scourge165

Ok, people say this, but you'll need to actually articulate where I 'reworte' history? I never said Bernie wanted a public option and if you'll recall, Obama had 60 Democrats. He caved LONG before there was ANY vote and never offered a pubic option. What I said was a Universal option became moot when Obama didn't include a Public Option in the ACA despite a public option being WILDLY popular and...roughly ~75% of Americans in favor of it(it could have been 77%, it could have been 71%, I don't recall the exact number, but it was over 70%). Why didn't it get included? Because...Obama needed the Health Insurance industry on it. In the 1970s, ~97-98 cents on the dollar from your Health Insurance Premiums went towards medical costs. By the time the ACA came around, it was about 73-74%. A public option where the Govt, again, in one of the few areas they're actually MORE efficient than the Market, that would have gutted Health Insurance Companies and they would have had to drop their rates and become more competitive. In order to facilitate this, I think it would have been wise for the public option to cut off their "profits" at 10%. You use that to service the debt and you bring down insurance costs. What's just fact is the ACA did NOT have a public option, I NEVER said that was Bernie's end goal(it was most certainly his goal back then, but I didn't even say as much) and without the public option, you're not going to jump to a single payer system. There are the steps you would need. But yeah, no re-writing history. I gave a very simple recounting of events. This happened(or didn't in this case) and as such, this is unrealistic at this point. Like driving a car from point A to point B, but you're upset I didn't describe all the scenery along the way.

I believe it was an offer and they'd be foolish to do so without any agreement in place. But this was a big issue during the campaign. Remember Trump threatening to fire Powell and Powell saying...flatly, 'he doesn't have the authority,' and then there was backlash against Trump and he promised he wouldn't do it. This is the way he is doing it. He's trying to force inflation up by pulling the rug out from the US economy, force the US TOWARDS a recession thinking he can time it with the Fed cutting back down to 2% and then...put the rug back in place and...nobody will notice. But this is 90% about the interest rates on the 10 year.

Right...so...again, these countless videos that are like...half-way getting there. Now merge these with Pelosi, Bernie, McCain, Schumer talking about tariffs to China and they make some sense, right? What's really absurd is the notion that this starts in 1999 under Clinton when anyone who's taken just US History(which should be everyone) knows it was Nixon in the late 70s who "re-opened" China and manufacturing started leaving for China two decades before. But ok, yet AGAIN we have an argument for why we needed a tougher trade deal with China. Canada, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, the European Union, the UK and our strongest allies? The reason there was...?

LOL...right. Because if you're a Trump supporter, America was in such bad shape before he came along. Strongest Economy in the World...strongest recovery from Covid. GDP growing, Inflation coming down toward 2%...but America wasn't great before? I thought this was the greatest Country in the World. I didn't know that wasn't the case until Trump told me it wasn't.

Ok...then Trump is lying. What do YOU think the point is? The 10 year, right? So...how do you get to what Trump wants to go? https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/04/trump-tariffs-never-change-stock-market-china-030780

You've seen him talk about wanting to have Military type parades where we roll out tanks and missiles down the roads?

Lets not forget the transfer of 4 death American Soldiers from overseas. Just IMAGINE if Obama did that. Just the idea that you'd put blanket tariffs and then you aren't there to receive 4 fallen servicemen. But hey, he did wear a tan suit.

No, he's said he would not. He's specifically said it doesn't matter and there is nothing they can do, the tariffs are here to stay. Now we know what Trump says vs what he actually does are very different and with what appears to be coming in tomorrows markets, he may start walking these back, but no, he hasn't used other countries actual tariffs for ANYTHING. He just made up the "tariffs" they put on us. He's ALMOST certainly not walking any of these tariffs back until the fed has cut....150 basis points.

China is at 2.2%. The goal isn't to get the tariffs DOWN, he wants all trade deficits gone like a trade deficit is an inherently bad thing. Exactly. And if you look at the Japanese markets, tomorrow is going to be a....VERY bad day again.

Ok...this isn't a referendum on Sanders and I wasn't arguing for any of his policies...though...as I've said, I think here is plenty of an argument for targeted tariffs. I also think there's a pretty strong argument on a National Healthcare System. It's the one thing we actually run rather efficiently. But that became moot when Obama didn't include a public option.

Jimmy...I wonder sometimes if you're just dumb or playing dumb...and alas, I've found my answer. That was a Tweet FROM TRUMP saying if the SPX drops 1000 points in a single day, the President should be impeached. How is that MY hypocrisy? Is that just a word you saw one of us use and now you're using it? Almost all you've done is repeated one particular MAGA supporters Tweets, usually without understanding the context. Now...this is a silly idea to me, but if the man himself said that, I think it's worth pointing out it's dropped about 4000 points in two days. But do prey tell how this is MY hypocrisy? And AGAIN, Bernie and McCain proposed 5-10% tariffs on China. We put 54%. So not only is what Bernie proposing her a TARGETED tariff vs one Nation, it was ~1/11 of what Trump ACTUALLY did. (I will say, each time I see, 'you have chosen to ignore this user,' or whatever and I click "show me this post," it feels like they get dumber and dumber. One more time for your benefit.

Ok...I feel like my post was pretty on point. We exported ~600 Million to Russia in 2023. The United States has TWO Countries that are substantive threats. China and Russia. Russia, we KNOW tried daily hacks, they used misinformation, they're the more guilty of this than anyone(I'm not saying they fixed an election...but they try to influence them). Now...given the fact that they didn't over look a tiny Island Nation nor a Island with ZERO Humans on it, how do you justify Russia? Sanctions? You can try. It's SUPER disingenuous given China's effective tariff rate is 2.2 and ours was 1.5 and we put 54% on them. That and we literally will not allow them to buy the MOST valuable resource for the next economic revolution, Nvidia's H100/H200 and ESPECIALLY now the B100 or B200 Blackwell GPUs. So it's not Free Trade(which Republicans and conservatives and capitalists, at least laisse faire capitalists have STRONGLY advocated for in this Country) on our part, but I could see how you'd arrive at putting some tariffs on China. I DON'T see how you justify NOT doing it with Russia. Not only that, but you want to see out a Country that violated OUR LAWS(we are still a part of Nato and they have shot into Nato allies)....but Trump wants MORE trade with them and less with everyone else? Make this make sense? https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2025/03/30/trump-wants-more-trade-with-russia-but-less-with-everyone-else/ But again, I don't get how you leave off...Russia, and that they're only 1% of our trade isn't a strong argument against doing so.

We put a Island on our list that accounts for 0% of US imports. We put another small Island on the list where ONE person accounted for 3.4M dollars in exports leaving a 3.3M trade imbalance. Clearly we weren't worried on the percentage of trade we had with each Country. So...again, why leave Russia off? I've been told by some VERY enthusiastic Trump supporters this is about leverage. No tariffs=no leverage. Now...is there anything we'd want leverage on Russia for at the moment; This is a Trump supporter who...called lefties "clueless" for thinking Trump would put blanket tariffs on countries.

"A depression making bill....we must not retreat into the disastrous policies of the past." -Specifically speaking on Smoot-Hawley...but, now Smoot-Hawley had a "negligible effect."

...so now Smoot-Hawley had a "negligible effect on the economy?" That's just ridiculous. Exports had increased during the 20s and then fell off in 1930 as other countries fought back with reciprocal tariffs, but the 'the tariffs had a negligible effect,' is objectively ridiculous. In fact, exports wouldn't reach the 1929 levels again until 1942...which is how many years after the end of the great depression? 1.