5 ms·
That's fair but I suggest that they are actually deficit hawks for the long term. In the short term, they've got financing troubles hence they care about the y
by magicloop 1y ago
That's fair but I suggest that they are actually deficit hawks for the long term. In the short term, they've got financing troubles hence they care about the yield.
- Hikikomori 1y agoDidn't they just announce a 1 trillion budget for defense?
- gsanderson 1y agoYep, apparently that's in the works. They aren't going to reduce the deficit or debt. It soared during Donald's first term and will again.
- matwood 1y ago[flagged]
- fragmede 1y agoYemen Taiwan Ukraine
- outer_web 1y agoPanama Gaza California
- monkeywork 1y agoI can't tell if ppl are joking or if they actually believe statements like that when they make them. There is not going to be a war between Canada and USA.
- dullcrisp 1y agoWe can’t either.
- CamperBob2 1y ago[flagged]
- notatoad 1y agoright, just like all the other crazy things that Trump said he would do, and people dismissed as outside the realm of possibility. like 100% tariffs on china.
- bdamm 1y agoHow can you be so sure? Trump's rhetoric would basically guarantee it.
- bchasknga 1y agoJust like when Trump said he knows nothing about Project 2025 and has done everything by the book for the past 3 months. Keep cranking that copium.
- matwood 1y agoThe worry is that you only said Canada and ignored the other two.
- monkeywork 1y agothe reason I only stated Canada is because my knowledge of the other two is lower thus I didn't feel qualified to make a public opinion on it.
- nozzlegear 1y agoI don't want there to be a war with any of those countries, but if there's one thing we should all have learned by now, it's to take Trump at his word. When he says he wants to do a thing, he's not bluffing.
- outer_web 1y agoSubtext: $1T executive slush fund.
- Hikikomori 1y agoBack to the days of the military acting like thugs, slightly worse than acting as the world police.
- cogman10 1y agoGotta be honest, I think it's more likely that Trump just has a strange fixation on tariffs. I don't really think there was a whole lot of planning around them other than "I want them". How he's deployed them and spoken/written about them makes me think he thinks it's a good way to strong arm countries and he wanted to strong arm everyone.
- johnnyanmac 1y agoWell congress has until July to reign them in before they (and the people) lose even more money in their savings. They better be swift.
- edoceo 1y agoWhat's in July?
- Jtsummers 1y agoThat's 90 days from now.
- xgb84j 1y agoCould you elaborate on what will happen in July?
- cogman10 1y agoThat's 90 days from today when the tariffs are supposed to take effect again.
- alabastervlog 1y agoThere's no actual commitment here. He could reverse again tonight. He signaled ongoing dissatisfaction with countries that had retaliated, so may well take further action there during the 90 days, which 90 days are, again, meaningless in that they don't bind him at all, and even if they did, he's done a bunch of things he's "not allowed to" and so far has gotten away with tons of it.
- watwut 1y agoDeficit hawks would not lower taxes for richest segment, which were sure money in exchange of maybe money. Nor would they slash IDS No, they are nor deficit hawks. They don't care about deficit, except when trying to blame it on someone else.
- cogman10 1y agoThere are very few politicians that are actually deficit hawks. The majority that claims that position are actually entitlement hawks. That is, they use fear of the deficit to talk about the need to reign in social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, and any other form of government assistance regardless the size or impact on the government budget. Meanwhile the DoD, CIA, FBI, NSA, DEA, DHS, and ICE have never had a politician seriously consider reducing their funding.
- anigbrowl 1y agoWhat if (and I realize this is an extremely pessimistic take) their plan is to just default on the debt and rely on military blackmail? Sure, there's a Constitutional prohibition on questioning the validity of USA debt, but the administration shrugs at the Constitution on a weekly basis. The endless whining about how 'unfairly' other nations are treating the US, 'ripping us off', 'laughing at us' etc is a precursor for aggressive action, and I think it's quite likely that at some point they'll come out and say 'we don't have to pay debts to countries that have been scamming us the whole time.' About one quarter of the population will support MAGA no matter what, and if things get bad enough the administration can just announce they've been 'forced' to take over Greenland and Canada. A flashing negative warning sign of this would be issue of new kinds of Treasury securities with new complex rules.
- staunton 1y agoThat sounds like it would completely destroy the US economy and government budgets (at which point the only thing left to do is to establish a war economy under authoritarian rule and continue war? I don't even know, it sounds completely bananas...)
- seanhunter 1y agoEveryone’s a deficit hawk in the long term. It’s easy to talk tough on reducing dept at some non-specific time in the distant future probably after you leave office.