparable harm. With tariffs, the stakes are high, but it’s possible to adjust, negotiate, and find new solutions.
Congress Should End Trump’s Trade War
The National Review
"If it seems preposterous that a single person could enjoy this much power over the American economy — and, with it, the global economy — rest assured that it is. In Article I, the Constitution vests the “power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” in Congress, not in the president. As a result, the president has no power to impose tariffs that he has not been accorded by an act of the legislature. If it desires, Congress can choose to take back as much of that power as it sees fit. It ought to do so — and do so now...
That the Founders placed the power to tax, tariff, and legislate in the hands of the legislature, instead of the executive, was not an accident.
Businesses, investors, workers, and families are all aided enormously by a reliable comprehension of what their tax rates, operating rules, regulatory liabilities, and tariff exposures are likely to be for the foreseeable future. When those variables are determined by Congress, the debates that inform them are transparent and the laws that result are built to endure. When those variables are determined by the president, the debates that inform them are opaque and the law is liable to change radically from day to day. In essence, the case for Congress fulfilling its responsibilities is the same as the case for written law per se: No free man wants to be at the mercy of a king.
The very fact that our system charges Congress with setting tariffs ought to be sufficient to get Congress to do its job.
But, if duty to their oaths does not move them, the raw chaos of the last five days should certainly substitute as motivation. What has happened since last Thursday is hard to fathom. Based on an ever-shifting series of rationales, characterized by an embarrassing methodology, and punctuated with an extraordinary arrogance toward the country’s constitutional order, the Trump administration has alienated our global allies, discombobulated our domestic businesses, decimated our capital markets, and increased the likelihood of serious recession. This should alarm the members of both political parties — and, in particular, it should worry the hundreds of Republican legislators who, in less than two years’ time, will be judged in large part on whether the president who shares their brand has done a good job.
We are of the view that many of the delegations of authority that Congress has granted to the executive are unconstitutional, and that they should be struck down as such by the Supreme Court. At some point, we hope that a majority of the justices are persuaded to agree. For now, though, it falls to the current members of Congress to do what, for decades, they have proven steadfastly unwilling to do: their jobs....
The whole article...
https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/04/ … trade-war/The prime minister of Singapore summarizes the tariff issue very succinctly and plainly...
https://x.com/KushthruBlm/status/1909735803812528435I checked out your link and it appears that the inane nature of Trump policies resonate from around the World.
I have to question whether Trumps move is political bullying having nothing to do with trade surpluses or deficits?
I am fixated on Trump saying that he would apply a punitive tariff for any nation buying oil from Venusuela. That is trying to strong arm the world to get in line with American foreign policy, disavowing their own sovereignty and right to choose with whom they do business without the US exacting a penalty. I find that line of thinking most offensive.
The example given from Singapore points in this direction.
Say it ain't so...
Trump’s golden age: Microsoft has canceled plans to build 3 new data centers worth $1 billion in Ohio.
Microsoft reversed course on plans to invest $1 billion in data centers in Licking County.
The company announced on Monday that it would not move forward with the plans. The company had planned to construct three data center campuses in New Albany, Heath and Hebron.
https://m.economictimes.com/news/intern … 127529.cmsYes, truly the Age of the Golder Shower has fallen upon us.
No fear Credence, the regime always has an answer...
Commerce Sec. LUTNICK: '--the armies of millions of people- well, remember, the army of millions and millions of human beings screwing in little- little screws to make iPhones, that kind of thing is going to come to America...."
It's especially grotesque when a billionaire makes this kind of statement.
Is the plan to bankrupt all Americans and put them to work at poverty wages?. Make Sweatshops Great Again... Just like the Golden age.Willow, I had read an article that mentioned that Trump has an affinity for formal President William McKinley pointing to his tariff policies. He speaks of a fondness for the “Guilded Age” that defined America in the late 19th and very early 20th century. You have probably seen the Jacob Riis photos of the squalor in urban tenement houses, crushing poverty compared with the extremes of wealth from the Astors, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc.
trump pines for the environment of that period in every way which includes avericious territorial ambitions and the annexations of the time. For him, the 19th century is here and now.
In a capitalist society like this one, I can’t stop all of the abuses associated with the past, but do we have to exhume them from their well deserved graveyard?
