WSJ really out here shaming people for packing lunch and not doordashing burritos on credit in order to support the economy pic.twitter.com/DX3J3pEDBe
— Amy Nixon (@texasrunnerDFW) May 18, 2025
Trump's first 100 days
698,077 Views |
13147 Replies |
Last: 1 hr ago by boognish_bear
Why does he do this after having such a big week in Middle East?
— 🔥 CEO Branding Expert (@Ceo_Branding) May 18, 2025
Why not dial up that narrative.
So much turning back to the past. It is the reason why his approval rating gets capped.
He could chase 55%-60% if he dropped that approach .
whiterock said:Unclear if we can get the changes we need without a recession. cutting $1T in federal deficit spending is ipso facto cutting $1t out of GDP. The $10T in investments pledged from abroad are more than enough to offset, but how much of it will happen in the last 6 months of this FY is unknown. Not at all unreasonable to think 10% of it ($1T) will hit this FY, but hard to think much of that will happen by the end of Q2. (of course, not all the spending cuts will hit by end of Q2 either.Fre3dombear said:whiterock said:several reports published that we did have mild contraction in Q1.Fre3dombear said:whiterock said:False dilemma.FLBear5630 said:No, it isn't. Biden is gone. Trump has been making EOs and policy changes left and right. So, if it is a strategy to do so much right from the beginning so it can't be challenged, than he takes the responsibility for the Nation in month 5.historian said:
It's a natural and obvious comparison in the honest of this discussion.
Don't get it both ways. Go nuts with changes, but any negatives are the guy before.
Policies do not full impact immediately. It takes time for things to move forward. Part of that process is that it takes time to legislation passed (and the bigger & more important it is to a President's agenda, the more the opposition will fight it). And, of course, it takes time for trade negotiations to occur and conclude. THEN it takes months for the economy to respond fully.
Silliest assertion one could make, for example, is that Trump is wholly responsible for the recession in Q1. Dude wasn't even in office for the entire quarter, had no hope of getting his entire legislation passed, much less for all that to take effect.
There was a recession in q1?
Predictably, the neverTrumpers leapt to hang it 100% around Trump's neck for having the audacity to utter in public a word that starts with "tar" and ends with "iff."
Well, yeah that was dumb as we had the best 6 months ever while they panic sold to us.
Generally recession is 2 consecutive quarters but even as Biden rilled that out they just powered up the fools propaganda machine to say yeah but that's not a real recession. Then everyone went broke or in massive debt which they have to this day
Orange man is helping heal the USA and the world and lining our pockets though.
Could muddle thru, of course, but all we can do is put the policies in place. Things will flow when & how they flow......
Yes no doubt a recession could occur. Wont be because trump and one should note the massive historic over valuation of the stock market as were yet again at all time highs and just 3 trades along delivering historic returns for the year in 5 months.
BREAKING: 422 undocumented immigrants arrested, 528 deported in week-long ICE raids in Houston.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) May 17, 2025
528 new lawsuits too?boognish_bear said:BREAKING: 422 undocumented immigrants arrested, 528 deported in week-long ICE raids in Houston.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) May 17, 2025
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
maybe not. They gave all 528 MAGA shirts and hats, and the judges think they are all Trump supporters.Assassin said:528 new lawsuits too?boognish_bear said:BREAKING: 422 undocumented immigrants arrested, 528 deported in week-long ICE raids in Houston.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) May 17, 2025
That means they will ignore those guys like they did the J6 protesters.
Ha!Oldbear83 said:maybe not. They gave all 528 MAGA shirts and hats, and the judges think they are all Trump supporters.Assassin said:528 new lawsuits too?boognish_bear said:BREAKING: 422 undocumented immigrants arrested, 528 deported in week-long ICE raids in Houston.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) May 17, 2025
That means they will ignore those guys like they did the J6 protesters.
