Neera Tanden🌻
@neeratanden
·
Follow
Hey America - while you were sleeping the Republicans started to put out their plan to rip health care away from millions of Americans. Almost 14 million people lose their health care so the GOP can fund tax cuts for the rich.
Jamie Dupree
@jamiedupree
The Congressional Budget Office tells Democrats that the GOP changes to Medicaid and the Obama health law will knock 13.7 million people off the health insurance rolls. Letter at https://democrats-energycommerce.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-energycommerce.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/cbo-emails-re-e%26c-reconcilation-scores-may-11%2C-2025.pdf
Last edited
7:18 AM · May 12, 2025. //

VoteGeneric
21 minutes ago
Likely that there are 13.7 million fraudsters in the Medicaid program. //

Musicman
18 minutes ago
I hope Tanden is right: there are surely 14 million on Medicaid who are not actually poor. (One of my best friends, who died last year, was on it even though he had over a million dollars in the bank because he didn’t have any “income.”)

Obama extended Medicaid way beyond its mission. Here in NM our governor has a scheme to extend it to all working class (as opposed to poor) people.

A turbulent period for stocks around new tariff policies from the White House has remarkably given way to Wall Street’s longest winning streak in 20 years.

The S&P 500 rose again on Friday, notching a ninth straight positive session for the first time Nov. 5, 2004.

The index also traded above its April 2 close for the first time since the major tariff announcement a month ago.

[…]

Not to be outdone, the Dow Jones Industrial Average also cashed a ninth straight winning day, its longest streak in more than a year. In London, the winning streak for the FTSE 100 index hit a record of 15 consecutive days. //

As we’ve noted, Trump plays these games with the media, Democrats, and his political enemies like it’s a best-of-seven series. It’s not over after one game, whereas his detractors act like the clowns who think winning the season's first game means they’re championship-bound. Trump’s enemies have had their best-laid plans at every turn, and narratives get burned to ash.

Something is "very, very wrong" in Beijing right now, according to foreign policy expert Gordon Chang, who is signaling more "end-of-regime conduct" coming out of Xi Jinping’s China.

"At a time when China needs friends because it's not selling goods to the U.S., it is going out of its way to antagonize not just the Philippines, not just Taiwan, but also South Korea and Australia," Chang, a senior fellow with the Gatestone Institute, said on "Mornings with Maria" Monday. //

What's troubling about all this is that authoritarian leaders, like Chairman Xi and his ideological counterpart in Russia, Tsar Vladimir I, tend to be suspicious of any strong, capable underlings and so surround themselves and stack the upper layers of their government with sycophants. That sets up a house of cards; as no man is immortal, sooner or later that leader has to step down, which leaves nobody really capable to take over. These events frequently lead to a power struggle among the top tier. //

China's logistical push into the Caribbean, its increasing hostility towards Taiwan, its tweaking the American nose with freedom of navigation flights down the Alaskan coast - all of that, along with China's increased military spending, may well be an indication that Chairman Xi may attempt some kind of military solution. //

WhatNext Jack752877
13 hours ago
There are 2 problems with the idea of China just finding new customers in other nations.

1 - No other market in the world can provide the demand that will satisfy China's current supply capabilities. (They geared production for the US Market, obviously).
2 - Projected growth in that US Market - particularly in consumer electronics - is expected to almost DOUBLE in the next 4 years. At this point in time, if China abandons any hope of being part of that market, that is a PERMANENT loss on huge future earnings . (Because once the US Market develops relationships with several other countries for the electronics we need, there will be no reason to go back to China for stuff.)

These facts alone make it the PERFECT time for re-negotiation between US and China on trade agreements.

The federal government doesn’t just pass laws in Congress. Each year, many of the 438 federal agencies—nominally under the president’s control through the executive branch—publish tens of thousands of pages in regulations, red tape that increases the costs of business, transportation, and many other factors Americans often don’t consider.

This imposes a kind of hidden tax that makes everything more expensive. It also justifies the work of the Department of Government Efficiency and other efforts to streamline the federal government, according to Clyde Wayne Crews, a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of the annual report, “Ten Thousand Commandments.” Crews released the 2025 version of the report on Thursday.

