What positive changes are you looking forward to as outcomes of the USA 2024 presidential election?

Judith Browning wrote:Many regulations came from important needs...for clean air and water, safe food and drugs, safe disposal of manufacturing wastes...fairness in the workplace/diversity...social services....medical needs.

I think reaccessing programs and current needs in those areas is wise...cutting them out without reassessment not so good.

This would be an area where I could not say one way or the other. I do not know what research or assessment was used to decide we needed it and then to decide we do not.

I imagine there are statistics that would favor both decisions depending on how you put those statistics together.

Judith Browning wrote:let me just say, I don't mind at all receiving 'thumbs down' or even 'apple cores' but I hope that others who are participating in this conversation might be spared just to keep an open dialog.

Yes and I appreciate the sharing of ideas and information. It has not come across to me as combative or offensive and I desire not to be combative or offensive in what I say as well.

I would like to see more localized regulation decisions. The states having more control of some regulatory decisions. I may be jumping into a fire though; Oregon is definitely split between red and blue depending on what side of the Cascades you are on. Diversity is tough, meritocracy is pretty important. Like picking teams for a game in grade school, feelings get hurt.  The "Peter Principle" does seem to be alive and well in some government selections.

The "Peter Principle" does seem to be alive and well in some government selections  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

 The Peter principle is a concept in management developed by Laurence J. Peter which observes that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to "a level of respective incompetence": employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another.[1][2]

I'm personally against DEI programs. If I were king, there would be no place on a job application for sex, race, gender, religion, nationality. I would base hiring purely and exclusively on merit.  I would prefer hiring officials couldn't even see or hear the applicants, so even unconscious bias could not come into play. I think most, maybe not all, but most, people that are facing something like a dangerous surgery or an airplane trip would prefer that the absolute best qualified person were doing the surgery or flying the plane. I care not at all if my surgeon is white, brown, yellow, red, male, female, what country they are from, what religion they are, or any other diversity you can come up with.

I don't perceive any positive changes, nor any negative changes happening because a different faction happens to be in the white house or congress at the current moment. At no time in my life, have I perceived more freedom as a result of an election.

The factions seem like two wings of the same bird of prey that devours all. Minor changes might happen after an election, but the bird remains, and grows with each cycle.

Every time, i am asked my race on a form, i reply "Other: human". I think it would be positive if that question disappeared from government forms.

Judith Browning wrote:One of my specific concerns has to do with diversity, the importance of diversity in my garden, among my friends, in my community, folks we meet while traveling and internationally on line.

To what positive end have those particular areas been cut or removed from government protection?

I fear the word 'diversity' is going the way of ' liberal'?

I am very glad that the DEI programs have been removed, because I believe they took a good idea to the wrong place. Diversity is good, but diversity for the sake of diversity is not advisable. I would never plant an apple tree, a banana tree, some crab grass, a cocoa tree, some marigolds, a cedar tree, cattails, and multiflora rose in the same garden. That would be very diverse, but those plants can't all survive in the same conditions. They would be competing rather than complimenting. We create diverse gardens with a purpose, to fill each role in the ecosystem, not simply to have as many species as we can.

Every DEI program I have ever dealt with or read about cares too much about the color of your skin and what gender you want to call yourself, without paying attention to skills, ability, and character. These programs assume that a board made up of light skinned males is NOT diverse and also assumes that a board made up of half women and half men with a variety of shades of skin IS  diverse. That kind of diversity shouldn't matter. What we should care about is things like how honest you are and how good you are at the job and having different ways of looking at the world... regardless of your physical characteristics

When an airline says they are going to pay attention to the color of someone's skin and the gender they claim to be, more than skills to fly an airplane, that is scary. By saying we must hire this color skin... you are being just as racist as saying we won't hire this color skin. Their focus is on skin color instead of the skills to fly an airplane.

When a university says we are going to lower the standards if you are of a certain color skin... that sounds like an insult to me. This is the university saying those people were not smart enough to get in on their own, so they must be helped. There are plenty of people of all colors of skin who can make it in on the same standards. And there are plenty of people of all skin colors who can't. Some people are smarter than others... it has nothing to do with color of their skin.

To take this to an extreme to try to make a point... If diversity, simply for diversity's sake, is good, why don't we ever see 100lb, 5ft women on a security detail? Why don't we see a 400lb person chosen for the olympic pole vault? Why aren't there any asians in the NFL? Why do we never see a motorcyclist in the tour de france? The answer is because all of those things are based on skills and being fit for that specific task. I think just about everything should be this way. Are you good at that job or not? Who cares what you look like.

