Do you approve Of Donald Trump's decisions and performance on the job as President in his 2nd term?

[Mashmont]

Do you approve Of Donald Trump's decisions and performance on the job as President in his 2nd term?

Below are just a few of the reasons I disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as President in his 2nd term!

In Donald Trump's 2nd term, he has rapidly moved to try and cut federal government spending by taking a chainsaw to government programs and agencies. USAID had 10,000 employees and is being cut down to just 300 and moved into the State Department. USAID was vital to U.S. National Security and global security, because it provided services that were important to helping people in other countries develop as well as preventing major outbreaks of disease. People will suffer and die because of this foolish cut and China will be attempting to fill the gap that the United States is leaving in the third world which will weaken U.S. power and influence. This is just one area of the damaging cuts that Trump and his doge team have done to this point. Donald Trump is also now considering a 20% cut to the Active United States Army's size. This will weaken the United States military to the point that it will not be able to fulfill its mission in protecting U.S. National Security.

On immigration, Donald Trump has launched a massive deportation effort that could eventually send millions of U.S. workers back to other countries making the labor shortage worse which will cause inflation to rise as production fails to keep up with consumer demand.

On Trade, Trump Tariffs are the worse since just before the Great Depression and will move the United States into a recession before the end of the year. These tariffs function as a new tax of several thousand dollars on lower and middle income Americans. GDP growth will decline, unemployment will rise, in addition to a rise in inflation. The probability of the first global depression in nearly a century is rising.

On Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, and National Security, Donald Trump has abandoned 80 years of U.S. Foreign Policy and Defense Policy where the United States supported NATO and helped to defend Europe from Soviet/Russian aggression. He has sided with Russia and North Korea on UN Resolutions at the United Nations with regards to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. For 10 days he cut U.S. aid and U.S. intelligence to Ukraine that is fighting for its survival against a brutal Russian invasion. If Ukraine is defeated by the Russian invasion and taking over by Russia, the probability rises that Russia will next invade NATO European countries starting World War III. If World War III starts, the probability of a nuclear war goes up dramatically. Donald Trump's actions on Ukraine are hurting its ability to defend itself and helping the Russian Federation to take over Ukraine and then potentially invade NATO Europe.

What USAID does, its impact and what Trump’s cuts mean

Oxfam takes a closer look at USAID, an agency that provides critical help to the world, and the impact of Trump’s aid freeze.

go.skimresources.com

USAID: The Human Cost of Trump’s Cuts | Magnum Photos Magnum Photos

Countries worldwide are feeling the impact of the Trump administration’s recent cuts to foreign aid, which have amounted to about $60 billion dollars

go.skimresources.com

The devastating impact of Trump’s slashing foreign aid, in 3 charts

From HIV to malnutrition, here’s what the loss of 83 percent of USAID programs looks like.

go.skimresources.com

Army may slash 90,000 troops as Pentagon faces budget cuts and strategic shake-up: report

Massive potential cuts within the U.S. Army, reported by Military.com, would lead to a "leaner, more lethal, and larger" combat force, an Army spokesperson told Fox News Digital.

go.skimresources.com

Trump reverses 80 years of U.S. foreign policy with concessions to Russia and controversial statements – NYT

U.S.-Russia negotiations in Saudi Arabia and President Donald Trump’s sharp remarks about Ukraine are shifting American foreign policy by 180 degrees, The New York Times reported on Feb. 18.

go.skimresources.com

US sides with Russia in UN resolutions on invasion of Ukraine

The UK and France abstain as the UN Security Council passes a text that does not criticise Moscow.

go.skimresources.com

Trump is the most consequential president of all time and the greatest of all time. He is a true visionary. His instincts are correct on most everything.

 

[kyzr]

1945 to 1980 is absolutely key in positioning the United States for proper taxation, growth, and having a good debt to GDP ratio. Again, debt to GDP ratio in 1945 was 121%, but by 1980 it was down to 34%. A higher tax on the wealthy and policies that will help stimulate economic growth is the way to go. There is little that can be cut from the Federal Budget and the United States should NOT be cutting things like USAID, one of the dumbest cuts Trump and his Doge idiots have done to date.

We disagree. There is a lot we can cut from the budget. We can go back to the 2018 budget for example, but include the interest on the debt, say about $5.5T. USAID is borrowing money to give away, a very stupid idea. We do agree that we need pro-growth policies.

Clinton's Service economy had an average quarterly GDP growth rate over 8 years of 3.82%, the 4th highest average quarterly GDP growth rate since World War II. Trump was below water when it came to average quarterly real GDP growth during his first term with just an anemic 1.93% average quarterly GDP growth rate, nearly the worst average quarterly GDP growth rate of any President since World War II.

Trump had almost twice the GDP that Clinton had, growing a big economy is harder than growing a small economy.. Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act set the stage for the Great Recession, giving government backed mortgages to the unqualified to stimulate growth, was a financial disaster. Borrowing to stimulate GDP is always a bad idea. Trump getting $7T of new corporate investment in new plants is a better solution.

