This was just amazing. Progressives won't like it, because deep down they believe that the whites should be killed in South Africa.Redbrickbear said:đ„ SAVAGE TRUMP: President Trump dims Oval Office lights, shows South Africaâs president videos of their leaders calling for KILLING white farmers.
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) May 21, 2025
pic.twitter.com/pJnMvyR1nB
Trump's first 100 days
627,023 Views |
12261 Replies |
Last: 9 min ago by william
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 21, 2025
Suck it pic.twitter.com/8ruAeJSum2
— Secretary Kristi Noem (@Sec_Noem) May 22, 2025
I WANT YOU TO REALLY THINK ABOUT WHAT IâM ABOUT TO SAY...
— SirOliverPollock(KAIZER)đ đ§ đ€« (@SirCensorLot) May 22, 2025
THINK LOGICALLY
THINK CRITICALLY
IF OBAMA AND HILLARY HAD BEEN ARRESTED IN 2017, OR EVEN IN 2020,
THIS COUNTRY WOULD HAVE BURNED!
IT WOULD'VE MADE THE âSUMMER OF LOVEâ LOOK LIKE A PICNIC
THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN CHAOS⊠pic.twitter.com/0vau3ar11D
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
This is pure nightmare fuel for the Left. They thought they won over the youth⊠Couldnât be more wrong.
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) May 21, 2025
The Florida Gators basketball team is hype and fired up to meet President Trump at the White House.
Young men love Trumpâand theyâre not shy about it. pic.twitter.com/NYKWmCRHxq
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said: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.
Let me be more clear. China did not come begging. They were ready to keep the tariff war going. They did not approach us about reducing tariffs. We caved, approached them. Do you understand now?
Porteroso said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said: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.
Let me be more clear. China did not come begging. They were ready to keep the tariff war going. They did not approach us about reducing tariffs. We caved, approached them. Do you understand now?
That's fact as you present them. Not necessarily facts. No one really knows the facts because it's best for both parties that no one does. The reality is that both sides likely gave up something because that's how most negotiations work.
I hate tariffs but I said all along China needs the US market desperately. There just isn't another analog.
Wow. You couldn't be more brainwashed. Just when I think you've said your dumbest CNN statement, you parrot one even better.Porteroso said:Let me be more clear. China did not come begging. They were ready to keep the tariff war going. They did not approach us about reducing tariffs. We caved, approached them. Do you understand now?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:You don't believe tariffs hurt China? You're a weird dude.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.
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
And where did you go to find the truth ?
Pop quiz:
How many cities in China have experienced protests about Unemployment and the Trade Crisis with more than 5,000 protesters in the last 45 days?
It's interesting not only what is happening, but also how many people here in the US don't even know it's happening.
How many cities in China have experienced protests about Unemployment and the Trade Crisis with more than 5,000 protesters in the last 45 days?
It's interesting not only what is happening, but also how many people here in the US don't even know it's happening.
On that last note, Oldbear has a point, especially regarding recent articles by any of the MSM. I only found a small handful in a quick search.
nein51 said:Porteroso said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said: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.
Let me be more clear. China did not come begging. They were ready to keep the tariff war going. They did not approach us about reducing tariffs. We caved, approached them. Do you understand now?
That's fact as you present them. Not necessarily facts. No one really knows the facts because it's best for both parties that no one does. The reality is that both sides likely gave up something because that's how most negotiations work.
I hate tariffs but I said all along China needs the US market desperately. There just isn't another analog.
Oh. Am I wrong? Just spit it out if it was another way.
It's everywhereBUDOS said:
And where did you go to find the truth ?
https://www.fairobserver.com/economics/the-enigma-of-chinas-debt-crisis-explained/
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/09/business/economy/guangzhou-china-exports-tariffs.html
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
China deals in 10 year horizons. We're lucky to follow 6 month horizons. It was a carefully crafted retreat on both sides, but China sees our vulnerabilities as clearly as they see their own. Will the tariffs be allowed to come into effect and the price pressure on Americans be realized or will a further pull back happen?nein51 said:Porteroso said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said: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.
Let me be more clear. China did not come begging. They were ready to keep the tariff war going. They did not approach us about reducing tariffs. We caved, approached them. Do you understand now?
That's fact as you present them. Not necessarily facts. No one really knows the facts because it's best for both parties that no one does. The reality is that both sides likely gave up something because that's how most negotiations work.
I hate tariffs but I said all along China needs the US market desperately. There just isn't another analog.
China's economy has been struggling to recover since COVID. Worker protests have been on the rise for some time.Assassin said:It's everywhereBUDOS said:
And where did you go to find the truth ?
https://www.fairobserver.com/economics/the-enigma-of-chinas-debt-crisis-explained/
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/09/business/economy/guangzhou-china-exports-tariffs.html
And tarrifs sunk them even more.ATL Bear said:China's economy has been struggling to recover since COVID. Worker protests have been on the rise for some time.Assassin said:It's everywhereBUDOS said:
And where did you go to find the truth ?
https://www.fairobserver.com/economics/the-enigma-of-chinas-debt-crisis-explained/
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/09/business/economy/guangzhou-china-exports-tariffs.html
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
Things have gotten much worse since February.ATL Bear said:China's economy has been struggling to recover since COVID. Worker protests have been on the rise for some time.Assassin said:It's everywhereBUDOS said:
And where did you go to find the truth ?
https://www.fairobserver.com/economics/the-enigma-of-chinas-debt-crisis-explained/
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/09/business/economy/guangzhou-china-exports-tariffs.html
https://www.rfa.org/english/china/2025/05/21/china-economy-workers-wage-protests/#:~:text=Protests%20by%20Chinese%20construction%20workers,videos%20posted%20on%20social%20media.
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/china-sees-surge-in-worker-protests-over-unpaid-wages-amid-deepening-local-government-debt-crisis/ar-AA1Fgzgx
"Protests erupt in China after workers demand back pay as Trump's tariffs on imports jolt economy"
https://chinalaborwatch.org/chinese-construction-workers-strike-over-unpaid-wages-at-nickel-smelting-project-in-indonesia/
https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/tensions-rise-as-over-700-foreign-workers-protest-unpaid-wages-at-chinese-owned-factory-in-prachinburi/
And the Ministry of State Security has shut down a number of media efforts to determine the scope and total cost of the crisis. Generally a bad sign when secret police are sent in to shut down protests.
Now that you have read all the above, what say you? China did come begging. They caved. Do you understand now?Porteroso said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said: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.
Let me be more clear. China did not come begging. They were ready to keep the tariff war going. They did not approach us about reducing tariffs. We caved, approached them. Do you understand now?
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
I wouldn't say China has caved, at least not for now.Assassin said:Now that you have read all the above, what say you? They caved. Do you understand now?Porteroso said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said: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.
Let me be more clear. China did not come begging. They were ready to keep the tariff war going. They did not approach us about reducing tariffs. We caved, approached them. Do you understand now?
There is no question Beijing will hope to get wording to their advantage in the talks.
That said, the PRC delegation is wearing brown pants for a reason.
Port just doesn't do critical thinking.
Don't believe the hype. Holding worker wages is an old trick in China. It's how they retain workers during downturns. The temporary nature of of tariffs will see it used broadly. The largest protests have been teachers and sanitation workers as local governments are fiscally collapsing since the property market decline. China already spent a Trillion dollars to prop them up. The trade war has not helped for sure, but China is facing several issues simultaneously.
ATL Bear said:
Don't believe the hype. Holding worker wages is an old trick in China. It's how they retain workers during downturns. The temporary nature of of tariffs will see it used broadly. The largest protests have been teachers and sanitation workers as local governments are fiscally collapsing since the property market decline. China already spent a Trillion dollars to prop them up. The trade war has not helped for sure, but China is facing several issues simultaneously.
Your last sentence is correct, but I wonder if you understand the series of crises China has faced since 2010.
For now, consider this:
China fully understood that the US under Biden was not only the weakest US in memory, it was the weakest for the foreseeable future.
Yet, despite a lot of noise and threats, there was no invasion of Taiwan. Not even a blockade.
Think about what that means, and apply to the current conditions.
