From Fed Chair Powell, today: “It takes some time for tariffs to work their way through the chain of distribution to the end consumer. A good example of that would be goods being sold at retailers today may have been imported several months ago before tariffs were imposed. So we're beginning to see some effects, and we do expect to see more of them over the coming months”
If that happens in the near future it will revert back to being Biden’s inflation
No change to interest rates. Less optimistic there will be two rate cuts this year.
Jerome Powell is an idiot geek. He has no understanding of what a tariff does. He sucks bad. Why does this unelected, elitest liberal clown get to decide the fate of the American economy?
From Fed Chair Powell, today: “It takes some time for tariffs to work their way through the chain of distribution to the end consumer. A good example of that would be goods being sold at retailers today may have been imported several months ago before tariffs were imposed. So we're beginning to see some effects, and we do expect to see more of them over the coming months”
If that happens in the near future it will revert back to being Biden’s inflation
Only the warmongers such as Bolton and in-the-closet Graham are pushing for that.
Liberals want suicide terrorists to have nukes so obviously MAGA is saving the World here, once again. We are saving children across the globe from dying horrible deaths simply because we are immune from listening to liberals. so simple.
Interesting discussion. Kudos to Trump for recognizing Iran as an adversary that should not have nuclear weapons. Bombing the facility may be the best option. Surgical strike.
The difficulty for Trump here is some of maga does not want to fund foreign wars, some of them want to bomb all arab / muslim countries. Add to that, Putin is allied with Iran and he struggles to do anything Putin doesn't like. Pile onto that, his entire cabinet has zero experience in international policy and were weaned by Fox news misinformation. All they and he know is media image, not policy, national security, or strategic planning. Hence we have a totally indecisive President in this situation. He is likely waiting for polls to tell him what to do.
Forgot to add that Trump opened the weapons floodgate to Israel months ago including bunker busters with no restrictions on their use. They used them for Gaza genocide without a peep from Trump. Israel already attacked Iran. Why didn't they just use the bunker busters on the underground nuclear facility? Trump could pretend it has nothing to do with him.
I believe that it is a matter of size. That Israel has neither the size of weapon nor the aircraft to deliver it necessary to take out the best-buried Iranian site(s).
Not sure why it seems that just about everyone talking about this goes straight to regime change and a military and geopolitical catastrophe? Why do so many think that the following is so very unlikely?
1) We, in a quite limited way, help finish Israel's attempt to substantially delay Iran's ability to get a nuclear weapon (presumably by now bombing a single site?).
2) That's ALL we do.
What happens then? Is that enough to spark/enable an overthrow? Wouldn't think so. But sure, IF it happened, regime change could be ugly. But more ugly than Iran have a nuke? I don't think so.
Now, do I want Trump and Hegseth to be running this show? Of course not. None of above suggests that. It's just not clear to me that helping to - presumably - finish off Iran's nuclear ambitions for a long time would necessarily lead us down an ugly trail. Or any "new" trail at all.
^^^^^
This.
The amount of stupid stuff being said on this, led, of course, by Trump ("unconditional surrender!" "immediately evacuate Tehran" and "we now have complete and total control of the skies"), is much more than usual. And all the idiots either calling for regime change or living in terrible fear that regime change is the goal ("no more forever war!" etc.). WTF? It's not even an actual issue. The US, even under its current confused leadership, can figure out that it is either going to (1) assist Israel in trying to bomb Iran's nuclear weapon sites, or (2) negotiate some "deal" (i.e., do nothing). I don't understand the hesitancy to do (1) at all. Who is going to do anything about it?
I will admit that my initial post my have underplayed (too much?) how an intact Iranian regime could still retaliate against the U.S. if we helped Israel attack the toughest sites. For roughly a year now - and even more so in the last week, of course - we've been hearing about how much weaker Iran is than they used to be. I honestly done know how accurate that is, but I have little doubt that they can still cause considerable trouble - missile strikes on U.S. bases, trying to block the Straits, (attacks on Gulf States/oil infrastructure we wouldn't like?), (flurry of proxy terrorist attacks?), etc.