State attorney generals just have no particularized interest. They’re like anybody else in the United States. Tariffs are very complicated. Judges don’t have any basis for deciding whether they’re good or bad for the economy. That can be decided by legislatures if they decide to take over the issue or by elected executives, but not by appointed judges.

Host Greta Van Susteren asked Dershowitz if a state could successfully sue on behalf of its "devastated agriculture sector," to which he answered, "I don't think so," adding:

I think you’d have to have the farmers bringing the lawsuit, not the attorney general of the state. But even farmers would have a difficult time demonstrating that they were directly impacted in a way that was illegal by the tariffs.

When you have tariffs, some people are helped, some people are hurt. That’s the nature of the economy. There are winners, and there are losers. Trump ran for office promising that he would use tariffs, and he was elected. So I just don’t think there is standing to challenge this by virtually anybody.

But if anybody would have standing, it would be a particular person who may have been subject to the tariff who would otherwise be able to sell his product cheaper than he could sell it now. But this is such a stretch that I think they’re going to be laughed at. //

Finally, yes — tariffs used as a bargaining chip can be effective. Also, yes: The longer tariff (trade) wars continue, the worse they become. Why? Because long-term trade wars lead to inflation, without exception.

Cafeblue32
5 hours ago edited
They'll blink because China needs to sell their cheap crap in order to make money to secure more IMF loans to keep building real estate no one is buying. Their entire economy is a Ponzi scheme of investors. While our economy consists of about 14% construction, China is over a third at about 34%. They currently have more vacant housing in China than they have people. But no one can afford to buy them anyway. China sells cheap junk, shows income, takes out huge loans, skims from top to bottom, builds shoddy construction with what's left and the whole thing repeats.

China's collapse in inevitable because of this. No one globally wants to buy their weapons because they're already outdated or cheaply made and substandard to US or European models. They really don't produce enough food to export and they consume more oil than they produce. It would do us well to become as independent from China as we possible can get, because as goes China, so goes most of the economies of the dependent west.

How the west ever allowed itself to go from seeing commie threats under every rock in the 1960s to going into business with them and becoming dependent them just ten years later is something scientists should be studying as a wonder in human psychology.

anon-b24t Cafeblue32
4 hours ago
The answer is: Corrupt politicians and excessively greedy corporatists.

economist and fiscal policy guru Daniel J. Mitchell has crunched the numbers. https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2025/04/21/improved-data-on-ronald-reagans-fiscal-performance/

In 2020, I crunched numbers from OMB’s Historical Tables to rank the fiscal performance of nine recent presidents, going all the way back to LBJ.

I was especially interested to see which presidents did best and worst when looking on overall domestic spending (entitlements plus discretionary).

The numbers showed that Ronald Reagan easily was the most fiscally prudent while Richard Nixon was the worst of the worst (though there’s an argument that LBJ was even worse when looking at the long-run impact of his policies). //

Mr. Mitchell also notes:

You have to go back to Harding and Coolidge to find presidents who were analogous to Reagan.

And there's a name I was not surprised to see: Silent Cal Coolidge. We could use a little Silent Cal today.

anon-bjec
2 hours ago

Let those peasants in the United States wail

This is how they see us, and why wouldn't they after the embarrassing displays the left has made in recent years. They own(ed) Xiden. Then Yellin made trips over there bowing and scraping submissively before even the lowest level party members. Lots of examples.

President Trump, they will find, is far different. //

SSN674 Donner’s Party
39 minutes ago
For the Chinese government to dump large amounts of U.S. Treasury bonds, they would likely have to sell those bonds in exchange for U.S. dollars, which they would then convert into Chinese yuan. However, this process increases the supply of dollars and raises demand for the yuan in the foreign exchange market, which puts upward pressure on the value of the yuan relative to the dollar. A stronger yuan makes Chinese exports more expensive and less competitive globally, which is the opposite of what China typically wants to achieve. To counteract this effect and maintain the competitiveness of its export-driven economy, China would have to take steps to devalue its own currency—such as loosening monetary policy or intervening directly in currency markets. So paradoxically, by trying to offload U.S. bonds, China risks hurting its own economy by pushing up the value of its currency unless it takes simultaneous measures to weaken it again.