It comes down to being a war fought with tariffs. I looked up synonyms for nuclear . . .
Synonyms & Similar Words
ballistic
mental
psychotic
berserk
psycho
maniac
demented
lunatic
Source Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/nuclearLooks like a 90-day pause on tariffs. Excluding China. Trump blinked first....
But he moved China's tariff up to 125%...
Sorry folks but these are the dumbest people on the planet. This reckless tariff policy tanked the market nearly 20% and now they want to act like Trump blinking and recouping a only one third of that loss is some genius move.... He's only trying to save face.This means that, during this 90-day period, countries that were facing higher tariffs on their exports to the U.S. would only be subject to a 10% tariff. The goal was to pause the higher tariffs to allow time for negotiations or other trade discussions. After 90 days, the tariff rate could return to the higher levels unless an agreement is reached or the situation changes. This only affects a handful of Countries that have the higher tariffs. The countries he is currently dealing with, due to what he feels, have imbalances. I consider this a really smart move.
Good move- market up 2,000. Hopefully, he will get good deals and now has ample time to negotiate with the nations that concerned him.Good deals? He's not getting blood out of a stone. For example, with one country in particular we import almost all vanilla... It cannot be grown to any degree in our country. But the people from the country in which we import from have a yearly income of around $1,000 a year.... You tell me what we're going to get them to buy from us in a larger degree LOL...
This is nonsense. The frequent policy shifts amount to nothing more than chaos and confusion for the markets. The instability of this leadership is detrimental to the country.These are the countries that, for the next 90 days, will benefit from a reduced 10% tariff rate. Notably, many of them are the same nations with which the U.S. has trade imbalances—some more significant than others. It’s being reported that several countries on this list have already scheduled talks to negotiate more balanced trade agreements.
Countries that benefited from the 10% tariff reduction include:
European Union (EU) member states: Previously facing a 20% tariff, now reduced to 10%.
Japan: Initially subjected to a 24% tariff, now lowered to 10%.
South Korea: Had a 26% tariff, reduced to 10%.
Vietnam: Faced a 46% tariff, now decreased to 10%.
India: Previously at a 27% tariff, now cut to 10%.
Indonesia: Had a 32% tariff, now reduced to 10%.
Thailand: Initially faced a 37% tariff, now lowered to 10%. Bangladesh: Previously subjected to a 37% tariff, now decreased to 10%. Malaysia: Had a 24% tariff, now cut to 10%.
Philippines: Faced an 18% tariff, now reduced to 10%.
Pakistan: Previously at a 30% tariff, now lowered to 10%.
Switzerland: Had a 32% tariff, now decreased to 10%.
Norway: Initially faced a 16% tariff, now cut to 10%.
Turkey: Previously subjected to a 28% tariff, now reduced to 10%.
Brazil: Had a 22% tariff, now lowered to 10%.
South Africa: Faced a 31% tariff, now decreased to 10
In my view, this is a smart move. It positions Trump as a pragmatic and fair negotiator. The fact that these nations are stepping up to the table shows the strategy is working, and I really like the direction this is heading.
As for China, I believe that if they demonstrate genuine good faith—something they haven’t done so far—Trump would likely extend them the same courtesy he’s shown others.
On a positive note, the markets responded strongly. Today, the Dow made history with a record single-day gain—up 3,000 points, or 8.13%
We are witnessing a president making a bold attempt to reshape the global order and restore strength to the American middle class. Whether he succeeds remains to be seen. But there’s no doubt he’s making the effort. One thing is certain: we are living through a moment that will be remembered in history.This is a guy who made a some terrible decisions, crashed the markets, realized or someone told him he made a huge mistake and he reversed course.. it's highly doubtful that many, if any of these countries contacted him. That's his word but he told it through one of his famous "sir" stories.... So he's most likely lying.
Trade is not always going to be balanced, he needs to stop pushing that narrative... it's a false. And actually this idea of so-called rebuilding our economy and bringing back jobs, that's also misleading. Most of these jobs we don't want and we can afford to have others around the world do them. We've had a very low unemployment for the past 3 to 4 years and before Trump crashed the market, our economy was humming along, the best in the world.... Not exactly needing to be "rebuilt"I can't add anymore; I have shared my thoughts on the issue as you have. The conversation has now become repetitive.