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
Biden was 100% asleep at the wheel, but I'd like to see the math on that claim.boognish_bear said:BREAKING: President Biden failed to enforce the 2020 Phase One trade agreement with China, signed during Trump’s first term, costing the U.S. an estimated $2 trillion in GDP, per U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) May 17, 2025
Let's see your praise when the bulk of the tariffs actually hit. And the clock is ticking on the "90 days".whiterock said:Again the faulty premise. Trump was deadly serious about the tariffs for those who refused to negotiate new trade deals. Almost all of them, wisely, rushed to the table to talk. China dragged its feet but ultimately did what everyone else did (in no small part because they had labor demonstrations in the streets over unpaid wages). And as they engaged more seriously, the tariffs were inched down incrementally.Porteroso said:whiterock said:several reports published that we did have mild contraction in Q1.Fre3dombear said:whiterock said:False dilemma.FLBear5630 said:No, it isn't. Biden is gone. Trump has been making EOs and policy changes left and right. So, if it is a strategy to do so much right from the beginning so it can't be challenged, than he takes the responsibility for the Nation in month 5.historian said:
It's a natural and obvious comparison in the honest of this discussion.
Don't get it both ways. Go nuts with changes, but any negatives are the guy before.
Policies do not full impact immediately. It takes time for things to move forward. Part of that process is that it takes time to legislation passed (and the bigger & more important it is to a President's agenda, the more the opposition will fight it). And, of course, it takes time for trade negotiations to occur and conclude. THEN it takes months for the economy to respond fully.
Silliest assertion one could make, for example, is that Trump is wholly responsible for the recession in Q1. Dude wasn't even in office for the entire quarter, had no hope of getting his entire legislation passed, much less for all that to take effect.
There was a recession in q1?
Predictably, the neverTrumpers leapt to hang it 100% around Trump's neck for having the audacity to utter in public a word that starts with "tar" and ends with "iff."
I think they were worried he was wanting the tariffs he announced which would have sent the entire globe into a recession. Turns out China was right and Trump was not serious about the tariffs.
Tariffs are an enormously persuasive negotiation tool, particularly when they are already in place and choking off the trade that the other guys need more than we do.
Fre3dombear said:whiterock said:False dilemma.FLBear5630 said:No, it isn't. Biden is gone. Trump has been making EOs and policy changes left and right. So, if it is a strategy to do so much right from the beginning so it can't be challenged, than he takes the responsibility for the Nation in month 5.historian said:
It's a natural and obvious comparison in the honest of this discussion.
Don't get it both ways. Go nuts with changes, but any negatives are the guy before.
Policies do not full impact immediately. It takes time for things to move forward. Part of that process is that it takes time to legislation passed (and the bigger & more important it is to a President's agenda, the more the opposition will fight it). And, of course, it takes time for trade negotiations to occur and conclude. THEN it takes months for the economy to respond fully.
Silliest assertion one could make, for example, is that Trump is wholly responsible for the recession in Q1. Dude wasn't even in office for the entire quarter, had no hope of getting his entire legislation passed, much less for all that to take effect.
There was a recession in q1?
A recession is defined as an economic downturn for at least two consecutive quarters. By definition it cannot last for only one.
william said:
arrived in SA.... will take a long time to retro fit / get up to AF1 specs......
- el KKM
D!
Probably quicker than whatever Boeing is trying to do. How many years have they had to do the job?
Quote:
Unclear if we can get the changes we need without a recession. cutting $1T in federal deficit spending is ipso facto cutting $1t out of GDP.
That's the wrong way to look at it: government spending adds nothing to the economy. The government is not productive, just the opposite. It is parasitic. Every penny the government spends must first be taken from those who are productive: the people. Reducing government spending thus freed up capital for business expansion, startups, new jobs, etc. It also reduces the amount the govt borrows, holds the promise of lower debt (if the cuts continue & the budget is balanced), and helps to stave off national bankruptcy.
Everything about less govt spending is good for the people and the economy.
KaiBear said:Maybe Scott will be our first gay president ?boognish_bear said:We've inherited a 6.7% deficit-to-GDP, the highest outside war or recession.
— Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) May 18, 2025
Our focus is to grow the economy faster than the debt, that’s how we will stabilize debt-to-GDP. pic.twitter.com/yblwrunO9t
If it came down between Vance or Scott as the Republican nominee I would choose Scott.
Obama already has they covered. And possibly James Buchanan as well. But both were covert and there is no certainty on either.
historian said:KaiBear said:Maybe Scott will be our first gay president ?boognish_bear said:We've inherited a 6.7% deficit-to-GDP, the highest outside war or recession.
— Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) May 18, 2025
Our focus is to grow the economy faster than the debt, that’s how we will stabilize debt-to-GDP. pic.twitter.com/yblwrunO9t
If it came down between Vance or Scott as the Republican nominee I would choose Scott.
Obama already has they covered. And possibly James Buchanan as well. But both were covert and there is no certainty on either.
