Leaderboard

The best way? The best way is a cultural change that returns the father to the home and re-enshrines the 2 parent household as the desired norm. The state can help by no longer subsidizing single motherhood, which will force men to take responsibility and for women to be more selective in their sexual partners. Absolutely the best way for this change to occur is a wide cultural return to the nation's original Christian values and a return to a belief in God. In other words, the best way to get poor people off govt subsidies is for everyone to become Mormon. (You didn't ask about possible ways, or feasible ways, just the best way.) Yep. Just yesterday the ACAB folks showed up on the UC Davis campus in their black bloc and umbrellas, and attacked a black cop who had set up a free speech "change my mind" event. One assault, and nobody asked for medical attention, so it could have been worse. https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/protesters-attempt-disrupt-student-event

The Savior felt the weight of the anguish of all mankind—the anguish of sin and of sorrow. “Surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows.” Through His Atonement, He heals not only the transgressor, but He also heals the innocent who suffer because of those transgressions. As the innocent exercise faith in the Savior and in His Atonement and forgive the transgressor, they too can be healed. There are times when each of us needs “relief from feelings of guilt that come from mistakes and sins.” As we repent, the Savior removes the guilt from our souls. - C. Scott Grow, The Miracle of the Atonement And he cometh into the world that he may save all men if they will hearken unto his voice; for behold, he suffereth the pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam. And he suffereth this that the resurrection might pass upon all men, that all might stand before him at the great and judgment day. - 2 Nephi 9:21-22

I think this is a Marxist idea.

Tariffs inihibit free trade and there’s all sorts of negatives that fall out from that. But as @Carborendum pointed out elsewhere, free trade had already been inhibited. Lining troops along your border with guns pointed at the other country diminishes foreign relations, but if their border is already lined with soldiers and guns pointed at your country I think troops are back in play. Additionally, we learned during Covid that the President should broadly consider the ramifications of his actions. That is, epidemiologists say the best course of action is to lock everyone in their homes. Before locking everyone up, the President should consider what that will do to the economy. Europe has recently seen an issue where they officially support Ukraine but are financially supporting Russia through oil purchases. For the sake of national security, there are some things we want manufactured or extracted domestically — even if it would be cheaper to buy from other countries. Domestic industries would need to be incentivized and a tariff would be one way to do so. Back on the unfree market, we have seen problems with American countries investing in R&D, bake that into the product’s price, and then sell it only to have a cheaper version arrive on the market shortly thereafter. If our companies have to include the cost of research but rival companies in countries that don’t respect IP only need to include cost of reverse engineering, innovation will slow or stop. Domestically we use patents to interrupt free trade in hopes that it will incentivize innovation. Could we use tariffs to do the same with international imitators?

Given what @Just_A_Guy has said about this Joseph Smith Foundation, here's a better link to the source - from the Wilford Woodruff Papers website.

All fair answers @Phoenix_person. I suppose I should ask you what you personally thought of tariffs before Trump. If you're like me, you didn't think much about them at all. Honestly, I'm having a difficult time finding any economist, conservative or not, saying positive things about what Trump is doing. Besides Trump appointees like Bessent and the Ag secretary and such folks, is there any positive voice in agreement? I see much hedging and guessing and maybe some cautious "this might accomplish X, but at what cost?" stuff going on. If any of this ends up working, let the record show that it was because Trump dragged the entire nation, kicking and screaming or at least hemming and hawing, into the light. Dude is surely out to cement his legacy in the history books, let his economic plan dictate how it will be cemented. In other news, I'm hardly impressed with all the end-of-the-world screaming about how the stock market is crashing. Here's my family's 401k performance: I note scary apocalypse dip is not as bad as the entire year of 2022. It's about as bad as Oct-Nov 2023. Maybe slightly worse than the dips of Jan 19 and May 20. Real quick - does anyone remember the panicky sense in the air for any of those? Anyone want to hazard a guess as to why not? My guess is that orange man bad drives the news cycle. In other words, it's a prime time to invest in the stock market. Imma try to see if I can suck an extra percent into my 401K.

As I keep having to remind you, I am not a Democrat, and America's mainstream left wing is one of the most conservative left wing parties in the world. I'm sure I could find several from Trump's first term. When it comes to economic matters, I listen to economists, not politicians. A lot of economists, even some of the more conservative ones, are saying that Trump's tariffs are ill-conceived and will bring a recession if he doesn't back off of them. Trump's own rhetoric backs that idea, with him repeatedly promising that the end result will justify short-term economic pain. https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-says-americans-could-feel-pain-trade-war-with-mexico-canada-china-2025-02-02/ I know several Trump voters who expected more immediate economic relief from the inflation-driven price hikes under Biden. I'm not sure how patient they're going to be if he hasn't delivered by the time midterms roll around.