This seems to have moved on to a general discussion of race and hiring instead of answering Judith's questions, so I'm going to weigh in as a contradictory voice.

When I imagine an inner-city hospital that serves a substantially black population, and I think of a black kid getting an emergency appendectomy who sees no black doctors, I can't help but be reminded that representation matters. What life-lessons does that kid take away from that experience? And what about when it's repeated at banks and schools and city council meetings and on and on? So now, at that hospital, they're filling a slot for a new ER attending. 35 young doctors applied and they've narrowed it down to four who have essentially equal scores. The hiring board can choose the one black doctor or one of the three white doctors. Who should they pick?

To me, the social good of hiring the black doctor over the three white ones is obvious and plain.

Sometimes when it's left up to the hiring board, they realize that and make the right choice. More often (in my experience), being a bunch of white men, they're just subtly more comfortable with the white candidates and since they all have the same score, the job goes to a white doctor. If the hospital has a DEI program in place, the black candidate maybe gets an extra half a point on the rubric that helps the board pick and so they have less ability to just go with their gut.

Also, as far as I know, every government position at every level, all across the United states, and also every company that depends on government contracts, which is millions and millions of jobs, gives preferential hiring to veterans. I assume anyone opposed to these DEI programs is also opposed to veteran preference programs...right?

Christopher Weeks wrote:
Also, as far as I know, every government position at every level, all across the United states, and also every company that depends on government contracts, which is millions and millions of jobs, gives preferential hiring to veterans. I assume anyone opposed to these DEI programs is also opposed to veteran preference programs...right?

Being a Veteran is a result of a thing you accomplished. Being born a certain color is not.

I personally believe this is not a very good comparison/argument.

Josh Hoffman wrote:Being a Veteran is a result of a thing you accomplished. Being born a certain color is not.

So, your assertion is factually correct, but if the point of opposing diversity-enhancement programs is wanting the person most qualified for the job to get the job, why wouldn't the same logic apply to vets?

As Josh said, I see veteran's preference in hiring as different then DEI. Military service involves sacrifice. Remote assignments, being paid less than civilian counterparts for the same job, 24 hour duty days, being sent to war zones, and on and on. People die in military service. That program bears no resemblance to being given a job or some other benefit strictly because you were born a certain color, sex, or sexual identity.

As far as your other example of the inner city doctor, you may make a valid point if it were implemented that way. That hasn't been my experience. I have only seen DEI implemented as a quota system, where you must hire some percentage of X, X of course being a certain race, sex, gender, whatever. It isn't possible to set a percentage of X you must meet and still hire the most qualified people. I don't think it's unfair to say the most qualified person is the person I want for the job. I owned a small business for a number of years. I hired smart, hard working, motivated people, and that was my only criteria. I had different races and both sexes. I have no idea about their sexual preferences or identities, because I didn't ask and don't care. It's irrelevant to me. Taking diversity to it's extreme, I would have had to hire some not so smart, lazy, unmotivated workers to round out my team. A silly example of course, but that's why I believe in hiring for merit only.

Christopher Weeks wrote:

Josh Hoffman wrote:Being a Veteran is a result of a thing you accomplished. Being born a certain color is not.

So, your assertion is factually correct, but if the point of opposing diversity-enhancement programs is wanting the person most qualified for the job to get the job, why wouldn't the same logic apply to vets?

For the sake of clarification, veteran's preference adds 5 points to the overall score towards hiring, unless you are hiring a disabled vet that is at least 30% disabled, in which case the preference is 10 points. It isn't an automatic hire card to be played.

Christopher Weeks wrote:

Josh Hoffman wrote:Being a Veteran is a result of a thing you accomplished. Being born a certain color is not.

So, your assertion is factually correct, but if the point of opposing diversity-enhancement programs is wanting the person most qualified for the job to get the job, why wouldn't the same logic apply to vets?

My answer to Judith's question on what good will come out of eliminating DEI was: less regulation.

I would like to see all preferential treatment eliminated.

However, I do not think DEI can be justified because Veteran preference exists. They have to be separate discussions because their merits are not the same.

Josh Hoffman wrote:However, I do not think DEI can be justified because Veteran preference exists. They have to be separate discussions because their merits are not the same.

