4 ms·

Totally agreed. My only hope is that the evil bastards who willed this to happen bear the suffering more.

by spencerflem 1y ago

jjav 1y ago
They just gave themselves billions in tax cuts, so they'll be comfortable.
- spwa4 1y ago
  It's 6500 billion dollars, generally referred to as "trillions". A vote for Trump, as it turns out, was a vote to increase US national debt by double what anyone increased it by before (which was also Trump, so anyone saying they "didn't see this coming" ...)
  - lunarboy 1y ago
    GOP being the "fiscally responsible" party is the best generational propaganda it's honestly impressive
    - const_cast 1y ago
      It's more than generational at this point, and it's wildly successful from a propaganda standpoint. They're kind of banking on none of their constituents bothering to read the budget bills they pass. Which turns out to be a very good bet when your party is also ideologically opposed to education.
      - lotsoweiners 1y ago
        I don’t think the party is ideologically opposed to education as much as they are opposed to the way it has been implemented the past few decades.
        const_cast 1y ago
        I think this is the plausible deniability they foster, but I don't think this is true. The right has been opposed to public education pretty much since the beginning, even before the DOE. And, of their complaints of the DOE, most of them are legitimately made up. Like the DOE setting curriculum or censoring conservative voices. Since the beginning, conservatives gravitate towards more... alternative... history. I know I was taught about the War of Northern Aggression in schools. Their issue with public education isn't per se the "education" part, but the "public" part. Unfortunately, an attack on public education is an attack on education itself. We all understand that less public education means less education on average. I quiet enjoy living in a country with literacy rates in the high 90s, and I'd like it to stay that way.
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      No, its just code that the audience recognizes: "fiscally responsible" in US politics means "opposed to social programs", in the same way that "states rights" means "supporting racial discrimination". People often criticize the people embracing those views not delivering on the things that the literal meaning of the words deliver, but the target audience for the message understands what they mean perfectly well, which is why no argument, no matter how well-delivered and well-supported by evidence, directed at the failure to deliver on the literal meaning ever budges support. It's not some kind of magically-strong propaganda that clouds people's minds, it's a message whose meaning is well-understood and arguments directed at the literal meaning are simply misdirected.
      - spencerflem 1y ago
        this is the conclusion ive come to recently. its not an education problem, its that somewhere around 20% of people are evil
corimaith 1y ago
Those evil bastards are also most central bankers around the world that agree that the incredibly unbalanced balance of trade today needs to be rebalanced. America is consuming too much, and the world is saving too much. So yes, your living standards do need to go down for the sake of the greater global macroeconomic stability. Contrary to what xkcd or NYT might tell you, actual economic institutions like the IMF and the World Bank are coigzant of the issues caused by the status quo and largely view the Trumpian diagnosis, if not the horrid execution, as correct.
- StopDisinfo910 1y ago
  > Those evil bastards are also most central bankers around the world that agree that the incredibly unbalanced balance of trade today needs to be rebalanced. No central bankers in the world ever said that including Powell. That’s Trump policy and Trump only.
  - corimaith 1y ago
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-22/g-7-draft-text-warns-of-excessive-imbalances-in-global-economy https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-22/g-7-draft... https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/200503102/ https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/20050... They have actually, the debate about persistent imbalances have been going on since the 2000s and Bessnet's arguments are simply the extension of Bernanke's prior hypotheses and ultimately Keynes diagnosis on global macroeconomics stability.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - StopDisinfo910 1y ago
      Neither articles are implying that. The first one throws an intentionally vague imbalance and aims squarely at Chine state aids distortion. It also goes at length about how tariffs are seen as terrible by everyone and how it’s all about a level playing field and not about rebalancing trade balances. The second is strictly about the US and explains that trade inbalance has more to do with capital flows that actual trade of goods and how the extreme situation in the US might need moderation. Its conclusion is that the trade balance will fix itself if the US both fixes its budget issues and help foreign countries to actually use their excess savings locally. That’s pretty far from thinking the balance of trade needs to be rebalanced.