It must be nice to sit in a climate-controlled CNN studio, debating the merits of whether American workers deserve skilled trade jobs, without a second thought about who made that studio bearable in the first place.

That’s exactly what happened this week, when CNN analyst Nia-Malika Henderson casually dismissed jobs like HVAC installation and repair—along with other skilled trades—as the sort of thing Americans shouldn’t really care about. Her reasoning? That bringing these jobs back to the U.S. might make stock markets in other countries “nervous,” and she questioned whether they’re really “worth it.”

Let that sink in. //

This is the kind of elitism that’s been rotting through the national media for years. They’ll nod along to phrases like “the dignity of work” and “supporting working families,” but the moment actual working-class jobs are on the table—pipefitting, HVAC, diesel mechanics, welders, electricians, machine operators—they wince.

It’s always the same story: Those jobs aren’t “aspirational.” They’re too dirty. Too noisy. Too blue collar. Too real.

Completely set the tariff issue aside. As much as she would want it to really be about those tariffs, she is revealing her fundamental bias against people with working-class jobs. People who don't wear the nice outfits she gets to wear on television while looking down on them. This is also a group of people who largely voted for Donald Trump, and that increases her disdain of them a hundredfold. //

You won’t hear these folks mock a Wall Street hedge fund analyst who makes millions rearranging numbers for a living. But a guy who keeps schools, hospitals, and newsrooms cool in the summer and warm in the winter? Suddenly, that job isn’t “worth it.” //

Let’s be clear about something: Without HVAC workers, that CNN studio wouldn’t just be uncomfortable—it would be uninhabitable. Without truck drivers, no one’s getting makeup shipped to the green room. Without electricians, the lights go out. Without welders, no one has a desk to sit at. Without construction crews, there is no building to broadcast from.

This country runs on the backs of skilled workers—the very people elite media types so often ignore, stereotype, or outright ridicule.

These jobs aren’t beneath anyone. In fact, they’re the backbone of the middle class. And when the media mocks them, they’re not just showing their ignorance. They’re revealing their disdain for the people who keep America running.

When Henderson asked whether these jobs are “worth it,” she wasn’t just questioning economic policy. She was questioning the value of the people who do those jobs.

After President Donald Trump imposed broad tariffs, some of his left-wing critics began quoting economists like Milton Friedman, who adamantly believed in unilateral free trade.

Friedman preferred that our trading partners refrain from imposing barriers on goods imported from the United States. He said: "We would be benefited by dispensing with our tariffs even if other countries did not. We would of course be benefited even more if they reduce theirs but our benefiting does not require that they reduce tariffs." //

But it's good news that the left has discovered and begun quoting Friedman on unilateral free trade. Perhaps they will start examining Friedman's positions on other policies such as school choice, health care, regulations, the size of the federal government, tax policy and the minimum wage. //

To the leftists now quoting Friedman on tariffs, the Nobel Prize-winning economist had an opinion or two on a few other things.

Donald Trump’s first term began with an unsuccessful attempt to repeal Obamacare. His second term could begin with a successful attempt to expand it.

That’s one possible outcome from a strategy Senate Republicans are attempting to use to pass their budget and spending blueprint. The wonky accounting maneuvers could make it easier to pass a permanent extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) provisions, but they could also make it easier to pass a permanent extension of enhanced Obamacare subsidies in the process.

The imbalance within this industry illustrates the broader trade issues that leave the U.S. at a disadvantage. //

The U.S. has had a free trade agreement with Australia for 20 years. In that time, Australia has sold $28.7 billion of beef to U.S. consumers, but fresh U.S. beef has been banned for sale there. //

“Australia has used a myriad of sanitary concerns and endless bureaucratic red tape to delay the approval of U.S. beef even though the United States is internationally recognized as having some of the highest food safety and animal health standards in the world,” the NCBA wrote in a statement to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. “For the past few years, we have been told by the Australian government that we are in the final stages of approval, yet we continue to see delays … If the Australians will not accept our beef products, then it is only fair that we reciprocate.” //

In the past five years, Brazil has sold $4.45 billion of beef in the U.S., but Brazil has placed many non-tariff restrictions on U.S. beef. In the same time frame, the U.S. has sold $21 million of beef to Brazil. Like Australia, we are comparing billions in imports to millions in exports.