I'm old enough to remember the Taiwan Straight crisis under Clinton, arguably the most tense moment since the end of the Cold War. Back then they didn't have the level of mutual interests as there are today.Oldbear83 said:ATL Bear said:
Don't believe the hype. Holding worker wages is an old trick in China. It's how they retain workers during downturns. The temporary nature of of tariffs will see it used broadly. The largest protests have been teachers and sanitation workers as local governments are fiscally collapsing since the property market decline. China already spent a Trillion dollars to prop them up. The trade war has not helped for sure, but China is facing several issues simultaneously.
Your last sentence is correct, but I wonder if you understand the series of crises China has faced since 2010.
For now, consider this:
China fully understood that the US under Biden was not only the weakest US in memory, it was the weakest for the foreseeable future.
Yet, despite a lot of noise and threats, there was no invasion of Taiwan. Not even a blockade.
Think about what that means, and apply to the current conditions.
Every single democrat just voted against the largest middle class tax cut in history. https://t.co/nG1jDW0u5Q
— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) May 22, 2025
âTHE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILLâ has PASSED the House of Representatives! This is arguably the most significant piece of Legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country! The Bill includes MASSIVE Tax CUTS, No Tax on Tips, No Tax on Overtime, Tax Deductions whenâŠ
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 22, 2025
Ok. Someone please make the argument about how this is "the most significant piece of legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country!"
Porteroso said:nein51 said:Porteroso said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said: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.
Let me be more clear. China did not come begging. They were ready to keep the tariff war going. They did not approach us about reducing tariffs. We caved, approached them. Do you understand now?
That's fact as you present them. Not necessarily facts. No one really knows the facts because it's best for both parties that no one does. The reality is that both sides likely gave up something because that's how most negotiations work.
I hate tariffs but I said all along China needs the US market desperately. There just isn't another analog.
Oh. Am I wrong? Just spit it out if it was another way.
I have no idea if you're wrong. You have no idea if you're right. You're spitting "facts" as you want them to be. Others in here are spitting "facts" as they want them to be. Neither side actually knows which is correct.
The only facts I provided were
1) I hate tariffs
2) China needs the US market
I made no other claim.
China appears to have caved. We appear to have caved. The difference is where you sit on the political spectrum. I would wager BOTH sides caved. Thats the reality of 99% of negotiations.
nein51 said:Porteroso said:nein51 said:Porteroso said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said: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.
Let me be more clear. China did not come begging. They were ready to keep the tariff war going. They did not approach us about reducing tariffs. We caved, approached them. Do you understand now?
That's fact as you present them. Not necessarily facts. No one really knows the facts because it's best for both parties that no one does. The reality is that both sides likely gave up something because that's how most negotiations work.
I hate tariffs but I said all along China needs the US market desperately. There just isn't another analog.
Oh. Am I wrong? Just spit it out if it was another way.
I have no idea if you're wrong. You have no idea if you're right. You're spitting "facts" as you want them to be. Others in here are spitting "facts" as they want them to be. Neither side actually knows which is correct.
The only facts I provided were
1) I hate tariffs
2) China needs the US market
I made no other claim.
China appears to have caved. We appear to have caved. The difference is where you sit on the political spectrum. I would wager BOTH sides caved. Thats the reality of 99% of negotiations.
Caved? Such a weird word. The US had no intention of keeping tariffs with China super high. It was used as a negotiations tool to reset trade more in our favor. China's leader and economy absolutely needed us to make a deal. He also needed to look strong. Negotiations worked, each side got something.
This is so obvious, it's hard for me to believe our resident libs are so brainwashed or brain dead. But they nevertheless cease to amaze me when it comes to their mind virus. Always looking for a defeat when something is a clear gain.
