America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 40,323 comments
- 1,836,089 views
- 30,098
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Welp that's the official narrative set and it's not gonna budge.
It's amazing that 1.2 million morons will think a video titled "Democrat Groomers EXPOSED At School Board Meeting" uploaded to Rumble by 1488_RealPatriotQ_1776 is legitimate but criticisms of cuts to veterans services are manufactured.
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,578
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Last edited:
McLaren
Premium
- 45,719
- Texas
The best part of the Trump administration so far is watching conservatives diving further & further into cannibalism towards each other b/c someone didn't look lick the boot hard enough. It's happening on their subreddits & it's hilarious to see happening in real time with the town hall videos.
- 4,039
- Null Island
I just hate to see it happen 🍿
Danoff
Premium
- 34,113
- Mile High City
Elon wants federal workers to email their 5 things every week. I wonder, if 2 million people get a charge account to spend 30 minutes every week on a 5 things email for elon, what is 1 million hours of federal salaries?
The average fed makes 106k/year. That's about $50/hr. So... $50 million. Every week. $1 Billion by July 20th.
The average fed makes 106k/year. That's about $50/hr. So... $50 million. Every week. $1 Billion by July 20th.
Last edited:
- 30,098
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
"Stop complaining about egg prices and expecting me to do the job I bought by donating to Trump. Get your own damn eggs."
My next door neighbor has chickens. She has them as pets. They're her girls. They also lay eggs, but that they lay eggs is secondary to them being her girls. She also has a duck that was getting into the coop and eating the eggs that her girls were laying. Yeah, it turns out ducks eat chicken eggs. Actually chickens eat chicken eggs too. Chickens will actually eat the eggs that they laid, especially if they've laid a bunch and none have hatched, and because she has only hens the eggs aren't fertilized and they won't hatch. Anyway it costs a lot of money to have chickens. You can make some money back selling their eggs (and slaughter hens once they stop laying, because they don't lay eggs their whole life, and then sell the meat...but she doesn't do that because they're her girls), especially if you have a large quantity and they're part of a broader farming operation or you have a very large quantity and that is your farming operation. But she just has them as pets. She can afford to have them because she practices family law and doesn't do too bad. A bunch of us give her vegetable scraps to feed them because they eat them, and we get eggs in return, but she still has to buy feed. It's kind of great for us and she's super generous because the eggs actually technically cost a lot to produce, but the eggs are secondary for her. They're her girls. Oh and she's super stressed right now because the reason eggs are in short supply is there's a virus going around killing birds. Other animals can spread that virus. She's stressed because they're her girls.
My next door neighbor has chickens. She has them as pets. They're her girls. They also lay eggs, but that they lay eggs is secondary to them being her girls. She also has a duck that was getting into the coop and eating the eggs that her girls were laying. Yeah, it turns out ducks eat chicken eggs. Actually chickens eat chicken eggs too. Chickens will actually eat the eggs that they laid, especially if they've laid a bunch and none have hatched, and because she has only hens the eggs aren't fertilized and they won't hatch. Anyway it costs a lot of money to have chickens. You can make some money back selling their eggs (and slaughter hens once they stop laying, because they don't lay eggs their whole life, and then sell the meat...but she doesn't do that because they're her girls), especially if you have a large quantity and they're part of a broader farming operation or you have a very large quantity and that is your farming operation. But she just has them as pets. She can afford to have them because she practices family law and doesn't do too bad. A bunch of us give her vegetable scraps to feed them because they eat them, and we get eggs in return, but she still has to buy feed. It's kind of great for us and she's super generous because the eggs actually technically cost a lot to produce, but the eggs are secondary for her. They're her girls. Oh and she's super stressed right now because the reason eggs are in short supply is there's a virus going around killing birds. Other animals can spread that virus. She's stressed because they're her girls.
McLaren
Premium
- 45,719
- Texas
It's going great Danoff, and it's going to get even better.
- 5,762
- United States
- rising_glass1
Or it should be called, "The landslide of chaos!"
Have you heard about the drama going on in Ukraine. This article will blow your mind. He's pressuring the president there to end the war quickly.