Yep. Also a very odd dude but he was a total figment and invented out of nowhere to read to us for 8 years and trigger insane racism and massive influx of muslims and latinos. He appeared to hate bith sides of himself as is often the case
BREAKING: DOJ to review President Biden’s pardons to determine whether they were lawfully authorized, per U.S. Pardon Attorney Ed Martin.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) May 19, 2025
Hopefully they review the Medals of Honor too... Hillary Clinton?? George Soros????????boognish_bear said:BREAKING: DOJ to review President Biden’s pardons to determine whether they were lawfully authorized, per U.S. Pardon Attorney Ed Martin.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) May 19, 2025
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
BREAKING: Trump's big bill advances out of committee in rare weekend vote as conservative holdouts let legislation move forward. https://t.co/YFdBN1PeBt
— The Associated Press (@AP) May 19, 2025
A recession in Q1 & Q2 of 2025 will be a statistical irrelevancy in the 2026 mid-terms if the economy recovers and enters into strong growth. And make no mistake, that IS the plan = rapid economic growth to grow tax revenues faster than spending growth.boognish_bear said:whiterock said:Unclear if we can get the changes we need without a recession. cutting $1T in federal deficit spending is ipso facto cutting $1t out of GDP. The $10T in investments pledged from abroad are more than enough to offset, but how much of it will happen in the last 6 months of this FY is unknown. Not at all unreasonable to think 10% of it ($1T) will hit this FY, but hard to think much of that will happen by the end of Q2. (of course, not all the spending cuts will hit by end of Q2 either.Fre3dombear said:whiterock said:several reports published that we did have mild contraction in Q1.Fre3dombear said:whiterock said:False dilemma.FLBear5630 said:No, it isn't. Biden is gone. Trump has been making EOs and policy changes left and right. So, if it is a strategy to do so much right from the beginning so it can't be challenged, than he takes the responsibility for the Nation in month 5.historian said:
It's a natural and obvious comparison in the honest of this discussion.
Don't get it both ways. Go nuts with changes, but any negatives are the guy before.
Policies do not full impact immediately. It takes time for things to move forward. Part of that process is that it takes time to legislation passed (and the bigger & more important it is to a President's agenda, the more the opposition will fight it). And, of course, it takes time for trade negotiations to occur and conclude. THEN it takes months for the economy to respond fully.
Silliest assertion one could make, for example, is that Trump is wholly responsible for the recession in Q1. Dude wasn't even in office for the entire quarter, had no hope of getting his entire legislation passed, much less for all that to take effect.
There was a recession in q1?
Predictably, the neverTrumpers leapt to hang it 100% around Trump's neck for having the audacity to utter in public a word that starts with "tar" and ends with "iff."
Well, yeah that was dumb as we had the best 6 months ever while they panic sold to us.
Generally recession is 2 consecutive quarters but even as Biden rilled that out they just powered up the fools propaganda machine to say yeah but that's not a real recession. Then everyone went broke or in massive debt which they have to this day
Orange man is helping heal the USA and the world and lining our pockets though.
Could muddle thru, of course, but all we can do is put the policies in place. Things will flow when & how they flow......
If Trump's policies are seen as triggering a recession will Republicans survive the 2026 midterms. The economy may need a recession to reset itself...but will voters have the patience to see it through?
The $10T of new investment in production capacity in the USA is very, very powerful stimulus.
Treasury Secretary @SecScottBessent: "We are going to grow the GDP faster than the debt growth and that will stabilize the debt-to-GDP, which ... is the most important number." pic.twitter.com/7Yy2UjtAhl
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) May 18, 2025
over-valuation of equity markets is a "benefit" of trade deficits = lots & lots of surplus USD looking for a place to go.Fre3dombear said:whiterock said:Unclear if we can get the changes we need without a recession. cutting $1T in federal deficit spending is ipso facto cutting $1t out of GDP. The $10T in investments pledged from abroad are more than enough to offset, but how much of it will happen in the last 6 months of this FY is unknown. Not at all unreasonable to think 10% of it ($1T) will hit this FY, but hard to think much of that will happen by the end of Q2. (of course, not all the spending cuts will hit by end of Q2 either.Fre3dombear said:whiterock said:several reports published that we did have mild contraction in Q1.Fre3dombear said:whiterock said:False dilemma.FLBear5630 said:No, it isn't. Biden is gone. Trump has been making EOs and policy changes left and right. So, if it is a strategy to do so much right from the beginning so it can't be challenged, than he takes the responsibility for the Nation in month 5.historian said:
It's a natural and obvious comparison in the honest of this discussion.
