CURRENT EVENTS — NOVEMBER

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 875
  • Views: 17K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:

Trump's $2,000 tariff checks would cost $450 billion, analysis finds​



“… By the numbers: The Yale Budget Lab released an analysis Monday night, finding that the promised checks would cost about $450 billion, assuming that the $2,000 checks went to every individual in the country with an income under $100,000.

  • The government collected $195 billion in tariff revenue in fiscal 2025 and is on pace for about $420 billion in tariff revenue in fiscal 2026.
Between the lines: Yale estimated a 0.3 percentage point boost to GDP in 2026 from the checks, and a 0.15 percentage point increase in employment.…”

——
Hey Yale Budget Lab, what took you so long?

😉
Click to expand...
This is what pisses me off to no end. The Trump cult bitched and moaned about inflation during the Biden admin. And yes, I think stimulus checks contributed, but were not the only cause; we had screwed up supply chains and a new war. Now, with supply chain problems solved, a war baked in, and inflation much lower, the dear leader wants to stimulate the economy to the tune of $2k per person? Where is the cultists outrage? <buncha dumb fu--s>
 
lawtig02 said:
Barf.

Horses, trumpets and fighter jets make for an elaborate White House welcome for Saudi crown prince​

From CNN's Kevin Liptak

A line of mounted dark horses escorted Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s limo up the White House driveway, kicking off an elaborate diplomatic display that is essentially a state visit in everything but name.

Military bands trumpeted the prince’s arrival, and a flyover of fighter jets — including F-35s, the same kind Donald Trump says he’ll sell to Riyadh — buzzed overhead as the US president welcomed the Saudi leader to the South Lawn.

Delegations from both countries lined an orange carpet, and an honor guard stood at attention as Prince bin Salman emerged from his Mercedes to greet Trump. They shook hands, and Trump grasped the prince’s shoulder, before they smiled for a photo-op.

The trumpets blared, the honor guard saluted, and the two men walked into the South Portico.

Tuesday’s visit isn’t classified as a state visit, but only because the crown prince isn’t Saudi Arabia’s head of state — his father, 89-year-old King Salman, is.

But in pulling out all the diplomatic stops, Trump is signaling the importance of Saudi Arabia to American interests, and his respect for the prince.

1763485216099.png
Click to expand...
Remember when the right wingers went bat shit crazy because Obama apparently bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia in a greeting at a G20 summit ?

good times...
 
Ddseddse said:
Trying to put the California toothpaste back in the tube?
Click to expand...
Huh. Maybe, maybe not...
1763492320161.png
Though that may be a conclusion reached after the fact, and if California hadn't redistricted, maybe a different conclusion gets reached.

EDIT: Fairly sure that quote is going to have been pulled from a case on affirmative action. :confused:

EDIT#2: Yalp. {Sad Trombone} Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1
 
Last edited:
Ddseddse said:
Trying to put the California toothpaste back in the tube?
Click to expand...
What do you mean? The California maps were, to the best of my understanding, approved. I don't think they are contingent on Texas -- not any more. So I'm pretty sure Dems picked up 5 seats in CA regardless of what happens in TX.

I expect SCOTUS to stay this ruling out of Texas.
 
Calheel said:
And we know how this is going to go. 6-3 reversal.
Click to expand...
No. 6-3 for a stay -- although it might give us some early insight into the fate of the Voting Rights Act. If they don't stay, that means the VRA will live. If they do stay, it doesn't tell us much.
 
superrific said:
What do you mean? The California maps were, to the best of my understanding, approved. I don't think they are contingent on Texas -- not any more. So I'm pretty sure Dems picked up 5 seats in CA regardless of what happens in TX.

I expect SCOTUS to stay this ruling out of Texas.
Click to expand...
It was a hot take that this might be an attempt to set a legal precedent under which the California maps would be vulnerable to being stayed as well. But on reading the first few pages, looks like the ruling is pretty specific to the facts in the TX case, which I can't imagine would apply to the California case.
 
superrific said:
No. 6-3 for a stay -- although it might give us some early insight into the fate of the Voting Rights Act. If they don't stay, that means the VRA will live. If they do stay, it doesn't tell us much.
Click to expand...
Yes. Stay is the correct term. Key point being that Texas is going to use the gerrymandered maps in 2026.

One thing that has become clear this year in that the news puts way too much emphasis on anti-Trump district court opinions. Those have about as much lasting impact on policy as a podcast.
 
superrific said:
What do you mean? The California maps were, to the best of my understanding, approved. I don't think they are contingent on Texas -- not any more. So I'm pretty sure Dems picked up 5 seats in CA regardless of what happens in TX.

I expect SCOTUS to stay this ruling out of Texas.
Click to expand...
The Republicans have already sued California in district court for racial gerrymandering. It is hard to imagine a world in which Texas maps are blessed and California maps are struck down, but I don't put anything past the Supreme Court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top