Jump to content

nedboy7

Community Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,039

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by nedboy7

    THE GREAT ORANGE MENACE: "IT'S LIBERATION DAY IN AMERICA!" ANY NEGATIVE EFFECTS ARE TRANSITORY

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    Nobel laureate Paul Krugman joined other economists Thursday in delivering some harsh words for President Donald Trump’s shifting tariff policies and those who think he’s doing a good job.

    “Anyone sounding the all-clear on tariffs, or Trump economic policy in general, should be kept away from sharp objects and banned from operating heavy machinery,” Krugman, one of the country’s top economists, wrote in a Substack posttitled “Trump Is Stupid, Erratic and Weak.”
     

    if he thinks Trump is stupid imagine his take on @BillsFanNC

    2 hours ago, IrishLass said:

     

    Taxpayer money? What?

     

    Like the waste DOGE is going after.

     

    How are tariffs related to 'taxpayer money?' The tariffs are being charged on foreign goods. What tax money are you talking about?

     

     


    Or you!!!  LOL. 

    • Agree 1
    • Thank you (+1) 1

    THE GREAT ORANGE MENACE: "IT'S LIBERATION DAY IN AMERICA!" ANY NEGATIVE EFFECTS ARE TRANSITORY

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    When President Trump abruptly fired the head of the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command on Thursday, it was the latest in a series of moves that have torn away at the country’s cyberdefenses just as they are confronting the most sophisticated and sustained attacks in the nation’s history.

     

    Seems like a bad idea while pissing of China to no end. 

    • Like (+1) 1

    THE GREAT ORANGE MENACE: "IT'S LIBERATION DAY IN AMERICA!" ANY NEGATIVE EFFECTS ARE TRANSITORY

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    44 minutes ago, stevestojan said:

    When you have douche nozzles like Ted Cruz openly questioning the tariffs, and claiming they are bad for his constituents, and yet you have dolts on here continuing to defend/celebrate them, it shows our resident morons here are 1) just trolling at this point. That’s the best case since otherwise they are literally just stupid, 2) they are so far gone into MAGA that it’s a lost cause - orange daddy wants to do it AND it pisses off the “libtards?” I’m all for it! ***** everyone else with half a brain who sees these as awful for the country 3) just morons who don’t have the most basic understanding of national and international economics. 
     

     


    Pam Bondi will go after him since he’s a traitor now questioning Trump.  What a joke America is. 

    • Like (+1) 1

    THE GREAT ORANGE MENACE: "IT'S LIBERATION DAY IN AMERICA!" ANY NEGATIVE EFFECTS ARE TRANSITORY

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

     

     

    You anti-Ameircan POS enjoying our country being torn apart so you can own some libs you ***** ######? 

    Just now, BillsFanNC said:

    How do I know that Trump has a far better chance of being right?

     

    All of the right people are pissed.

     

     

    And there you go.  This is the capacity of your ***** little pea sized brain. 

    • Disagree 1
    • Agree 1

    QAnon in Charge of National Security

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    12 hours ago, Andy1 said:

    Trump has weakened the cybersecurity capacity of the federal government and has plans to further weaken our capacity to protect power grids, water systems, elections, etc from attacks by Russia, Iran or China. This is exactly what Putin would want. What is the rationale for cutting cybersecurity jobs when that is the number one security threat we face daily? If it is an illogical act, then the explanation leads to your conclusion. 

     

    https://www.cybersecuritydive.com/news/trump-scrutiny-cisa-cuts/744619/

    The Trump administration is facing renewed scrutiny from Congress and other officials following reports that massive job cuts are coming to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency as early as this week. 


    CISA is expected to slash up to 1,300 jobs through a combination of terminations and other incentives, according to a report by CBS News. The agency is expected to initially offer buyouts, according to Axios, but later expand the list to send out “reduction in force” notices depending on how many workers accept buyouts. 

     

    The administration has come under heavy criticism by national security and cyber industry analysts in recent months, who warned additional cuts at CISA will severely weaken the U.S. at a time of heightened nation-state threats from China and Russia. 