Don't get it both ways. Go nuts with changes, but any negatives are the guy before.
Policies do not full impact immediately. It takes time for things to move forward. Part of that process is that it takes time to legislation passed (and the bigger & more important it is to a President's agenda, the more the opposition will fight it). And, of course, it takes time for trade negotiations to occur and conclude. THEN it takes months for the economy to respond fully.
Silliest assertion one could make, for example, is that Trump is wholly responsible for the recession in Q1. Dude wasn't even in office for the entire quarter, had no hope of getting his entire legislation passed, much less for all that to take effect.
There was a recession in q1?
Predictably, the neverTrumpers leapt to hang it 100% around Trump's neck for having the audacity to utter in public a word that starts with "tar" and ends with "iff."
Well, yeah that was dumb as we had the best 6 months ever while they panic sold to us.
Generally recession is 2 consecutive quarters but even as Biden rilled that out they just powered up the fools propaganda machine to say yeah but that's not a real recession. Then everyone went broke or in massive debt which they have to this day
Orange man is helping heal the USA and the world and lining our pockets though.
Could muddle thru, of course, but all we can do is put the policies in place. Things will flow when & how they flow......
Yes no doubt a recession could occur. Wont be because trump and one should note the massive historic over valuation of the stock market as were yet again at all time highs and just 3 trades along delivering historic returns for the year in 5 months.
LOL are you going to wail & gnash your teeth when they don't?ATL Bear said:Let's see your praise when the bulk of the tariffs actually hit. And the clock is ticking on the "90 days".whiterock said:Again the faulty premise. Trump was deadly serious about the tariffs for those who refused to negotiate new trade deals. Almost all of them, wisely, rushed to the table to talk. China dragged its feet but ultimately did what everyone else did (in no small part because they had labor demonstrations in the streets over unpaid wages). And as they engaged more seriously, the tariffs were inched down incrementally.Porteroso said:whiterock said:several reports published that we did have mild contraction in Q1.Fre3dombear said:whiterock said:False dilemma.FLBear5630 said:No, it isn't. Biden is gone. Trump has been making EOs and policy changes left and right. So, if it is a strategy to do so much right from the beginning so it can't be challenged, than he takes the responsibility for the Nation in month 5.historian said:
It's a natural and obvious comparison in the honest of this discussion.
Don't get it both ways. Go nuts with changes, but any negatives are the guy before.
Policies do not full impact immediately. It takes time for things to move forward. Part of that process is that it takes time to legislation passed (and the bigger & more important it is to a President's agenda, the more the opposition will fight it). And, of course, it takes time for trade negotiations to occur and conclude. THEN it takes months for the economy to respond fully.
Silliest assertion one could make, for example, is that Trump is wholly responsible for the recession in Q1. Dude wasn't even in office for the entire quarter, had no hope of getting his entire legislation passed, much less for all that to take effect.
There was a recession in q1?
Predictably, the neverTrumpers leapt to hang it 100% around Trump's neck for having the audacity to utter in public a word that starts with "tar" and ends with "iff."
I think they were worried he was wanting the tariffs he announced which would have sent the entire globe into a recession. Turns out China was right and Trump was not serious about the tariffs.
Tariffs are an enormously persuasive negotiation tool, particularly when they are already in place and choking off the trade that the other guys need more than we do.
He'll just suspend them a bit longer, as long as negotiations are occurring in good faith. Yes, overall tariffs will likely rise in most cases to 10%, but the macroeconomic impact of that will be quite miniscule, approx. 1.3% overall, which will be more than offset by the tax cuts which just moved out of committee.
I swear, it is just incredible to see smart people lose their minds & start running around with their hair on fire when they hear the "tariff" word.
Not exactly. If they didn't spend it, taxpayers would. Certainly one could argue that government spending could be something other than "highest & best use" of the capital, but that's not always the case. Economies do need roads & bridges for commerce to flow. We do need to have secure title to personal & real property in order to make banking and investment function properly. Merchants and customers alike need to have proper weights & measures to make informed economic decisions. Etc...... So government spending itself is properly included in GDP. That is a major reason why politicians are so reluctant to cut government spending - it negatively impacts GDP.historian said:Quote:
Unclear if we can get the changes we need without a recession. cutting $1T in federal deficit spending is ipso facto cutting $1t out of GDP.
