Promise of ‘a little rebate' suddenly becomes Trump's latest gimmick to distract Americans from the Epstein fallout
She told told me that when asking why one voter would back the once and future president, put simply, the voter told them in Spanish, 'I voted for Trump because he's going to give me money.'
Famously, at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, Trump signed an economic rescue package that included a $1,200 check. Moreover, Trump sent letters telling people he was the person responsible for it.
For many working-class families, the stimulus checks were a lifeline and Trump's approval rating slightly ticked up after sending out the checks, even as he would proceed to make careless mistakes that caused unnecessary deaths in the midst of the pandemic.
That conversation came to mind when on Friday, Trump suddenly floated the idea of sending out 'a little rebate' to Americans.
'We're thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt, but we're thinking about a rebate,' he told a reporter before boarding Marine One on his way to a five-day trip to Scotland.
'We're thinking about a rebate because we have so much money coming in from tariffs, that a little rebate for people of a certain income level might be very nice.'
Unsurprisingly, Trump's comments come when voters are souring on the president. On Friday, as he departed, he vehemently denied that he visited the late pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein's island. During that same gaggle, he said that he could pardon Epstein's enabler and occasional girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell.
Fewer than 30 percent of independents approve of him, according to a new Gallup poll and he has an overall approval rating of 37 percent. His approval among men, a central part of his 2024 victory, now sits below 50 percent.
And no matter how much he tries to deflect, blame the Democrats for ' the Jeffrey Epstein SCAM,' he has been unable to escape the stench of it.
This week, House Speaker Mike Johnson had to dismiss the chamber a day early for the summer recess to prevent enough MAGA Republicans from teaming up with the Democrats to sign a discharge petition to force a vote to release the Epstein files.
Even some of Trump's most devoted supporters like Reps. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Nancy Mace of South Carolina joined with Democrats in a subcommittee to subpoena the Department of Justice to hand over documents related to Epstein.
In the Senate, Democrats smell blood in the water, as Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Ruben Gallego of Arizona attempted to force the release of files related to Epstein. Both men obviously see themselves as potential Oval Office occupants and see this as an opportunity to gain points with the base and the American public.
Manosphere podcasters like Theo Von and Andrew Schulz's Flagrant with Akaash Singh who played a key role with non-college educated sports-loving dudes breaking for Trump are turning on Trump.
But this will likely not happen for a number of reasons. For one, the stimulus checks in 2020 came during a once-in-a-century pandemic that required people to stay home and therefore lose their jobs. The checks made sure people had enough to meet their basic needs while keeping demand steady enough.
Pumping money into the economy now when unemployment is relatively low — and Trump frequently touts how 'hot' the country is right now — would do nothing but overheat the economy, drive up demand and cause inflation to spike, the very formula that killed killed Joe Biden and Kamala Harris' White House runs and allowed Trump to return to Washington.
This is to say nothing of his desite for the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, which could drive up inflation and his 'reciprocal tariffs.'
None of that matters though, Trump is trying to rekindle the same tricks that helped him in the past. It's the same rationale for Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's saying that Barack Obama staged a 'coup' and his rage against Joe Biden's autopen. Trump is in a position of his own creation and trying to dig himself out with the old tricks.
But this time it might not work. Even now, some people might take his stimulus checks and then still not like him. After all, that happened in 2020.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
33 minutes ago
- The Independent
Senate Democrats brawl over Trump: ‘A lot of us...want to f***ing fight'
Senator Cory Booker insisted many in his party 'want to f***ing fight' as he savaged Democratic colleagues for accommodating Donald Trump, despite the president's threats to target blue states and districts in funding fights. The New Jersey Democrat on Tuesday accused senior members of the party of valuing bipartisanship over efforts to push back against Trump 's perceived overreaches. He and two other senators, both Democrats, attacked each other in dueling floor speeches as the chamber debated passage of two bills involving benefits for law enforcement. Booker's objection came after he said the Office of Justice Programs, which administers grants through the Justice Department, was withholding funds for programs in so-called 'sanctuary cities', like Booker's hometown of Newark. Booker clashed with Senators Catherine Cortez Masto and Amy Klobuchar over an amendment that would have prevented the DOJ from blocking those funds. It also would have likely endangered the unanimous consent process, which senators were relying upon to pass the bill, given that it would likely trigger GOP opposition. Then, in comments to reporters, he slammed his fellow Democrats as 'complicit' in the Trump administration's attempts to bully blue states and districts into line. 'Literally, they were about to be complicit in the very things they say out of the other side of their mouth that they object to. Democrats need to learn to fight and fight him and stop him from hurting people,' he said. He added to The Independent: 'Today, I saw people being complicit with something that is truly undermining the Constitution, the separation of powers and the kind of things that we should be standing up [against].' Booker didn't explain why he didn't object to the bills' final passage when his amendment failed. Cortez Masto, meanwhile, maintained her anti-Trump bona fides in a separate conversation with The Independent after the vote, pointing to her work at the DSCC to flip the Senate into Democratic hands in 2020, when her party secured a narrow 50-50 majority, with ties broken by Vice President Kamala Harris. Mastro said that she was 'proven' in 'the fight against Donald Trump.' And she added: ' I chaired the DSCC. We flipped the Senate [to] control of the Democrats and pushed back on Donald Trump. 'I am not opposed to taking on the challenges of Donald Trump and bad policies. I do it all the time. The question is, why aren't most Democrats supporting law enforcement?' the senator asked. Klobuchar, in her floor speech, took aim at her New Jersey colleague for not bringing up his concerns in committee. But Booker contended to reporters later that the threats were only leveled after the legislation advanced, making Klobuchar's criticism a moot point. Booker gained notoriety on the left with a marathon floor speech earlier this year denouncing the Trump administration's second-term agenda, a speech that broke Senate records. At the same time, he, like other Democrats in the chamber, has faced derision from some in their party for the persisting air of bipartisanship that still permeates part of the chamber, particularly involving the nominations of former senator Marco Rubio to be Trump's Secretary of State. His notion that the party is sick and tired of leadership and the strategy of appeasement some Senate Democrats like Chuck Schumer have exhibited when dealing with the new Republican majority is accurate, however. A national NBC News poll in March found that just 7 percent of Democrats have a very favorable view of their party, with just a quarter having positive views overall. A second poll in May from The Center Square, conducted by Noble Predictive Insights, found that three-quarters of Democrats want the party to push back against the president 'more often'.