Burdening individual U.S. states with Federal government responsibilities will ruin growth and certainly won't make those needs go away.

No other choice. Besides, where in the Constitution does it say that Welfare and Medicaid are Federal responsibilities?

The United States needs a higher minimum wage, and a lot more immigrants from Latin America to help with the labor shortages which will only get worse with the United States low birth rate and the retirement of the babyboom generation, the largest in generation in history. Grow the economy and tax the rich at the rate they were from 1945 to 1980, a minimum of 70% top marginal tax rate, and surpluses will resume.

Unemployment is at 4%, participation is at 62%, we don't need more labor, especially with AI and robotics developing.

Sadly, the wealthy today in this country primarily care about themselves, unlike the wealthy in previous era's, and spend a lot of money politically to manipulate things to their personal advantage, which damages the rest of the country and prevents it from achieving its full potential.

Money always called the shots. Buying pols is a cottage industry for the 1%ers.
The top 1% hold 31% of US wealth
The top 10% hold 60%
Maybe the Freedom Caucus will get the top rate increased? Probably not, the rich own the pols.

 

[HeyNorm]

Trumps cuts are only hurting the American government and people who need these services. The best way to deal with the Budget Deficit and Debt is to grow the economy. Bring in more tax revenue to pay for what is needed, balance the budget, and create a surplus of money that can be used for a variety of needs including reducing the national debt. But to do that, you need to increase taxes on the wealthy and pursue government policy that will increase GDP growth. This is primarily how the Clinton administration balanced the budget in the 1990s and achieved surpluses. It's also how the United States brought down its debt to GDP ratio from 121% in 1945 at the end of World War II, to just 33% in Jimmy Carter's last year in office in 1980.

You can tax the 100 most wealthy Americans 100% and you only cover the interest on this debt for roughly 15 months. Then the problem is, you can’t tax them the same the next year, cuz they are broke.

Yes, bring back industry and jobs, but you need to cut the expenses as well.

 

[Correll]

Not likely to stay that way unless Trump changes his policies on immigration, government cuts, and tariffs.

But, those policies are, at LEAST part of the reason for the good news on jobs.

U.S. monthly unemployment is low but rising:
January 4.0%
February 4.1%
March 4.2%

You sure that is not INCREASING labor pool participation outpacing job growth?

 

[Flopper]

This US Office of Trade Repreentatives?


To see the White House Fact Sheet on this action, click here.

U.S. Trade Representative Issues Statement on President Trump's Declaration of a National Emergency

WASHINGTON — Today, Ambassador Jamieson Greer issued the following statement in support of President Donald J. Trump invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose responsive tariffs to address the national emergency driven by the absence of reciprocity in our...

ustr.gov

The actual name is the "US Office of the Trade Representative"

 

[Robert W]

So far, we have not seen any reduction in the deficit or debt.

Not we, just you. I personally have posted reduction of deficit once Musk's team sounded off. The only way to reduce debt is to pay some off. Trump has every intention of paying off debt.

 

[Robert W]

Not likely to stay that way unless Trump changes his policies on immigration, government cuts, and tariffs. U.S. monthly unemployment is low but rising:
January 4.0%
February 4.1%
March 4.2%

In recent speeches touting so-called Bidenomics, President Joe Biden has repeatedly cited the statistic that “unemployment has been below 4% for the longest stretch in over 50 years.”

It’s true, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that the unemployment rate has been below that threshold for the last 18 months, a feat not accomplished since the rate was below 4% for 27 straight months between 1967 and 1970.

But there’s some cherry-picking going on.

In the months prior to the pandemic, the unemployment rate during the Trump administration was below 4% for nearly 20 straight months — there was one exception in that stretch, when the rate was 4% in January 2019.

Had Biden set the threshold a tick higher, at or below 4% — instead of simply below 4% — then “the longest stretch in over 50 years” would have occurred under the president he beat in 2020 and may face again in 2024: Donald Trump.

During the Trump administration, there were 24 straight months when the unemployment rate was at or below 4%, starting in March 2018 and ending in February 2020, before the devastating economic effects of the pandemic kicked in.

Biden Cherry-Picks Unemployment Record - FactCheck.org

In recent speeches touting so-called Bidenomics, President Joe Biden has repeatedly cited the statistic that "unemployment has been below 4% for the longest stretch in over 50 years." That's true, but there's some cherry-picking going on.

www.factcheck.org

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

 

[Correll]

View attachment 1097681

Considering the massive anti-Americanism we have seen from the left, both US and imported,

sure. Why not. But it needs to be part of a much larger program of attacking anti-Americanism.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Ukraine started the war with 55 Brigades.
In 2025, that has grown to 100 Brigades.

If Ukraine had only 3 Brigades, approximately 15,000 troops, they would have been defeated in 24 hours three years ago. Ukraine currently has the 2nd largest military in Europe after Russia.

Where is your link? I gave you mine saying they have 3.

Waiting for you to man up or admit you were wrong.