The market has experienced a historic resurgence. It is also apparent thus far the inflation rate has gone down the past two months, and soon we will have stats for March. Trump's economic stats have been very good- in March 2025, the U.S. economy added 228,000 jobs, significantly surpassing economists' expectations of 140,000. I don't see any doom and gloom ahead. The sky is not falling; in my view, I am very satisfied with what I see so far.This is pathetic. Nothing gained, trillions of dollars value lost, deals delayed, and the 125% Trump tariff still imposed on Chinese goods. Trump blinked because he was about to face a catastrophic Treasuries sell off... He just did what he said he would not do.
If Beijing doesn’t blink, the US economy will tank.... These people were literally boarded into their houses during covid by Xi... While we were wailing about toilet paper. Who do you think's going to win?
Trump blinked. But does that change anything? Pausing tariffs is good, but no business will make a long term decision based on anything Trump says or does when it can all change at the drop of a tweet. The world is paralyzed.
Shar,
It's actually a brilliant move. The lowering of the majority of these tariffs will open up many markets around the world to American goods. This will lead to more businesses being successful in the United States
Kevin O'leary has put the tariffs on China into perspective.
'Shark Tank' star says Trump's tariffs on China aren't high enough
"Shark Tank" star and investor Kevin O'Leary tells CNN's Laura Coates he thinks President Trump's tariffs on China aren't high enough and calls for a 400% tariff on the country.
O'Leary said in his post on Wednesday that while he still wanted to do business in China, he also wanted a "LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, one where American entrepreneurs can COMPETE FAIRLY and get access to their markets the same way they access ours."
"China doesn't play fair, and it's time we stop letting them get away with it," O'Leary wrote on X hours after Trump's announcement.
O'Leary's hawkish views on tariffs set him apart from many business leaders and experts, who have warned that further trade restrictions would hurt rather than help the US economy.
"We are far from being out of the woods. Much credibility has been lost. Be afraid," former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers wrote on X on Wednesday, after Trump's announcement.
Hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman said on Wednesday that China should stop retaliating and start negotiating with the US.
"Advice for China: Pick up the phone and call the President. He is a tough but fair negotiator. The longer China holds out and retaliates, the worse the outcome for China," Ackman wrote on X."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets … 2021-02-02
How many people know China will steal American IP, use it and then sell items back to the US having used the stolen IP? That is just for starters.
These people follow nothing they agreed to do when they were permitted to join the WTO. It is unreal what the Chinese have been permitted to get away with over the years.
NOW we have a president willing to stand up against them for the benefit of the country.Well Put.
It's time someone was looking out for America's interests... unlike too many politicians in DC the last 30 years who have taken kickbacks or had their sons getting 1.5 Billion dollar investments into their financial firm to look the other way.
The corruption has been going on since the Clintons were funded by Chinese businessmen back in the 90s... for 30+ years our politicians have helped destroy America's middle class and economy... if Musk and Trump don't reverse the trend now... we will all be learning what its like to live in a 3rd world country.
Unfortunately, too much of America is already there.Ken,
How many American realize China is the main reason for the fentanyl crisis in the United States.
"CHINA
Currently, China remains the primary source of fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances trafficked through international mail and express consignment operations environment, as well as the main source for all
fentanyl-related substances trafficked into the United States. Seizures of fentanyl sourced from China average less than one kilogram in weight, and often test above 90 percent concentration of pure fentanyl.
As Beijing and the Hong Kong Special Autonomous Region (SAR) place restrictions on more precursor chemicals, Mexican transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) are diversifying their sources of supply.
This is evidenced by fentanyl shipments from India allegedly destined for Mexico. On May 4, 2018, the Hong Kong SAR updated their drug law to control the fentanyl precursors 4-anilino-N-phenethyl-4-piperidine (ANPP) and N-phenethyl-4-piperidone (NPP) as well as the synthetic opioid
This matches China’s scheduling of ANPP and NPP on July 1, 2017. The move by the Hong Kong SAR is considerable, since synthetic opioids produced and shipped from China may transit the Hong Kong SAR
en route to the United States.