Trump pauses US military aid to Ukraine while pressuring Zelenskyy to move toward quick end to war
President Donald Trump slammed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for suggesting that the end of Russia's war against Ukraine likely "is still very, very far away."
apnews.com
shakes head
What has this world come to, violence is not the answer.
Last edited:
- 11,351
- Sweden
- eran0004
Accusing your opponents of being paid actors might work. Accusing your own supporters though... I have a feeling this is going to backfire.Welp that's the official narrative set and it's not gonna budge.
It's amazing that 1.2 million morons will think a video titled "Democrat Groomers EXPOSED At School Board Meeting" uploaded to Rumble by 1488_RealPatriotQ_1776 is legitimate but criticisms of cuts to veterans services are manufactured.
- 5,762
- United States
- rising_glass1
Wow, that's cruel and mean. Trump has that alter ego too.It's going great Danoff, and it's going to get even better.
Last edited:
- 2,110
- United Kingdom
- AWRacing17
- 30,098
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I could never get my head around the pee tape kompromat. I mean yeah it's believable but I don't think it'd end up being that damaging. The base would absolutely love it.
The kompromat would have to be at least as damning as requiring the base to reject it. I know other questionable sexual activity is suggested as having been documented, and I expect it's more along the lines of that suggested by relationship with Epstein. Like it's sort of but obviously not entirely weird to me that the base can disregard his relationship with Epstein, documentation of his trips to Epstein Island, his having acknowledged Epstein proclivities, especially his appointment of the US Attorney who gave Epstein a non-prosecution deal, which would later be ruled a violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, to Labor Secretary, Epstein's death in custody during the Trump administration, and his hesitation to release documentation of Epstein connections when pressed about it in an interview despite [some of?] that implicating him already having been released. I mean I understand they would have to have the desire to reject it but they are so conspiratorial-minded that all that has to be raising some serious alarms...right?
- 14,075
- Ireland
- driftking18594
- CiaranGTR94
You just know that they'll write it off by claiming that those are manufactured by the Lügenpresse and Lügentiefstaat.
It's a damn shame that our Taoiseach isn't heading over to Washington next week to tell Trump that we're cutting off the Viagra & botox supply.
It's a damn shame that our Taoiseach isn't heading over to Washington next week to tell Trump that we're cutting off the Viagra & botox supply.
Last edited:
Joey D
Premium
- 47,572
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Here in Michigan we will be especially boned if Ontario cuts off energy exports to the US. We get roughly 7 TW of power per year from Ontario and have really no way to generate it ourselves.It's going great Danoff, and it's going to get even better.
- 3,810
- Hoboken, New Jersey
- 6,102
- Simcoeace
So, we're going back to the 1890's.
This remains one of the most bizarre statements made by Trump (and there's some serious competition for that):
“We were at our richest from 1870 to 1913. That’s when we were a tariff country, and then they went to an income-tax concept. And, you know, how did that work out? It’s fine, it’s OK, but it would have been very much better,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, as he seemed to suggest tariffs were superior to income taxes."
The 1890's were a great time for a handful of mulit-millionaires. The vast majority of the American population experienced levels of poverty inconceivable to present-day Americans. it was a difficult, hard-scrabble existence. Here's a chart showing the per capita income in the US over the last 200 years.
This remains one of the most bizarre statements made by Trump (and there's some serious competition for that):
“We were at our richest from 1870 to 1913. That’s when we were a tariff country, and then they went to an income-tax concept. And, you know, how did that work out? It’s fine, it’s OK, but it would have been very much better,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, as he seemed to suggest tariffs were superior to income taxes."
The 1890's were a great time for a handful of mulit-millionaires. The vast majority of the American population experienced levels of poverty inconceivable to present-day Americans. it was a difficult, hard-scrabble existence. Here's a chart showing the per capita income in the US over the last 200 years.
Attachments
Last edited:
- 30,098
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
This is so good. Scott Lincicome is so good. Listen to Cato guy. Look, sure, pro-isolation is pro-decline, and that's bad, and the harms that result take effect quickly and are lasting, but fundamentally it's an anti-choice, anti-freedom ideology.