 

[DBA]

While framed as a matter of reciprocity, the methodology ignores trade realities and punishes countries purely based on numerical trade deficits—without regard to intent, development status, or economic structure.

Sorry, but it's not our obligation to subsidize them. No matter how you spend it, that's exactly what it's going on.

But he does not belong in the White House and was never really a good businessman and inherited most of his wealth

This is patently false. Trump inherited far less than his current net worth.

 

[Robert W]

View attachment 1097681

YES

 

[otto105]

Are tariffs permanent or negotiated? Biden's inflation already cost us $11,400 a year.
We sent Trump to DC to root out the "deep state", to close the border, to deport illegals, to fix the economy and the Budget, and to end the war in Ukraine.

Where is this 11.4K number from fuckup.

 

[otto105]

Sorry, but it's not our obligation to subsidize them. No matter how you spend it, that's exactly what it's going on.



This is patently false. Trump inherited far less than his current net worth.

Nobody knows his current net worth.

We do know that he inherited around 445 million from Fred

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

1. Ukraine has a ground combat military force of over 100 Brigades holding back the Russians. NATO's Eastern Flank force to help Eastern European countries with their defense only has 10 Brigades. If the Ukrainian military collapses this year, that forward deployed NATO force of 10 Brigades will be facing 200 Brigades of Russian troops. They will be cut to pieces in hours with that imbalance of forces.
2. Trump and his goons are planning to cut the active U.S. Army by 20% when it really needs to be DOUBLE its size. So no, he is NOT doing that. He is more concerned about a balanced budget than can support tax cuts for the rich. He cares little for the military and is in love with Putin.
3. I complained that unemployment would jump very high as the economy moves into recession because of Trumps stupid trade policies of raising tariffs. The Last time a U.S. President did this on this scale it caused the Great Depression of the 1930s.
4. Fraud waste and abuse to you, but in reality its a way to prevent the next pandemic, stop the spread of dangerous diseases, feed the hungry, help the third world develop so they can become allies of the United States keeping them out of China's orbit.

Russia has only 160-190 brigades in their entire military. Another error? Your Google-fu is really sucking!

 

[Moonglow]

Not we, just you. I personally have posted reduction of deficit once Musk's team sounded off. The only way to reduce debt is to pay some off. Trump has every intention of paying off debt.

I doubt he does.

 

[Moonglow]

View attachment 1097681

And they have to have military experience.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Certainly don't like his policies, personality, morality and treatment of women. I respect his ability to entertain a crowd though and its one of the talents he truly does have. The reality TV shows or having his own talk show is where he would really shine. But he does not belong in the White House and was never really a good businessman and inherited most of his wealth.

Too stupid for rational commentary.

 

[Flopper]

You can tax the 100 most wealthy Americans 100% and you only cover the interest on this debt for roughly 15 months. Then the problem is, you can’t tax them the same the next year, cuz they are broke.

Yes, bring back industry and jobs, but you need to cut the expenses as well.

Raising tariffs alone will not bring manufacturing or jobs back to America. While tariffs are intended to make imported goods more expensive and thus encourage domestic production, the reality is more complex. Many companies have moved operations overseas not just for cheaper labor, but also for access to supply chains, raw materials, and emerging markets. Simply making imports more costly doesn't address those deeper economic incentives.

Additionally, tariffs can lead to unintended consequences, such as higher prices for consumers and retaliatory tariffs from other countries, which can hurt American exporters. Without broader strategies—like investing in workforce development, modernizing infrastructure, offering targeted incentives for reshoring, and fostering innovation—tariffs are unlikely to reverse decades of globalization.

Couple of questions here....

We export products to Cambodia, and they tariff our products at a rate of 97%.

1. Why shouldn't our tariffs be equal to what they do to our goods we ship them?

2. Shouldn't trade be fair?

Every time we buy goods made from Cambodia, we, the tax payer are paying to subsidize Cambodia...


The problem with your argument is that it's fear mongering....

Trump has said he's willing to negotiate with any country that the tariffs would be imposed on. So, all they have to do is come in and talk with President Trump, and reach a deal that includes not ripping off the American consumer...Simple....

Trade Minister: Cambodia’s tariffs on US goods are only 29.4%, not 97%​

The tariff line we have on imported products from the United States to Cambodia is only 29.4%, which is lower than the 35% tariff line that is generally applied to products of all (WTO) trading partners.”

Trade Minister: Cambodia’s tariffs on US goods are only 29.4%, not 97% (VIDEO) - Khmer Times

In wake of shock US tariffs on Cambodia - based on the assumption that Cambodia imposes a tariff of 97% on US imports - Cambodian Minister of Commerce Cham Nimul has stated that the tariffs Cambodia imposes on American goods are only 29.4%, not 97% as US President Donald Trump stated.

www.khmertimeskh.com

 

[Correll]

.

He said, his company would not consider bringing the manufacturing back to the US because it would require a capital outlay of over two million dollars, much higher labor costs. And tariffs could disappear with new president or if Trump got deal.
....

Are you trying to imply that that will be the response of ALL manufacturers?