Conveniently, I didn’t suggest anything remotely like that. I was merely pointing to a potential inconsistency if you favor one sort of preferential hiring and not another, but claim that the rationale is to always get the most qualified candidate

Trace Oswald wrote:As far as your other example of the inner city doctor, you may make a valid point if it were implemented that way. That hasn't been my experience.

My experience with hiring, which is on a scale of a company of a few hundred, was that I never had 2 equal candidates. There was always something that made one person stand out and it was not their color or sex.

There are a lot of reasons why. Some folks may see their native town or state or the college they went to. For me, I always did prefer Veterans and I had the freedom to do so in the private sector.

But let's say I only wanted to hire white males, I would have the freedom to do so, as long as I never said that out loud, and the customer would have the freedom to use my services or not.

Christopher Weeks wrote:

Josh Hoffman wrote:However, I do not think DEI can be justified because Veteran preference exists. They have to be separate discussions because their merits are not the same.

Conveniently, I didn’t suggest anything remotely like that. I was merely pointing to a potential inconsistency if you favor one sort of preferential hiring and not another, but claim that the rationale is to always get the most qualified candidate

I did not intend to imply that you were doing that. I was reinforcing that they would need to be reviewed separately.

They do have in common that they are both in the preferential hiring category.

Judith, I just want to thank you for this wonderful post.  To you and all who answered all that I can say is Most Excellent !  You and I are most likely close in age and while we would not agree on a lot of things, we would agree on many.  I still want to show support for you, even if you are a big time "lib".

Sending out a big ole hug to you, stay strong in what you believe !

Peace ( and love and all those other hippy things  - Haaaaaaa )

Deane Adams wrote:Judith, I just want to thank you for this wonderful post.  To you and all who answered all that I can say is Most Excellent !  You and I are most likely close in age and while we would not agree on a lot of things, we would agree on many.  I still want to show support for you, even if you are a big time "lib".

Sending out a big ole hug to you, stay strong in what you believe !

Peace ( and love and all those other hippy things  - Haaaaaaa )

thank you!
These conversations are important to me because I sincerely believe that one on one most folks can communicate their needs and wants and expectations.

Paul has set a tone here that allows us to be who we are while respecting others who have different philosophical positions as well as different cultures.

I appreciate you Deane🌞

edit:
I admit to falling into the 'us and them' mode of judging groups of people and also stereotypes and labels.  This is helping me get past that and try to break away from that way of thinking.

Judith Browning wrote:Is Project 2025 part of the new agenda?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

still wondering

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/january-28-2025

It sure seems like it.

1. I do not think President Trump had anything to do with Project 2025.

2. I haven't read Project 2025, so it would be easier if you could point out a few specific things that are of a concern to you, and allow me to respond to those items specifically. I believe Project 2025 is  fairly lengthy document?

Matt McSpadden wrote:1. I do not think President Trump had anything to do with Project 2025.

2. I haven't read Project 2025, so it would be easier if you could point out a few specific things that are of a concern to you, and allow me to respond to those items specifically. I believe Project 2025 is  fairly lengthy document?

sure thing Matt!
Although it's more than a few concerns.....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

 Project 2025 is the ninth iteration of the Mandate for Leadership series, published since 1981. The project asserts a controversial interpretation of the unitary executive theory, according to which the entire executive branch is under the complete control of the U.S. president.[7][8][9] It proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees in order to replace them with people loyal to the president.[10] Proponents of the project argue it would dismantle what they view as a vast, unaccountable, and mostly liberal governmental bureaucracy.[11] The project also seeks to infuse the government and society with conservative Christian values.[12][13] Critics have characterized Project 2025 as an authoritarian, Christian nationalist plan to steer the U.S. toward autocracy.[12][14][15][16] Legal experts have said it would undermine the rule of law,[17] separation of powers,[5] separation of church and state,[18] and civil liberties.[5][17][19]

Project 2025 envisions sweeping changes to economic and social policies and the federal government and its agencies. The plan proposes taking partisan control of the Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Commerce (DOC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Federal Trade Commission (FTC), dismantling the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and abolishing the Department of Education (ED), whose programs would be transferred or terminated.[20][21] It calls for making the National Institutes of Health (NIH) less independent, stopping it from funding research with embryonic stem cells, and reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuels.[17][22][23][24] The blueprint seeks to institute tax cuts,[25] but its writers disagree on protectionism.[26] The project seeks to cut Medicare and Medicaid,[27][28] and urges the government to explicitly reject abortion as health care.[29][30] It seeks to eliminate coverage of emergency contraception[27] and use the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills.[30][31] It proposes criminalizing pornography and imprisoning those who produce it,[32][33] removing legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,[33][34] and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs[5][34] while having the DOJ prosecute anti-white racism instead.[35] The project recommends the arrest, detention, and mass deportation of illegal immigrants living in the U.S.[36][37][38] It proposes deploying the military for domestic law enforcement.[39] It promotes capital punishment and the speedy "finality" of those sentences.[40][41] It hopes to undo "[al]most everything implemented" by the Biden administration.[42]

