US US Politics General 2 - Discussion of President Trump and other politicians

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
General Trump Banner.png

Should be a wild four years.

Helpful links for those who need them:

Current members of the House of Representatives
https://www.house.gov/representatives

Current members of the Senate
https://www.senate.gov/senators/

Current members of the US Supreme Court
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

Members of the Trump Administration
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

U.S. payrolls rise by 228,000 in March, but unemployment rate increases to 4.2%​

Job growth was stronger than expected in March, providing at least temporary reassurance that the labor market is stable, the Labor Department reported Friday.

Nonfarm payrolls increased 228,000 for the month, up from the revised 117,000 in February and better than the Dow Jones estimate for 140,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

However, the unemployment rate moved up to 4.2%, higher than the 4.1% forecast as the labor force participation rate also increased.

Though the headline number beat estimates, the report comes against a highly uncertain backdrop after President Donald Trump’s tariff announcement this week that has intensified fears of a global trade war that could damage economic growth.

Stocks reacted little to the report, with futures tied to the Dow Jones Industrial Average off their lows but still down by more than 900 points while Treasury yields held sharply negative.

“Today’s better than expected jobs report will help ease fears of an immediate softening in the US labor market,” said Lindsay Rosner, head of multi-sector fixed income investing at Goldman Sachs Asset Management. “However, this number has become a side dish with the market just focusing on the entrée: tariffs.”

Trump announced a flat duty of 10% against all trading partners along with a wide menu of so-called reciprocal tariffs that already have provoked retaliation from China and others. Wall Street has been in aggressively sell-off mode for the past two days, with stocks tumbling and investors flocking to the safety of fixed income.


Previous indicators showed the labor market holding up, but the tariff moves raise the possibility that companies will hold back on hiring as they assess just what the new trade landscape will look like.

The March numbers, though, pointed to a still-strong labor market, though the January and February counts saw substantial downward revisions. In addition to the cut of 34,000 from the initial count for February, January’s growth is now at just 111,000, down 14,000 from the previous estimate.

Average hourly earnings increased 0.3% on the month, in line with the forecast, while the annual rate of 3.8% was 0.1 percentage point below the estimate and the lowest level since July 2024. The average work week was unchanged at 34.2 hours.

For March, health care was the leading growth area, consistent with prior months. The industry added 54,000 jobs, almost exactly in line with its 12-month average. Other growth areas included social assistance and retail, which both added 24,000, while transportation and warehousing showed a 23,000 increase.

Federal government positions declined by just 4,000, despite the Elon Musk-led efforts, though the Department of Government Efficiency, to pare the federal workforce. However, the BLS noted that workers on severance or paid leave are counted as employed. A report Thursday from consultancy firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas indicated that DOGE-related layoffs have totaled more than 275,000 so far.

“While Friday’s jobs report showed that the economy is still adding jobs even with the tariff uncertainty and Federal job cuts, the data is backward looking and doesn’t say anything about how employers might fare over the coming months,” said Glen Smith, chief investment officer at GDS Wealth Management.

A broader unemployment indicator that includes those not looking for work as well as workers holding part-time jobs for economic reasons — the underemployed — edged lower to 7.9%.

The survey of households, which is used to determine the unemployment rate, was closely in line with the establishment payroll count, as it showed a gain of 201,000 workers.
 
We are an importing nation. You do not want to BE an importer nation. Being an importer nation is only done because you're an island and you have to. America does not have to, yet we are. We want to export. Everything we currently export is taxed out the ass by Europeans to the point that it's no longer competitive. There is nothing the rest of the world can do about this. You will not see a "New League of Nations" form to dodge America's tariffs because none of them have the military might to do so. WE are their military might. At the end of the day, they cannot "band together to #resist". They will lose every single time.
We are an exporter nation. One of the top energy exporters, the number one weapons exporter the world's largest agriculture exporter, pharmaceuticals and of course US dollars.

second being an importer is not necessarily always bad. Even China is gearing up to import more a big thing of the belt and road initiative was to create and facilitate the logistics of manufacturing hubs in south Asia and Africa in ordered to outsource the cheap grunt labor. this isn't to say China is moving away from manufacturing that is wrong obviously but they want to focus on high tech high value added manufacturing .
 
Trump calls out France for convicting Marine Le Pen of a non-crime:
Was it a non-crime? AFAIK there was another politician who did the same thing on a much smaller scale and stopped voluntary who also got in trouble for the misappropriation of funds.
In this case they also stopped once investigated which suggests they knew it wasnt entirely on the up and up.
I don't know shit about euro problems though.

RE tariffs: I don't care how Trump came up with the numbers. He could hold a press conference and say "I just wanted to clear the air... there have been questions about how these numbers were calculated... big questions... and I'm gonna be honest, they came to me in a dream".
I would just nod and go about my day. So long as the people who hate this country and leech off of it suffer, he could throw darts at a dartboard to come up with some numbers and I'd consider it valid.
 
