You've devoted many more posts to Cory Booker and Democratic poll numbers than you have to Trump's (d)evolving trade policy. Maybe get your priorities in line?
Thoughts on DOGE?
- Thread starter lawpoke87
- Start date
the Government has spent 60 year getting us into our current financial cluster fxxx; it's going to take more than 100 days to fix it
and exposing that way too many are Dependant on the Gov
Last edited:
Trump is doing nothing surprising. And he was duly elected. So not surprised.
I happen to be convinced he is leading America to great pain and distress. But I cannot predict the future with 100% certainty. Hopefully I am wrong.
I happen to be convinced he is leading America to great pain and distress. But I cannot predict the future with 100% certainty. Hopefully I am wrong.
What he is doing with tariffs has zero to do with government dependency you imbicile.
I have it on good authority it won't be a good reaction. They don't even react well to the volatile threat of tariffs.
A little good news in a day where the equity markets are tanking….the ten year bond yield is now down 3/4 of a point from its January high and now sits at 4%. With trillions of debt required to be refinanced over the next several months this will save us billions in debt service costs. Certainly good long term news for future deficits
Last edited:
Not that great of news. That says recession. I don't think that was what Trump was shooting for with these tariffs.
I’ve said for years that I don’t mind a brief recession if the same gets inflation back down to our two percent long term target. Key is brief. Long term such an event would be beneficial imo.
If we are really cutting $300B-$500B in government spending (I’m skeptical) then a recession was always going to occur. Truth be told running a $2T deficit has been artificially propping up GDP for years. A lot of smoke and mirrors going on with our economic numbers
Claims that tarriffs will immediately bring back manufacturing to the US are bogus. For one, for the tariffs to have that sort of effect they have to be in effect for years. No company is going to make long term investment decisions based on EOs which can be easily reversed, especially EO's that violate existing treaties based on "national emergency" claims. So we will get the short term pain while companies talk about "plans" to move production to the US which the administration will hoot as a victory. Moving from plans to actual investment will be much, much slower. Look at the so-called investments made during Trump's first term, such as Foxconn's bogus promises to build a huge plant in Wisconsin.
Last edited:
Millions are going to be out of a job, and no one is going to be able to buy a house or car, but yeah. The deficit will look better. It’s going to be pretty bad if we start to lose countries that are willing to buy our bonds though.
That makes zero sense. Housing affordability has skyrocketed over the past 3 years due to rising interest rates and housing prices. Unfortunately, rents have followed this trend as well. Plummeting interest rates along with a housing price correction will make home ownership much more affordable. Especially for first time home buyers.
Addressing our fiscal mess will make our bonds more attractive to foreign buyers btw
I don’t see much of a risk of high unemployment in a brief recession. The current (and coming) shortage in the labor market should assure as much
You miscalculate how bad this is going to be for big business… and how much that will detriment employment. The cost increase numbers that are being thrown around for projects at my business are massive. Many essential employees will be retained initially, but non-essential should be weary. And even essential workers will be affected eventually.
US doesn’t have the industrial capacity to achieve what’s being asked, and spinning it up will take years, far beyond Trump’s presidency. Factories aren’t built overnight.
We can revisit in say six months as to who is correct. I maintain our labor market is such that high unemployment is unlikely absent a severe recession / depression.
What isn’t speculation is the effect a significant decline in interest rates will have on the ability of millions and millions of people to purchase a home. Not sure why you’re taking the counter argument.
Tarriffs are the dumbest in a long line of dumb **** Trump has done in his two terms but I do remember how horny you were back in the day for anyone who spoke about doing anything anti-free trade
You generally have to have an income to buy a house if many lose their jobs then that won’t be possible regardless of interest rates.
You know interest rates declined early on in the Great Depression as well. Millions of people lost their property to bankruptcy, but interest rates dropped !
What you should be weary of is real interest rates, which account for inflation.
News… stock market suffers worst day since the last time Trump was president.
Out of the roughly 18,000+ trading days in the past 75 years Trump just single-handedly caused the 37th worst selloff by percentile. And Trump now has the two worst point total losses in a single day in the S&P 500’s history.
Hope you guys sold at a high.