Effective May 1, 2019, China officially controlled all forms of fentanyl as a class of drugs. This fulfilled the commitment that President Xi made during the G-20 Summit. The implementation of the new measure includes investigations of known fentanyl manufacturing areas, stricter control of internet sites advertising fentanyl, stricter enforcement of shipping regulations, and the creation of special teams to investigate
leads on fentanyl trafficking. These new restrictions have the potential to severely limit fentanyl production and trafficking from China. This could alter China’s position as a supplier to both the United States and
Mexico."We had the heroin epidemic of the '70s, the crack epidemic of the '80s, methamphetamine in the 90's, and then people discovered opiates in their various forms... Do you see that the epidemic never goes away? Americans simply find a different drug to abuse. Maybe the strategy should change?
I believe the UK and other countries used similar tactics against China some 100 years ago.
Many Americans don't realize that the more successful China is... the more our own country will fail and faulter. Its not just a matter of what is right, it is a matter of National survival... which is probably why there is so much outside (the country) support for Open Borders... and 'Global/International' authorities superseding national authority and sovereignty.
Convince enough Americans to believe in that nonsense and we will destroy ourselves from the inside while killing ourselves with imported drugs like fentanyl.
The criminal politicians that have been running the show for the last 30 years don't give a damn, they sold America out and got rich doing so.
Shocked by this... Fox actually had a guest on that accurately represented the trade situation...
Other countries were selling off bonds last night, particularly Japan. That's why Trump caved... What a shit show
Trump is like the arsonist who becomes the fireman...
https://x.com/jeremyfromga/status/1910066740421075334So Trump caves on most tariffs...then calls it “The Art of the Deal.”
You can’t make this up. These are the most dangerously incompetent people I’ve ever seen:
- Disrupted global supply chains
- Sent American companies into a panic
- Tanked global markets
- Alienated key allies
- Triggered retaliatory tariffs
- Then pulled back... and declared victory
- This is Trump’s strategy in a nutshell:
Create chaos...let it burn.. partially undo the damage...claim a win.
How do folks buy this garbage?"The White House refuses to name the 75 countries that supposedly called Trump begging to make a deal."
Or "kissing his ass" as he phrased it
That is because there aren't any.
He lied. It was just his excuse for caving. The bond market was tanking overnight and he caved...
There is no 4D Chess. There is no "art of the deal."
There is only an IDIOT.It would appear you feel the White House statement is not truthful---The White House has acknowledged that numerous countries have reached out to negotiate trade terms following the implementation of recent tariffs. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent noted that the administration is engaged in negotiations with over 75 countries seeking trade agreements. White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett mentioned that the U.S. is evaluating tariff agreements proposed by 15 countries and is close to finalizing deals with several of them.
It would seem you are calling not only Trump a liar but Hassett, and Bessent."It would seem you are calling not only Trump a liar but Hassett, and Bessent."
LOL yes. They are lying to cover Trump's ass. To try and save face after his amateurish embarrassing trade moves. They are sycophants. This is what they were hired to do. That is crystal clear.Your comment relies on rhetoric that undermines any opportunity for meaningful debate or understanding. Resorting to hyperbole and insults is easy, but it doesn’t contribute to a productive conversation. It seems like you prefer using unproven accusations instead of focusing on the facts. There’s no evidence to support the claim that multiple countries haven’t sought to negotiate. In fact, reports indicate that several countries are already scheduled for negotiations. It might be wiser to wait and see the outcomes of these reported talks and any future negotiations.
"In fact, reports indicate that several countries are already scheduled for negotiations"
Which countries would those be?
The same countries that were selling off our treasury bonds in the middle of the night ? LOL
Calling Trump a liar at this point is not hyperbolic but just the truth. His lies, big and small, consequential or inconsequential are well documented. The man has a penchant for lying. He is a liar. It is a big part of who he is.Shar,
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
TDS is a VERY real thing.How are you feeling about trump's tremendous progress and ending the war in Ukraine? You know the one that he was supposed to have solved even before he took office?
It seems like you’re trying to steer the conversation off track, which happens pretty often. We were talking about your claim that Trump and the White House are lying about 75 nations reaching out to negotiate tariff deals. You said they’re lying—do you have any proof to back up that accusation?
I have the same amount of proof to back up that accusation as they do for their statement that 75 countries have reached out...
