I would like an explanation of this. Like I am 5. What specific policy actions is the administration pursuing and how will those policy actions strengthen the dollar?Heineken-Ashi said:The only people who have not been in recession for the last 3 years are the wealthy. What Trump is doing is going to strengthen the dollar and stabilize the economy for the lower and middle classes.KillerAg21 said:
Playing with a recession is not only irresponsible it is inhumane. There are many where a recession can sink them into poverty and drastically increase their chances of an early death. The only people who are ok with his rhetoric of short term pain are those who can survive the pain. For millions of your neighbors and fellow countrymen it could happen directly kill them.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1448606/#:~:text=Unemployment%20was%20associated%20with%20an,between%20unemployment%20and%20early%20mortality.
That's why the loudest crying voices are the ones with the most to lose. They were conditioned to believe the stock market only ever goes up. In reality, we've been monetizing our debts and devaluing our currency for decades to flood the world with dollars that everyone else has used to invest and enrich themselves.
Sorry bub. Deflation is a good thing and its BADLY needed. If you can't see the warning signs telling you to protect your cash, that's on you. Hint, one of them was interest rates BOTTOMING AND SKYROCKETING UP 4 YEARS AGO, while Biden was office.
Why would Trump try to "cause" a recession?
8,707 Views |
84 Replies |
Last: 9 mo ago by Ghost of Bisbee
I don't think material spending cuts are going to happen because they messed it up from the start. They went with the slash and burn own the libs method and made mistakes or claims that's weren't true.
I get going after the low hanging fruit first but I think they would have been more effective starting with something a lot agree with like the DOD. So much talk how they haven't passed an audit X years. But then they pass a CR that gives them more money. And Trump said in an interview that he doesn't want to cut defense now because world too dangerous.
I get going after the low hanging fruit first but I think they would have been more effective starting with something a lot agree with like the DOD. So much talk how they haven't passed an audit X years. But then they pass a CR that gives them more money. And Trump said in an interview that he doesn't want to cut defense now because world too dangerous.
Trump is a huge egomaniac and loves to brag about the economy and record high stock markets under his first term. There is zero chance he is trying to intentionally start a recession unless he is just playing 4D chess lol.
I never said his approach was workingSapper Redux said:fulshearAg96 said:
To get it over with and have the economy roaring during mid-terms...
But he hasn't gotten it over with. He keeps changing the tariffs and wildly adjusting rates on the fly. There's zero consistency or appearance of a plan and he's going hardest after allies with whom we do a huge amount of trade and igniting trade wars.
What I would like to understand is are we - the USA - really getting screwed over by others on tariffs? I'm guessing the answer to that has a lot more to it than just a google search on "what countries put the highest tariffs on USA products"...
fulshearAg96 said:
What I would like to understand is are we - the USA - really getting screwed over by others on tariffs? I'm guessing the answer to that has a lot more to it than just a google search on "what countries put the highest tariffs on USA products"...
The answer should obviously be "no". America was doninating the world economically. Sure we weren't doing low value add manufacturing - like say t-shirts... But is that really what America should spend it's limited labor pool on? So if America was dominating the world economically - how can you argue that we are getting screwed over.
https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/the-us-economy-in-global-context
The trends in this article continued in 2024.
And just to add to the "strengthen dollar conversation... The dollar has been weakened quite a bit by this admins behavoir.
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/dxy
Huh? I asked him to provide proof. So far, he hasn't.IowaAg07 said:
Please provide proof of the foresight. Surely you can find some stump speeches, op-eds, articles, interviews, etc. where the administration outlined both what they're trying to do and how they plan to only cut the wasteful parts of the government without disturbing the rest. And no, talking in vague generalities is not proof.