Of course, the Israeli response to that would be (a pretty defensible): "Uh, as we speak, as a result of our effort to take away their nuclear capability, we're putting up with a LOT more danger than the U.S. will ever face. Could you guys not chip in a bit at MUCH lower risk ???"
Only the warmongers such as Bolton and in-the-closet Graham are pushing for that.
Liberals want suicide terrorists to have nukes so obviously MAGA is saving the World here, once again. We are saving children across the globe from dying horrible deaths simply because we are immune from listening to liberals. so simple.
Saving kids by killing tens of thousands of them in Gaza? Sheesh, what is wrong with you?
The amount of stupid stuff being said on this, led, of course, by Trump ("unconditional surrender!" "immediately evacuate Tehran" and "we now have complete and total control of the skies"), is much more than usual. And all the idiots either calling for regime change or living in terrible fear that regime change is the goal ("no more forever war!" etc.). WTF? It's not even an actual issue. The US, even under its current confused leadership, can figure out that it is either going to (1) assist Israel in trying to bomb Iran's nuclear weapon sites, or (2) negotiate some "deal" (i.e., do nothing). I don't understand the hesitancy to do (1) at all. Who is going to do anything about it?
I will admit that my initial post my have underplayed (too much?) how an intact Iranian regime could still retaliate against the U.S. if we helped Israel attack the toughest sites. For roughly a year now - and even more so in the last week, of course - we've been hearing about how much weaker Iran is than they used to be. I honestly done know how accurate that is, but I have little doubt that they can still cause considerable trouble - missile strikes on U.S. bases, trying to block the Straits, (attacks on Gulf States/oil infrastructure we wouldn't like?), (flurry of proxy terrorist attacks?), etc.
Of course, the Israeli response to that would be (a pretty defensible): "Uh, as we speak, as a result of our effort to take away their nuclear capability, we're putting up with a LOT more danger than the U.S. will ever face. Could you guys not chip in a bit at MUCH lower risk ???"
Got nothing to do with nukes. Just as the Neocons lied us into a war in Iraq 20+ years ago using the WMDs lie, the very same people are now lying about nukes to get us to go to war with Iran. Our real problem is Israel and the power they have over America.
Liberals want suicide terrorists to have nukes so obviously MAGA is saving the World here, once again. We are saving children across the globe from dying horrible deaths simply because we are immune from listening to liberals. so simple.
I learn so much here. I look around and see people who consider themselves liberals because they want to do things like stave off cuts to Medicaid, and it turns out that’s just a cover for wanting to make sure suicide terrorists have nukes. Thanks!
Members of Congress represent everyone in their district—including children, non-citizens, and voters of the opposing party.
An interesting example of relativity. For decades (and to this day), I've looked askance at "bleeding hearts" insisting on treating illegals as citizens in as many respects as possible - driver's licenses, college support, etc.
Of course, the bleeding hearts would label folks like me as uncaring, xenophobic, whatever.
But perhaps they didn't know - and now we've all learned - that there is, apparently, a THIRD group. A third group that, I think, LOVES the idea of being able to not only deprive illegals of "goodies," but actually treat them like sh** in the most fundamental civil rights ways. No due process, and perhaps straight to a third country prison where they'll spend the rest of their days. Nice.
A tad bit worse than just having to take the bus.....
But Donny and Kristi and Tom and Stephen are playing directly to tens of millions of Americans who are OK with that.
I will admit that my initial post my have underplayed (too much?) how an intact Iranian regime could still retaliate against the U.S. if we helped Israel attack the toughest sites. For roughly a year now - and even more so in the last week, of course - we've been hearing about how much weaker Iran is than they used to be. I honestly done know how accurate that is, but I have little doubt that they can still cause considerable trouble - missile strikes on U.S. bases, trying to block the Straits, (attacks on Gulf States/oil infrastructure we wouldn't like?), (flurry of proxy terrorist attacks?), etc.
Of course, the Israeli response to that would be (a pretty defensible): "Uh, as we speak, as a result of our effort to take away their nuclear capability, we're putting up with a LOT more danger than the U.S. will ever face. Could you guys not chip in a bit at MUCH lower risk ???"