Boomers: "Muh stock portfolio!"
Also Boomers: Baby boomers are beating millennials in a housing showdown, scooping up homes in all cash
The baby boomer/millennial housing war rages on. Baby boomers are buying and selling more homes than millennials, according to the National Association of Realtors’ latest generational trends report released Tuesday. Baby boomers accounted for 42% of all homebuyers, while millennials accounted for 29%. But just a year earlier, baby boomers made up just 31% of homebuyers, and millennials 38%. Baby boomers are not only buying homes in greater numbers, but doing so in all cash.

“In a plot twist, baby boomers have overtaken millennials—the largest U.S. population—to become the top generation of homebuyers,” Jessica Lautz, NAR deputy chief economist and vice president of research, said in a statement. “What’s striking is that half of older boomers and two out of five younger boomers are purchasing homes entirely with cash, bypassing financing altogether.”

The report classifies younger millennials as those between 26 and 34 years old and older millennials as those between 35 and 44 years old; for boomers, the younger of the generation is grouped 60 to 69 years old and the older 70 to 78 years old.)

Baby boomers primarily moved to be closer to family and friends and out of a desire to downsize. Because this generation benefited from years of home appreciation, they can use that cash pile they earned from selling to buy a new home. In the past five years alone, home values have soared 45%, according to Zillow. That is more than a decade worth of the typical increase, per Zillow. In February 2020, the average home value was around $245,000, and in February 2025 it was around $357,000, Zillow data shows. But older millennials are buying big and new because they’re using the cash from their prior homes (similar to boomers) or their incomes are more substantial than the younger part of their generation.

“Older millennials are buying bigger and newer homes with larger down payments than their younger counterparts,” Lautz said. “This shift reflects the increasing role of equity in enabling repeat purchases, especially among older generations, while younger buyers continue to face affordability challenges.” While baby boomers are powering the housing market, others are suffering through it and bringing it to a halt because they can’t buy or won’t sell.

There are two factors plaguing the housing world that have pushed it to a standstill: deteriorated affordability and the lock-in effect. Home prices soared throughout the pandemic because people were buying homes in spades since they could move anywhere to work remotely, and they wanted more space. This drove up demand. Then, inflation pained consumers, and the Federal Reserve raised interest rates—and mortgage rates skyrocketed. Would-be sellers held onto their homes and would-be buyers stayed on the sidelines. That’s still playing out, as is evident in sales data. Last year, existing home sales fell to their lowest level in three decades, and they might not be any better this year because not much has changed when it comes to mortgage rates or home prices. The situation could actually worsen once the true effect of tariffs becomes known. All of this has resulted in a leg up for boomers—not so much for millennials, Lautz said.

“Baby boomers are dominating the housing market as repeat buyers, often purchasing their next homes with cash,” Lautz told Fortune in a statement. “Older millennials are also likely to be repeat buyers, but are settling into the ‘golden handcuffs’ of low-rate mortgages and may lack motivation to move. Meanwhile, younger millennials—many of whom are first-time buyers—are being shut out due to the affordability crisis and lack of inventory.”
 
It is also happening internationally that American Boomers are buying up cheap housing in random communities (e.g. the Azores) and it's pissing people off.

Imagine you have a nice, quiet little community and - out of the blue - American Boomers colonize.
then they move back out and rent it on air bnb
why don't you just buy your own house?
 
These guys are operating under 19th century Victorian era politics. 20th Century actually has safety protocols.

The people responsible made too much money and having a factory that doesn't dump directly into the local water supply was deemed too costly.
That's why these faggots are destroying the EPA. So they can haphazardly reopen prehistoric facilities and resume dumping chemicals so they can ramp up production like the Captain Planet villians they are. Fill them with kids. Don't worry. We're passing laws so teenagers and children can work nights in the factory, fuck going to school and getting an edu-ma-ma-catioans , gotta makes sum moniez tah pay fur mah sistas canca pillz she got frums drinak da water tis hard n all wit onl 8 fingaz
Bait used to be believable
 
The narrative that if you don't support Trump's economic policy you are a dumb boomer might be one of the worst deflections to come out of the Maga spite cult and that is saying something.

First off Trump is a boomer, ok besides that Trump won the majority of baby boomers by a fucking landslide. This idea that he is sticking it to the boomers is delusional.

Second the stock market falling actually hurts Millennials and Gen Z. Milesians and Gen Z invest more in stocks compared to boomers.
Approximately 30% of Gen Z individuals begin investing during their university years or early adulthood, a significant increase compared to 15% of Millennials, 9% of Gen X, and 6% of Baby Boomers.
The reason why is because real estate as a form of investing is not viable due to boomer housing policy. Not only has Trump never shown any indication of addressing this he has done the opposite lie removing the social security tax which taxes rich boomers on social security.

In the United States, this inequality between old and young on housing is so bad that boomers with no children at home now own twice as many large homes as millennials with kids.