The thing about war is—if we’re smart, we go in with a vision of a specific set of objectives and a well-defined idea of what “victory” looks like. And fairly early on we have to convey that vision to the country and get them (mostly) on board with it. Does victory look like a specific nation or group of nations reducing its own tariffs or eliminating a particular uncompetitive practice? Or do we keep the “war” up until specific domestic industries have developed a particular capacity? Or do we keep going until the trade imbalance (either in the aggregate, or nation by nation) is “fixed”? And if, as some have hinted, the long-term goal is to transition federal government revenue from income-tax-based to tariff-based—there are some good arguments for that; but then they probably shouldn’t be selling tariffs to their base as a temporary, [economic] wartime-based expedient when they know darned well that these tariffs (or are version of them) are going to be permanent.

It's war. Tariffs are war. Trump is waging war. Does war make it worse? Depends, right? Will these tariffs make it worse in the long run? Kind of depends on if the war is won or not. I inadvertently made my commentary above look like some form of poetry. Cool.

If bullets aren't the answer to corporate excess (I fully agree) but taxing people into net worths with 9 digits instead of 10 or 11 is tyranny, then what's the best way to get poor people off of government subsidies? The idea that corporations will invest tax breaks into domestic labor instead of stock buybacks is shaky at best. That's always been the theory, but how well has it worked out in practice? I ask these questions because the people who favor guns and guillotines are getting louder, and I don't want them to have their way any more than you do. But I don't see a way of avoiding that outcome without some concessions being made by those with the most wealth to part with. And again, the states that see the highest rates of SNAP and MEDICAID spending generally aren't the ones run by Dems.

We are on different pages here, and that’s fine. I’m for slashing taxes everywhere, every place and every time. Income, sales, capital gains and many more . The only fair taxes are land taxes and consumption taxes.

It is interesting to me that in this world the most ardent objections to the USA tariffs come from the countries that tariff the most goods coming to them from the USA. I personally am opposed to tariffs because they unlevel the playing field. But tariffs are not the only means through which the trade playing field is unleveled. It is my opinion that Trump is going too far in requiring that foreign countries must manufacture in the USA to avoid tariffs. This is an insane notion that will cause more problems than solutions. Every place and people of earth should be able to contribute to and receive from a world economy. Industry should be the core principle of economy, and no one should profit from the labor of others more than those laboring. Our worldwide economics should encourage industry. Those without natural resources should be encouraged and allowed to add value through their own industry. The Traveler

I totally, 100% agree with you that tariffs are a bad idea, and I also agree that conservatives economists are the ones saying that. Just curious-do you listen to economists on the minimum wage? Because it’s universally thought to be a bad idea to raise it. What about rent control? Because economists think rent control is a terrible idea. How about raising taxes? Because most economists think raising taxes can lead to economic slowdowns. Like I mentioned, I totally agree tariffs are a bad idea. A really bad idea. Free trade used to be a republican thing-and democrats would get very uncomfortable with it. Not so in 2025. And check Facebook. Tagged you in an album I think you’ll like.

I disagree with Bernie here, for the reason I named above. Tariffs can only protect domestic industries that are 100% reliant on domestic logistical support, and those are rare these days.

I’m interested, do you think Bernie Sanders should have had his way back in 2008 when he was against all of this getting set up in the first place?

Every year we read the Easter story. Most of the time it’s from one of the Gospels, but I have synoptized it before and we read the whole thing.

Today's post is maybe a little less obviously related to Easter than most I do, but to me, it feels connected with a little thought.

What gives them the power to go through hard things? What gives an extra layer of strength to go on when everything seems lost? I have found that the source of that strength is faith in Jesus Christ as we intentionally seek to come unto Him each and every day. - Joaquin E. Costa, The Power of Jesus Christ in Our Lives Every Day Nevertheless, notwithstanding the great goodness of the Lord, in showing me his great and marvelous works, my heart exclaimeth: O wretched man that I am! Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities. I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me. And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins; nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted. My God hath been my support; he hath led me through mine afflictions in the wilderness; and he hath preserved me upon the waters of the great deep. He hath filled me with his love, even unto the consuming of my flesh. - 2 Nephi 4:17-21

I'm the last person on earth to give a crap about what famous people wear to important events, but for whatever reason, I was struck by Melania's choice. - Mob boss wife - Starting mourning her husband early - "You [beep]s tried to kill my husband" The outfit made an impact on me. And I've never had an impact made on me by anyone's outfit before in my entire life (with the obvious exception of my wife on our sealing day).

https://general-history.com/why-are-tariffs-bad-according-to-milton-friedman/?amp=1 Let’s ask the Chairman of the Board.

Remember @NeuroTypical-the left has a monopoly on compassion. Especially when they talk about killing the rich and everyone who disagrees with them.