It's called deleveraging. Maybe use your college education instead of acting like you are 5 to research it. We haven't experienced it in decades. And last time we did was following the last period in our country we went through extreme inflation. Maybe look that up.Black Tooth Grin said:I would like an explanation of this. Like I am 5. What specific policy actions is the administration pursuing and how will those policy actions strengthen the dollar?Heineken-Ashi said:The only people who have not been in recession for the last 3 years are the wealthy. What Trump is doing is going to strengthen the dollar and stabilize the economy for the lower and middle classes.KillerAg21 said:
Playing with a recession is not only irresponsible it is inhumane. There are many where a recession can sink them into poverty and drastically increase their chances of an early death. The only people who are ok with his rhetoric of short term pain are those who can survive the pain. For millions of your neighbors and fellow countrymen it could happen directly kill them.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1448606/#:~:text=Unemployment%20was%20associated%20with%20an,between%20unemployment%20and%20early%20mortality.
That's why the loudest crying voices are the ones with the most to lose. They were conditioned to believe the stock market only ever goes up. In reality, we've been monetizing our debts and devaluing our currency for decades to flood the world with dollars that everyone else has used to invest and enrich themselves.
Sorry bub. Deflation is a good thing and its BADLY needed. If you can't see the warning signs telling you to protect your cash, that's on you. Hint, one of them was interest rates BOTTOMING AND SKYROCKETING UP 4 YEARS AGO, while Biden was office.
How can someone prove a lack of foresight? By definition, foresight would require thought and preparation, whereas lack of foresight is no thought and no preparation.
Please prove that there was foresight before these actions. It should be very easy to dig up some sort of evidence if this has been planned and communicated (i.e. foresight).
Please prove that there was foresight before these actions. It should be very easy to dig up some sort of evidence if this has been planned and communicated (i.e. foresight).
He claimed Trump had no foresight. He has done nothing to support that claim. In fact, the only example he brought up, USAID, is a clear example of Trump using incredible foresight through the DOGE discovery of billions of taxpayers dollars funneled through NGO's for things that do nothing to benefit America nor taxpayers.IowaAg07 said:
How can someone prove a lack of foresight? By definition, foresight would require thought and preparation, whereas lack of foresight is no thought and no preparation.
Please prove that there was foresight before these actions. It should be very easy to dig up some sort of evidence if this has been planned and communicated (i.e. foresight).
I'm not in Trump's detail. Neither is he. If he is going to claim Trump has no foresight, he needs to back it up. It is perfectly acceptable to ask what developed that train of thought. Especially given that user's posting history.
You are welcome to answer for him if you would like. Since you are so emotionally invested in supporting his position.
They're cutting government waste too fast!!
I'm interested in using data, evidence, and logic to have a discussion. I believe I've done that based on my posts rather than engaging in the political and emotional back-and-forth that I'm interpreting from your posts. I won't engage with those discussions (hence why I don't go to F16), so if you want to contribute with actual data and evidence rather than anecdotes, hyperbole, and snark then I'm game.
Using logic, please explain how someone can prove a lack of foresight. The default state of being is having no foresight. Right now I have no foresight about an infinite number of things because I have a limited amount of time and energy to devote to thinking about the future. If I wanted to show you that I have foresight, I would produce something like a business plan, a strategy document, a 10-point plan, etc. where I communicate my goals, my strategy to achieve them, and some tactics I have considered. I have yet to see any objective version of that from the Trump administration, hence why I'm asking you which ones you're using. I don't understand why that's a difficult concept.
Using logic, please explain how someone can prove a lack of foresight. The default state of being is having no foresight. Right now I have no foresight about an infinite number of things because I have a limited amount of time and energy to devote to thinking about the future. If I wanted to show you that I have foresight, I would produce something like a business plan, a strategy document, a 10-point plan, etc. where I communicate my goals, my strategy to achieve them, and some tactics I have considered. I have yet to see any objective version of that from the Trump administration, hence why I'm asking you which ones you're using. I don't understand why that's a difficult concept.
People have pointed out numerous agencies that have fired and then frantically tried to rehire people.
You just ignore it because you've decided Trump is well planned and won't hear otherwise.
You just ignore it because you've decided Trump is well planned and won't hear otherwise.
I ignore it because its not a relevant data point that negates what Trump and Bessent have been messaging that their purpose is.JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:
People have pointed out numerous agencies that have fired and then frantically tried to rehire people.