Although Project 2025 cannot legally promote presidential candidates without endangering its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, many contributors are associated with Trump and his 2024 presidential campaign.[43][44][45][46] The Heritage Foundation employs many people closely aligned with Trump,[47][48][49] including members of his 2017–2021 administration,[50] and coordinates the initiative with conservative groups run by Trump allies.[12] Some Trump campaign officials have had regular contact with Project 2025, and told Politico in 2023 that the project aligned well with their Agenda 47 program, though they have since said that it does not speak for Trump or his campaign.[11][51][52][53] The project's controversial proposals led Trump and his campaign to distance themselves from it in 2024; Trump said he knew nothing about it and that "some of the things [Project 2025 says] are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal".[47][54][55][56] The project's president, Kevin Roberts, said in response that no one at Project 2025 had "hard feelings" for Trump because they knew "he's making a political tactical decision there".[57] Critics dismissed Trump's claims, pointing to the various people close to Trump who helped to draft the project, the many contributors who are expected to be appointed to leadership roles in a future Trump administration, his endorsement of the Heritage Foundation's plans for his administration in 2022, and the 300 times Trump himself is mentioned in the plans.[58][59][60][61]  

After Trump won the 2024 election, he nominated several of the plan's architects and supporters to positions in his administration.[62] Four days into Trump's second term, analysis conducted by Time found that nearly two-thirds of his executive actions "mirror or partially mirror" proposals from Project 2025.[63]  

and more here...
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/january-28-2025

I have this thread bookmarked. It'll be interesting to read again in about 4 years.

Judith Browning wrote:I need reassurance
...my interest is in where those who put him in office think things are headed in this next administration.

It would be fine with me if this thread were locked now and moderators don't have to watch it...there's plenty else going on🙃

Thanks to those who participated...I would have been interested in hearing from more folks.

My understanding from what I did hear here and elsewhere is that the hope is for less government involvement in your lives...good luck with that💜🩷💛💚🧡

On a farming/agricultural note, does anyone here think what he just did with all that water in the Tulare basin was smart or prudent? I'm also interested to see what US financial markets do in a couple of days in reaction to the tariffs, and wonder how many people are going to connect the dots on the price of consumer goods in coming months.

Phil Stevens wrote:On a farming/agricultural note, does anyone here think what he just did with all that water in the Tulare basin was smart or prudent? I'm also interested to see what US financial markets do in a couple of days in reaction to the tariffs, and wonder how many people are going to connect the dots on the price of consumer goods in coming months.

I'm not sure 'smart and prudent' is part of the agenda? maybe rather 'shock and awe'🤔
I would be pretty upset if someone drained my summer garden rainwater storage.
I doubt that that action taken by government will help lower the price of groceries?  (and it was apparently not water that could have helped put out the fires)

Deliberately antagonizing neighbors is not my idea of how best to get along in the world on any scale.

So it really never was about the price of eggs or DEI or 'america first'?
Rich guys in control does not seem in our best interest to me but maybe they will share their wealth

Where does  permaculture 'people care' fit in to this new scenario?

I am so sorry that so many felt their lives were so bad that this was their choice.

Again, apologies to Canada and Mexico and the long list of other countries caught up in this madness.  

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/february-2-2025

https://robertreich.substack.com/p/what-you-need-to-know-about-trumps

Maybe someone can explain the 'big picture' to me, just what is the goal here other than what seems to be dismantling a government?
...and antagonizing the world?

Hi Judith,
I read through your second link there. There is a lot of opinion there, but I see a lot of facts missing that might make him seem a little less power hungry.

