But also there have been a lot of business's commit to bringing their business inside the US. Nothing is 100% gain or 100% loss. It remains to be seen if what Trump is doing will be better or worse than the shit show we've done to build the deficit.
Trump supporters, how do you square this?
- Thread starter CP87
- Start date
Which is I'm guessing exactly no one. Dems and Republicans just have different opinions on how to deal with them.
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
I agree with that 100% - again, I am for girls playing girls and boys playing boys. I just don't think it's a real issue that requires presidential influence unless it was for the optics, to cater to his base, make headlines and make it open season on attacking other humans that are American citizens.
No pleasure here either. Was hoping to in 2027Here's another linky with some info re: "rattled markets" related to the new trade war with our allies. Hopefully it's not a larger trend and I hope it doesn't signal an overall contraction of our economy, which some are predicting.
It gives me no pleasure at all. I want my retirement savings to grow, dammit.
United States Stock Market Index - Quote - Chart - Historical Data - News
The main stock market index in the United States (US500) decreased 68 points or 1.16% since the beginning of 2025, according to trading on a contract for difference (CFD) that tracks this benchmark index from United States. United States Stock Market Index - values, historical data, forecasts...tradingeconomics.com
When you think about the size of our spending deficit, it doesn't make any sense at all. I think it's about a 2 trillion per year deficit. You can't tax your way out of 2 trillion per year in extra spending. So everyone should be asking themselves how it's possible to spend that much more than we bring in. I can think of two answers. Corruption and shitty trade deals. Those are two things Trump is trying to fix. You can't fix shitty trade deals without pissing off the countries you have the shitty trade deals with.
Canada has basically said if we trade fairly with the US we won't make it as a country. That (not exact but close) quote is what started Trump saying they should be the 51st state. If our trade deal with Canada is so one sided that it's the difference between them making it and not making it as a country, then it's obviously a very one sided trade deal. Now multiply that by a bunch of other countries and our 2 trillion per year deficit starts to make sense.
So the next question should be can we make it as a country if we continue to prop up everyone else to the tune of 2 trillion per year on us? I don't see how anyone can answer yes.
Westernhawk
Well-Known Member
I HOPE that:
The stock market does well, unemployment drops, inflation falls, prices fall, and our middle class flourishes.
I have huge doubts. Huuuuge. Bigly.
The sundowning octogenarian mob boss got elected because he said he'd "bring prices down, day one." Really.
Westernhawk
Well-Known Member
How long did Cheeto talk about school shootings last night?
Did he spend time talking about transgender mice?
He's not "no one."
I think the issue is somewhere in between "as minor as you're making it" and "worthy of presidential attention". More stories keep coming out so this issue is obviously growing. It will eventually grow to the point of needing presidential attention so nipping it in the bud now isn't a bad idea. The idea of a politician using an issue for political gain is as old as time.
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
Like you said, until it happens to you right? I feel for people who are just trying to live their lives and make a living now potentially losing their livelihood over a trade war by the person they voted for. Canada and US have always been pretty good allies in trade, now the Canadian kids think the US wants to invade them and make them our 51st state. Seems like a risky move that, at least, in my mind, that will solve nothing really. China now says they are prepared to go to any sort of war with the US that it wants to engage in.
None of this helps me personally, in fact, I am in staffing....and let me tell ya, there aint no jobs and it doesn't appear that's going to be changing anytime soon.
Could be bad timing for you and it sucks if t is. It's a lot easier to not worry as much when you're further from retirement. But since you are that close, I would hope most of your funds are in low risk places. If not, congrats on having huge balls.
Men have the reproductive right to not have sex. And if they have sex, they have the reproductive right to use contraception. If sex results in pregnancy, the man is not pregnant. The woman carries all the physical consequences of the sex act (not counting the physical effect on the man of having an after-sex cigarette).
"If the woman decides she wants to keep and and the guy doesn't want it, he has no rights to not help pay for it."