That's the wrong way to look at it: government spending adds nothing to the economy. The government is not productive, just the opposite. It is parasitic. Every penny the government spends must first be taken from those who are productive: the people. Reducing government spending thus freed up capital for business expansion, startups, new jobs, etc. It also reduces the amount the govt borrows, holds the promise of lower debt (if the cuts continue & the budget is balanced), and helps to stave off national bankruptcy.
Everything about less govt spending is good for the people and the economy.
the worst negative of all is wasteful deficit spending, which saddles the economy with public debt that does not generate as much tax base as private sector spending would have. so many examples of that......
The economy benefits when consumers spend money, it is harmed when government does. This is almost always the case regardless of what consumers choose to spend their money on: whatever they buy will stimulate a segment of the economy and create jobs. The government might do some good with infrastructure, police, defense, and other reasonable expenditures--those that are the proper function of governments. But the federal government wastes billions on all kinds of superfluous stupidity that cannot be justified rationally. This is the kind of stuff that DOGE has been exposing. This kind of stuff not only harms the economy, but it causes all kinds of other damage as well. Then there is the rapidly growing national debt soon to be $39 trillion.whiterock said:Not exactly. If they didn't spend it, taxpayers would. Certainly one could argue that government spending could be something other than "highest & best use" of the capital, but that's not always the case. Economies do need roads & bridges for commerce to flow. We do need to have secure title to personal & real property in order to make banking and investment function properly. Merchants and customers alike need to have proper weights & measures to make informed economic decisions. Etc...... So government spending itself is properly included in GDP. That is a major reason why politicians are so reluctant to cut government spending - it negatively impacts GDP.historian said:Quote:
Unclear if we can get the changes we need without a recession. cutting $1T in federal deficit spending is ipso facto cutting $1t out of GDP.
That's the wrong way to look at it: government spending adds nothing to the economy. The government is not productive, just the opposite. It is parasitic. Every penny the government spends must first be taken from those who are productive: the people. Reducing government spending thus freed up capital for business expansion, startups, new jobs, etc. It also reduces the amount the govt borrows, holds the promise of lower debt (if the cuts continue & the budget is balanced), and helps to stave off national bankruptcy.
Everything about less govt spending is good for the people and the economy.
the worst negative of all is wasteful deficit spending, which saddles the economy with public debt that does not generate as much tax base as private sector spending would have. so many examples of that......
The top priority of Congress should be to bring this debt under control and to begin reducing it. That cannot happen until the budget is balanced first, and then maintains a surplus for several years (probably decades).
The reluctance of politicians to cut spending has very little to supposed negative outcomes. Their insane levels of spending over the years has had a far more damaging impact. No, they are primarily concerned about using our tax dollars to buy votes one way or another. They are self-centered buffoons with far too much power which most of them have no qualms about abusing.
JUST IN: CBS News CEO Wendy McMahon is stepping down.
— Axios (@axios) May 19, 2025
Her resignation comes as CBS parent Paramount considers settling a $20 billion lawsuit from Trump over a "60 Minutes" segment. https://t.co/lDPJMyZpo8
whiterock said:Again the faulty premise. Trump was deadly serious about the tariffs for those who refused to negotiate new trade deals. Almost all of them, wisely, rushed to the table to talk. China dragged its feet but ultimately did what everyone else did (in no small part because they had labor demonstrations in the streets over unpaid wages). And as they engaged more seriously, the tariffs were inched down incrementally.Porteroso said:whiterock said:several reports published that we did have mild contraction in Q1.Fre3dombear said:whiterock said:False dilemma.FLBear5630 said:No, it isn't. Biden is gone. Trump has been making EOs and policy changes left and right. So, if it is a strategy to do so much right from the beginning so it can't be challenged, than he takes the responsibility for the Nation in month 5.historian said:
It's a natural and obvious comparison in the honest of this discussion.
Don't get it both ways. Go nuts with changes, but any negatives are the guy before.
Policies do not full impact immediately. It takes time for things to move forward. Part of that process is that it takes time to legislation passed (and the bigger & more important it is to a President's agenda, the more the opposition will fight it). And, of course, it takes time for trade negotiations to occur and conclude. THEN it takes months for the economy to respond fully.