The Guardian
33 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Harvard to comply with Trump officials' demand to turn over employment forms
Harvard University said on Tuesday that it will comply with the demands of Donald Trump's administration to turn over employment forms for thousands of university staff, but for the time being was not sharing records for those employed in roles only available to students. In an email to university employees sent on Tuesday, Harvard said that earlier this month it received a notice of inspection and a related subpoena from the Department of Homeland Security, seeking to inspect the I-9, or Employment Eligibility Verification, forms and supporting documentation for university employees. The I-9 forms, from US Citizenship and Immigration Services, are used to verify the identity and employment authorization of individuals hired for work in the US, according to the agency's website. Harvard said federal regulations entitle the government to access a US employer's paperwork, including information on employment eligibility. Harvard has been embroiled in a legal fight with the Trump administration to have its billions of dollars of frozen federal funds restored. It sued the Trump administration earlier this year. The president has threatened universities with federal funding cuts over pro-Palestinian protests against US ally Israel's war in Gaza, climate initiatives, transgender policies and diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Rights advocates have raised concerns over free speech, due process and academic freedom. Harvard said that, for now, it was not sharing records with the government for people employed in roles only available to students as it was determining if such a request complied with privacy protection requirements. The New York Times reported on Monday that Harvard was open to spending up to $500m to end its dispute with the government. That amount was more than twice what Columbia University agreed to pay last week to resolve federal inquiries. The newspaper said negotiators were still discussing the financial details of the Harvard deal and that Harvard opposed allowing an outside monitor to oversee the deal. On Monday, the government initiated a probe into Duke University and the Duke Law Journal to determine if the journal's selection of its editors gave preferences to candidates from minority communities. On Tuesday, the government said it notified Duke of a freeze of $109m in federal funds. Separately it alleged that the University of California, Los Angeles violated federal civil rights law. Both Duke and UCLA had no immediate comment.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Harvard to comply with Trump administration demand to turn over employment forms
WASHINGTON, July 29 (Reuters) - Harvard University said on Tuesday it will comply with the demands of President Donald Trump's administration to turn over employment forms for thousands of university staff, but for the time being was not sharing records for those employed in roles only available to students. In an email to university employees sent on Tuesday, Harvard said that earlier this month it received a notice of inspection and a related subpoena from the Department of Homeland Security, seeking to inspect the I-9, or Employment Eligibility Verification, forms and supporting documentation for university employees. The I-9 forms, from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, are used to verify the identity and employment authorization of individuals hired for work in the U.S., according to the agency's website. Harvard said federal regulations entitle the government to access a U.S. employer's paperwork, including information on employment eligibility. Harvard has been embroiled in a legal fight with the Trump administration to have its billions of dollars of frozen federal funds restored. It sued the Trump administration earlier this year. The president has threatened universities with federal funding cuts over pro-Palestinian protests against U.S. ally Israel's war in Gaza, climate initiatives, transgender policies and diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Rights advocates have raised concerns over free speech, due process and academic freedom. Harvard said that, for now, it was not sharing records with the government for people employed in roles only available to students as it was determining if such a request complied with privacy protection requirements. The New York Times reported on Monday that Harvard was open to spending up to $500 million to end its dispute with the government. That amount was more than twice what Columbia University agreed to pay last week to resolve federal probes. The newspaper said negotiators were still discussing the financial details of the Harvard deal and that Harvard opposed allowing an outside monitor to oversee the deal. On Monday, the government initiated a probe into Duke University and the Duke Law Journal to determine if the journal's selection of its editors gave preferences to candidates from minority communities. On Tuesday, the government said it notified Duke of a freeze of $109 million in federal funds. Separately it alleged that the University of California, Los Angeles violated federal civil rights law. Both Duke and UCLA had no immediate comment.