You just ignore it because you've decided Trump is well planned and won't hear otherwise.
And yes, I trust Scott Bessent and the words from his mouth far more than texags users claiming to be looking at facts and data but focusing on the trees and not the forest.
How can you simultaneously believe so much in capital markets (as your B&I posting history suggests) while simultaneously believing in emotions and anecdotes (as your F16 posting history suggests)? My brain honestly cannot comprehend it.
Either way, I'll just ignore for now and see if anybody else has contributions to make.
Either way, I'll just ignore for now and see if anybody else has contributions to make.
Please point out emotion and anecdotes in my postings. I might poke fun at liberals, but my views are held by a strong understanding of currency, markets, economics, and world history. Happy to be educated if Im wrong on something. But saying "your views are bad" is not going to do it.IowaAg07 said:
How can you simultaneously believe so much in capital markets (as your B&I posting history suggests) while simultaneously believing in emotions and anecdotes (as your F16 posting history suggests)? My brain honestly cannot comprehend it.
Either way, I'll just ignore for now and see if anybody else has contributions to make.
If anyone is acting on emotion here, it would be the person defending the government waste and abuse because attempting to unwind it is "painful and mean to the people benefitting from government waste and fraud".
Literally your previous post? I trust [person] and their messaging is the definition of anecdote and emotion. Please tell me your honest reaction if I said "I ignore it because its not a relevant data point that negates what Biden and Harris have been messaging that their purpose is. And yes, I trust Jerome Powell and the words from his mouth far more than texags users claiming to be looking at facts and data but focusing on the trees and not the forest".Quote:
I ignore it because its not a relevant data point that negates what Trump and Bessent have been messaging that their purpose is.
And yes, I trust Scott Bessent and the words from his mouth far more than texags users claiming to be looking at facts and data but focusing on the trees and not the forest.
Because my entire view revolves around what Trump and Bessent have actually said, which their actions "so far" are backing up, not my unfounded opinions of what I think they are doing. It's literally the opposite of emotional. I even posted it on the last page.IowaAg07 said:Literally your previous post? I trust [person] and their messaging is the definition of anecdote and emotion. Please tell me your honest reaction if I said "I ignore it because its not a relevant data point that negates what Biden and Harris have been messaging that their purpose is. And yes, I trust Jerome Powell and the words from his mouth far more than texags users claiming to be looking at facts and data but focusing on the trees and not the forest".Quote:
I ignore it because its not a relevant data point that negates what Trump and Bessent have been messaging that their purpose is.
And yes, I trust Scott Bessent and the words from his mouth far more than texags users claiming to be looking at facts and data but focusing on the trees and not the forest.
texags.com/forums/57/topics/3532633/replies/69824336
If you'd like to offer something of value to the topic, I'm happy to discuss. But it would be helpful if you would read my previous posts first and stop trying to play a gotcha game.
It would also be helpful, if you are going to defend another users opinions that gutting USAID is bad, if you could explain exactly which one of the line items identified by DOGE is necessary to spend taxpayer money on.
Oh, ok. So if Trump says it and then does it, then it checks out. Nevermind then, I appreciate you clearing that up.
Re: USAID - Because the money was allocated by Congress to USAID for a given purpose. If it was being spent outside of the bounds of what Congress allocated it for and not according to rules and regulations, then by all means let's go prosecute the bejeesus out of everyone responsible. If, however, you just don't like that we're spending money on foreign development projects, then tell your congressman and have them change it. Republicans control all branches of the Federal government right now, it should be as simple as providing some direction leadership.
Re: USAID - Because the money was allocated by Congress to USAID for a given purpose. If it was being spent outside of the bounds of what Congress allocated it for and not according to rules and regulations, then by all means let's go prosecute the bejeesus out of everyone responsible. If, however, you just don't like that we're spending money on foreign development projects, then tell your congressman and have them change it. Republicans control all branches of the Federal government right now, it should be as simple as providing some direction leadership.