I think the American public should be free to purchase the goods and services it wants to purchase from whom it wants to purchase them without being punished by its own government for making the "wrong" choice, while those that don't make the "wrong" choice are ultimately punished as well. That everyone is ultimately punished fosters animosity internally and eventually those punished despite not making the "wrong" choice take out their frustrations on those they perceive as having done so, sneaking around at night and restraining the targets of their animosity as they assault said targets with bars of soap placed in pillowcases as makeshift flails.
Tangentially, it's so wild to me that conservatives will decry excessive regulations on goods and services that originate in the United States and then turn around and use supposed lax regulations imposed by other countries as cause to impose prohibition or taxation on goods and services from abroad. Make it make sense.
I think the American public should be free to purchase the goods and services it wants to purchase from whom it wants to purchase them without being punished by its own government for making the "wrong" choice, while those that don't make the "wrong" choice are ultimately punished as well. That everyone is ultimately punished fosters animosity internally and eventually those punished despite not making the "wrong" choice take out their frustrations on those they perceive as having done so, sneaking around at night and restraining the targets of their animosity as they assault said targets with bars of soap placed in pillowcases as makeshift flails.
Tangentially, it's so wild to me that conservatives will decry excessive regulations on goods and services that originate in the United States and then turn around and use supposed lax regulations imposed by other countries as cause to impose prohibition or taxation on goods and services from abroad. Make it make sense.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,113
- Mile High City
Watched the whole thing.
I'm not surprised that Cato takes the free trade line. I wish they would take a stand and actually say "trade deficits aren't bad" though he kinda does when he talks about dollars coming back. But the idea that other countries are taking advantage of us is just not true. I think it's easy to believe that low skilled American workers don't want to, or shouldn't have to, compete with workers in other parts of the world. And there's a real argument to be made there, which has some teeth to it. But what it enables is for America to become more economically efficient, and therefore more prosperous. Americans still get an advantage because they're next door rather than around the world (presuming we're talking about the US market).
I do like the argument that stability itself is economically massively valuable. I think that's often overlooked, but having the president bandy about tariffs and renegotiation is very destabilizing, and destabilization and chaos is fundamentally bad for economies. You can put up with some pretty bad economic policy so long as you can rely on it to stay that way. When it changes with the whim of someone whose whim changes quickly, nobody wants to place an investment.
Last edited:
- 30,098
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I think this format wasn't an ideal opportunity to but Cato contributors, including Lincicome, regularly push back on the populist messaging that trade deficits are proof that Americans are being taken advantage of.
Americans are big consumers and it naturally means goods and services are going to be availed to us from abroad. We can't satisfy that appetite ourselves and cutting off supply by isolating ourselves means we will have to do without. But internal producers/providers also benefit tremendously from open trade. Maybe the scale is tilted, but that doesn't mean we're being harmed.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,113
- Mile High City
Honestly I think it's just as simple as people equating trade deficit and budget deficit because of the use of the word "deficit". Also, "deficit" is just usually a bad thing, especially in economics.
Also, xenophobia. People are wary of trade and prone to thinking that they're getting the short end if someone is willing to do the trade. The "win/win" concept is one people don't accept easily.
- 30,098
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Here's a good piece from a few years ago.
"Milton Friedman liked to point out that exports are things we produce but don’t get to consume, while imports are things we consume without having to produce. Yet, when Americans get more stuff from foreigners than foreigners get from Americans, it’s called a 'deficit.' Go figure!"The trade balance is calculated as the difference between the value of U.S. exports and the value of U.S. imports. The United States “runs a trade deficit” when Americans purchase more goods and services from foreigners than foreigners purchase from Americans.
To be more precise, the trade deficit is the amount by which the total value of purchases of U.S. consumers, businesses, and governments from foreign suppliers exceeds the total value of purchases of foreign consumers, businesses, and governments from U.S. suppliers.
The trade deficit gets a lot of negative attention. It’s got a bad reputation—probably because it’s called a “deficit.” Sounds like something that needs fixing. But the truth is that the trade deficit has a lot going for it. It’s just, well, misunderstood.