Out of the roughly 18,000+ trading days in the past 75 years Trump just single-handedly caused the 37th worst selloff by percentile. And Trump now has the two worst point total losses in a single day in the S&P 500’s history.
Hope you guys sold at a high.
Last edited:
First time I recall the use of the word “horny” on this board 😂😂
You’re forecasting something like the Great Depression. I’m predicting something much less severe in duration and scope. Again….we will see whose correct
Hooray? People are buying bonds and driving down interest rates because of the damage to the equity markets. Maybe we save "billions" on US debt but 7 companies alone lost $900B in market value today. Great trade off? Recall this is the candidate who claimed he would end inflation on day one. Inflation has increased since Jan 20 even before the addition of tariffs.
So what to expect? Replay of 2016 where minor changes are negotiated, tariffs dropped and victory declared like NAFTA? Or keep tariffs high long term and put US and world markets in recession in the hopes that other countries will eventually cave, and foreign and domestic companies will invest more in the US?
Why do we care if 7 companies temporarily lost $900B on their balance sheet today? If those losses still exist 6 months from now then I might care….a little. Now do I care millions of people are now able to afford to buy a home because interest rates have dropped a full point since January…yes.
As long as employment remains solid a temporary drop in stocks combined with lower interest rates isn’t a negative. I figure an ex deficit hawk like you would applaud lower debt service costs. We are going to save billions and billions over the next ten years
O
The only “proof” that the administration points to is the much more muted trade war with China which didn’t really achieve anything other than upping our trade deficit with other countries as people avoided duties. It also cost us pretty much the same amount to subsidize the farmers who we had to safeguard after retaliation as we brought in in revenue.
So one of the most probable scenarios is that this gains us very little. With the worst scenario being astronomically bad. The best case scenario is probably a return of industry, but a full return to 1950’s levels is almost impossible in this era. The expected value of this gamble is terrible. It’s incredibly risky.
“Don’t worry I’ll shoot the rope before the gallows doors open”
Why support someone who is taking that sort of a gamble? Thats legitimately what this is… a gamble…. And it’s a gamble that could cause both global depression and potentially even global military conflict like the last version of this did in the 1930’s.
The only “proof” that the administration points to is the much more muted trade war with China which didn’t really achieve anything other than upping our trade deficit with other countries as people avoided duties. It also cost us pretty much the same amount to subsidize the farmers who we had to safeguard after retaliation as we brought in in revenue.
So one of the most probable scenarios is that this gains us very little. With the worst scenario being astronomically bad. The best case scenario is probably a return of industry, but a full return to 1950’s levels is almost impossible in this era. The expected value of this gamble is terrible. It’s incredibly risky.
“Don’t worry I’ll shoot the rope before the gallows doors open”
Last edited:
I would never take this kind of unfounded gamble on anything.
Pence on Trump tariffs: ‘Largest peacetime tax hike in U.S. history’
Former Vice President Mike Pence warned about the economic and political risks of the Trump administration’s sweeping reciprocal tariffs on other nations, calling them the “largest peacetime tax hi…
thehill.com
Pretty bad when your own former right hand man calls it the largest peacetime tax hike in history.
….and even those who have been clamoring for higher taxes don’t support this 🤷♂️Pence on Trump tariffs: ‘Largest peacetime tax hike in U.S. history’
Former Vice President Mike Pence warned about the economic and political risks of the Trump administration’s sweeping reciprocal tariffs on other nations, calling them the “largest peacetime tax hi…thehill.com
Pretty bad when your own former right hand man calls it the largest peacetime tax hike in history.
I support higher taxes, but measured and predictable and not targeted at the poor.
Tariffs are basically a consumption tax. As such, they don’t specifically target the poor. Now they might adversely affect the poor more due to limited disposable income but in general the more money you make the more “tax” you will pay. I have a hard time believing you really care about measures targeting the poor as you’ve been silent for the last several years regarding the “tax” which targets the poor possible more than any other measure….high inflation.