If this system looks like it’s designed to transfer wealth to homeowners at the expense of non-homeowners, that’s because it is. Housing policy in most Western countries is not really about housing at all, but about inflating real-estate prices indefinitely:
The United States subsidizes mortgage borrowing. It subsidizes property taxes. It subsidizes capital gains on your home. It subsidizes ownership over renting by taxing the income with which people pay rent but not the in-kind or “imputed” rent that homeowners get for free. It subsidizes the entire mortgage-lending enterprise with light regulation of systemic risk, periodic federal bailouts, and an implicit promise to keep providing them.

Every one of these policies encourages people to treat their housing as an investment and to sink as much money into it as they can, rather than investing their savings in their own education or businesses or in financial instruments like bank deposits, stocks, and bonds—things that make the economy more prosperous overall.


The thing about the growth of home values is it isn’t based on any great skill or productive contribution from the owners. It’s simply a wealth transfer from the rest of society based on circumstances largely outside the individual homeowners’ control. Breaking this down by age, obviously the people who have owned homes the longest have benefited most from this system, and each successive generation is having to sacrifice more to own a more costly home. This ponzi scheme then, is a great wealth-transfer from the young to the old. The Boomer with a house worth a million dollars, paid for with a couple of years wages, hasn’t worked harder or played the market more shrewdly than the millennial gathering ten years savings to get a mortgage deposit in his 30s, he was just in the market earlier.

What makes this especially egregious is this is just one among many ways in which the fruit of young people’s productivity is transferred directly to the old in historically unprecedented ways. If we were to draw up a society from scratch, we would probably say it’s better to give people a small fortune at the beginning of their life — when they can use it to start a business, buy a home, provide for a large family — than at the end of their life. And yet the Western welfare state has become a great system of wealth transfers to the old.

What has Trump done or at least plan to do about the cost of housing the main cost of living crisis ?
 
No one has still made a point on how this will realistically benefit the average american, All of the proponents of the tariffs can do is point to some vague future where domestic manufacturing is just like what it was in the early 20th century and the steps to get there is some wishy washy "industry will surely come back to us!", it's pretty much all pure hopium that it will all just go the way exactly as planned.

In the short to mid-term, all this means is everything will get more expensive as the economy struggles to adjust, because surprise, our consumption far exceeds domestic production, I dont think the average american will tolerate an objectively lower-quality of life for the next few years and still vote GOP come 2028, you really think people are gonna wait that long for benefits this opaque such as "increased domestic production"?

The process of deindustrialization in the United States was a slow, gradual process over several decades from the mid to late 20th century, you cant force it to turn back in 4 years without causing major problems, because this is the fundamental problem, you can't impose early 20th century economics in the 21st century.
No one ever claimed this would benefit anyone in the short term, and that's fine
 
Why would China want to harm themselves in this way??
Because it'll harm the US considerably more.

They can and will subsidize their domestic industries as needed to offset the impact of the tariffs as well as realign existing trade with non-US producers, and in fact in a lot of cases they can flat-out order those producers to do so. On top of that, over a quarter of China's GDP is generated by state-owned enterprises that can run at a loss for a considerable amount of time.
 
Nancy Pelosi supports Trump's tariffs
Just like the Bernie vid, its all optics and bullshit. They knew it would never happen* but saying it makes them look good on camera.


*nothing ever happens...until it does. Perhaps I should have said "it was never supposed to actually happen"
The people responsible made too much money and having a factory that doesn't dump directly into the local water supply was deemed too costly.
That's why these faggots are destroying the EPA. So they can haphazardly reopen prehistoric facilities and resume dumping chemicals so they can ramp up production like the Captain Planet villians they are. Fill them with kids. Don't worry. We're passing laws so teenagers and children can work nights in the factory, fuck going to school and getting an edu-ma-ma-catioans , gotta makes sum moniez tah pay fur mah sistas canca pillz she got frums drinak da water tis hard n all wit onl 8 fingaz

Bait used to be believable
again.png
We have the solution...
 
Last edited:
Because it'll harm the US considerably more.

They can and will subsidize their domestic industries as needed to offset the impact of the tariffs as well as realign existing trade with non-US producers, and in fact in a lot of cases they can flat-out order those producers to do so. On top of that, over a quarter of China's GDP is generated by state-owned enterprises that can run at a loss for a considerable amount of time.
The Chinese market doesn't have the demand in their internal market. They don't have the naval power the US does to get their goods to 3rd world markets, which have a much lower demand than they do. They can operate at a loss, but that will just exacerbate problems in their economy. Paying people to do unproductive things won't help the economy.
 
The Chinese market doesn't have the demand in their internal market. They don't have the naval power the US does to get their goods to 3rd world markets, which have a much lower demand than they do. They can operate at a loss, but that will just exacerbate problems in their economy. Paying people to do unproductive things won't help the economy.
China has addressed that actually.

They are moving workers to work more efficient jobs that can add more value with less hours, they have encouraged home ownership so consumers have money to spend on new consumer goods not rent.
 
Back