Why did Trump stop foreign aid? Not because it’s wasteful. In fact, it helps stabilize the world and reduces the spread of communicable diseases. The real reason Trump stopped foreign aid is he wants to show he can.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/federal-judge-blocks-trump-spending-freeze-aimed-at-foreign-aid-woke-programs

Many news sources like to focus on the foreign aid, but the freezing of spending was not just foreign aid... it was a variety of spending. This was done to let things be reviewed. The memo refers to stopping funding for DEI and green new deal items yes. In fact one source says there was $50 million to be spent on condoms for Gaza... personally I don't want my tax money spent on that.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/whistleblowers-accuse-fema-of-misappropriating-funds-leaving-first-responders-without-orders

How would you feel to be working for a company that decides they are going to give food to the homeless? You would feel pretty good at first. The company is doing a nice thing. Then on Friday when you go to get your paycheck, you are told that the company spent too much money on this food, and cannot pay you for 3 weeks. You might feel a little put out. You almost might feel that if there is not enough money to do both at the same time... that maybe the employees who work for the company should be prioritized, and THEN the homeless. The fact is that FEMA said they were running low on money. The allegation is that they spent it on illegal immigrants and didn't have any left for the citizens in North Carolina. I think we should prioritize our citizens first.

Don't be disheartened. Keep in mind that President Trump is looking long term. Our country is in big trouble. It is failing. Sometimes that takes big changes to fix. Sometimes it takes some serious pruning. If you see a disease on 1/3 of the plant... are you going to let the whole plant get infected... just because cutting off 1/3 is a big thing? Or perhaps a better example is an old overgrown apple tree with several old branches broken and just barely hanging on, dead wood everywhere, and surrounded by bushes that are choking it out. To save the apple tree, you have to do a lot of pruning and a lot of cutting. The end result may be a great apple tree that lives for another 100 years.... but there will be a lot of branches that get cut off and bushes that get cut down. The apple tree will look different too. Some people might be mad that you are cutting down all the pretty bushes. But if you want to save the apple tree... that is what it takes. I think some of the changes President Trump is making are drastic, but the ones I have heard of, I believe will help in the long term.

thank you Matt...reading different news sources certainly gives us different perspectives.

   I think some of the changes President Trump is making are drastic, but the ones I have heard of, I believe will help in the long term.  

I'm still not getting a clear picture of the 'long term goal'?

and how relationships with the world will be repaired?

and just when will the price of groceries go down?

and what about my gay friends who are now worried about their safety? not to mention the safety of any one who is not white and male and straight (or billionaires)?

do folks with no government clearance really have access to the treasury dept. now?  do you trust Musk?

Oh, these are easy!

Judith Browning wrote:I'm still not getting a clear picture of the 'long term goal'?

Billionaires will exist without any government apparatus strong enough to stand in their way. They will be literally above the law. The law, to whatever extent it even exists, will only affect the rest of us.

and how relationships with the world will be repaired?

Billionaires in America will make business deals with billionaires in China and Europe and everywhere that there are billionaires. The rest of the international world order will be torn down because it risks interfering with literally absolute power for the billionaires.

and just when will the price of groceries go down?

Never. Billionaires don't care about the prices of groceries because it is beneath their notice.

and what about my gay friends who are now worried about their safety?

Fuck them, unless they're billionaires and then no one cares.

Christopher Weeks wrote:Oh, these are easy!

Judith Browning wrote:I'm still not getting a clear picture of the 'long term goal'?

Billionaires will exist without any government apparatus strong enough to stand in their way. They will be literally above the law. The law, to whatever extent it even exists, will only affect the rest of us.

and how relationships with the world will be repaired?

Billionaires in America will make business deals with billionaires in China and Europe and everywhere that there are billionaires. The rest of the international world order will be torn down because it risks interfering with literally absolute power for the billionaires.

and just when will the price of groceries go down?

Never. Billionaires don't care about the prices of groceries because it is beneath their notice.

and what about my gay friends who are now worried about their safety?

Fuck them, unless they're billionaires and then no one cares.

that's pretty much what it's looking like to me also.

I added another question since those....

  do folks with no government clearance really have access to the treasury dept. now?  do you trust Musk?

Judith Browning wrote:do folks with no government clearance really have access to the treasury dept now?

That's my impression from reading the news, but I'm not in a position to know first-hand.

do you trust Musk?

Whatever the opposite of trust is, that's what I have for Musk. I would like him to have less influence, whatever that would take.