China is an ancient culture with a mindset that they are the civilized and everyone else is something less. Yes, they think long term - in centuries - but that is not in any real sense an tremendous advantage. It's tends to lead to "just do nothing and it'll all work out....time will bring things back our way."...etc....and other platitudes to justify inaction. Yes, they plan in 10yr horizons, but the overriding lesson of the 20th century is that central planning does not work. As you note, their demonstrations have been rising since COVID (in no small part because of growing imbalances in their own system. Supply chains have started to trickle away from China organically (for a longish list of reasons). That make them more rather than less vulnerable to stochastic disruptions like sudden tariff increases. All of that works to our favor.ATL Bear said:China's economy has been struggling to recover since COVID. Worker protests have been on the rise for some time.Assassin said:It's everywhereBUDOS said:
And where did you go to find the truth ?
https://www.fairobserver.com/economics/the-enigma-of-chinas-debt-crisis-explained/
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/09/business/economy/guangzhou-china-exports-tariffs.html
Immediate term conditions also favor us. China has no hope of landing enough deals to replace our markets. There are no other markets like ours....a quarter of the entire world GDP. They will have to build production for other things, other places,(which will not come close to replacing what they stand to lose from getting frozen out of our market). Those problems require solutions on a timeline of years bordering on decades. And those years will not be kind to China. It is for a log period of decline, for a long-list of reasons.
China never honors trade agreements anyway. In that sense it's irrelevant whether a trade agreement is reached or not. One could argue that they'd probably rather cut a deal to regain certainty of what the rules are, so they can figure out how to skirt them and also know what to expect from us. And while they're grappling with what to do about that (short term thinking is not their strength, anyway), Trump will keep using the bully pulpit to force corporate leadership to realize that it's just too risky to have much exposure to China.
Trump critics must, to some degree, build a case with a predicate that China is strong without problems while we are weak and full of problems.....that it is is we who should tread more carefully, not China. That is an inversion of reality. EACH of us have strengths and weaknesses. I'd rather play our hand than theirs.
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:nein51 said:Porteroso said:nein51 said:Porteroso said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said: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.
Let me be more clear. China did not come begging. They were ready to keep the tariff war going. They did not approach us about reducing tariffs. We caved, approached them. Do you understand now?
That's fact as you present them. Not necessarily facts. No one really knows the facts because it's best for both parties that no one does. The reality is that both sides likely gave up something because that's how most negotiations work.
I hate tariffs but I said all along China needs the US market desperately. There just isn't another analog.
Oh. Am I wrong? Just spit it out if it was another way.
I have no idea if you're wrong. You have no idea if you're right. You're spitting "facts" as you want them to be. Others in here are spitting "facts" as they want them to be. Neither side actually knows which is correct.
The only facts I provided were
1) I hate tariffs
2) China needs the US market
I made no other claim.
China appears to have caved. We appear to have caved. The difference is where you sit on the political spectrum. I would wager BOTH sides caved. Thats the reality of 99% of negotiations.
Caved? Such a weird word. The US had no intention of keeping tariffs with China super high. It was used as a negotiations tool to reset trade more in our favor. China's leader and economy absolutely needed us to make a deal. He also needed to look strong. Negotiations worked, each side got something.
This is so obvious, it's hard for me to believe our resident libs are so brainwashed or brain dead. But they nevertheless cease to amaze me when it comes to their mind virus. Always looking for a defeat when something is a clear gain.
When you're arguing semantics you've already lost.
For the sake of clarity did you call me a liberal? Because that would be funny.
nein51 said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:nein51 said:Porteroso said:nein51 said:Porteroso said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said: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.
Let me be more clear. China did not come begging. They were ready to keep the tariff war going. They did not approach us about reducing tariffs. We caved, approached them. Do you understand now?
That's fact as you present them. Not necessarily facts. No one really knows the facts because it's best for both parties that no one does. The reality is that both sides likely gave up something because that's how most negotiations work.
I hate tariffs but I said all along China needs the US market desperately. There just isn't another analog.
Oh. Am I wrong? Just spit it out if it was another way.
I have no idea if you're wrong. You have no idea if you're right. You're spitting "facts" as you want them to be. Others in here are spitting "facts" as they want them to be. Neither side actually knows which is correct.
The only facts I provided were
1) I hate tariffs
2) China needs the US market
I made no other claim.
China appears to have caved. We appear to have caved. The difference is where you sit on the political spectrum. I would wager BOTH sides caved. Thats the reality of 99% of negotiations.
Caved? Such a weird word. The US had no intention of keeping tariffs with China super high. It was used as a negotiations tool to reset trade more in our favor. China's leader and economy absolutely needed us to make a deal. He also needed to look strong. Negotiations worked, each side got something.
