this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2025
174 points (98.9% liked)

politics

22630 readers
3764 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

U.S. stock futures dropped sharply Wednesday evening after Trump announced sweeping global tariffs, including a 10% baseline on all imports and 25% on autos.

As of 6:30 p.m. ET, Dow futures fell 2.43%, S&P 500 futures 3.60%, and Nasdaq futures 4.46%, contrasting with modest gains earlier in the day.

Trump framed the move as “Liberation Day,” but investors and economists raised alarms.

Goldman Sachs now sees a 35% recession risk, citing falling consumer confidence and the administration’s readiness to endure short-term economic pain to advance its trade agenda.

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sndmn@lemmy.ca 70 points 1 day ago (3 children)

It takes a special kind of stupid to schedule a recession.

[–] huppakee@lemm.ee 24 points 1 day ago (3 children)

He starts to remind me of Liz Truss, afraid he won't leave office as soon as she did tho

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Trump already outlasted the lettuce, unfortunately.

[–] PurpleTentacle@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

... even though the fat asshole would never eat one.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

I'd rather have the lettuce as president.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Liz lasted like 2 weeks or something.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] bstix@feddit.dk 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Bro looks like a cartoon version of himself converted back to a real person.

[–] Stanley_Pain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It's obvious that this is exactly what they want to do. The question is why.

Is this just a great ploy to buy the dip?

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Implode the world to bring about Jebus.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Not sure if joking but yes exactly.

[–] Artyom@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago

And daddy Putin wants it.

Not for his and his oligarch's aims

[–] radiohead37@lemmynsfw.com 30 points 1 day ago

The coward scheduled the announcement after markets closed to avoid the split screen showing the effects on the market.

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Goldman Sachs have blinders on. This is gonna hit hard tomorrow

[–] Screener@lemm.ee 6 points 1 day ago

My only guess is that they remain conservative in their estimates until we start reaching into a second or third quarter of GDP losses.

[–] FiremanEdsRevenge@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

Liberate deez nuts.

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Even though I know that I am personally going to feel the pain from this, it does bring me a little bit of satisfaction watching the rich assholes who put Trump in office in exchange for tax cuts losing their net worth because it's all tied to their stock.
Those tax breaks aren't going to matter when they don't have any money.

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 11 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

The poor people voted for tax cuts for the rich because they might be rich one day.

Turns out the rich people should've voted for social safety nets because they might be poor one day.

[–] Flisty@mstdn.social 6 points 23 hours ago

@OutlierBlue @Chainweasel the rich have forgotten they should vote for social safety nets because otherwise the poor have nothing to lose.

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 4 points 17 hours ago

The rich people will buy up these stocks and become even more proportionally wealthy than the poor because of it.

[–] thehowlingnorth@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

Wasn't it already 35% before today?

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

I think they just don't understand that we don't pay the tariffs, the country it's coming from pays the tariffs. Right! Right? Guys...