An interesting story in light of Trump's unilateral executive claims to be able to issue new taxes on private businesses to the exclusion of Congress, or even to arbitrarily demand partial state ownership of large corporations such as Intel, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc... (we can also recall the rumors from 2018 that Trump was considering the nationalization of the American coal and steel industries). The story is that Kennedy is refloating the vaporware idea of the federal government removing choice from SNAP recipients and instead mailing them a government meal plan. This was discussed back in 2018 as well as a welfare-cutting measure, although with Kennedy's participation it is peculiarly rebranded as "MAHA boxes", a "wholesome" alternative to the typical diets of the poor.
This weird shift to quasi-State capitalism is going to ruin the US economy. I'm glad today's ruling on tariffs went the way it did, I just hope the Supreme Court doesn't cave to Trump again.
The RFK stuff is just bonkers. I'm totally on board with not over prescribing medications, with allowing Big Pharma to rob us citizens, and pushing for healthier food and healthier food standards However his MAHA approach is just his revenge against the established experts that did get on board with his loony train stuff.

Yes, this is a real Backroom throwback, if any of you still around remember.

While pointing out that the whole notion of the state replacing grocery and convenience stores on a national scale, out of a paternalistic disdain for the poor, was insultingly stupid on its face, I did reflect positively on the idea of the government making 'quality' meal plans available as an option to the general public.
Good throw back though and discussion, miss when we had that many contributors. Yeah, state provide meals instead of a purchase card makes no sense outside of things like schools, military, and jails.

Trump pushing NATO into rearmament is far more to do with the Ukraine War and Trump's sheer existence as an avatar of an unreliable America than with any diplomatic effort; if it turns out he is a secret mastermind who pursued an anime heel turn for the purpose of uniting everyone against him - that old trope - then maybe we could give him some credit. It's also not 5% however, as 1.5% of the mutual understanding is allotted to general fiscal commitments that could be covered by most categories of existing government spending. As before, I don't believe even for a second that the US will ever even spend 2% of its GDP on military presence in Europe, in peacetime.
I don't really credit trump for the 5% as if he was a great negotiator. One: I know that he just made up an insane number that was to be unattainable so he could rag on the Europeans for not pulling their weight. Two: I'm tracking that it allows for a lot of normal 'infrastructure' and so spending to count but it does set some requirements on actual military spending and not just peripheries. So like Germany's Rheinmetall building more ammo factories in Germany, Romania, and Spain counts towards it if using govt funds, just as Italy's Sicily-Calabria bridge counts too.
The rest of NATO really only agreed to a watered down 5% to seemingly plactate Trump and as you point out, in response to the ongoing war.

To the extent there was something accomplished in weakening Iran, and that the game was worth the candle in the long run, it was 99% Israeli direct action (though not 99% Israeli arms).
It was absolutely an Israeli success that Trump tagged along at the end to be a 'winner.' Only time will tell if the effort was worth it. I personally think that having done those strikes that he should have conducted follow-up strikes on the same facilities once the battle damage assessment was down and only then force the Iranians to the table. Though of course that might risk a wider regional war which would not be worth it so only time will tell what the best policy was.

But no one in the future would be able to say that the country wasn't actively debased and prepared for servitude over many years before Trump by malign elements.
Yup, agree whole heartedly. Especially the complete absence of Congress over the last few decades to reign in the executive branch. I think they find it easier to let one man take the credit and blame for most things which allows them to just rabble rouse and reap the financial rewards with minimum political risk.
Too many of our politicians refuse to lead and as such give more power to the executive as they can't lead or negotiate out of the current grid lock against any actual policies that make meaningful change. If the midterms down reverse the current climate then we really are on the road to autocracy without any brakes left.