This is dumb on multiple levels. Consumption has nothing to do with how much money you make. A progressive income tax does account for that (to some degree)…A consumption tax fundamentally ignores it. Bill Gates could decide tomorrow that he’s going to retire fully and plant a garden in the backyard and never spend another cent outside of consumables…. The vast majority of his wealth would accumulate, untaxed. A single mom could do the same thing, but they would have zero wealth coming in as their minimum consumption ate up all of their wealth. The flat tax is dumb, always has been dumb, and will continue to be dumb in the future. It’s a possible scheme for the ultra wealthy who hoard wealth.
Inflation on its own is not a tax. Taxes are collected by our government. If Gasoline skyrockets because of a war in Ukraine and associated sanctions, that has nothing to do with the US’s tax policy, the US isn’t collecting any money on that, even though it might spike inflation (just as it did in real life)
Last edited:
Never dreamed I would have to explain to a college graduate that consumer consumption / spending increases as income increases. Yet…here we are.
Top 10% of U.S. earners drive nearly half of all consumer spending - Marketplace
While inflation and a softening labor market have forced lower-income Americans to focus on necessities, high earners are still splurging.
You can label the effect of high inflation by whatever term you wish. The fact remains high inflation has a more adverse effect on the poor then practically any other economic phenomenon including tariffs. A fact which you have never shown any concern.
Where did your braggadocio insistence that Trump's threats of tariffs would be nothing more than that. This gamble that we can turn the global market back and change it to a national market is bs that will fail. We aren't going to bring our production costs down to compete with costs of land & labor in china or latin America. It's just going to cost us in the cost of goods and taxation on those goods. And these tax cuts that favor the wealthy aren't going to equal the taxation we are paying in tariffs. So the general populace will be paying as much in taxes as before, but also be paying this grand federal sales tax that tariffs will cause. This country will not be able to afford this grand experiment of the blazing idiot of a president that we have. Tariffs are a mechanism for inflation. I don't know how you can say that inflation has more of an effect on the poor than tariffs. Tariffs have levels, just like inflation. Trumps tariff levels are going to be way higher than inflation levels that we just suffered.
I don't know how you think this recession will be short. It will be long(end of term and later) unless Trump backs off this tariff war.
Trump/Musk/Doge will come nowhere near the cuts they have estimated. They touch SS and Medicare with the machete they have been using and the people will scream bloody murder. They need to use a scalpel, & they don't have any idea how to use it.
Last edited:
That is discretionary spending for the wealthy… it’s not discretionary for the poor, nor does it approach the rate at which they should actually be taxed. They account for 50% of the spending (at this moment though that could change)…. But they acquire 60% of the wealth. And the wealth they acquire far outweighs their spending (that’s why they’re able to invest in the stock market so heavily)Never dreamed I would have to explain to a college graduate that consumer consumption / spending increases as income increases. Yet…here we are.
Top 10% of U.S. earners drive nearly half of all consumer spending - Marketplace
While inflation and a softening labor market have forced lower-income Americans to focus on necessities, high earners are still splurging.www.marketplace.org
You can label the effect of high inflation by whatever term you wish. The fact remains high inflation has a more adverse effect on the poor then practically any other economic phenomenon including tariffs. A fact which you have never shown any concern.
I have consistently stated taxes need to be increased and the increased in revenue earmarked for deficit reduction.
Trump initially did exactly what I thought he would do…use the threat of tariffs to gain items he wanted. At this point he has gone off the reservation. While I understand the grand scheme in practice there is very little chance of success. I would support tariffs on items such as semiconductors and other items affecting our national security. That manufacturing needs to be brought back to our shores. The rest of these tariffs make zero sense. Yet here we are
Did you read the article or not understand the economics of it? The middle to upper class aren’t on spending on stocks. They take the money they make off stocks and spend it on goods and services. The ten percent account for approx 50% of consumer spending. Spending which will feel the “tax” effect of the tariffs. A “tax” where the top 10% pay half hardly targets the poor. Now if you want to argue the poor are more adversely affected then that’s another argument. However, since inflation has the same result and you haven’t had an issue with its effect on the poor I’m not sure how seriously to take your concern now
No argument from me. The ten year is in free fall. Current yield is now below 4%. Very good news for home buyers and home construction. Hopefully renters as well but rates would need to stay down for awhile to see an effect there