Totally agreed. My only hope is that the evil bastards who willed this to happen bear the suffering more.

jjav 1y ago

They just gave themselves billions in tax cuts, so they'll be comfortable.

spwa4 1y ago
It's 6500 billion dollars, generally referred to as "trillions". A vote for Trump, as it turns out, was a vote to increase US national debt by double what anyone increased it by before (which was also Trump, so anyone saying they "didn't see this coming" ...)
- lunarboy 1y ago
  GOP being the "fiscally responsible" party is the best generational propaganda it's honestly impressive
  - const_cast 1y ago
    It's more than generational at this point, and it's wildly successful from a propaganda standpoint. They're kind of banking on none of their constituents bothering to read the budget bills they pass. Which turns out to be a very good bet when your party is also ideologically opposed to education.
    - lotsoweiners 1y ago
      I don’t think the party is ideologically opposed to education as much as they are opposed to the way it has been implemented the past few decades.
      - const_cast 1y ago
        I think this is the plausible deniability they foster, but I don't think this is true. The right has been opposed to public education pretty much since the beginning, even before the DOE. And, of their complaints of the DOE, most of them are legitimately made up. Like the DOE setting curriculum or censoring conservative voices. Since the beginning, conservatives gravitate towards more... alternative... history. I know I was taught about the War of Northern Aggression in schools. Their issue with public education isn't per se the "education" part, but the "public" part. Unfortunately, an attack on public education is an attack on education itself. We all understand that less public education means less education on average. I quiet enjoy living in a country with literacy rates in the high 90s, and I'd like it to stay that way.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    No, its just code that the audience recognizes: "fiscally responsible" in US politics means "opposed to social programs", in the same way that "states rights" means "supporting racial discrimination". People often criticize the people embracing those views not delivering on the things that the literal meaning of the words deliver, but the target audience for the message understands what they mean perfectly well, which is why no argument, no matter how well-delivered and well-supported by evidence, directed at the failure to deliver on the literal meaning ever budges support. It's not some kind of magically-strong propaganda that clouds people's minds, it's a message whose meaning is well-understood and arguments directed at the literal meaning are simply misdirected.
    - spencerflem 1y ago
      this is the conclusion ive come to recently. its not an education problem, its that somewhere around 20% of people are evil

corimaith 1y ago

Those evil bastards are also most central bankers around the world that agree that the incredibly unbalanced balance of trade today needs to be rebalanced. America is consuming too much, and the world is saving too much. So yes, your living standards do need to go down for the sake of the greater global macroeconomic stability. Contrary to what xkcd or NYT might tell you, actual economic institutions like the IMF and the World Bank are coigzant of the issues caused by the status quo and largely view the Trumpian diagnosis, if not the horrid execution, as correct.

StopDisinfo910 1y ago
> Those evil bastards are also most central bankers around the world that agree that the incredibly unbalanced balance of trade today needs to be rebalanced. No central bankers in the world ever said that including Powell. That’s Trump policy and Trump only.
- corimaith 1y ago
  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-22/g-7-draft-text-warns-of-excessive-imbalances-in-global-economy https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-22/g-7-draft... https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/200503102/ https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/20050... They have actually, the debate about persistent imbalances have been going on since the 2000s and Bessnet's arguments are simply the extension of Bernanke's prior hypotheses and ultimately Keynes diagnosis on global macroeconomics stability.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - StopDisinfo910 1y ago
    Neither articles are implying that. The first one throws an intentionally vague imbalance and aims squarely at Chine state aids distortion. It also goes at length about how tariffs are seen as terrible by everyone and how it’s all about a level playing field and not about rebalancing trade balances. The second is strictly about the US and explains that trade inbalance has more to do with capital flows that actual trade of goods and how the extreme situation in the US might need moderation. Its conclusion is that the trade balance will fix itself if the US both fixes its budget issues and help foreign countries to actually use their excess savings locally. That’s pretty far from thinking the balance of trade needs to be rebalanced.