This is so obvious, it's hard for me to believe our resident libs are so brainwashed or brain dead. But they nevertheless cease to amaze me when it comes to their mind virus. Always looking for a defeat when something is a clear gain.
When you're arguing semantics you've already lost.
For the sake of clarity did you call me a liberal? Because that would be funny.
nein51 said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:nein51 said:Porteroso said:nein51 said:Porteroso said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said: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.
Let me be more clear. China did not come begging. They were ready to keep the tariff war going. They did not approach us about reducing tariffs. We caved, approached them. Do you understand now?
That's fact as you present them. Not necessarily facts. No one really knows the facts because it's best for both parties that no one does. The reality is that both sides likely gave up something because that's how most negotiations work.
I hate tariffs but I said all along China needs the US market desperately. There just isn't another analog.
Oh. Am I wrong? Just spit it out if it was another way.
I have no idea if you're wrong. You have no idea if you're right. You're spitting "facts" as you want them to be. Others in here are spitting "facts" as they want them to be. Neither side actually knows which is correct.
The only facts I provided were
1) I hate tariffs
2) China needs the US market
I made no other claim.
China appears to have caved. We appear to have caved. The difference is where you sit on the political spectrum. I would wager BOTH sides caved. Thats the reality of 99% of negotiations.
Caved? Such a weird word. The US had no intention of keeping tariffs with China super high. It was used as a negotiations tool to reset trade more in our favor. China's leader and economy absolutely needed us to make a deal. He also needed to look strong. Negotiations worked, each side got something.
This is so obvious, it's hard for me to believe our resident libs are so brainwashed or brain dead. But they nevertheless cease to amaze me when it comes to their mind virus. Always looking for a defeat when something is a clear gain.
When you're arguing semantics you've already lost.
For the sake of clarity did you call me a liberal? Because that would be funny.
Very sorry, No, I wasn't arguing with you at all. Port and the libs and others are throwing around "caved" like negotiating is some great weakness. It is based on the presumption that the US had intended to keep tariffs crazy high. It's silly. The US set the table and worked terms out in our favor while allowing China to not look like losers. It's a win and a good approach.
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:nein51 said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:nein51 said:Porteroso said:nein51 said:Porteroso said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said: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.
Let me be more clear. China did not come begging. They were ready to keep the tariff war going. They did not approach us about reducing tariffs. We caved, approached them. Do you understand now?
That's fact as you present them. Not necessarily facts. No one really knows the facts because it's best for both parties that no one does. The reality is that both sides likely gave up something because that's how most negotiations work.
I hate tariffs but I said all along China needs the US market desperately. There just isn't another analog.
Oh. Am I wrong? Just spit it out if it was another way.
I have no idea if you're wrong. You have no idea if you're right. You're spitting "facts" as you want them to be. Others in here are spitting "facts" as they want them to be. Neither side actually knows which is correct.
The only facts I provided were
1) I hate tariffs
2) China needs the US market
I made no other claim.
China appears to have caved. We appear to have caved. The difference is where you sit on the political spectrum. I would wager BOTH sides caved. Thats the reality of 99% of negotiations.
Caved? Such a weird word. The US had no intention of keeping tariffs with China super high. It was used as a negotiations tool to reset trade more in our favor. China's leader and economy absolutely needed us to make a deal. He also needed to look strong. Negotiations worked, each side got something.
This is so obvious, it's hard for me to believe our resident libs are so brainwashed or brain dead. But they nevertheless cease to amaze me when it comes to their mind virus. Always looking for a defeat when something is a clear gain.
When you're arguing semantics you've already lost.
For the sake of clarity did you call me a liberal? Because that would be funny.
Very sorry, No, I wasn't arguing with you at all. Port and the libs and others are throwing around "caved" like negotiating is some great weakness. It is based on the presumption that the US had intended to keep tariffs crazy high. It's silly. The US set the table and worked terms out in our favor while allowing China to not look like losers. It's a win and a good approach.
Fair enough.
