More than 50 countries have reached out to the President to begin tariff negotiations

[CriticalStinker]

You mean the same Congress that sat on numerous lousy trade deals, FOR YEARS? for what?

So it doesn't upset the apple cart? FTN,

At least OMB is trying to change the status quo, which may ultimately benefit Americans' bottom line. We can always go back to the crappy deals we had before IF and when the Democrats regain power. 

Im still waiting for the predicted immediate economic collapse...

That’s why I made sure to highlight that congress has constantly failed. But that’s a reflection on the electorate, we’ve rarely demanded more from them.

99% of politicians have failed us in my lifetime. Left and right.

That doesn’t change the fact we’re now in a dire predicament off a big gamble. The gamble was that we could pass the BBB under the assumption it would be offset (not even fully) by unconditional tariffs.

I agree congress has been a joke, but this puts us in just as bad of a situation as they’ve had us in. I don’t see how this was redemption. Either SCOTUS gives executive more power for years, or we get an economic blow. Damned either way.

The other problem with allowing executive to constantly challenge the constitution with executive order is it politicizes the court (which has already been a problem for decades). While the right thinks it’s works out now because they have more seats, either party could just start adding more judges.

This is a reckless slippery slope.

[putnam6]

That’s why I made sure to highlight that congress has constantly failed. But that’s a reflection on the electorate, we’ve rarely demanded more from them.

99% of politicians have failed us in my lifetime. Left and right.

That doesn’t change the fact we’re now in a dire predicament off a big gamble. The gamble was that we could pass the BBB under the assumption it would be offset (not even fully) by unconditional tariffs.

I agree congress has been a joke, but this puts us in just as bad of a situation as they’ve had us in. I don’t see how this was redemption. Either SCOTUS gives executive more power for years, or we get an economic blow. Damned either way.

The other problem with allowing executive to constantly challenge the constitution with executive order is it politicizes the court (which has already been a problem for decades). While the right thinks it’s works out now because they have more seats, either party could just start adding more judges.

This is a reckless slippery slope.

Yeah, there is always the left's fearful plea, "what if" this happens... in the future, the President may do this or that. 

It's 3 years if he fails, and the economy sucks, we will have a blue house and a President who will rescind his every move to great rejoicing from the left, just like what happened with Biden's "election"  

Tired of all the worry and concern, not every Trump move will end in abject failure... 

I said it in his first term, and I believe it even more now

It's not that the left is worried he will fail; if he fails, he will be replaced, and we will go to a Democratic-led country AGAIN

The DNC's concerns are that Trump's moves will resonate with more voters, and they will see their voter base erode.

[CriticalStinker]

Yeah, there is always the left's fearful plea, "what if" this happens... in the future, the President may do this or that. 

It's 3 years if he fails, and the economy sucks, we will have a blue house and a President who will rescind his every move to great rejoicing from the left, just like what happened with Biden's "election"  

Tired of all the worry and concern, not every Trump move will end in abject failure... 

I said it in his first term, and I believe it even more now

It's not that the left is worried he will fail; if he fails, he will be replaced, and we will go to a Democratic-led country AGAIN

The DNC's concerns are that Trump's moves will resonate with more voters, and they will see their voter base erode.

The constitution is right or left.

I also made sure to highlight even if this is were to work out, it still grants executive powers for future presidents who could mess up. That has been shown with more executive power to conduct war without congress, and with spying like the Patriot act, so these concerns are not unwarranted.

There is a way to do things, if it’s not constitutional, than we have situations like this. It can be hard to overcome, and that’s by design.

[putnam6]

The constitution is right or left.

I also made sure to highlight even if this is were to work out, it still grants executive powers for future presidents who could mess up. That has been shown with more executive power to conduct war without congress, and with spying like the Patriot act, so these concerns are not unwarranted.

There is a way to do things, if it’s not constitutional, than we have situations like this. It can be hard to overcome, and that’s by design.

Yeah, Im 60 years old, let's be real, the complete fears portfoio of the Patriot Act has never materialized either, I seem to remember huge concerns about FEMA camps and other freedom intrusions ... again, not future fears, immediate and inevitable concerns.

They may all come to fruition, but it's not likely in my lifetime, so glad I didn't waste 20 plus years being overly concerned.

The thread is about tariffs and trade deals; there is nothing here that can't be rescinded, even if SCOTUS says it's within the Presidential authority today.

The next President can renegotiate any and all the trade deals they want to. YES or NO

Your scenario only happens if America elects a shit President..

[CriticalStinker]

Yeah, Im 60 years old, let's be real, the complete fears portfoio of the Patriot Act has never materialized either, I seem to remember huge concerns about FEMA camps and other freedom intrusions ... again, not future fears, immediate and inevitable concerns.