Silliest assertion one could make, for example, is that Trump is wholly responsible for the recession in Q1. Dude wasn't even in office for the entire quarter, had no hope of getting his entire legislation passed, much less for all that to take effect.
There was a recession in q1?
Predictably, the neverTrumpers leapt to hang it 100% around Trump's neck for having the audacity to utter in public a word that starts with "tar" and ends with "iff."
I think they were worried he was wanting the tariffs he announced which would have sent the entire globe into a recession. Turns out China was right and Trump was not serious about the tariffs.
Tariffs are an enormously persuasive negotiation tool, particularly when they are already in place and choking off the trade that the other guys need more than we do.
Oh, so he was lying when he said tariffs would allow him to eliminate income taxes on under 200k earners?
Get real man, it was all posturing, and we caved. China didn't come begging because tariffs hurt, the U.S. said 145% was not sustainable.
They need to revamp their new department something fierce. It's something like 90% Democrats and a few Independents that appear to lean left. All the MSM departments are like this now. Why? Because they are unions. Editors, producers, directors, grips, etc. Along with SAG broadcasters.boognish_bear said:JUST IN: CBS News CEO Wendy McMahon is stepping down.
— Axios (@axios) May 19, 2025
Her resignation comes as CBS parent Paramount considers settling a $20 billion lawsuit from Trump over a "60 Minutes" segment. https://t.co/lDPJMyZpo8
You cannot get a job there if you are a centrist or lean right. And good luck getting another job in the industry if they find out you are, or have worked for FOX
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
BREAKING: GOP flips Miami-Dade County red by voter registration for the first time in history.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) May 19, 2025
The U.S. government posted a $258 billion budget surplus for April, up 23% from a year earlier, reflecting strong tax receipts in the final month of the tax season and surging collections of import duties, the Treasury Department said
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) May 19, 2025
Assassin said:They need to revamp their new department something fierce. It's something like 90% Democrats and a few Independents that appear to lean left. All the MSM departments are like this now. Why? Because they are unions. Editors, producers, directors, grips, etc. Along with SAG broadcasters.boognish_bear said:JUST IN: CBS News CEO Wendy McMahon is stepping down.
— Axios (@axios) May 19, 2025
Her resignation comes as CBS parent Paramount considers settling a $20 billion lawsuit from Trump over a "60 Minutes" segment. https://t.co/lDPJMyZpo8
You cannot get a job there if you are a centrist or lean right. And good luck getting another job in the industry if they find out you are, or have worked for FOX
Unions are just the tool of enforcement. They are like this because all the media is owned by a handful of of globalists, and they ensure that news reflect their agenda.
Its so clearly orchestrated and misleading, it is truly just propaganda at this point.
Porteroso said:whiterock said:Again the faulty premise. Trump was deadly serious about the tariffs for those who refused to negotiate new trade deals. Almost all of them, wisely, rushed to the table to talk. China dragged its feet but ultimately did what everyone else did (in no small part because they had labor demonstrations in the streets over unpaid wages). And as they engaged more seriously, the tariffs were inched down incrementally.Porteroso said:whiterock said:several reports published that we did have mild contraction in Q1.Fre3dombear said:whiterock said:False dilemma.FLBear5630 said:No, it isn't. Biden is gone. Trump has been making EOs and policy changes left and right. So, if it is a strategy to do so much right from the beginning so it can't be challenged, than he takes the responsibility for the Nation in month 5.historian said:
It's a natural and obvious comparison in the honest of this discussion.
Don't get it both ways. Go nuts with changes, but any negatives are the guy before.
Policies do not full impact immediately. It takes time for things to move forward. Part of that process is that it takes time to legislation passed (and the bigger & more important it is to a President's agenda, the more the opposition will fight it). And, of course, it takes time for trade negotiations to occur and conclude. THEN it takes months for the economy to respond fully.
Silliest assertion one could make, for example, is that Trump is wholly responsible for the recession in Q1. Dude wasn't even in office for the entire quarter, had no hope of getting his entire legislation passed, much less for all that to take effect.
There was a recession in q1?
Predictably, the neverTrumpers leapt to hang it 100% around Trump's neck for having the audacity to utter in public a word that starts with "tar" and ends with "iff."
I think they were worried he was wanting the tariffs he announced which would have sent the entire globe into a recession. Turns out China was right and Trump was not serious about the tariffs.
Tariffs are an enormously persuasive negotiation tool, particularly when they are already in place and choking off the trade that the other guys need more than we do.