    “The proposed reductions to CISA will weaken U.S. cybersecurity at a time when cyber threats are only increasing,” Michael Daniel, president and CEO of the Cyber Threat Alliance, said via email. 

     

    Trump probably works for Russia.   Anyone who supports Trump is an anti American communist POS.  Many of those on here. 

    • Eyeroll 1

    It's NOT happening->Ok, it's happening but it's rare-> It's happening and it's a good thing, racist!

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    7 hours ago, Orlando Buffalo said:

    Not an accurate quote, simply something twisted by dishonest people. Either you fell for an obvious lie or you are a liar yourself. 


    You are a ***** loser POS. 

    8 hours ago, Westside said:

    Men can be women. Does that sound stupid enough for a leftist?


    I’ve always criticized absurd left politics. I’m not a liberal.  But I’m also not a ######ed fascist anti American  maga idiot like you. Tough concepts for you to integrate. 

    Trump’s glorious Golden Age of America is here

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    “The consequences for our country and the millions of our citizens who have supported the president — in particular low-income consumers who are already under a huge amount of economic stress — are going to be severely negative. This is not what we voted for,” Ackman said.

    “The president has an opportunity on Monday to call a time out and have the time to execute on fixing an unfair tariff system,” Ackman concluded. “Alternatively, we are heading for a self-induced economic nuclear winter. May cooler heads prevail.”
     

    but why listen to Ackman  when you could listen to @BillsFanNC or @Big Blitz

    QAnon in Charge of National Security

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted

    4 hours ago, Westside said:

    Why is he anti American? Because he doesn’t like commies like you? 
    Did you get triggered?


    Your brain is a rotten POS. 

    1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said:

     

    Nedboi thinks I'm an anti American pos?

     

    A huge badge of honor coming from a commie useful idiot such as nedboi.

     


    You are fascist that needs to be deported to Guantanamo.  POS anti American *****. 

    THE GREAT ORANGE MENACE: "IT'S LIBERATION DAY IN AMERICA!" ANY NEGATIVE EFFECTS ARE TRANSITORY

    in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

    Posted · Edited by nedboy7

    What do you think about Trump’s blanket tariff announcement on Wednesday?

     

    If we go back to Trump, we saw a lot of threats, a lot of tweets, about using tariffs in different ways, but because you had a lot of Wall Street hands in the Cabinet that disagreed with his tariff approach and you had pretty sophisticated economic nationalists like [former U.S. Trade Representative] Robert Lighthizer with Trump’s trust to execute on a smarter or more strategic trade policy. The net result was, despite the threats, you didn’t have that many tariffs. You had some tariffs on China and some tariffs on specific products.

    The real bipartisan transnational achievement was the renegotiation with Canada and Mexico’s support and with Democrats’ support of the U.S.-Canada-Mexico agreement, which Biden used super aggressively to enforce labor rights protections for workers in Mexico and really showed, using that tool that Trump and Lighthizer created, that you could use trade to benefit workers.

    That’s what we had in Trump I, but what we’re seeing in Trump II is completely different. There’s a lot fewer guardrails on his behavior, and as a result, the policy that’s being rolled out is less thoughtful, less strategic. It’s just really pushing executive authority to its outer bound extreme in a way.

    The courts in the first term were willing to let him get away with the country-specific and commodity-specific tariffs. Once you start talking about across-the-board universal tariffs of 10%, at some point, a court is going to look at that and question whether even the most minimal guardrails that do exist in the National Emergencies Act, whether the minimal guardrails have been met. Basically, there needs to be the existence of an emergency, the emergency needs to be unusual and extraordinary, and Congress needs to be kept before, during and after. If you think of that in terms of other parts of administrative law, that doesn’t seem like a lot of guardrails, it seems pretty minimal. But, I think, even that guardrail they have not cleared.

    Yesterday’s announcement was called an effort to establish reciprocal tariffs. There is a way you could have done that. You could have had an expert agency, even one staffed by Trump-friendly folks, go through tariffs and assess what types of tariffs are being charged, what kind of non-tariff policies that you’re concerned about and come up with a number that can compensate against that. That’s really why we have all of this trade administrative state bureaucracy, whether it’s the U.S. Trade Representative’s office or the International Trade Commission. There are talented civil servants in those places that if you gave them a few months, they could come up with meaningful numbers. Instead, it seems like they just pulled math out of their back pocket to come up with numbers that are arbitrary and capricious.