They may all come to fruition, but it's not likely in my lifetime, so glad I didn't waste 20 plus years being overly concerned.

The thread is about tariffs and trade deals; there is nothing here that can't be rescinded, even if SCOTUS says it's within the Presidential authority today.

The next President can renegotiate any and all the trade deals they want to. YES or NO

Your scenario only happens if America elects a shit President..

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...-Gavin.gif]

The worst case scenario may have not materialized, but there were certainly abuses of the power of surveillance, and the presidential powers to conduct war.

Yes, we’re still standing.

Also, the concern isn’t new, it was baked into the constitution from people leaving countries that had too much centralized power. The way the country was set up was so that there wasn’t centralized power or too much trust in any one person.

Also, America has elected several shit presidents. We do it far more than we elect good ones, at least in recent history (I haven’t liked any president in my lifetime, albeit short). Which again, is why there are stop gaps. If the president had the authority to change all trade deals, companies and foreign nations would have no mid term certainty, and we would relive this chaos every 4-8 years. That’s why trade deals take a while to be negotiated, and are in effect for such long periods of time. Some of these trade deals being renegotiated are the ones this president made as well, which he later said were horrible.

I just don’t think it’s good precedence to allow the president to blatantly use power outside the constitution. It’s everyone’s right here to disagree with me. And as I said, people may get their wish. I could see SCOTUS ruling to let some or all stand since we gambled a lot on the assumption they would stick. It would be a large blow if they went away and we got embroiled in debt and lawsuits to pay back tariffs.

[putnam6]

and furthermore




blaming the 2025 general public because their elected representatives didn't tackle tariffs, something thats been ignored since the Hawley-Smoot tariff act of the 30s is extremely rich CS



What else is the GP's fault...

[CriticalStinker]

and furthermore

[Image: https://media0.giphy.com/media/8FhXc8w45aN32/giphy.gif]


blaming the 2025 general public because their elected representatives didn't tackle tariffs, something thats been ignored since the Hawley-Smoot tariff act of the 30s is extremely rich CS

What else is the GP's fault...

We live in a democratic style government. If the elected officials don’t do things in the general populations best interest, it is a reflection of the voters.

Most elections (other than presidential) don’t even have 50% turnout. Much of that percentage don’t read into current events past headlines.

Thats just the reality. I didn’t necessarily say it’s their “fault” as there is more at play like lobbyism and campaign money. But it is a reflection.

[putnam6]

So now FED chair Jerry admits President Trump's tariffs are NOT a big factor in consumer inflation, that tariff revenue is surging, and that consumers aren't absorbing much of the tariff costs. Boom.





https://x.com/i/grok/share/i6bnBZAzXu2Squ6gcOGXUxjZ9

Eric Daugherty
@EricLDaugh
·


BREAKING: In a stunning blow to the Experts nationwide, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell admits President Trump's tariffs are NOT a big factor in consumer inflation, that tariff revenue is surging, and that consumers aren't absorbing much of the tariff costs. Boom.

• The post highlights Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell's recent admission that President Trump's tariffs have not significantly driven consumer inflation, contradicting earlier concerns from a September 17, 2025, CNBC report where Powell predicted tariff impacts would escalate through 2026, suggesting a shift in economic analysis based on emerging data.
  
• Tariff revenue has surged, aligning with Trump's policy goals to boost government funds, as supported by a 2025 BBC analysis showing 170 countries imposing tariffs on U.S. goods, indicating a global trend that may pressure domestic markets less than anticipated.
  
• The claim that consumers are not absorbing much tariff cost challenges mainstream economic models predicting price pass-through, with limited peer-reviewed studies (e.g., a 2023 National Bureau of Economic Research paper on tariff incidence) suggesting firms absorb costs, potentially explaining Powell's revised stance.
  

[RichardHurt]

So now FED chair Jerry admits President Trump's tariffs are NOT a big factor in consumer inflation, that tariff revenue is surging, and that consumers aren't absorbing much of the tariff costs. Boom.

[Video: https://youtu.be/cRjqG4k4Cf8?si=u9GmrIHnk4440oeB]


https://x.com/i/grok/share/i6bnBZAzXu2Squ6gcOGXUxjZ9

So prices of goods are not rising? Because I'm pretty sure they are rising.

[putnam6]

So prices of goods are not rising? Because I'm pretty sure they are rising.

It not ambiguous at all the premise of the thread is tariffs would NOT send the economy into an immediate recession as predicted by the pundits and DI's peanut gallery since day one..

Inflation is up .2% SINCE JANUARY, not 2.0% POINT 2 %

Is that the recession tidal wave caused by Trump's tariffs ....FFS 
 

FED chair Jerry admits President Trump's tariffs are NOT a big factor in consumer inflation, that tariff revenue is surging, and that consumers aren't absorbing much of the tariff costs.