Got nothing to do with nukes. Just as the Neocons lied us into a war in Iraq 20+ years ago using the WMDs lie, the very same people are now lying about nukes to get us to go to war with Iran. Our real problem is Israel and the power they have over America.
Let's see, how do I reply? How do I put this? How can a be all analytical about it?
I will admit that my initial post my have underplayed (too much?) how an intact Iranian regime could still retaliate against the U.S. if we helped Israel attack the toughest sites. For roughly a year now - and even more so in the last week, of course - we've been hearing about how much weaker Iran is than they used to be. I honestly done know how accurate that is, but I have little doubt that they can still cause considerable trouble - missile strikes on U.S. bases, trying to block the Straits, (attacks on Gulf States/oil infrastructure we wouldn't like?), (flurry of proxy terrorist attacks?), etc.
Of course, the Israeli response to that would be (a pretty defensible): "Uh, as we speak, as a result of our effort to take away their nuclear capability, we're putting up with a LOT more danger than the U.S. will ever face. Could you guys not chip in a bit at MUCH lower risk ???"
Got nothing to do with nukes. Just as the Neocons lied us into a war in Iraq 20+ years ago using the WMDs lie, the very same people are now lying about nukes to get us to go to war with Iran. Our real problem is Israel and the power they have over America.
The mo-ran logic train:
1) Historically, leaders and countries have lied about various things.
2) Based on above (and with no actual connection), we'll conclude that really bad countries will NEVER actually try to get WMDs, including nukes.
Solid thinking.
But hey, I know, it's all VERY theoretical. It's not like there's a nuclear capable North Korea, or anything like that.
I have not had time this afternoon to read the earlier 1500 pages of messages but I am sure it has been pointed out that the deal Obama signed with Iran was to block the development of nuclear weapons. And did. Trump cancelled the treaty in his first administration, so Iran ramped up their program again. Then Trump came in and said he would make a better treaty. But then Israel jumped the gun and started bombing Iran, so Trump now says the bombing was his idea and it's so great and Iran now needs to unconditionally surrender to.... SOMETHING. Of course tomorrow, Trump might change his mind if Iran buys Trump phone service or a few Melania crypto coins. All designed to keep you tuned in to his reality show. Don't touch that dial!!
Liberals want suicide terrorists to have nukes so obviously MAGA is saving the World here, once again. We are saving children across the globe from dying horrible deaths simply because we are immune from listening to liberals. so simple.
Saving kids by killing tens of thousands of them in Gaza? Sheesh, what is wrong with you?
Who’s killing kids in GAZA, MAGA? is your best source Politico?
You want suicide bombers to have nuclear bombs and I do not. it’s all this comes down to.
This gentleman is a heretic! He is speaking directly against the dear leader’s inspired teachings and should be expelled from the church of Trump.
Powell: "What we're waiting for to reduce rates is to understand what will happen with really the tariff inflation ... everyone that I know is forecasting a meaningful increase in inflation in coming months from tariffs, because somebody has to pay for the tariffs ... some of it will fall on the consumer."
I will admit that my initial post my have underplayed (too much?) how an intact Iranian regime could still retaliate against the U.S. if we helped Israel attack the toughest sites. For roughly a year now - and even more so in the last week, of course - we've been hearing about how much weaker Iran is than they used to be. I honestly done know how accurate that is, but I have little doubt that they can still cause considerable trouble - missile strikes on U.S. bases, trying to block the Straits, (attacks on Gulf States/oil infrastructure we wouldn't like?), (flurry of proxy terrorist attacks?), etc.
Of course, the Israeli response to that would be (a pretty defensible): "Uh, as we speak, as a result of our effort to take away their nuclear capability, we're putting up with a LOT more danger than the U.S. will ever face. Could you guys not chip in a bit at MUCH lower risk ???"
Got nothing to do with nukes. Just as the Neocons lied us into a war in Iraq 20+ years ago using the WMDs lie, the very same people are now lying about nukes to get us to go to war with Iran. Our real problem is Israel and the power they have over America.
Not arguing either way, but could you clarify who the "very same people are"? I understand the two situations differently, where Iran openly operates uranium enrichment facilities under international inspections and Iraq did not. So we know Iran has the capability of nuclear weapons manufacturing.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.