Bolded: They haven't even gotten to the prosecution phase yet, not sure if they even will. All they are doing is cutting the.. in your words.. "funds being spent outside of the bounds of what Congress allocated it for and not according to rules and regulations", like everything DOGE has identified. And since it's become obvious that this these kinds of abuses are widespread and rampant within the department, it was wise to pause all spending of the department until a full audit is complete.. something Congress has abdicated its responsibility for.IowaAg07 said:
Oh, ok. So if Trump says it and then does it, then it checks out. Nevermind then, I appreciate you clearing that up.
Re: USAID - Because the money was allocated by Congress to USAID for a given purpose. If it was being spent outside of the bounds of what Congress allocated it for and not according to rules and regulations, then by all means let's go prosecute the bejeesus out of everyone responsible. If, however, you just don't like that we're spending money on foreign development projects, then tell your congressman and have them change it. Republicans control all branches of the Federal government right now, it should be as simple as providing some direction leadership.
Now, can you point me to a line item DOGE discovered that you think should continue to spent on?
Which ones of these was "allocated by Congress to USAID for a given purpose" and can you show me when it was initiated and announced?
Quote:
- $1.5 million to "advance diversity equity and inclusion in Serbia's workplaces and business communities"
- $70,000 for production of a "DEI musical" in Ireland
- $2.5 million for electric vehicles for Vietnam
- $47,000 for a "transgender opera" in Colombia
- $32,000 for a "transgender comic book" in Peru
- $2 million for sex changes and "LGBT activism" in Guatemala
- $6 million to fund tourism in Egypt
- Hundreds of thousands of dollars for a non-profit linked to designated terrorist organizations even AFTER an inspector general launched an investigation
- Millions to EcoHealth Alliance which was involved in research at the Wuhan lab
- "Hundreds of thousands of meals that went to al Qaeda-affiliated fighters in Syria"
- Funding to print "personalized" contraceptives birth control devices in developing countries
- Hundreds of millions of dollars to fund "irrigation canals, farming equipment, and even fertilizer used to support the unprecedented poppy cultivation and heroin production in Afghanistan," benefiting the Taliban
I thought that the person making the claim had to prove the negative - don't you have to prove that those funds were spent outside of Congressional approval and regulations? Apparently that's only for the other person?
I'll bite on one of these just because I honestly don't know granularly Congress appropriates and controls projects under USAID. According to https://www.usaspending.gov/award/ASST_NON_72016922FA00001_7200, the funds for the Serbian LGBTQ group were authorized under 98.001 - USAID Foreign Assistance for Programs Overseas and obligated/funded from a combination of https://www.usaspending.gov/federal_account/019-1121 and https://www.usaspending.gov/federal_account/072-0306. I don't see any specific allocations to that group in https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R40482, though it looks to me like Congress authorized USAID in general as Title 2 with a number of appropriated general funds under https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2882/text.
So in summary - it seems to me like Congress funded a slush fund to be used with some guidelines and restrictions, and I didn't do enough research (or get my law degree) to say conclusively that they didn't violate a rule or regulation. I would imagine that Elon hasn't either but I don't have his resume or law school transcript in front of me.
With that, I bid you adieu and thank TexAgs for the ignore feature. You obviously have no interest in actually discussing anything and I've taken the bait too many times.
I'll bite on one of these just because I honestly don't know granularly Congress appropriates and controls projects under USAID. According to https://www.usaspending.gov/award/ASST_NON_72016922FA00001_7200, the funds for the Serbian LGBTQ group were authorized under 98.001 - USAID Foreign Assistance for Programs Overseas and obligated/funded from a combination of https://www.usaspending.gov/federal_account/019-1121 and https://www.usaspending.gov/federal_account/072-0306. I don't see any specific allocations to that group in https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R40482, though it looks to me like Congress authorized USAID in general as Title 2 with a number of appropriated general funds under https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2882/text.