There's no reason the list of 75 countries that are allegedly seeking to negotiate tariffs can't be made public. Honestly, if the penguins want to cut a deal....
I second that. I can not stand calling anyone a liar without any facts that can back up such a claim. TDS is certainly real.
CORRUPTION right in the open: Just 15 minutes before imposing a 90-day pause on his tariffs, Donald Trump seemed to post a stock tip.
Truth Details
7698 replies
Avatar
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Based on the lack of respect that China has shown to the World’s Markets, I am hereby raising the Tariff charged to China by the United States of America to 125%, effective immediately. At some point, hopefully in the near future, China will realize that the days of ripping off the U.S.A., and other Countries, is no longer sustainable or acceptable. Conversely, and based on the fact that more than 75 Countries have called Representatives of the United States, including the Departments of Commerce, Treasury, and the USTR, to negotiate a solution to the subjects being discussed relative to Trade, Trade Barriers, Tariffs, Currency Manipulation, and Non Monetary Tariffs, and that these Countries have not, at my strong suggestion, retaliated in any way, shape, or form against the United States, I have authorized a 90 day PAUSE, and a substantially lowered Reciprocal Tariff during this period, of 10%, also effective immediately. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
16.2k
ReTruths
74.4k
Likes
Apr 09, 2025, 1:18 PM
Logo
Back
Truth Details
2991 replies
Avatar
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!! DJT
6.66k
ReTruths
35.5k
Likes
Apr 09, 2025, 9:37 AM
I participated on Truth, and I did note the post in the morning. He gave no hint that he was going to drop tariffs to 10%.What? The hint ...
"THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY"
do I have this right? Trump is just going to crash the world economy every three months and then pretend to save it, over and over, while his cronies rake in untold billions on his shameless market manipulation, is that it? This country is in real trouble.It’s pretty obvious from the timestamps that his first post didn’t indicate what he planned to do about tariffs. It also looks like social media, including this post, is spreading a doctored version of a Truth post—one that’s false. And once again, you’re jumping to conclusions without having all the facts, as well as making unfounded hyperbolic accusations.
I participated on Truth, and I did note the post in the morning. He gave no hint that he was going to drop tariffs to 10%.
Of course nobody in the white house and the inner circle around Trump new about this....
The fact alone that the President of the United States is actively playing the stock exchange should be worrying enough. Same with his cryptocurrency business.
The war on China is a foolish war he can not win.
If Trump wants a tariff war with Canada, Europe and China at the same time he will loose, and the people of the US will suffer.
How expensive will clothing be, sneakers, jackets etc? How expensive a new Iphone, or any phone? etc.
I just read that China is the world’s second largest film market after the US, and has now restricted film releases after Trump’s tariff hike. With as a result that the shares of Walt Disney Co, Paramount Global, and Warner Bros Discovery Inc all suffering an immediate decline.
These are just small examples of the power of China.
Trump has inflicted an economic crisis upon the US, taking the world with it.I can see why you’d be concerned about the post, and regardless of when it was posted, it definitely gives you something to think about. I want to clarify, though, that I didn’t offer an opinion on the post itself. My point was simply to highlight that the information about the timing of the post was incorrect, and that does change how we might interpret it. I can’t say who might have known about the 10% tariff reduction or when that decision was made, so I can't comment on that.
I appreciate your view on tariffs. I can't say I agree, nor can I predict the outcome of what will come from the tariff war. I can share my view---
I think he will have a win in his tariff war.
I should point out that Trump has only been in office for two months. He inherited an economy that was struggling, but by 2024, there were signs of recovery. In the past couple of months, we have continued to see improvements in the economy, as stats give good proof.
Thus far, the tariffs have shown no real diverse effect on the US economy that has been reported thus far. It will be interesting to see next month's stats... If tariffs have hurt our economy, it will show up in the stats. Thus far, we are seeing lower energy caused and some good stats regarding car sales, as well as some food produce decreasing..
https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insig … hatgpt.com"He inherited an economy that was struggling, "
Absolutely not.
From the conservative Hoover think tank...
"Trump’s second presidential term will begin with the economy on a sound footing, with solid economic growth and healthy labor markets. Real GDP growth has remained resilient, concluding with 2.8 percent annualized growth in the fourth quarter of 2024, well above standard estimates of sustainable longer-run potential growth. The unemployment rate in November was 4.2 percent, close to standard estimates of full employment. Inflation has been sticky, remaining modestly above the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent longer-run target. The dollar has been strengthening."