I think anyone that doesn't acknowledge that billionaires are running both parties aren't really looking.  Anyone ever heard of George Soros, Eli Broad, Jon Stryker, Steven Spielberg, Bill Gates, Dirk Ziff, Hansjörg Wyss, Mark Zuckerberg?  Some of those, like Zuckerberg seem to bend like the wind, but I would recommend this book, "Arabella: The Dark Money Network of Leftist Billionaires Transforming America".  It points out pretty clearly that the majority of billionaires in this country support the left.  Regardless, money has always, and will always, run both parties.  I don't think that is any indication of which party is better, or worse, for the country.

Trace Oswald wrote:I don't think that is any indication of which party is better, or worse, for the country.

In general terms, I agree with your stance, Trace. I do think billionaires drive both major parties. And medium-term historically I think the parties are nearly indistinguishable (Over my lifetime the Democrats have been a center-right party and the Republicans a solid- but not extreme- right party). But I also think what the greater Trump coalition are doing right now is of an entirely different order than what we're used to. And I think they're making a push to upset the global status quo in a big way, and if they succeed it's not going to be pretty and the people who currently support and enabled the upset are going to have a rude awakening. I think Trump being part of the GOP is more or less an accident. He's on record being aligned with the Democrats as recently as 25 years ago and he was really just looking for any easy way to take something big over without having to do all the work of building the infrastructure from the ground up (like Perot failed to do). So, I think the GOP is worse than the Democrats but it's sort of a trivial distinction and if we're not really witnessing the end times, it's probably temporary.

(As an aside, I've spent most of my life saying the Republicans are evil and the Democrats are stupid. Which of those I prefer changes back and forth over time and I've voted for several of each.)

Trace Oswald wrote:I think anyone that doesn't acknowledge that billionaires are running both parties aren't really looking.  Anyone ever heard of George Soros, Eli Broad, Jon Stryker, Steven Spielberg, Bill Gates, Dirk Ziff, Hansjörg Wyss, Mark Zuckerberg?  Some of those, like Zuckerberg seem to bend like the wind, but I would recommend this book, "Arabella: The Dark Money Network of Leftist Billionaires Transforming America".  It points out pretty clearly that the majority of billionaires in this country support the left.  Regardless, money has always, and will always, run both parties.  I don't think that is any indication of which party is better, or worse, for the country.

acknowledged,yes.
I get that money's running the show.
And those with money clearly have always influenced government policy.
But, have those with money, and also unelected and unvetted, ever been given the keys so blatantly before?
To the treasury department no less?

I fully agree that money speaks in politics and we usually end up voting for someone who might do the least damage.  
My utopian pipe dream is the Green Party and believe it or not, we got them on the ballot in Arkansas and elected someone to the state legislature...once upon a time🙄)

What I don't understand, in this instance, is how anyone who voted for him and his money guys, thought that that group would have the countries best interests at heart?

...and what about all those folks who were promised lower grocery prices?  What about the cost of eggs?

Judith Browning wrote:
I get that ...and what about all those folks who were promised lower grocery prices?  What about the cost of eggs?

These prices go up because of the devaluation of the dollar through endless printing of fiat currency. So long as we continue at a deficit, money is printed and your dollar is devalued. The most appropriate term is theft. It may appear some things hold regular prices but that would only be due to subsidies.

I check quite a few different sites for these statistics but here is one you can check to compare to the claims/talking points that your preferred media is making. It is interactive so you can select some of the basics to look at. It goes back to 2004.

https://www.bls.gov/charts/consumer-price-index/consumer-price-index-average-price-data.htm

Here is a screenshot.

Thank you Josh

I appreciate the link and chart.
That particular question was one I heard a lot as a one issue reason to vote for Trump and I think the remedy won't come soon enough for those folks.

It's been awhile but didn't Bill Clinton actually balance the budget during his eight years?  It can be done.

Judith Browning wrote:Thank you Josh

I appreciate the link and chart.
That particular question was one I heard a lot as a one issue reason to vote for Trump and I think the remedy won't come soon enough for those folks.

It's been awhile but didn't Bill Clinton actually balance the budget during his eight years?  It can be done.

I understand. I think things will take a while to take a certain course. As with President Biden, President Trump's record would could be reviewed at the end of the term to see where the changes actually occurred in our day to day lives and what impacts us for better or worse.

As mentioned in a previous post, I don't think many officials have our good in mind so these things are tokens, part of the bread and circus.

Judith Browning wrote:

...and what about all those folks who were promised lower grocery prices?  What about the cost of eggs?

Has any president ever taken office and fulfilled their campaign promises in the first 2 weeks?  Did anyone think Trump would take office and prices on everything would immediately drop?  That seems to me an unfair ask of anyone, in any position.