Oh, so he was lying when he said tariffs would allow him to eliminate income taxes on under 200k earners?
Get real man, it was all posturing, and we caved. China didn't come begging because tariffs hurt, the U.S. said 145% was not sustainable.
You don't believe tariffs hurt China? You're a weird dude.
whiterock said:LOL are you going to wail & gnash your teeth when they don't?ATL Bear said:Let's see your praise when the bulk of the tariffs actually hit. And the clock is ticking on the "90 days".whiterock said:Again the faulty premise. Trump was deadly serious about the tariffs for those who refused to negotiate new trade deals. Almost all of them, wisely, rushed to the table to talk. China dragged its feet but ultimately did what everyone else did (in no small part because they had labor demonstrations in the streets over unpaid wages). And as they engaged more seriously, the tariffs were inched down incrementally.Porteroso said:whiterock said:several reports published that we did have mild contraction in Q1.Fre3dombear said:whiterock said:False dilemma.FLBear5630 said:No, it isn't. Biden is gone. Trump has been making EOs and policy changes left and right. So, if it is a strategy to do so much right from the beginning so it can't be challenged, than he takes the responsibility for the Nation in month 5.historian said:
It's a natural and obvious comparison in the honest of this discussion.
Don't get it both ways. Go nuts with changes, but any negatives are the guy before.
Policies do not full impact immediately. It takes time for things to move forward. Part of that process is that it takes time to legislation passed (and the bigger & more important it is to a President's agenda, the more the opposition will fight it). And, of course, it takes time for trade negotiations to occur and conclude. THEN it takes months for the economy to respond fully.
Silliest assertion one could make, for example, is that Trump is wholly responsible for the recession in Q1. Dude wasn't even in office for the entire quarter, had no hope of getting his entire legislation passed, much less for all that to take effect.
There was a recession in q1?
Predictably, the neverTrumpers leapt to hang it 100% around Trump's neck for having the audacity to utter in public a word that starts with "tar" and ends with "iff."
I think they were worried he was wanting the tariffs he announced which would have sent the entire globe into a recession. Turns out China was right and Trump was not serious about the tariffs.
Tariffs are an enormously persuasive negotiation tool, particularly when they are already in place and choking off the trade that the other guys need more than we do.
He'll just suspend them a bit longer, as long as negotiations are occurring in good faith. Yes, overall tariffs will likely rise in most cases to 10%, but the macroeconomic impact of that will be quite miniscule, approx. 1.3% overall, which will be more than offset by the tax cuts which just moved out of committee.
I swear, it is just incredible to see smart people lose their minds & start running around with their hair on fire when they hear the "tariff" word.
Yep. Already catalogued several posters here that apparently let their politics get in the way of their profit.
Never let that happen
Hope all bought the dip this morning as i suggested yesterday . Lol. Layup
boognish_bear said:BREAKING: GOP flips Miami-Dade County red by voter registration for the first time in history.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) May 19, 2025
That's crazy. We go there all the time (be there Thursday actually). Never would have guessed that.
It has been coming for about 5 to 7 years. FLA is getting more red since COVID. Also, the CUban population is getting more sick of the free loaders. Cubans are very family, church and work oriented. The Communist Venezualans and others are a turn off. You get some pretty nasty public meetings down there. South of Port St Lucie is its own world....nein51 said:boognish_bear said:BREAKING: GOP flips Miami-Dade County red by voter registration for the first time in history.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) May 19, 2025
That's crazy. We go there all the time (be there Thursday actually). Never would have guessed that.
was in Miami a while back and did a really great food tour of Calle Ocho (Little Havana). At the end of the tour the guide took us to a statue that had all the US Presidents listed. She asked us which president was Not listed. It was JFK. She went on to say....I'm not really supposed to say this, but 95% of Cubans vote Republican because they have not forgotten how JFK sold them out. Found it interesting.FLBear5630 said:It has been coming for about 5 to 7 years. FLA is getting more red since COVID. Also, the CUban population is getting more sick of the free loaders. Cubans are very family, church and work oriented. The Communist Venezualans and others are a turn off. You get some pretty nasty public meetings down there. South of Port St Lucie is its own world....nein51 said:boognish_bear said:BREAKING: GOP flips Miami-Dade County red by voter registration for the first time in history.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) May 19, 2025
That's crazy. We go there all the time (be there Thursday actually). Never would have guessed that.