The staggering $4.3 billion beef trade deficit with Brazil is concerning, but NCBA says it is more worried about something else: importing meat contaminated with foot-and-mouth disease as well as mad cow disease, known scientifically as atypical bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).

In November 2021, then-Agriculture Secretary Thomas Vilsack received a letter from the NCBA warning that Brazil took “several weeks” to report two cases to the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), while most countries report BSE within hours or days. //

In 2003, China and other countries banned the import of U.S. beef after the U.S. found a case of BSE. The USDA worked to restore the market and in 2016 the Chinese market started to reopen under President Barack Obama, but with heavy non-tariff trade restrictions.

The first shipment of beef was in 2017, under Trump, after the U.S.-China 100-Day Action Plan removed many restrictions, and China recognized the authority of the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service (FISA). China became a $2 billion a year market for U.S. beef.

In the 2020 Phase One Agreement, China promised to “conduct a risk assessment” for ractopamine, a growth additive in cattle and swine feed allowed in the U.S. but banned or restricted in some countries. It has accepted swine with ractopamine but the agreement is not specific about beef.

China started to reject beef shipments if it detected any ractopamine, and banned further shipments from beef processing plants and cold storage facilities that sent such beef.

That $2 billion market is now effectively closed, //

“The United States is a prized market for beef sales,” according to the NCBA comments. “Developing countries like Paraguay and Colombia see market access to the U.S. as an endorsement of their product and that is why beef access has been a top policy goal for these governments. Brazil and Paraguay were granted access under highly questionable conditions, and we do not want the U.S. government to continue using beef access as trade bait with South American countries, including Colombia.”

Biden granted Paraguay permission in 2023 to sell fresh beef in the U.S., and Colombia is waiting for access to the U.S. beef market. Both countries have had foot-and-mouth disease, which has been eradicated from the U.S since 1929.

Trump’s tariffs are not designed to encourage Americans to borrow money and maximize their consumption. Nor are they designed to encourage participation in speculative stock market or real estate bubbles. America’s free trade policies encouraged such excesses after the end of the Cold War, and we can’t stand a repeat of the folly. While his critics wrongly invoke the Smoot-Hawley tariff failures of 1930, Trump’s emerging tariff policies, particularly if combined with the appropriate monetary policy, will have much better results and Make America Great Again.

Governments should just get out of the way of free trade among consumers and businesses. //

If we want trade reciprocity, the government should get out of the way and let businesses and consumers engage in voluntary exchanges with each other and overseas partners as they please. ///

So it's okay for Vietnam to charge 90% on imports from USA to protect their economy and industry, but it's not okay for USA to charge a tariff on imports from Vietnam to protect ours? How is that reciprocal?

“104 percent tariffs in China are not enough. I’m advocating 400 percent,” he said.

“I do business in China. They don’t play by the rules,” continued O’Leary, who is also the chairman of O’Shares Investment and private-equity firm O’Leary Ventures. “They’ve been in the World Trade Organization for decades. They have never abided by any of the rules they agreed to when they came in for decades. They cheat, they steal, they steal [intellectual property]. I can’t litigate in their courts. They take product technology, they steal it, they manufacture it and sell it back here,” he said.

O'Leary explained this wasn't about tariffs anymore but about how no one has taken on China for decades while they behaved badly — no one, until Trump.

"As someone who actually does business there, I've had enough," O'Leary said, saying he spoke for "millions of Americans." He said finally, with Trump there was an administration who was saying "enough."

O'Leary said we had all the cards and Xi Jinping, the Chinese leader should be on a plane here to work it out because "Xi can only stay the Supreme Leader if people are employed." He didn't hold back, "It's time to squeeze Chinese heads into the wall."