So in summary - it seems to me like Congress funded a slush fund to be used with some guidelines and restrictions, and I didn't do enough research (or get my law degree) to say conclusively that they didn't violate a rule or regulation. I would imagine that Elon hasn't either but I don't have his resume or law school transcript in front of me.
With that, I bid you adieu and thank TexAgs for the ignore feature. You obviously have no interest in actually discussing anything and I've taken the bait too many times.
I'm thankful DOGE is looking at fraud, waste, and corruption. I don't think it should be a surprise billions were found.
I suspect much more money slips through the cracks due to inefficiency built up over generations of running unchecked by capitalism and its competitive checks and balances like we see in the commercial world.
There's no market place for government
I hope DOGE looks at inefficiency. Corruption and fraud are great buzzwords to get the public on board but we need to go beyond that
I suspect much more money slips through the cracks due to inefficiency built up over generations of running unchecked by capitalism and its competitive checks and balances like we see in the commercial world.
There's no market place for government
I hope DOGE looks at inefficiency. Corruption and fraud are great buzzwords to get the public on board but we need to go beyond that
I think you managed to stumble upon the fact that the funds were not specifically appropriated for any given grants, and that the executive branch has the discretion as to what/how many grants to award, and continue vs terminate. That seems like a fairly obvious truth which doesn't require much analysis or a law degree.Quote:
So in summary - it seems to me like Congress funded a slush fund to be used with some guidelines and restrictions, and I didn't do enough research (or get my law degree) to say conclusively that they didn't violate a rule or regulation. I would imagine that Elon hasn't either but I don't have his resume or law school transcript in front of me.
The executive branch clearly determines foreign policy in our system, and 'international development' funding should match the Executive's policy goals, in addition to seeking to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse.
Hard to say we've been dominating economically when this is reality back home. This to me is the most important chart of our lifetime.
Our economy is largely based off the 30 year mortgage. Over time that's going to collapse as homes become too expensive and people don't have the money.
Our economy is largely based off the 30 year mortgage. Over time that's going to collapse as homes become too expensive and people don't have the money.
Back to the OP. There was an interesting video shared in the gold thread. I'll try and find and link it. Essentially the people were saying based off of bessents and Lutnicks interviews prior to taking office Trump would try and weaken the dollar. So definitely so forethought.
jamey said:
I'm thankful DOGE is looking at fraud, waste, and corruption. I don't think it should be a surprise billions were found.
I suspect much more money slips through the cracks due to inefficiency built up over generations of running unchecked by capitalism and its competitive checks and balances like we see in the commercial world.
There's no market place for government
I hope DOGE looks at inefficiency. Corruption and fraud are great buzzwords to get the public on board but we need to go beyond that
They haven't found billions. They've lied about the amounts they've cut and claiming what they've cut is "waste, fraud and abuse," is a pure political argument.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/doge-website-now-saved-105-billion-backtracked-earlier/story?id=119408347
Are you sure? We know for sure ABC news can't be trusted. I hope you realize DOGE has just gotten started.
There will be waste, fraud , and foolish spending everywhere they look. Getting those involved off the government grift will take years. And it's not just the federal government, I see the same story often with state, city, school district spending.
Luckily, Trump and Elon realize that continuing with a 2 Trillion dollar annual budget deficit left over from the Xiden/ Obama regime will eventually sink our economy. We have been bailing out the world's economy for too many years. It's time to stop the foolishness.
If progressives and liberals want to continue aiding the rest of the world, they can send their own money. But NONE from the US taxpayers anymore.
There will be waste, fraud , and foolish spending everywhere they look. Getting those involved off the government grift will take years. And it's not just the federal government, I see the same story often with state, city, school district spending.
Luckily, Trump and Elon realize that continuing with a 2 Trillion dollar annual budget deficit left over from the Xiden/ Obama regime will eventually sink our economy. We have been bailing out the world's economy for too many years. It's time to stop the foolishness.
If progressives and liberals want to continue aiding the rest of the world, they can send their own money. But NONE from the US taxpayers anymore.