    For all of Trump’s concerns about bilateral trade deficits, we’re applying tariffs to countries that we have trade deficits with, that we have trade balances with, that we have trade surpluses with. It’s really across the board. Some countries are getting that made-up tariff number cut in half. Others, like the U.K., despite us having a trade surplus with them, are getting hit with the 10% without the halving of it. You’ve got a lot of discrimination between these otherwise similarly situated actors.

    We may be seeing the beginning of the end for this type of emergency presidential authority. A lot of these policies have their roots in the New Deal and World War II era where FDR wanted to be put in a more equal position with the prime ministers of the world, who, if they win elections, can kind of govern the way they want to. In the U.S. system, there’s always the possibility that Congress isn’t going to want to work with you. So, we created these emergency powers for when push came to shove the U.S. could respond in kind to international economic developments in the same way a prime minister could.

    What we’re seeing now is, by pushing this to the outer brink, without giving reason, documentation, consultation, you know — I was really surprised to see the Senate issue its disapproval resolution for the declaration for emergency with Canada. I was surprised, frankly, to see any Republican go along with that. It’s due to the context of what’s been unfolding over the past few days where the administration has been barreling down this tunnel towards an economic collapse. Where that lands remains to be seen, but it depends on the economic impact in markets over the next few weeks.

     

     

    You are an advocate of tariffs in some instances. What do you see about these particular tariffs, the blanket tariffs, that either you might support or where do you think has gone wrong from the approach that you would take?

     

    For some people that have looked at Trump’s tariffs, there’s one group of people saying, “If Trump is doing it, it must be bad.” That’s one reaction. Then there’s one more neoliberal reaction from folks that never liked tariffs anyway who say, “Well, a tariff is a tax and a tariff is bad because it’s a tax and a tax is bad because it’s going to raise the cost of imports.” And, to me, that’s a strange critique to make, because it’s sort of like saying, “I don’t like the progressive income tax because it squeezes billionaires.” Yeah, that’s like the definition of what the progressive income tax is. You can not like that outcome, you know, it’s not really a basis for a substantive critique. Tariffs do work, this is something that [liberal blogger] Matt Yglesias wrote about that I agreed with, is that tariffs work by raising the relative cost of imported products. That is how they work. Now, there are certain instances where maybe the full costs don’t get passed through 100% or there are other considerations where you don’t have the full pass-through to price increases. When that happens, great for everyone. But, in general, in Econ 101 terms: You’re trying to make domestic industry more competitive by increasing the relative cost in strategic sectors.

    What you see with this across-the-board tariff is it’s broadly inflationary. It’s like saying the cost of everything goes up, not just, say, the cost of assembled cars is going to go up. Instead, you’re saying everything is going up. So, whatever benefit you might see for auto workers or other industries from a higher tariff, you kind of just erase if everything else that goes into making a car goes up by that amount. 

    You can contrast that with what Biden did, which is, arguably to a fault, they deliberated over which sectors they would offer tariff protection to. They ended up finalizing a list after a couple of years after the Inflation Reduction Act passed where they realized that the sectors they should protect are the ones that were subsidized — like electric vehicles, like chips. The reason there is super clear. If you’ve just invested trillions of dollars over the decade in these industries that you deem strategic, the last thing you want to have happen is effectively unlimited Chinese capacity overwhelm the market and kill, stillborn, those infant industries you’re trying to promote.

    These were high tariffs. The difference isn’t that Trump has a high number and Biden had a low number. No, Biden had a high number. It was 100% on electric vehicles. That means you’re basically not getting any electric vehicles from China. That’s pretty prohibitive. The difference isn’t the number, the difference is the scope: Where you’ve decided that some industries are strategic, that isn’t going to be true of all industries. We’re going to have an industrial policy for the clean energy sector, but that doesn’t mean we have an industrial policy for every industry under the sun.

    • Awesome! (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...