China may end up getting there themselves. The latest from China is that they are going to raise their 34 percent tariffs to 84 percent on Thursday. But at the same time, they were calling for "dialogue" with the U.S.

FischerKing
@FischerKing64
Remember that free trade with China, allowing it into the World Trade Organization, was in pursuit of a foreign policy agenda. The thinking was China would move toward democracy, become a stakeholder in the international order.

That didn’t happen. It was a failed experiment. So all those jobs lost with the goal of liberalizing China were for nought. So if we’re still dealing with an authoritarian regime engaged in a mercantilist policy, complete with currency manipulation - it’s time for the USA to try something else.
2:52 PM · Apr 7, 2025
·

James Lindsay, anti-Communist
@ConceptualJames
VIDEO: Historian Frank Dikötter reveals the secret of how the CCP took advantage of Bill Clinton to get into the WTO and force the West to destroy our manufacturing capabilities and hand it over to the CCP and its People's Republic. Absolutely mind-blowing video.

2:29 PM · Apr 5, 2025
·

Robert Sterling
@RobertMSterling
THREAD: Here's what a dive bar in Memphis taught me about tariffs, global trade, and domestic manufacturing.

(Yes, I'm being serious.)

Let's talk about why it's so hard to produce things in America, what it means for our country, and what we can do about it 🧵👇 //

If you build a steel mill in America, your billion-dollar asset is going to have hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment from companies like SMS (Germany) or Danieli (Italy). Like it or not, most of your critical infrastructure is coming over on boats from Europe.

You see, when we imported all that equipment from Germany, we didn't just have to import machinery. We also had to import the engineers to install it, configure it, and get it all working. By the hundreds.

America simply doesn't have the engineering know-how to do this anymore.

That's the salt in the wound of deindustrialization. You don't just lose the supply chains and the production footprints and the middle-class jobs and the local tax revenue.

You also lose the knowledge. You lose the skilled labor.

And it's almost impossible to get it back.

Robert Sterling
@RobertMSterling
·
Apr 3
Over the past 35 years, China went from a smaller steel industry than the US to producing more steel than the rest of the world combined.

We still make steel in America, and we make really good steel.

It would be nice if we could once again make the things that make the steel.

On September 5, 2016, Michael Anton wrote an essay that was seismic in its domestic effect.

It was “The Flight 93 Election.” Published under the nom de plume Publius Decius Mus (Anton was later revealed to be the author), it asserted that the election of Donald Trump was a national imperative. Not a guarantee of any sort. But a Hail Mary pass necessary if we had any hope of saving the nation:

“2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway.

“You - or the leader of your party - may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees.

“Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain….

“One of the paradoxes - there are so many - of conservative thought over the last decade at least is the unwillingness even to entertain the possibility that America and the West are on a trajectory toward something very bad. //

I wish I knew Mr. Anton. Because I would love to discuss with him this IDENTICAL conservative cognitive dissonance on display right now with regard to Trump Trade. //

The Globalist trade status quo has been AWFUL for the United States. For many, MANY decades. DC has happily served as the world’s butcher. Slicing up the US and selling it by the pound to the rest of the world. Via multinational corporations with ZERO loyalty to the nation that made their beyond-avarice wealth possible.

Aren’t Conservatives supposed to be the patriotic ones? Anton’s Cognitive Dissonance Conservatives have spent these decades…defending this titanic US sellout. In defense of a fake “free trade” that exists only in their minds.

Charlie Kirk

@charliekirk11
In his interview with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, THIS FACT made Tucker Carlson pause and say, "That's the message right there. Just as a bystander I'm like, wow, okay."

This is what Sec. Bessent described to Tucker:

"The good news is we have President Trump's previous term ...working class Americans and hourly workers did better than supervisory workers. The bottom 50% of households, their net worth increased faster than the top 10% of households.

And look, I'm not happy with what's going on in the market today, but the distribution of equities across households, the top 10% of Americans own 88% of equities, 88% of the stock market.

The next 40% owns 12% of the stock market. The bottom 50 has debt. They have credit card bills. They rent their homes, they have auto loans and we've got to give them some relief."

5:41 PM · Apr 6, 2025
·
739.2K
Views