$1,200 IS THE NUMBER U R MINUS

apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-househo...de6c63f0d1196c54f453

Tariffs have cost U.S. households $1,200 each since Trump returned to the White House,.THRU NOV. AND THE INSURANCE INCREASES COMING R NOT CALCULATED INTO THAT NUMBER....FINANCIAL HEAVY LOAD IS BEING LIFTED BY U(COLLECTIVELY)....NO THE OTHER COUNTRIES R NOT PAYING FOR IT AND THIS IS JUST THE START OF THE TARIFF TIMELINE SHOWING UP....MORE TO COME, HOW'S YOUR WALLET THESE DAYS?......WAIT AND WATCH....MID TERMS WILL BE THE REVOLT...BECAUSE NO ONE IS GETTING THEIR PIECE OF THE PIE,EXCEPT TRUMPS' BESTIES.....THE RESTRUCTURING IS NOT GOING SO WELL...WHAT A SURPRISE.

Do you have the numbers for Bidenflation? Real wages have risen under Trump's two terms. They declined under when Biden was President.

Under Governor Polis, utility rates are increasing by 10% this year. Much bigger hit on my household than tariffs.

Under the last administration gasoline was over $3/gallon in December of 2024 . . . in December of 2025 it is under $2/gallon . . . that's a 33% drop. If you're filling your 20 gallon fuel tank once a week, that's a savings of $20/week, x 52 weeks in a year, that's over $1K a year in savings . . . so roughly a wash with what the tariffs are alleged to be costing me. At least I'm close to even . . .

I wish the majority of Americans voters understood how long it takes for an economy to turn around, especially after 4 years of brain dead economic and energy policies. The government intentionally shut the country down for way too long and we will never recover completely from that insanity. Tariffs will also take time to work… but too many people want instant results. They don’t factor in the trillions of new investments coming into our country, because of Trump.

Unfortunately for the Union, the low-information left voters have their full attention fully focused on single aspect of a larger issue anytime someone shouts "Squirrel!", unable to see the forest for the trees . . .

AND THE HI END INFORMATION INDIVIDUAL....SEES THAT A COMPROMISE IS NOT WAITING IN THE WINGS AND THAT THE FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM WILL NOT BE REVISED AND EXTENDED.,...WATCH ANOTHER SHUTDOWN ALSO ,BECAUSE THAT ISSUE WILL NOT BE RESOLVED IN THE APPROPRIATE TIME FRAME AND PARTISANSHIP WILL BE THE PROBLEM......AND THEN, WAIT FOR IT....IS THERE ANOTHER RECESSION AROUND THE CORNER, BECAUSE OF ALL THE AFOREMENTIONED FACTORS????.....U MAY FIND THE MONTH OF FEB. TO BE TOTALLY FUBARED.

Don't know what you're talking about HA, SNAPS is in operation with revised guidelines for who is eligible for benefits under the program. Not a single group of citizens are denied access to the program. There are new restrictions for length of time one is eligible for benefits when one is single, capable of work, and with no dependents, but even this group has access to benefits for a period of 3 months over a 36 month time frame.

The maximum benefit for a family per month has not lessened under the new standards, and the only burden placed upon anyone receiving benefits is that they must reapply to ensure that the waste, fraud, and abuse which was rampant within the charity program is reduced, thus ensuring that those for whom the program was established, and not fraudsters, are the ones who receive the benefit of taxpayer charity.

The enhanced subsidies paid to insurance companies resulting from the lack of employment opportunities during the so-called pandemic shouldn't be extended, everyone agrees that the so-called pandemic has ended and employment opportunity is no longer restricted.

That the Democrats during the Obama administration, and since, have single-handedly, without the support of even a single Republican vote, managed to create and fund another unsustainable charity program doesn't mean that the taxpayers should be on the hook to ensure that the unsustainable costs continue to be borne on their shoulders.

www.forbes.com/sites/briancastrucci/2025...nt-mean-its-perfect/


The danger ahead is real: as eligibility narrows and costs shift, as many as 22 million families could lose some or all their benefits. Combined with the looming loss of Medicaid coverage for more than 10 million Americans, the health consequences could be devastating. But this moment also presents an opportunity. Rather than weakening SNAP, policymakers could choose to strengthen it — linking benefits more closely to healthy food, incentivizing better diets and ensuring that a program born in crisis continues to serve its original purpose: fighting hunger while fueling a stronger, healthier nation.

Federal spending does need guardrails, but if you’re reducing your household budget, food is the last thing you cut, not your first. We always seem to have money for bombs, bailouts and billionaires. But food for low-income families? Too expensive.

AND U NEED A PRIMER I JUST HOW THE GOV. IS SQUANDERING YOUR HARD EARNED $$$$$$

A FRIGGIN BALLROOM THAT THE PRESERVATION SOCIETY HAS NOT SANCTIONED AND WANTS A FULL REVISION OF THE PLANS. ......U (COLLECTIVELY) CAN NOT BE THAT BLIND...OR MAYBE i AM OVERESTIMATING THE INTELLIGENCE...YES, I KNOW HIS BILLIONAIRE BESTIES R DONATING
MONEY, WHAT A EMPATHIC ,EGOTISTICAL ,EGREGIOUS GROUP OF HUMANS....WE CAN GIVE MONEY TO THE KING'S LATEST OBSESSIONS.....BUT KEEPING OUR CHILDREN AND ELDERLY
CITIZENS FROM HUNGER IS SUCH A NON EXISTENT PRIORITY ,IT BECOMES HITLERSQUE AND OBSCENE.....MID TERM 2026 CAN NOT COME SOON ENOUGH....

Crazy Democrats will probably bulldoze the new ballroom out of spite when they regain the White House. And will go back to hosting state dinners in tents on the lawn in January at over one million dollars an event.