Additionally,
"President Biden handed off the best economy to an incoming president since at least the 2001 handoff from Clinton to Bush II. In his last quarter in office, GDP grew at a 2.3 percent annual rate (final demand, which excludes inventory fluctuations, grew at a 3.2 percent rate). That brought the average growth rate for Biden’s presidency to 3.2 percent, the highest since Clinton’s second term...."
https://www.hoover.org/research/evenhan … Real%20GDP
Dean Baker. (2025). Can Trump Tank the Biden Economy? Here Are Eight Ways - Cepr.net. https://cepr.net/publications/can-trump … ight-ways/Do you ever, I mean ever read comments in full? And again, it is clear you have a real problem with context...
"Trump’s second presidential term will begin with the economy on a sound footing, with solid economic growth " willow
"I should point out that Trump has only been in office for two months. He inherited an economy that was struggling, BUT by 2024, there were signs of recovery. In the past couple of months, we have continued to see improvements in the economy, as stats give good proof." Sharlee
Statistics show my assessment to be factual. I was addressing Peter's statement, "Trump has inflicted an economic crisis upon the US, taking the world with it".
My comment addresses his very simple statement. You have grabbed a long bit on the economy, which I don't dispute. As you can see inflation was high for the better part of Bidens term. It did start recovering and seemed steady through half of 2023 and 2024. As I stated the economy was showing signs of recovery.
When Biden came into office, we had 1.4 inflation. It is very clear Biden received an economy that was positive under Trump, even with his having to maneuver a pandemic for over a year.
When Biden left office --In January 2025, the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased by 3.0% compared to January 2024, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. This marks a slight uptick from the 2.9% year-over-year increase recorded in December 2024.
As I have pointed out the the sky is not falling, neither is our economy. Numbers are showing some of what Biden ran up is coming down under Trump. Jobs numbers were great in March. Energy prices on the way down, as Trump promised.
Maybe Baker should have taken a better look at what is going on now instead of predicting.
Most are not going too negotiate. Trump isn't trustworthy. He changes his mind like he changes his underwear. His deals are meaningless. The CMUSA was good until next year and he basically just tore it up... At least one other country, Japan, started selling off our treasury bonds in the middle of the night.. these countries aren't having it. Ironically China is now a more reliable trading partner than America.
Face it, Trump doesn't have the cards.This is your view. How can you factually prove "Most are not going too negotiate." Oddly, Trump won 77,284,118 votes, or 49.8 percent of the votes cast for president. That is the second-highest vote total in U.S. history. I would think most would feel that trust is important when casting a vote for president. Let me remind you he has not shown his cards, he is still holding them close. The game is still in play.
How many people voted for him has nothing to do with his reliability. He's a flip flopper. He has done nothing but give example after example to other countries that what he says today may not necessarily hold for tomorrow. That's just common sense. Why trust someone who has shown that they're not trustworthy and are not stable. Good faith negotiations are not possible under those conditions.
I will agree to disagree. We hold different views regarding Trump.
Shar,
Criticism of President Donald Trump from the left often makes me laugh.
They were supportive and silent about a president in serious cognitive decline and did nothing but try to hide it and make excuses.
IF any of them had stood up and said something is wrong with biden and he needs to be removed; they wouldn't seem like the hypocrites they are right now.
We've seen how they do things. Their TDS and lunatic behavior is difficult to take serious.I get where you're coming from, and it's honestly a valid point to look at the contrast in how criticism is handled between political sides. From a psychological perspective, the hatred some people have for Trump—what gets labeled TDS—is often rooted in something deeper than just policy disagreements. It's about identity and perception.
Trump challenges the norms of political speech and behavior, and for many people who see politics as part of their identity, this feels threatening. Psychologically, in my view, when someone feels their worldview or sense of moral order is being challenged, their brain often goes into what's called "motivated reasoning." Instead of weighing pros and cons objectively, or even just using common sense, they filter out anything positive and magnify the negative—especially if they’ve already emotionally committed to disliking someone. I think this is more prevalent in liberals, they run on emotions, love, hate, and so on.