You seem to have a problem with men sharing the consequences of their sexual behavior. You'd like all the consequences to be borne by women? In the movie "As Good As It Gets", Jack Nicholson describes women: "I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability". So, where is the man's accountability in all this?
I always feel for people who lose their jobs. Whether it's new government cuts, losing it over a trade war, or cooperate downsizing. It always sucks for them. The question is, are these trade wars worth it to the US? Our deficit leads me to believe it is. Like I said before there are 30 year old videos of Trump talking about how bad we let our allies take advantage of us on trade. He said it's not their fault, it's ours. He's trying to fix it. For the future of our country he pretty much has to.
Women have the right to not have sex and use birth control too so those rights equal out. The woman does have the physical burden. That is just the way the world works and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it.
I dont have an issue with men sharing the consequences at all. In fact, I take huge issue with men who don't share the consequences. That has nothing to do with what I said. I said men have no right to choose on whether or not to keep the baby. It takes two people to make a baby so both should get equal rights on the decision. The fact that women have the physical burden is unfortunate for them, but shouldn't change the fact that men are powerless to decide.
My argument is if a man wants to keep the baby and the woman wants to abort it, the woman gets to abort it, killing the man's baby. If a man wants to abort the baby and the woman wants to keep it, the man gets no say in financial responsibility. The baby is 50% man's and 50% woman's but the woman gets 100% of the say. If a man can't force the woman to carry the baby, a woman shouldn't be able to force the man to help pay for the baby. That's as close to equal rights as we can get. And that's what we want right? Equal rights.
Hay Man
Well-Known Member
The USMCA (United States - Mexico - Canada) Trade Agreement was agreed to and signed by TRUMP!!! It was his own shitty trade deal that he and you both hate so much.
Another thing with the tariffs...he calls for these big tariffs that make the stock markets drop and then a day later he backs off of those for another month. How many of his wealthy friends know exactly what he's doing so that they can buy super low and then make a killing when it comes back??? Corruption at it's finest.
This is dumb. Negotiating a meet in the middle is a loss?
Weird about the trade deal being signed by him. Could be a situation where he was breaking them in slowly four years ago instead of throwing it all on them at once. Could also be a situation where he's lying right now.
Insider trading is a legit concern.
kicker22
Well-Known Member
But it's a blatant lie. It's not just about campaigning on the misconception that prices "will start dropping immediately", to me as you said that's straight up a politician talking out his ass. My problem is when you combine that lie with the lie that tariffs aren't going to be paid by the consumer making prices climb even higher. Now not only is a lying, about not only the cost of goods for consumers not going down, but he's knowingly driving them up.
The problem I have with the national debt argument and the "must fix now" mentality is, it does have to be addressed, but there's no point of no return saying if we get below this figure as a country we're screwed. That's where I have my issue with this because while I agree that it needs to be done, if he's in the mindset that there's only 4 years to do it, and he rushes things then we could be worse off then we are now even if the debt is reduced.
kicker22
Well-Known Member
Valid argument. I would say it depends on the behavior of the other 9,999 people. If they're peacefully doing their thing and the 1 acts alone thats on him. However if you've got a large portion of the crowd instigating and encouraging the one to get violent then they should be held accountable.
I would guess in a situation where one loan individual acts out that he's not the alpha male type and is either doing it to prove something to someone or someone is there trigger him. Now if you increase the number of potentially violent individuals I think it creates more of a tension filled atmosphere and it's easier for things to escalate.
kicker22
Well-Known Member
Right. and why does it have to be a go big or go home tariff? I'm sure if other countries have benefitted from our generosity to the point that tariffs are necessary, I don't know, may be take a gradual approach.
I'm no foreign trade expert, but I'd bet that countries getting tariffed at 10% would probably be much more agreeable to 5%.But what do I know? I thought we were all up in arms about consumer prices.
You're right it was a blatant lie. There is no doubt he knew tarrifs would have a short term negative affect.
That's a legit concern. Fixing our debt whole destroying everything else wouldn't be a net gain. That said, he does only have four years and it's not like there's been a long list of politicians that care about fixing it.