It's amazing how siloed the right has become. You don't ever have to accept that you're being fed bull**** by Musk, just declare the news giving you the information "can't be trusted." Nevermind that it isn't just ABC, it's multiple news organizations noting this. As for the debt and deficit, you seriously think Trump cards? What did his last administration look like? What about his promises of massive tax cuts that physically can't be paid for? Alongside his promises of no cuts to Medicare?
If I give my kids $5 and tell them to use it for getting a snack, I can't call it fraud, waste, and abuse if they choose a Snickers from the vending machine instead of a granola bar just because I think they should have chosen a healthier snack. If they pocket the $5 and then go ask their mom for a snack then that's fraud. If they use the $5 to buy a mini Snickers from the kid in the bus, that's waste. If they buy a bunch of soda that's abuse.
In this instance, I have a kid who isn't spending the $5 I gave him because he doesn't like what his sibling got with their money yesterday. Either way, I already allocated the $5 to snacks and I don't get it back, so If I want to change things I either give them more direction on how the money should be spent or give them less than $5.
The executive branch has the power to change how that slush fund gets spent moving forward, so long as it abides by the same rules and regulations. I hope they don't award another dime to a cause that doesn't directly advance our agenda. They don't have the power to change previous awards and they don't have the power to just not spend it. Reference https://www.gao.gov/products/095406, which I'm sure will have a bunch of legal challenges to it.
In this instance, I have a kid who isn't spending the $5 I gave him because he doesn't like what his sibling got with their money yesterday. Either way, I already allocated the $5 to snacks and I don't get it back, so If I want to change things I either give them more direction on how the money should be spent or give them less than $5.
The executive branch has the power to change how that slush fund gets spent moving forward, so long as it abides by the same rules and regulations. I hope they don't award another dime to a cause that doesn't directly advance our agenda. They don't have the power to change previous awards and they don't have the power to just not spend it. Reference https://www.gao.gov/products/095406, which I'm sure will have a bunch of legal challenges to it.
The left believed the Russian hoax for half a decade… but you're right. People believe what they want to believe.
News media definitely can not be trusted. They carried the Russia hoax for four years and lied about hunters laptop.
The truth is likely in the middle somewhere.
News media definitely can not be trusted. They carried the Russia hoax for four years and lied about hunters laptop.
The truth is likely in the middle somewhere.
That's one of the more absurd metaphors analogies I've ever read. Thx.
Yukon Cornelius said:
The truth is likely in the middle somewhere.
Sapper Redux said:
It's amazing how siloed the right has become. You don't ever have to accept that you're being fed bull**** by Musk, just declare the news giving you the information "can't be trusted." Nevermind that it isn't just ABC, it's multiple news organizations noting this. As for the debt and deficit, you seriously think Trump cards? What did his last administration look like? What about his promises of massive tax cuts that physically can't be paid for? Alongside his promises of no cuts to Medicare?
All news agencies are simple minded peddlers of political entertainment and none of them spend the money for investigative journalism, and get down to facts. They're all selling to.their audience whether it's FoxNews or CNN
It's a shame we lost our 4th estate. It's an important part of any democracy. Our has been sold out to peddlers of entertainment hate and fear
One day it will cost us dearly. And on that day all the silly crap both sides peddle, mostly social blah blah will suddenly take a far back seat and serious discourse like debt will be front and center.
Trump doesn't want a recession. He might want to deflate an inflated market so it rallies hard on his way out. I also think the Fed wants a healthy deflationary correction, as long as employment isn't negatively impacted.
They both recognize that pouring fuel on a hot stock market probably increases the odds of a much harder crash, recession, and possible stagflation. They all want to avoid that on their watch.
They both recognize that pouring fuel on a hot stock market probably increases the odds of a much harder crash, recession, and possible stagflation. They all want to avoid that on their watch.
Featured Stories
See All
Texas A&M adds former Tennessee CB Rickey Gibson III via transfer portal
by Ryan Brauninger
Thursday (1/8) Portal Storylines: So much for a 'quiet' day
by TexAgs Recruiting
12:30
22h ago
2.9k