Big omnibus packages invariably do have lots to like (and hate). There is a lot to like in this bill. Here's a very short list, of just the last minute changes made to get the bill passed:ATL Bear said:âTHE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILLâ has PASSED the House of Representatives! This is arguably the most significant piece of Legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country! The Bill includes MASSIVE Tax CUTS, No Tax on Tips, No Tax on Overtime, Tax Deductions whenâŠ
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 22, 2025
Ok. Someone please make the argument about how this is "the most significant piece of legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country!"
https://ijr.com/what-changed-overnight-key-revisions-to-the-big-beautiful-bill-explained/
Note there are aggressively short deadlines for investments to occur on the energy stuff. I'm sure there are similar aspects elsewhere. Trump admin is moving with alacrity to get the economy revved up in the very near term.
I would have like to have seen a lot more spending reductions, but this bill is an improvement over the status quo. We can always come back for more. The Medicaid work requirement is a huge win. And it's not like Trump is going to stop cutting agencies & workforce & restructuring. EX: Selling Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will generate cash and make it harder for future admins to engage in mischief. That is not reflected in the bill but will have positive impact on finances.
Seems very clear Trump is primarily planning to grow our way out of our current situation, rather than burn down Washington. That is quite a pragmatic plan, no matter how much his critics bloviate to the contrary.
whiterock said:Big omnibus packages invariably do have lots to like (and hate). There is a lot to like in this bill. Here's a very short list, of just the last minute changes made to get the bill passed:ATL Bear said:âTHE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILLâ has PASSED the House of Representatives! This is arguably the most significant piece of Legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country! The Bill includes MASSIVE Tax CUTS, No Tax on Tips, No Tax on Overtime, Tax Deductions whenâŠ
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 22, 2025
Ok. Someone please make the argument about how this is "the most significant piece of legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country!"
https://ijr.com/what-changed-overnight-key-revisions-to-the-big-beautiful-bill-explained/
Note there are aggressively short deadlines for investments to occur on the energy stuff. I'm sure there are similar aspects elsewhere. Trump admin is moving with alacrity to get the economy revved up in the very near term.
I would have like to have seen a lot more spending reductions, but this bill is an improvement over the status quo. We can always come back for more. The Medicaid work requirement is a huge win. And it's not like Trump is going to stop cutting agencies & workforce & restructuring. EX: Selling Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will generate cash and make it harder for future admins to engage in mischief. That is not reflected in the bill but will have positive impact on finances.
Seems very clear Trump is primarily planning to grow our way out of our current situation, rather than burn down Washington. That is quite a pragmatic plan, no matter how much his critics bloviate to the contrary.
The drama club:
"Grrrr, Slow down, Mr. Trump"
Imagine seeing everything he's doing and still beeeching and moaning 99% of the time.
go easy on them. They're conflicted. They are not necessarily opposed to Trump's end goals, they want them to be achieved quietly, incrementally, without anyone noticing. They want the big changes, but no fuss. Do not get partisan mud on their trousers. Totally practical plan, that.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:whiterock said:Big omnibus packages invariably do have lots to like (and hate). There is a lot to like in this bill. Here's a very short list, of just the last minute changes made to get the bill passed:ATL Bear said:âTHE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILLâ has PASSED the House of Representatives! This is arguably the most significant piece of Legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country! The Bill includes MASSIVE Tax CUTS, No Tax on Tips, No Tax on Overtime, Tax Deductions whenâŠ
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 22, 2025
Ok. Someone please make the argument about how this is "the most significant piece of legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country!"
https://ijr.com/what-changed-overnight-key-revisions-to-the-big-beautiful-bill-explained/
Note there are aggressively short deadlines for investments to occur on the energy stuff. I'm sure there are similar aspects elsewhere. Trump admin is moving with alacrity to get the economy revved up in the very near term.
I would have like to have seen a lot more spending reductions, but this bill is an improvement over the status quo. We can always come back for more. The Medicaid work requirement is a huge win. And it's not like Trump is going to stop cutting agencies & workforce & restructuring. EX: Selling Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will generate cash and make it harder for future admins to engage in mischief. That is not reflected in the bill but will have positive impact on finances.
Seems very clear Trump is primarily planning to grow our way out of our current situation, rather than burn down Washington. That is quite a pragmatic plan, no matter how much his critics bloviate to the contrary.
The drama club:
"Grrrr, Slow down, Mr. Trump"
Imagine seeing everything he's doing and still beeeching and moaning 99% of the time.