Ironically, some of Trump's policies—like economic nationalism, deregulation, border control, and peace-first foreign policy—might actually align with the long-term interests of even some of his biggest critics. But because of the emotional filter in place, they often can't see that without feeling like they're "betraying" their side.I think that the fact Maga labels critique and criticism against Trump as "TDS" probably says more about the groups psychology than anything...
But here’s the thing—not all criticism of Trump gets called "TDS." It’s usually when the criticism goes off the rails or just doesn’t make sense.
There’s a big difference between disagreeing on policies and straight-up obsession. For years, we’ve seen people push wild theories like Trump being a Russian agent, cheer for impeachments that went nowhere, and just throw any kind of resistance at him, even when it meant ignoring real issues within their own camp. That’s not rational criticism—that’s emotional reaction.
In my view, when people refuse to see anything good—whether it's low unemployment, energy independence, or even diplomatic wins like the Abraham Accords—it points to something called "motivated reasoning." Basically, when someone hates a person so much, they’ll reject anything connected to them, even if it helps the country. That’s pretty much what TDS is about.
And let’s not forget (and it didn't help) that the same people defending Biden tend to overlook his memory lapses and gaffes. It’s total cognitive dissonance—they brush off their side’s problems but blow up Trump’s flaws to be this massive, existential threat. It's now been well-reported that Biden was known to be having cognitive issues. I saw them even as far back as his "let's hide him in a basement".
So yeah, "TDS" might sound like a shot, but for a lot of us, it actually describes a mindset where hatred clouds logic and facts. If you hate someone so much that you’d rather see the country fail than admit they did something right, the term fits.
Any predictions as to who will blink first in this trade war?
I think the president already blinked first with his 90-day hold. But, I don't know his 'game plan' (surely there is one), so it might be part of a strategy instead of being a blink *shrug*
GA
The first and most important thing to winning a war... is knowing when you are in one.
Trade Agreements – Why Trump is Right
-- I wrote that one over 8 years ago
China Overtakes U.S. Economy
-- I wrote that over 8 years ago
These problems were predictable... the fact that it was the politicians allowing it to happen deliberately, well, that I might not have caught on to at that time. But there is no doubt now... the biggest traitors to the American people are the ones who had been running the country.There are probably few who think we aren't in one now.
GA
Related Discussions
- 58
What Do We Have Here? A Constitutional Crisis?
by Willowarbor 3 months ago
Vance's statement that "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power" has sparked concerns among legal experts, who suggest it could lead to a constitutional crisis or a breakdown of the American political system. This is due to the fundamental principle that...
- 40
How much power to stop the President should federal judges have?
by Credence2 5 days ago
This was an interesting topic and as usual I will weigh in with my opinion.I am for universal injunction as initiated by a federal judges. As these judges are there to interpret the law.The Trump administration wants through an executive order to blatantly change the explicit words and meaning of...
- 23
Conservatives, how do you feel about Chief Justice Roberts siding in favor of up
by Mary's Crumbs 12 years ago
Conservatives, how do you feel about Chief Justice Roberts siding in favor of upholding ObamaCare?In what can only be characterized as a victory for the Obama administration, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision which basically upholds the The Affordable Care Act. Chief Justice...
- 382
Donald Trump Supporters/Voters Disenfranchised in Colorado, Who's Next
by Angie B Williams 11 months ago
Which State will be next to decide that their leaders and their State's Supreme Court are more mighty, more powerful than the U.S. Constitution and the Power, which, by design and by LAW, belongs with the American people? That's what this is.....right? A power trip? Let's be the one to outdo all...
- 7
Jerry Nadler Blows The Whistle On His Compadres
by Sharlee 2 years ago
Well, recently I was accused of not addressing Trump's news current or past. Here is a current report that involves Trump, and Democratic representatives. So, here is the most current media report I could find that involves Trump. Wonder how many that appreciate a good Trump bit of news...
- 26
Justice Amy Coney Barret's Confirmation
by ga anderson 4 years ago
If you, (can), put aside all the political charges and machinations against her nomination, what is your opinion of the qualifications of our newest Supreme Court Justice? I think she is exactly the kind of person we should want to sit on our Supreme Court.To be clear, I strongly support her...