Over the years, my colleagues and I have written extensively about the real meaning of the trade deficit; that it is not a reflection of trade policy; that it is to be expected for a country whose government issues the world’s primary reserve currency; and that the dollars that go abroad to purchase imports find their way back into the U.S. economy in the form of investment in equities, real estate, factories, other structures, equipment, and corporate and government debt; and that the only portion of that capital inflow from foreigners that current and future taxpayers need to repay is the principal and interest on government debt (which implicates fiscally irresponsible government, not trade).
President Trump, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, White House adviser Peter Navarro, and others in the administration don’t seem to get this. They see trade a zero sum game, with exports as Team America’s points, imports as the foreign team’s points, and the trade account as the scoreboard. The deficit on that scoreboard (the trade deficit) means that Team America is losing at trade and it’s losing because the foreign team—much like the Houston Astros—cheats.
The misguided objective of trade policy for the past three years has been to minimize imports and maximize exports. And the tools deployed in pursuit of these objectives—sweeping tariffs, withdrawal from a major trans-pacific trade agreement, wanton subversion of the international rule of trade law, and compelling partners into renegotiations of trade agreements under the barrel of a gun—have failed to eliminate (or even reduce) that trade deficit. In fact, between 2016 and 2019, the goods deficit increased from $735 billion to $853 billion. That said, the administration is likely to make progress toward that goal this year because U.S. trade deficits decline during economic contractions.
But there’s a better way to think of the meaning of the trade deficit. Milton Friedman liked to point out that exports are things we produce but don’t get to consume, while imports are things we consume without having to produce. Yet, when Americans get more stuff from foreigners than foreigners get from Americans, it’s called a “deficit.” Go figure!
If you happen to use toilet paper, the following example may resonate.
In 2019, U.S. producers exported over 72 million kilograms (about 802 million rolls) of the supple utensil to be deployed by people in other countries. WHAT? HOW COULD THEY? DON’T THEY KNOW HOW MUCH WE LOVE TP IN AMERICA? Indeed, we do (no pun)!
According to Statista.com, the United States leads the world in toilet paper consumption, averaging 141 rolls of the fluffy stuff per person per year. So, the precious supply that U.S. producers exported last year could have sated the derrieres of some 5.7 million Americans. Juxtapose that stat against the wrestling matches you’ve witnessed in your grocer’s paper products aisle.
But here’s the thing. In 2019, not only was toilet paper shipped abroad. It was also imported—and in vastly more significant sums. Volumes of over 194 million kilograms or nearly 2.2 billion rolls were imported last year, satisfying the demands of approximately 15.6 million Americans. In other words, international trade in 2019 produced a net surplus of about 1.4 billion rolls of toilet paper (2.2 billion rolls imported minus 0.8 billion rolls exported) for people in the United States. Trade helped meet the toilet tissue demands of a net 10 million Americans. That’s 10 million fewer people poised to rumble in the aisles of Target and Walmart.
Unfortunately, the trade statistics aren’t recorded in a way that illustrates the facts that Milton Friedman shared with us. They record the dollars that changed hands, not the number of rolls put to good use. But at the end of the day (and, throughout the day), we know which paper ultimately serves the purpose we demand.
Last edited:
McLaren
Premium
- 45,719
- Texas
Just a quick run-down according to Wiki.
1883 - Mongrel Tariff imposed by Republicans to slightly reduce tariffs rates. Republicans recognized a reduction would be politically popular, but did not want to drastically cut; they knew Democrat opponents would cut it even more. The result was "an enormously complicated and unpopular piece of legislation with no clear vision."
1890 - McKinley Tariff imposed by Republicans. Population did not take kind to it & promptly handed control back over to Democrats.
1894 - Wilson-Gorman Tariff imposed by Democrats lowered the tariffs & imposed 2% tax on income over $4,000 ($88,000 in 2010).
1897 - Dingley Tariff imposed by Republicans as a counter-action for 12 years making it the longest.
1909 - Payne-Aldrich Tariff imposed by Republicans eventually resulted in the Republican Party splitting & handing control back over to the Democrats in 1910.
1913 - Revenue Act re-established a federal income tax & lowered tariff prices as the Democrat party saw tariffs as am unfair tax on consumers.
Essentially, Republicans today showing they've learned nothing. Claiming it "would have worked out better" is especially ironic given the 1909 tariff was what caused dingus' own party to split into the Progressives & the Old Guard.
Last edited:
