🚨 BREAKING: Reps. Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie will hold a Capitol press conference on Sept. 3 at 10:30 AM ET, joined by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s abuse; several speaking publicly for the first time.
— Brian Allen (@allenanalysis) August 11, 2025
They’ll push for the Epstein Files Transparency Act… pic.twitter.com/4y0ShVkIN6
* * Epstein Files Being Released in the Next 10 Days
220,719 Views |
2674 Replies |
Last: 4 min ago by Robert Wilson
Per judge in denying Trump admins request to release grand jury testimony
"A member of the public, appreciating that the Maxwell grand jury materials do not contribute anything to public knowledge, might conclude that the Government's motion for their unsealing was aimed not at 'transparency' but at diversion aimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such," he wrote.
"A member of the public, appreciating that the Maxwell grand jury materials do not contribute anything to public knowledge, might conclude that the Government's motion for their unsealing was aimed not at 'transparency' but at diversion aimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such," he wrote.
And I did not think QAnon was real ... glad to see the PizzaGate guys are back.
"No one is above the law!!"
J.R. said:
Back to the original topic. I have a very simple question. This is obviously a cover up by the Trump Admin directed by Trump. What are they covering up and why after they all agreed to release all Epstein docs? I don't think Trumps is a diddler, but this stinks to high heaven.
No, it's a feeble effort by Democrats to get the public focused on who might or might not have ever been at the same high-society party as a now-dead pedophile rather than how the Democrat Party used sovereign power to harass its political opponents, and worse.
FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Robert Wilson said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Robert Wilson said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:
Investment is part of the GDP equation. By definition.
C + I + G + T = GDP,
Where C is consumer spending, I is investment, G is government spending, and T is plus/minus the trade number.
That is elementary textbook Econ 101........
The only question is which years will the investments occur. They most certainly will not all happen at once. Mostly will be in 2026 & 2027.
The model Trump is working looks like this: USA demands (country X) reduce its trade surplus. (X files nails disinterestedly, for decades.) Finally, USA smacks X with a 65% tariff. X jolts upright and squeals. (as it is facing collapse of its export market to USA, with related job losses, hit to GDP/X). Negotiations happen. USA and X agree to a 20% tariff on all imports to USA, 10% tariff on USA exports to X, and X will invest $300b in production operations in the USA.
So what happened there? USA used the threat of tariffs to force X-based companies to move greater percentages of their US-oriented supply chains INSIDE the USA tariff barrier line. Not all of it. Just a portion of it. The capital flows are of course a linear jolt to the US economy (being part of the I variable) but they also create production jobs, create production machinery...INSIDE the USA (increasing tax base, wages, and wartime production capacity). The preferential tariff rate is an offset to X's VAT and other non-tariff subsidies/barriers promoting/protecting the surplus X traditionally ran with the USA.....making US goods somewhat more competitive. All of that serves to abate the trade deficit (strengthening the T variable). Ergo, trade deficit pressure on value of USD abates, and the T number turns from a negative to a positive (providing more upward pressure on GDP.
This is all very elementary macroeconomic stuff. Win/win. We nudge trade back toward balance by forcing investments and getting a preferential tariff rates. X gets a softening T variable in its own GDP equation, but retains access to US markets and sees support for the value of the USD it holds in reserves Best of all, it puts the reflexive neverTrumper critics in position of having to deny that any of it is as real (because if it is real it is going to have significant positive impact.)
Got it?
Yes, but what you are not adding is that it is a projection/forecast for a future year.
LOL I have specifically noted that these are projections for future years, even noted what those flows are likely to look like in practical terms (very little this year, mostly 2026-2027, tapering off thereafter).
The margin of error is pretty loose.
How tight does it have to be to recognize the powerful jolt it will give to GDP? Average annual investment as a component of GDP varies from 15-25% but has been around 20% for the last few years. On a $30T economy, that's about $6T. These investments are ADDITIONAL investments, planned to be made elsewhere, and they will more than double average annual investment even if they are off by a third. I mean, we're talking about new investments roughly equal to one year's GDP, spread out over 2-4 years. And critics are working overtime to waive all of as a chimera.
There are no contractual binding agreements on years of investment.
LOL see. they are part of a negotiated and signed international agreement between two countries. If the investments do not happen, the agreement will lapse and tariffs will go into action.
If Toyota determines it can't do it this FY it will be pushed off. All of this is forecasting based on future year projections with a margin of error.
The agreement isn't with Toyota. It's with the Government of Japan, who has agreed to help Japanese countries move greater percentages of their supply chains inside the US. If they do that, they get tariff relief on everything made in Japan, PLUS the profits made on Japanese-owned manufacturing operations in the USA. Probably will mostly be loans & loan guarantees to incentivize the companies to act.
The only thing we know will happen is after the fact and the audits are done. We are cherry picking data on what is accurate and what isn't.
How much of that investment is in the budget year and approved? That is the best place to start, the rest is work program fluff.
What you're doing here is pointing to a shiny new car sitting on the parking lot saying "well, it probably won't start because it's been sitting there for along time so the battery's probably dead....we don't know if there's enough gas in the tank for it to go anywhere, and might not even be bought by someone with a drivers' license. So obviously it isn't actually a car.
Otherwise known as "copium."
He also thinks it's terrible if the income tax were to become unnecessary "because Trump."
I NEVER said that. Actually, if you look I said if Trump pulls that off the Country will make him Emperor.
But, you actually think that has any chance of happening?
Not only that, none of these "savings" will ever hit the books. But, keep celebrating X posts.
Whiterock, if the tariffs do solve our financial woes I will be the first one to give him credit for pulling it off.
Strawman. No one is saying tariffs will "solve" our fiscal deficits. But its looking like they will cover a quarter or third or thereabouts = a meaningful contribution. Tariffs are first and foremost a policy choice to protect critical industries, like the ones Trump has (correctly) identified. Tariff income is quite a bit more volatile than income taxes. It ebbs and flows in direct response to business cycle dynamics, whereas payroll taxes are quite a bit less elastic. Neither is good or bad, just is (and you have to plan accordingly). And, unlike payroll taxes, tariffs are quite responsive to the Laffer Curve....if you raise them too much, you price the tariffed item out of the market and revenue plunges to zero. That dynamic doesn't exactly apply to income taxes.
My experience with you is that if you are wrong, you will re-package to say you weren't or change your position along the way. Sort of like now the "investments" are really loans and loan guarentees.
Another strawman. Pointing out what things mean and how things will actually happen is not changing a position.
When a foreign government of a market economy agrees to make investments, it can be safely presumed that the government itself is not making a private sector investment. Rather, it is using USD it holds in its system to loan (or guarantee loans) for its own companies to invest in the USA (for the purpose of moving a greater percentage of its US business inside the tariff barrier line). That government has an incentive to do so in order to avoid the tariffs, which could cost job losses in their country.
Again, you are making stuff up to avoid the bloody friggin' obvious. Trump's trade policies are going to deliver meaningful revenues at nominal cost to consumers, and are going to be powerfully economically stimulative. The revenues are already here. And the stimulus will be arriving soon (along with the BBB passed last month). Trying to deny that by saying "well, you know, Trump is a liar and none of the things he says ever happen" is just copium. Dude has a strong record in office of fighting like hell to get stuff done and making good on promises. And not just the easy promises. He's actually accomplished things that even his supporters thought would not be possible.
LOL. I mean, why is this so hard for you? You said you voted for the guy. So obviously you liked at least a few of his policies. Why do you then spin around, drop your zipper, and start hosing the guy down? Just because you don't like his rhetoric? Dude has lined up 5x the average annual GDP investment amount to occur in the next 2 years. It's unprecedented. Even US companies are redirecting investments in production back to the USA (Apple announcement).
FL can't get over DOGE firing some federal employees. It hit him personally or he took it personally, and he now filters everything through that lens.
I'll cautiously say this appears to be going far better than I thought. I was all for reciprocal tariffs, but Trump went way beyond that, brought people to the table, and the end result might be way better than I suspected. I was quite skeptical when he rolled it out, just taking a huge swing at trade deficits in general.
You miss my point. It is not what is being done, it is how it is being done. Other Presidents have reduced Government. Simplest way is the not fill open positions and attrition. The damage done to people is what bothers me, along with the haphazard way they chose. All political .
Got news for you, if you think people are not going to look at Trump's Administration through the lens of DOGE you are nuts. He made it the signature of his Administration with all the Musk sideshow. He had Musk with a Chainsaw. He impacts over a million lives through the "cuts," not to mention more through cancelled contracts. Of course people are going to look at him through a DOGE lens.
Again, the inconsistency. In one post you lambaste the spending. In another, you say we cut too much too fast.
We have a $1.9T deficit. You cannot fix that with attrition. You have to slash. You have slash quick. And you have to slash big. And even with all that slashing, the cuts to discretionary spending were modest..
You really are serious? We are spending too much AND they are slashing too quickly. You really don't see anyway that both are happening? You really believe that?
You really don't see the:
"What"- spending too much
and the
"How"- Chainsaw Elon
may happen concurrently? That to solve the "What", the "How" is using a harmful or destructive method? That the two are inconsistent with each other? The methods have nothing to do with solving the problem. I am starting to see how Iran-Contra happened...
I think you know it is BS, but you CANNOT say anything negative about Donald.
Talk about inconsistent, as you said, we have a 1.9T deficit. When I showed that Trump's budget actually raises the deficit, your response was it is "understood" that spending is still going up every year. What is it? Are we cutting with a chainsaw because the 1.9T deficit is that big of a problem or is it understood that the budget will go up under Donald and cutting is really a theoretical exercise (unless you are someone that Donald doesn't like, than chainsaw.)
If you are going to do this, it needs to be data based. Not the Donald "Tombstone" vendetta...
good grief you are confused. YOU are the one simultaneously complaining about the deficit being too big for too long and Trump slashing too much too fast.
I am the one who's speaking reality - that it would politically and economically reckless to try to slash the budget to balance in a single cycle, in no small part because it is entitlements driving the deficit. The more pragmatic policy would be to cut as much as you can up front and try to grow your way into sustainable ratios. That is exactly what Trump's stated plan is. And he is making good progress on it.
Trump's budget raises CBO deficit projections, which are never accurate, because they have too many static assumptions and baseline projections, leading to nonsense like keeping the current tax rates in place equating to a budget cut.
You are going to look really, really foolish as things continue to improve......
You do have a blind spot here. For a reasonable, normally intelligent poster the fact that you can't see that "how" they are implementing policies can be a negative. No matter how noble or correct a policy is if the execution is handled in a boorish, amatuerish method it is a negative. DOGE was just that, the amatuerish, boorish implementation of a policy everyone pretty much agrees.
Every president promises to cut the size of government, but none of them ever do anything about it. We finally get one who does. And you insist that how he did it undermines the benefit of actually doing it?
A good comparison, Biden leaving Afghanistan. We all agree, including Trump, that we needed to get out of Afghanistan. Sound policy decision. The execution of that policy was amateurish, haphazard and ultimately a negative.
What a misanthropic analogy. The cuts Trump has made to civil service payroll, honoring decades-old GOP promises to eliminate agencies, etc......has been rendered to the level of the Abby Gate bombing in Kabul? All those cuts to government, because of how they were done, is now equivalent to the Taliban retaking Afghanistan?
Regardless of whether things get better, how those people were treated and the side show Trump turned it into will be a negative in future elections going forward. You will see Elon with a Chainsaw, Elon standing at parade rest behind Trump in staff meetings, and hear how the FAA, NOAA and others had to hire people back because of the amateurish way they did it.
So if he'd just been nicer about how he slashed payroll and decomissioned agencies, everything would be peachy? None of the entrenched interests would have complained had they been cut by hands wearing velvet gloves?
Was the policy good? Absolutely, if he wants to reduce the size of Government, he isn't the first, we all agree. We all agree the inclusion training and diversity distracted from the mission. How, was a disaster.
As for those number getting better. What timeframe are we talking? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? 2028? In the short term, you will see revenue increases. What happens in the mid and long term?
So many problems with that last part.
1) CBO definitions are arbitrary, like extending current tax rates being equivalent to a tax cut.
2) CBO projections do not take future tariff revenues into account.
3) CBO projections are static, do not allow for any dynamic effect of stimulus or tax policies.
4) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE waste/fraud/abuse cuts into account.
5) CBO projections do not take any of the passed or pending recissions packages into account
6) CBO projections do not take any of the civil service workforce reductions into account.
7) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE process improvements into account (e.g. a single ERP for USG)
>>>DOGE fraud/abuse/waste numbers + annualized tariff revenues are over a quarter of the PROJECTED deficit.<<<
Again. Repeat after me:
-Slowing the rate of growth in government spending is a positive thing.
-Accelerating economic growth to generate more tax revenues is a positive thing.
-Trump has a pragmatic plan to grow our way into a viable financial situation.
-So far, Trump is making tangible, concrete progress on his plan.
The most unreasonable idea of all is that Trump could have done all that without making anyone angry.
Harrison Bergeron said:
And I did not think QAnon was real ... glad to see the PizzaGate guys are back.
Pizzagate is real but Qanon is a psyop. The pizza language is in the wikileaks in John Podestas emails.
whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Robert Wilson said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Robert Wilson said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:
Investment is part of the GDP equation. By definition.
C + I + G + T = GDP,
Where C is consumer spending, I is investment, G is government spending, and T is plus/minus the trade number.
That is elementary textbook Econ 101........
The only question is which years will the investments occur. They most certainly will not all happen at once. Mostly will be in 2026 & 2027.
The model Trump is working looks like this: USA demands (country X) reduce its trade surplus. (X files nails disinterestedly, for decades.) Finally, USA smacks X with a 65% tariff. X jolts upright and squeals. (as it is facing collapse of its export market to USA, with related job losses, hit to GDP/X). Negotiations happen. USA and X agree to a 20% tariff on all imports to USA, 10% tariff on USA exports to X, and X will invest $300b in production operations in the USA.
So what happened there? USA used the threat of tariffs to force X-based companies to move greater percentages of their US-oriented supply chains INSIDE the USA tariff barrier line. Not all of it. Just a portion of it. The capital flows are of course a linear jolt to the US economy (being part of the I variable) but they also create production jobs, create production machinery...INSIDE the USA (increasing tax base, wages, and wartime production capacity). The preferential tariff rate is an offset to X's VAT and other non-tariff subsidies/barriers promoting/protecting the surplus X traditionally ran with the USA.....making US goods somewhat more competitive. All of that serves to abate the trade deficit (strengthening the T variable). Ergo, trade deficit pressure on value of USD abates, and the T number turns from a negative to a positive (providing more upward pressure on GDP.
This is all very elementary macroeconomic stuff. Win/win. We nudge trade back toward balance by forcing investments and getting a preferential tariff rates. X gets a softening T variable in its own GDP equation, but retains access to US markets and sees support for the value of the USD it holds in reserves Best of all, it puts the reflexive neverTrumper critics in position of having to deny that any of it is as real (because if it is real it is going to have significant positive impact.)
Got it?
Yes, but what you are not adding is that it is a projection/forecast for a future year.
LOL I have specifically noted that these are projections for future years, even noted what those flows are likely to look like in practical terms (very little this year, mostly 2026-2027, tapering off thereafter).
The margin of error is pretty loose.
How tight does it have to be to recognize the powerful jolt it will give to GDP? Average annual investment as a component of GDP varies from 15-25% but has been around 20% for the last few years. On a $30T economy, that's about $6T. These investments are ADDITIONAL investments, planned to be made elsewhere, and they will more than double average annual investment even if they are off by a third. I mean, we're talking about new investments roughly equal to one year's GDP, spread out over 2-4 years. And critics are working overtime to waive all of as a chimera.
There are no contractual binding agreements on years of investment.
LOL see. they are part of a negotiated and signed international agreement between two countries. If the investments do not happen, the agreement will lapse and tariffs will go into action.
If Toyota determines it can't do it this FY it will be pushed off. All of this is forecasting based on future year projections with a margin of error.
The agreement isn't with Toyota. It's with the Government of Japan, who has agreed to help Japanese countries move greater percentages of their supply chains inside the US. If they do that, they get tariff relief on everything made in Japan, PLUS the profits made on Japanese-owned manufacturing operations in the USA. Probably will mostly be loans & loan guarantees to incentivize the companies to act.
The only thing we know will happen is after the fact and the audits are done. We are cherry picking data on what is accurate and what isn't.
How much of that investment is in the budget year and approved? That is the best place to start, the rest is work program fluff.
What you're doing here is pointing to a shiny new car sitting on the parking lot saying "well, it probably won't start because it's been sitting there for along time so the battery's probably dead....we don't know if there's enough gas in the tank for it to go anywhere, and might not even be bought by someone with a drivers' license. So obviously it isn't actually a car.
Otherwise known as "copium."
He also thinks it's terrible if the income tax were to become unnecessary "because Trump."
I NEVER said that. Actually, if you look I said if Trump pulls that off the Country will make him Emperor.
But, you actually think that has any chance of happening?
Not only that, none of these "savings" will ever hit the books. But, keep celebrating X posts.
Whiterock, if the tariffs do solve our financial woes I will be the first one to give him credit for pulling it off.
Strawman. No one is saying tariffs will "solve" our fiscal deficits. But its looking like they will cover a quarter or third or thereabouts = a meaningful contribution. Tariffs are first and foremost a policy choice to protect critical industries, like the ones Trump has (correctly) identified. Tariff income is quite a bit more volatile than income taxes. It ebbs and flows in direct response to business cycle dynamics, whereas payroll taxes are quite a bit less elastic. Neither is good or bad, just is (and you have to plan accordingly). And, unlike payroll taxes, tariffs are quite responsive to the Laffer Curve....if you raise them too much, you price the tariffed item out of the market and revenue plunges to zero. That dynamic doesn't exactly apply to income taxes.
My experience with you is that if you are wrong, you will re-package to say you weren't or change your position along the way. Sort of like now the "investments" are really loans and loan guarentees.
Another strawman. Pointing out what things mean and how things will actually happen is not changing a position.
When a foreign government of a market economy agrees to make investments, it can be safely presumed that the government itself is not making a private sector investment. Rather, it is using USD it holds in its system to loan (or guarantee loans) for its own companies to invest in the USA (for the purpose of moving a greater percentage of its US business inside the tariff barrier line). That government has an incentive to do so in order to avoid the tariffs, which could cost job losses in their country.
Again, you are making stuff up to avoid the bloody friggin' obvious. Trump's trade policies are going to deliver meaningful revenues at nominal cost to consumers, and are going to be powerfully economically stimulative. The revenues are already here. And the stimulus will be arriving soon (along with the BBB passed last month). Trying to deny that by saying "well, you know, Trump is a liar and none of the things he says ever happen" is just copium. Dude has a strong record in office of fighting like hell to get stuff done and making good on promises. And not just the easy promises. He's actually accomplished things that even his supporters thought would not be possible.
LOL. I mean, why is this so hard for you? You said you voted for the guy. So obviously you liked at least a few of his policies. Why do you then spin around, drop your zipper, and start hosing the guy down? Just because you don't like his rhetoric? Dude has lined up 5x the average annual GDP investment amount to occur in the next 2 years. It's unprecedented. Even US companies are redirecting investments in production back to the USA (Apple announcement).
FL can't get over DOGE firing some federal employees. It hit him personally or he took it personally, and he now filters everything through that lens.
I'll cautiously say this appears to be going far better than I thought. I was all for reciprocal tariffs, but Trump went way beyond that, brought people to the table, and the end result might be way better than I suspected. I was quite skeptical when he rolled it out, just taking a huge swing at trade deficits in general.
You miss my point. It is not what is being done, it is how it is being done. Other Presidents have reduced Government. Simplest way is the not fill open positions and attrition. The damage done to people is what bothers me, along with the haphazard way they chose. All political .
Got news for you, if you think people are not going to look at Trump's Administration through the lens of DOGE you are nuts. He made it the signature of his Administration with all the Musk sideshow. He had Musk with a Chainsaw. He impacts over a million lives through the "cuts," not to mention more through cancelled contracts. Of course people are going to look at him through a DOGE lens.
Again, the inconsistency. In one post you lambaste the spending. In another, you say we cut too much too fast.
We have a $1.9T deficit. You cannot fix that with attrition. You have to slash. You have slash quick. And you have to slash big. And even with all that slashing, the cuts to discretionary spending were modest..
You really are serious? We are spending too much AND they are slashing too quickly. You really don't see anyway that both are happening? You really believe that?
You really don't see the:
"What"- spending too much
and the
"How"- Chainsaw Elon
may happen concurrently? That to solve the "What", the "How" is using a harmful or destructive method? That the two are inconsistent with each other? The methods have nothing to do with solving the problem. I am starting to see how Iran-Contra happened...
I think you know it is BS, but you CANNOT say anything negative about Donald.
Talk about inconsistent, as you said, we have a 1.9T deficit. When I showed that Trump's budget actually raises the deficit, your response was it is "understood" that spending is still going up every year. What is it? Are we cutting with a chainsaw because the 1.9T deficit is that big of a problem or is it understood that the budget will go up under Donald and cutting is really a theoretical exercise (unless you are someone that Donald doesn't like, than chainsaw.)
If you are going to do this, it needs to be data based. Not the Donald "Tombstone" vendetta...
good grief you are confused. YOU are the one simultaneously complaining about the deficit being too big for too long and Trump slashing too much too fast.
I am the one who's speaking reality - that it would politically and economically reckless to try to slash the budget to balance in a single cycle, in no small part because it is entitlements driving the deficit. The more pragmatic policy would be to cut as much as you can up front and try to grow your way into sustainable ratios. That is exactly what Trump's stated plan is. And he is making good progress on it.
Trump's budget raises CBO deficit projections, which are never accurate, because they have too many static assumptions and baseline projections, leading to nonsense like keeping the current tax rates in place equating to a budget cut.
You are going to look really, really foolish as things continue to improve......
You do have a blind spot here. For a reasonable, normally intelligent poster the fact that you can't see that "how" they are implementing policies can be a negative. No matter how noble or correct a policy is if the execution is handled in a boorish, amatuerish method it is a negative. DOGE was just that, the amatuerish, boorish implementation of a policy everyone pretty much agrees.
Every president promises to cut the size of government, but none of them ever do anything about it. We finally get one who does. And you insist that how he did it undermines the benefit of actually doing it?
A good comparison, Biden leaving Afghanistan. We all agree, including Trump, that we needed to get out of Afghanistan. Sound policy decision. The execution of that policy was amateurish, haphazard and ultimately a negative.
What a misanthropic analogy. The cuts Trump has made to civil service payroll, honoring decades-old GOP promises to eliminate agencies, etc......has been rendered to the level of the Abby Gate bombing in Kabul? All those cuts to government, because of how they were done, is now equivalent to the Taliban retaking Afghanistan?
Regardless of whether things get better, how those people were treated and the side show Trump turned it into will be a negative in future elections going forward. You will see Elon with a Chainsaw, Elon standing at parade rest behind Trump in staff meetings, and hear how the FAA, NOAA and others had to hire people back because of the amateurish way they did it.
So if he'd just been nicer about how he slashed payroll and decomissioned agencies, everything would be peachy? None of the entrenched interests would have complained had they been cut by hands wearing velvet gloves?
Was the policy good? Absolutely, if he wants to reduce the size of Government, he isn't the first, we all agree. We all agree the inclusion training and diversity distracted from the mission. How, was a disaster.
As for those number getting better. What timeframe are we talking? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? 2028? In the short term, you will see revenue increases. What happens in the mid and long term?
So many problems with that last part.
1) CBO definitions are arbitrary, like extending current tax rates being equivalent to a tax cut.
2) CBO projections do not take future tariff revenues into account.
3) CBO projections are static, do not allow for any dynamic effect of stimulus or tax policies.
4) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE waste/fraud/abuse cuts into account.
5) CBO projections do not take any of the passed or pending recissions packages into account
6) CBO projections do not take any of the civil service workforce reductions into account.
7) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE process improvements into account (e.g. a single ERP for USG)
>>>DOGE fraud/abuse/waste numbers + annualized tariff revenues are over a quarter of the PROJECTED deficit.<<<
Again. Repeat after me:
-Slowing the rate of growth in government spending is a positive thing.
-Accelerating economic growth to generate more tax revenues is a positive thing.
-Trump has a pragmatic plan to grow our way into a viable financial situation.
-So far, Trump is making tangible, concrete progress on his plan.
The most unreasonable idea of all is that Trump could have done all that without making anyone angry.
Repeat after me, you have to actually have numbers that show it. But, once you get the "right" people in place, they will show a rosy picture, as delinquencies and foreclosures are rising...
By the way, where did I mention CBO? You are the only one using CBO. Might want to move to another source... Is CPI good? Or are they against Trump? Just want to know before I look... That's right, you can't tell me, it depends on if it is good or bad...
whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Robert Wilson said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Robert Wilson said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:
Investment is part of the GDP equation. By definition.
C + I + G + T = GDP,
Where C is consumer spending, I is investment, G is government spending, and T is plus/minus the trade number.
That is elementary textbook Econ 101........
The only question is which years will the investments occur. They most certainly will not all happen at once. Mostly will be in 2026 & 2027.
The model Trump is working looks like this: USA demands (country X) reduce its trade surplus. (X files nails disinterestedly, for decades.) Finally, USA smacks X with a 65% tariff. X jolts upright and squeals. (as it is facing collapse of its export market to USA, with related job losses, hit to GDP/X). Negotiations happen. USA and X agree to a 20% tariff on all imports to USA, 10% tariff on USA exports to X, and X will invest $300b in production operations in the USA.
So what happened there? USA used the threat of tariffs to force X-based companies to move greater percentages of their US-oriented supply chains INSIDE the USA tariff barrier line. Not all of it. Just a portion of it. The capital flows are of course a linear jolt to the US economy (being part of the I variable) but they also create production jobs, create production machinery...INSIDE the USA (increasing tax base, wages, and wartime production capacity). The preferential tariff rate is an offset to X's VAT and other non-tariff subsidies/barriers promoting/protecting the surplus X traditionally ran with the USA.....making US goods somewhat more competitive. All of that serves to abate the trade deficit (strengthening the T variable). Ergo, trade deficit pressure on value of USD abates, and the T number turns from a negative to a positive (providing more upward pressure on GDP.
This is all very elementary macroeconomic stuff. Win/win. We nudge trade back toward balance by forcing investments and getting a preferential tariff rates. X gets a softening T variable in its own GDP equation, but retains access to US markets and sees support for the value of the USD it holds in reserves Best of all, it puts the reflexive neverTrumper critics in position of having to deny that any of it is as real (because if it is real it is going to have significant positive impact.)
Got it?
Yes, but what you are not adding is that it is a projection/forecast for a future year.
LOL I have specifically noted that these are projections for future years, even noted what those flows are likely to look like in practical terms (very little this year, mostly 2026-2027, tapering off thereafter).
The margin of error is pretty loose.
How tight does it have to be to recognize the powerful jolt it will give to GDP? Average annual investment as a component of GDP varies from 15-25% but has been around 20% for the last few years. On a $30T economy, that's about $6T. These investments are ADDITIONAL investments, planned to be made elsewhere, and they will more than double average annual investment even if they are off by a third. I mean, we're talking about new investments roughly equal to one year's GDP, spread out over 2-4 years. And critics are working overtime to waive all of as a chimera.
There are no contractual binding agreements on years of investment.
LOL see. they are part of a negotiated and signed international agreement between two countries. If the investments do not happen, the agreement will lapse and tariffs will go into action.
If Toyota determines it can't do it this FY it will be pushed off. All of this is forecasting based on future year projections with a margin of error.
The agreement isn't with Toyota. It's with the Government of Japan, who has agreed to help Japanese countries move greater percentages of their supply chains inside the US. If they do that, they get tariff relief on everything made in Japan, PLUS the profits made on Japanese-owned manufacturing operations in the USA. Probably will mostly be loans & loan guarantees to incentivize the companies to act.
The only thing we know will happen is after the fact and the audits are done. We are cherry picking data on what is accurate and what isn't.
How much of that investment is in the budget year and approved? That is the best place to start, the rest is work program fluff.
What you're doing here is pointing to a shiny new car sitting on the parking lot saying "well, it probably won't start because it's been sitting there for along time so the battery's probably dead....we don't know if there's enough gas in the tank for it to go anywhere, and might not even be bought by someone with a drivers' license. So obviously it isn't actually a car.
Otherwise known as "copium."
He also thinks it's terrible if the income tax were to become unnecessary "because Trump."
I NEVER said that. Actually, if you look I said if Trump pulls that off the Country will make him Emperor.
But, you actually think that has any chance of happening?
Not only that, none of these "savings" will ever hit the books. But, keep celebrating X posts.
Whiterock, if the tariffs do solve our financial woes I will be the first one to give him credit for pulling it off.
Strawman. No one is saying tariffs will "solve" our fiscal deficits. But its looking like they will cover a quarter or third or thereabouts = a meaningful contribution. Tariffs are first and foremost a policy choice to protect critical industries, like the ones Trump has (correctly) identified. Tariff income is quite a bit more volatile than income taxes. It ebbs and flows in direct response to business cycle dynamics, whereas payroll taxes are quite a bit less elastic. Neither is good or bad, just is (and you have to plan accordingly). And, unlike payroll taxes, tariffs are quite responsive to the Laffer Curve....if you raise them too much, you price the tariffed item out of the market and revenue plunges to zero. That dynamic doesn't exactly apply to income taxes.
My experience with you is that if you are wrong, you will re-package to say you weren't or change your position along the way. Sort of like now the "investments" are really loans and loan guarentees.
Another strawman. Pointing out what things mean and how things will actually happen is not changing a position.
When a foreign government of a market economy agrees to make investments, it can be safely presumed that the government itself is not making a private sector investment. Rather, it is using USD it holds in its system to loan (or guarantee loans) for its own companies to invest in the USA (for the purpose of moving a greater percentage of its US business inside the tariff barrier line). That government has an incentive to do so in order to avoid the tariffs, which could cost job losses in their country.
Again, you are making stuff up to avoid the bloody friggin' obvious. Trump's trade policies are going to deliver meaningful revenues at nominal cost to consumers, and are going to be powerfully economically stimulative. The revenues are already here. And the stimulus will be arriving soon (along with the BBB passed last month). Trying to deny that by saying "well, you know, Trump is a liar and none of the things he says ever happen" is just copium. Dude has a strong record in office of fighting like hell to get stuff done and making good on promises. And not just the easy promises. He's actually accomplished things that even his supporters thought would not be possible.
LOL. I mean, why is this so hard for you? You said you voted for the guy. So obviously you liked at least a few of his policies. Why do you then spin around, drop your zipper, and start hosing the guy down? Just because you don't like his rhetoric? Dude has lined up 5x the average annual GDP investment amount to occur in the next 2 years. It's unprecedented. Even US companies are redirecting investments in production back to the USA (Apple announcement).
FL can't get over DOGE firing some federal employees. It hit him personally or he took it personally, and he now filters everything through that lens.
I'll cautiously say this appears to be going far better than I thought. I was all for reciprocal tariffs, but Trump went way beyond that, brought people to the table, and the end result might be way better than I suspected. I was quite skeptical when he rolled it out, just taking a huge swing at trade deficits in general.
You miss my point. It is not what is being done, it is how it is being done. Other Presidents have reduced Government. Simplest way is the not fill open positions and attrition. The damage done to people is what bothers me, along with the haphazard way they chose. All political .
Got news for you, if you think people are not going to look at Trump's Administration through the lens of DOGE you are nuts. He made it the signature of his Administration with all the Musk sideshow. He had Musk with a Chainsaw. He impacts over a million lives through the "cuts," not to mention more through cancelled contracts. Of course people are going to look at him through a DOGE lens.
Again, the inconsistency. In one post you lambaste the spending. In another, you say we cut too much too fast.
We have a $1.9T deficit. You cannot fix that with attrition. You have to slash. You have slash quick. And you have to slash big. And even with all that slashing, the cuts to discretionary spending were modest..
You really are serious? We are spending too much AND they are slashing too quickly. You really don't see anyway that both are happening? You really believe that?
You really don't see the:
"What"- spending too much
and the
"How"- Chainsaw Elon
may happen concurrently? That to solve the "What", the "How" is using a harmful or destructive method? That the two are inconsistent with each other? The methods have nothing to do with solving the problem. I am starting to see how Iran-Contra happened...
I think you know it is BS, but you CANNOT say anything negative about Donald.
Talk about inconsistent, as you said, we have a 1.9T deficit. When I showed that Trump's budget actually raises the deficit, your response was it is "understood" that spending is still going up every year. What is it? Are we cutting with a chainsaw because the 1.9T deficit is that big of a problem or is it understood that the budget will go up under Donald and cutting is really a theoretical exercise (unless you are someone that Donald doesn't like, than chainsaw.)
If you are going to do this, it needs to be data based. Not the Donald "Tombstone" vendetta...
good grief you are confused. YOU are the one simultaneously complaining about the deficit being too big for too long and Trump slashing too much too fast.
I am the one who's speaking reality - that it would politically and economically reckless to try to slash the budget to balance in a single cycle, in no small part because it is entitlements driving the deficit. The more pragmatic policy would be to cut as much as you can up front and try to grow your way into sustainable ratios. That is exactly what Trump's stated plan is. And he is making good progress on it.
Trump's budget raises CBO deficit projections, which are never accurate, because they have too many static assumptions and baseline projections, leading to nonsense like keeping the current tax rates in place equating to a budget cut.
You are going to look really, really foolish as things continue to improve......
You do have a blind spot here. For a reasonable, normally intelligent poster the fact that you can't see that "how" they are implementing policies can be a negative. No matter how noble or correct a policy is if the execution is handled in a boorish, amatuerish method it is a negative. DOGE was just that, the amatuerish, boorish implementation of a policy everyone pretty much agrees.
Every president promises to cut the size of government, but none of them ever do anything about it. We finally get one who does. And you insist that how he did it undermines the benefit of actually doing it?
A good comparison, Biden leaving Afghanistan. We all agree, including Trump, that we needed to get out of Afghanistan. Sound policy decision. The execution of that policy was amateurish, haphazard and ultimately a negative.
What a misanthropic analogy. The cuts Trump has made to civil service payroll, honoring decades-old GOP promises to eliminate agencies, etc......has been rendered to the level of the Abby Gate bombing in Kabul? All those cuts to government, because of how they were done, is now equivalent to the Taliban retaking Afghanistan?
Regardless of whether things get better, how those people were treated and the side show Trump turned it into will be a negative in future elections going forward. You will see Elon with a Chainsaw, Elon standing at parade rest behind Trump in staff meetings, and hear how the FAA, NOAA and others had to hire people back because of the amateurish way they did it.
So if he'd just been nicer about how he slashed payroll and decomissioned agencies, everything would be peachy? None of the entrenched interests would have complained had they been cut by hands wearing velvet gloves?
Was the policy good? Absolutely, if he wants to reduce the size of Government, he isn't the first, we all agree. We all agree the inclusion training and diversity distracted from the mission. How, was a disaster.
As for those number getting better. What timeframe are we talking? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? 2028? In the short term, you will see revenue increases. What happens in the mid and long term?
So many problems with that last part.
1) CBO definitions are arbitrary, like extending current tax rates being equivalent to a tax cut.
2) CBO projections do not take future tariff revenues into account.
3) CBO projections are static, do not allow for any dynamic effect of stimulus or tax policies.
4) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE waste/fraud/abuse cuts into account.
5) CBO projections do not take any of the passed or pending recissions packages into account
6) CBO projections do not take any of the civil service workforce reductions into account.
7) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE process improvements into account (e.g. a single ERP for USG)
>>>DOGE fraud/abuse/waste numbers + annualized tariff revenues are over a quarter of the PROJECTED deficit.<<<
Again. Repeat after me:
-Slowing the rate of growth in government spending is a positive thing.
-Accelerating economic growth to generate more tax revenues is a positive thing.
-Trump has a pragmatic plan to grow our way into a viable financial situation.
-So far, Trump is making tangible, concrete progress on his plan.
The most unreasonable idea of all is that Trump could have done all that without making anyone angry.
After all that's been happening, I've come to realize that the CBO is one of the more inaccurate, rigid forecasting offices.
Facebook Groups at; Memories of Dallas, Mem of Texas, Mem of Football in Texas, Mem Texas Music and Through a Texas Lens. Come visit! Over 100,000 members and 100,000 regular visitors
FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Robert Wilson said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Robert Wilson said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:
How much of that investment is in the budget year and approved? That is the best place to start, the rest is work program fluff.
What you're doing here is pointing to a shiny new car sitting on the parking lot saying "well, it probably won't start because it's been sitting there for along time so the battery's probably dead....we don't know if there's enough gas in the tank for it to go anywhere, and might not even be bought by someone with a drivers' license. So obviously it isn't actually a car.
Otherwise known as "copium."
He also thinks it's terrible if the income tax were to become unnecessary "because Trump."
I NEVER said that. Actually, if you look I said if Trump pulls that off the Country will make him Emperor.
But, you actually think that has any chance of happening?
Not only that, none of these "savings" will ever hit the books. But, keep celebrating X posts.
Whiterock, if the tariffs do solve our financial woes I will be the first one to give him credit for pulling it off.
Strawman. No one is saying tariffs will "solve" our fiscal deficits. But its looking like they will cover a quarter or third or thereabouts = a meaningful contribution. Tariffs are first and foremost a policy choice to protect critical industries, like the ones Trump has (correctly) identified. Tariff income is quite a bit more volatile than income taxes. It ebbs and flows in direct response to business cycle dynamics, whereas payroll taxes are quite a bit less elastic. Neither is good or bad, just is (and you have to plan accordingly). And, unlike payroll taxes, tariffs are quite responsive to the Laffer Curve....if you raise them too much, you price the tariffed item out of the market and revenue plunges to zero. That dynamic doesn't exactly apply to income taxes.
My experience with you is that if you are wrong, you will re-package to say you weren't or change your position along the way. Sort of like now the "investments" are really loans and loan guarentees.
Another strawman. Pointing out what things mean and how things will actually happen is not changing a position.
When a foreign government of a market economy agrees to make investments, it can be safely presumed that the government itself is not making a private sector investment. Rather, it is using USD it holds in its system to loan (or guarantee loans) for its own companies to invest in the USA (for the purpose of moving a greater percentage of its US business inside the tariff barrier line). That government has an incentive to do so in order to avoid the tariffs, which could cost job losses in their country.
Again, you are making stuff up to avoid the bloody friggin' obvious. Trump's trade policies are going to deliver meaningful revenues at nominal cost to consumers, and are going to be powerfully economically stimulative. The revenues are already here. And the stimulus will be arriving soon (along with the BBB passed last month). Trying to deny that by saying "well, you know, Trump is a liar and none of the things he says ever happen" is just copium. Dude has a strong record in office of fighting like hell to get stuff done and making good on promises. And not just the easy promises. He's actually accomplished things that even his supporters thought would not be possible.
LOL. I mean, why is this so hard for you? You said you voted for the guy. So obviously you liked at least a few of his policies. Why do you then spin around, drop your zipper, and start hosing the guy down? Just because you don't like his rhetoric? Dude has lined up 5x the average annual GDP investment amount to occur in the next 2 years. It's unprecedented. Even US companies are redirecting investments in production back to the USA (Apple announcement).
FL can't get over DOGE firing some federal employees. It hit him personally or he took it personally, and he now filters everything through that lens.
I'll cautiously say this appears to be going far better than I thought. I was all for reciprocal tariffs, but Trump went way beyond that, brought people to the table, and the end result might be way better than I suspected. I was quite skeptical when he rolled it out, just taking a huge swing at trade deficits in general.
You miss my point. It is not what is being done, it is how it is being done. Other Presidents have reduced Government. Simplest way is the not fill open positions and attrition. The damage done to people is what bothers me, along with the haphazard way they chose. All political .
Got news for you, if you think people are not going to look at Trump's Administration through the lens of DOGE you are nuts. He made it the signature of his Administration with all the Musk sideshow. He had Musk with a Chainsaw. He impacts over a million lives through the "cuts," not to mention more through cancelled contracts. Of course people are going to look at him through a DOGE lens.
Again, the inconsistency. In one post you lambaste the spending. In another, you say we cut too much too fast.
We have a $1.9T deficit. You cannot fix that with attrition. You have to slash. You have slash quick. And you have to slash big. And even with all that slashing, the cuts to discretionary spending were modest..
You really are serious? We are spending too much AND they are slashing too quickly. You really don't see anyway that both are happening? You really believe that?
You really don't see the:
"What"- spending too much
and the
"How"- Chainsaw Elon
may happen concurrently? That to solve the "What", the "How" is using a harmful or destructive method? That the two are inconsistent with each other? The methods have nothing to do with solving the problem. I am starting to see how Iran-Contra happened...
I think you know it is BS, but you CANNOT say anything negative about Donald.
Talk about inconsistent, as you said, we have a 1.9T deficit. When I showed that Trump's budget actually raises the deficit, your response was it is "understood" that spending is still going up every year. What is it? Are we cutting with a chainsaw because the 1.9T deficit is that big of a problem or is it understood that the budget will go up under Donald and cutting is really a theoretical exercise (unless you are someone that Donald doesn't like, than chainsaw.)
If you are going to do this, it needs to be data based. Not the Donald "Tombstone" vendetta...
good grief you are confused. YOU are the one simultaneously complaining about the deficit being too big for too long and Trump slashing too much too fast.
I am the one who's speaking reality - that it would politically and economically reckless to try to slash the budget to balance in a single cycle, in no small part because it is entitlements driving the deficit. The more pragmatic policy would be to cut as much as you can up front and try to grow your way into sustainable ratios. That is exactly what Trump's stated plan is. And he is making good progress on it.
Trump's budget raises CBO deficit projections, which are never accurate, because they have too many static assumptions and baseline projections, leading to nonsense like keeping the current tax rates in place equating to a budget cut.
You are going to look really, really foolish as things continue to improve......
You do have a blind spot here. For a reasonable, normally intelligent poster the fact that you can't see that "how" they are implementing policies can be a negative. No matter how noble or correct a policy is if the execution is handled in a boorish, amatuerish method it is a negative. DOGE was just that, the amatuerish, boorish implementation of a policy everyone pretty much agrees.
Every president promises to cut the size of government, but none of them ever do anything about it. We finally get one who does. And you insist that how he did it undermines the benefit of actually doing it?
A good comparison, Biden leaving Afghanistan. We all agree, including Trump, that we needed to get out of Afghanistan. Sound policy decision. The execution of that policy was amateurish, haphazard and ultimately a negative.
What a misanthropic analogy. The cuts Trump has made to civil service payroll, honoring decades-old GOP promises to eliminate agencies, etc......has been rendered to the level of the Abby Gate bombing in Kabul? All those cuts to government, because of how they were done, is now equivalent to the Taliban retaking Afghanistan?
Regardless of whether things get better, how those people were treated and the side show Trump turned it into will be a negative in future elections going forward. You will see Elon with a Chainsaw, Elon standing at parade rest behind Trump in staff meetings, and hear how the FAA, NOAA and others had to hire people back because of the amateurish way they did it.
So if he'd just been nicer about how he slashed payroll and decomissioned agencies, everything would be peachy? None of the entrenched interests would have complained had they been cut by hands wearing velvet gloves?
Was the policy good? Absolutely, if he wants to reduce the size of Government, he isn't the first, we all agree. We all agree the inclusion training and diversity distracted from the mission. How, was a disaster.
As for those number getting better. What timeframe are we talking? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? 2028? In the short term, you will see revenue increases. What happens in the mid and long term?
So many problems with that last part.
1) CBO definitions are arbitrary, like extending current tax rates being equivalent to a tax cut.
2) CBO projections do not take future tariff revenues into account.
3) CBO projections are static, do not allow for any dynamic effect of stimulus or tax policies.
4) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE waste/fraud/abuse cuts into account.
5) CBO projections do not take any of the passed or pending recissions packages into account
6) CBO projections do not take any of the civil service workforce reductions into account.
7) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE process improvements into account (e.g. a single ERP for USG)
>>>DOGE fraud/abuse/waste numbers + annualized tariff revenues are over a quarter of the PROJECTED deficit.<<<
Again. Repeat after me:
-Slowing the rate of growth in government spending is a positive thing.
-Accelerating economic growth to generate more tax revenues is a positive thing.
-Trump has a pragmatic plan to grow our way into a viable financial situation.
-So far, Trump is making tangible, concrete progress on his plan.
The most unreasonable idea of all is that Trump could have done all that without making anyone angry.
Repeat after me, you have to actually have numbers that show it. But, once you get the "right" people in place, they will show a rosy picture, as delinquencies and foreclosures are rising...
The numbers show a USG budget surplus for the month of June, for the first time in decades. The numbers show economic growth beating expectations.
Those are positive numbers. right?
By the way, where did I mention CBO? You are the only one using CBO. Might want to move to another source...
LOL the deficit projections you are citing are the CBO generated numbers.
Is CPI good? Or are they against Trump? Just want to know before I look... That's right, you can't tell me, it depends on if it is good or bad...
The CPI numbers are nominal increases against worsening job numbers. That is instructive as the Fed has a dual mandate - to fight inflation AND facilitate full employment.
that notorious Maga rag USA Today says - mixed results.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/08/12/cpi-report-data-inflation-july/85618971007/
Mixed results is what one would reasonably expect with massive policy changes looming, most of which have only been in place 4-6 weeks.
Cutting interest rates lowers the federal deficit.
Lowering the federal deficit reduces inflation pressures from deficit spending.
think it thru.....
whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Robert Wilson said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Robert Wilson said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:
Investment is part of the GDP equation. By definition.
C + I + G + T = GDP,
Where C is consumer spending, I is investment, G is government spending, and T is plus/minus the trade number.
That is elementary textbook Econ 101........
The only question is which years will the investments occur. They most certainly will not all happen at once. Mostly will be in 2026 & 2027.
The model Trump is working looks like this: USA demands (country X) reduce its trade surplus. (X files nails disinterestedly, for decades.) Finally, USA smacks X with a 65% tariff. X jolts upright and squeals. (as it is facing collapse of its export market to USA, with related job losses, hit to GDP/X). Negotiations happen. USA and X agree to a 20% tariff on all imports to USA, 10% tariff on USA exports to X, and X will invest $300b in production operations in the USA.
So what happened there? USA used the threat of tariffs to force X-based companies to move greater percentages of their US-oriented supply chains INSIDE the USA tariff barrier line. Not all of it. Just a portion of it. The capital flows are of course a linear jolt to the US economy (being part of the I variable) but they also create production jobs, create production machinery...INSIDE the USA (increasing tax base, wages, and wartime production capacity). The preferential tariff rate is an offset to X's VAT and other non-tariff subsidies/barriers promoting/protecting the surplus X traditionally ran with the USA.....making US goods somewhat more competitive. All of that serves to abate the trade deficit (strengthening the T variable). Ergo, trade deficit pressure on value of USD abates, and the T number turns from a negative to a positive (providing more upward pressure on GDP.
This is all very elementary macroeconomic stuff. Win/win. We nudge trade back toward balance by forcing investments and getting a preferential tariff rates. X gets a softening T variable in its own GDP equation, but retains access to US markets and sees support for the value of the USD it holds in reserves Best of all, it puts the reflexive neverTrumper critics in position of having to deny that any of it is as real (because if it is real it is going to have significant positive impact.)
Got it?
Yes, but what you are not adding is that it is a projection/forecast for a future year.
LOL I have specifically noted that these are projections for future years, even noted what those flows are likely to look like in practical terms (very little this year, mostly 2026-2027, tapering off thereafter).
The margin of error is pretty loose.
How tight does it have to be to recognize the powerful jolt it will give to GDP? Average annual investment as a component of GDP varies from 15-25% but has been around 20% for the last few years. On a $30T economy, that's about $6T. These investments are ADDITIONAL investments, planned to be made elsewhere, and they will more than double average annual investment even if they are off by a third. I mean, we're talking about new investments roughly equal to one year's GDP, spread out over 2-4 years. And critics are working overtime to waive all of as a chimera.
There are no contractual binding agreements on years of investment.
LOL see. they are part of a negotiated and signed international agreement between two countries. If the investments do not happen, the agreement will lapse and tariffs will go into action.
If Toyota determines it can't do it this FY it will be pushed off. All of this is forecasting based on future year projections with a margin of error.
The agreement isn't with Toyota. It's with the Government of Japan, who has agreed to help Japanese countries move greater percentages of their supply chains inside the US. If they do that, they get tariff relief on everything made in Japan, PLUS the profits made on Japanese-owned manufacturing operations in the USA. Probably will mostly be loans & loan guarantees to incentivize the companies to act.
The only thing we know will happen is after the fact and the audits are done. We are cherry picking data on what is accurate and what isn't.
How much of that investment is in the budget year and approved? That is the best place to start, the rest is work program fluff.
What you're doing here is pointing to a shiny new car sitting on the parking lot saying "well, it probably won't start because it's been sitting there for along time so the battery's probably dead....we don't know if there's enough gas in the tank for it to go anywhere, and might not even be bought by someone with a drivers' license. So obviously it isn't actually a car.
Otherwise known as "copium."
He also thinks it's terrible if the income tax were to become unnecessary "because Trump."
I NEVER said that. Actually, if you look I said if Trump pulls that off the Country will make him Emperor.
But, you actually think that has any chance of happening?
Not only that, none of these "savings" will ever hit the books. But, keep celebrating X posts.
Whiterock, if the tariffs do solve our financial woes I will be the first one to give him credit for pulling it off.
Strawman. No one is saying tariffs will "solve" our fiscal deficits. But its looking like they will cover a quarter or third or thereabouts = a meaningful contribution. Tariffs are first and foremost a policy choice to protect critical industries, like the ones Trump has (correctly) identified. Tariff income is quite a bit more volatile than income taxes. It ebbs and flows in direct response to business cycle dynamics, whereas payroll taxes are quite a bit less elastic. Neither is good or bad, just is (and you have to plan accordingly). And, unlike payroll taxes, tariffs are quite responsive to the Laffer Curve....if you raise them too much, you price the tariffed item out of the market and revenue plunges to zero. That dynamic doesn't exactly apply to income taxes.
My experience with you is that if you are wrong, you will re-package to say you weren't or change your position along the way. Sort of like now the "investments" are really loans and loan guarentees.
Another strawman. Pointing out what things mean and how things will actually happen is not changing a position.
When a foreign government of a market economy agrees to make investments, it can be safely presumed that the government itself is not making a private sector investment. Rather, it is using USD it holds in its system to loan (or guarantee loans) for its own companies to invest in the USA (for the purpose of moving a greater percentage of its US business inside the tariff barrier line). That government has an incentive to do so in order to avoid the tariffs, which could cost job losses in their country.
Again, you are making stuff up to avoid the bloody friggin' obvious. Trump's trade policies are going to deliver meaningful revenues at nominal cost to consumers, and are going to be powerfully economically stimulative. The revenues are already here. And the stimulus will be arriving soon (along with the BBB passed last month). Trying to deny that by saying "well, you know, Trump is a liar and none of the things he says ever happen" is just copium. Dude has a strong record in office of fighting like hell to get stuff done and making good on promises. And not just the easy promises. He's actually accomplished things that even his supporters thought would not be possible.
LOL. I mean, why is this so hard for you? You said you voted for the guy. So obviously you liked at least a few of his policies. Why do you then spin around, drop your zipper, and start hosing the guy down? Just because you don't like his rhetoric? Dude has lined up 5x the average annual GDP investment amount to occur in the next 2 years. It's unprecedented. Even US companies are redirecting investments in production back to the USA (Apple announcement).
FL can't get over DOGE firing some federal employees. It hit him personally or he took it personally, and he now filters everything through that lens.
I'll cautiously say this appears to be going far better than I thought. I was all for reciprocal tariffs, but Trump went way beyond that, brought people to the table, and the end result might be way better than I suspected. I was quite skeptical when he rolled it out, just taking a huge swing at trade deficits in general.
You miss my point. It is not what is being done, it is how it is being done. Other Presidents have reduced Government. Simplest way is the not fill open positions and attrition. The damage done to people is what bothers me, along with the haphazard way they chose. All political .
Got news for you, if you think people are not going to look at Trump's Administration through the lens of DOGE you are nuts. He made it the signature of his Administration with all the Musk sideshow. He had Musk with a Chainsaw. He impacts over a million lives through the "cuts," not to mention more through cancelled contracts. Of course people are going to look at him through a DOGE lens.
Again, the inconsistency. In one post you lambaste the spending. In another, you say we cut too much too fast.
We have a $1.9T deficit. You cannot fix that with attrition. You have to slash. You have slash quick. And you have to slash big. And even with all that slashing, the cuts to discretionary spending were modest..
You really are serious? We are spending too much AND they are slashing too quickly. You really don't see anyway that both are happening? You really believe that?
You really don't see the:
"What"- spending too much
and the
"How"- Chainsaw Elon
may happen concurrently? That to solve the "What", the "How" is using a harmful or destructive method? That the two are inconsistent with each other? The methods have nothing to do with solving the problem. I am starting to see how Iran-Contra happened...
I think you know it is BS, but you CANNOT say anything negative about Donald.
Talk about inconsistent, as you said, we have a 1.9T deficit. When I showed that Trump's budget actually raises the deficit, your response was it is "understood" that spending is still going up every year. What is it? Are we cutting with a chainsaw because the 1.9T deficit is that big of a problem or is it understood that the budget will go up under Donald and cutting is really a theoretical exercise (unless you are someone that Donald doesn't like, than chainsaw.)
If you are going to do this, it needs to be data based. Not the Donald "Tombstone" vendetta...
good grief you are confused. YOU are the one simultaneously complaining about the deficit being too big for too long and Trump slashing too much too fast.
I am the one who's speaking reality - that it would politically and economically reckless to try to slash the budget to balance in a single cycle, in no small part because it is entitlements driving the deficit. The more pragmatic policy would be to cut as much as you can up front and try to grow your way into sustainable ratios. That is exactly what Trump's stated plan is. And he is making good progress on it.
Trump's budget raises CBO deficit projections, which are never accurate, because they have too many static assumptions and baseline projections, leading to nonsense like keeping the current tax rates in place equating to a budget cut.
You are going to look really, really foolish as things continue to improve......
You do have a blind spot here. For a reasonable, normally intelligent poster the fact that you can't see that "how" they are implementing policies can be a negative. No matter how noble or correct a policy is if the execution is handled in a boorish, amatuerish method it is a negative. DOGE was just that, the amatuerish, boorish implementation of a policy everyone pretty much agrees.
Every president promises to cut the size of government, but none of them ever do anything about it. We finally get one who does. And you insist that how he did it undermines the benefit of actually doing it?
A good comparison, Biden leaving Afghanistan. We all agree, including Trump, that we needed to get out of Afghanistan. Sound policy decision. The execution of that policy was amateurish, haphazard and ultimately a negative.
What a misanthropic analogy. The cuts Trump has made to civil service payroll, honoring decades-old GOP promises to eliminate agencies, etc......has been rendered to the level of the Abby Gate bombing in Kabul? All those cuts to government, because of how they were done, is now equivalent to the Taliban retaking Afghanistan?
Regardless of whether things get better, how those people were treated and the side show Trump turned it into will be a negative in future elections going forward. You will see Elon with a Chainsaw, Elon standing at parade rest behind Trump in staff meetings, and hear how the FAA, NOAA and others had to hire people back because of the amateurish way they did it.
So if he'd just been nicer about how he slashed payroll and decomissioned agencies, everything would be peachy? None of the entrenched interests would have complained had they been cut by hands wearing velvet gloves?
Was the policy good? Absolutely, if he wants to reduce the size of Government, he isn't the first, we all agree. We all agree the inclusion training and diversity distracted from the mission. How, was a disaster.
As for those number getting better. What timeframe are we talking? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? 2028? In the short term, you will see revenue increases. What happens in the mid and long term?
So many problems with that last part.
1) CBO definitions are arbitrary, like extending current tax rates being equivalent to a tax cut.
2) CBO projections do not take future tariff revenues into account.
3) CBO projections are static, do not allow for any dynamic effect of stimulus or tax policies.
4) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE waste/fraud/abuse cuts into account.
5) CBO projections do not take any of the passed or pending recissions packages into account
6) CBO projections do not take any of the civil service workforce reductions into account.
7) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE process improvements into account (e.g. a single ERP for USG)
>>>DOGE fraud/abuse/waste numbers + annualized tariff revenues are over a quarter of the PROJECTED deficit.<<<
Again. Repeat after me:
-Slowing the rate of growth in government spending is a positive thing.
-Accelerating economic growth to generate more tax revenues is a positive thing.
-Trump has a pragmatic plan to grow our way into a viable financial situation.
-So far, Trump is making tangible, concrete progress on his plan.
The most unreasonable idea of all is that Trump could have done all that without making anyone angry.
So we should disregard CBO saying that if Trump tariffs are permanent that they would pay off 2.8T over 10 years?
Damn CBO and Fake News, I was excited...
Trump is bringing in so much revenue from tariffs that it's seriously reducing the $37 trillion national debt | Fortune
let's see what ole Trumpy Bear can conjure up a distraction now. We have DC, Putin meeting currently. I will give that turd some credit as he is an absolute master of distraction and deflection.
FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Robert Wilson said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Robert Wilson said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:
Investment is part of the GDP equation. By definition.
C + I + G + T = GDP,
Where C is consumer spending, I is investment, G is government spending, and T is plus/minus the trade number.
That is elementary textbook Econ 101........
The only question is which years will the investments occur. They most certainly will not all happen at once. Mostly will be in 2026 & 2027.
The model Trump is working looks like this: USA demands (country X) reduce its trade surplus. (X files nails disinterestedly, for decades.) Finally, USA smacks X with a 65% tariff. X jolts upright and squeals. (as it is facing collapse of its export market to USA, with related job losses, hit to GDP/X). Negotiations happen. USA and X agree to a 20% tariff on all imports to USA, 10% tariff on USA exports to X, and X will invest $300b in production operations in the USA.
So what happened there? USA used the threat of tariffs to force X-based companies to move greater percentages of their US-oriented supply chains INSIDE the USA tariff barrier line. Not all of it. Just a portion of it. The capital flows are of course a linear jolt to the US economy (being part of the I variable) but they also create production jobs, create production machinery...INSIDE the USA (increasing tax base, wages, and wartime production capacity). The preferential tariff rate is an offset to X's VAT and other non-tariff subsidies/barriers promoting/protecting the surplus X traditionally ran with the USA.....making US goods somewhat more competitive. All of that serves to abate the trade deficit (strengthening the T variable). Ergo, trade deficit pressure on value of USD abates, and the T number turns from a negative to a positive (providing more upward pressure on GDP.
This is all very elementary macroeconomic stuff. Win/win. We nudge trade back toward balance by forcing investments and getting a preferential tariff rates. X gets a softening T variable in its own GDP equation, but retains access to US markets and sees support for the value of the USD it holds in reserves Best of all, it puts the reflexive neverTrumper critics in position of having to deny that any of it is as real (because if it is real it is going to have significant positive impact.)
Got it?
Yes, but what you are not adding is that it is a projection/forecast for a future year.
LOL I have specifically noted that these are projections for future years, even noted what those flows are likely to look like in practical terms (very little this year, mostly 2026-2027, tapering off thereafter).
The margin of error is pretty loose.
How tight does it have to be to recognize the powerful jolt it will give to GDP? Average annual investment as a component of GDP varies from 15-25% but has been around 20% for the last few years. On a $30T economy, that's about $6T. These investments are ADDITIONAL investments, planned to be made elsewhere, and they will more than double average annual investment even if they are off by a third. I mean, we're talking about new investments roughly equal to one year's GDP, spread out over 2-4 years. And critics are working overtime to waive all of as a chimera.
There are no contractual binding agreements on years of investment.
LOL see. they are part of a negotiated and signed international agreement between two countries. If the investments do not happen, the agreement will lapse and tariffs will go into action.
If Toyota determines it can't do it this FY it will be pushed off. All of this is forecasting based on future year projections with a margin of error.
The agreement isn't with Toyota. It's with the Government of Japan, who has agreed to help Japanese countries move greater percentages of their supply chains inside the US. If they do that, they get tariff relief on everything made in Japan, PLUS the profits made on Japanese-owned manufacturing operations in the USA. Probably will mostly be loans & loan guarantees to incentivize the companies to act.
The only thing we know will happen is after the fact and the audits are done. We are cherry picking data on what is accurate and what isn't.
How much of that investment is in the budget year and approved? That is the best place to start, the rest is work program fluff.
What you're doing here is pointing to a shiny new car sitting on the parking lot saying "well, it probably won't start because it's been sitting there for along time so the battery's probably dead....we don't know if there's enough gas in the tank for it to go anywhere, and might not even be bought by someone with a drivers' license. So obviously it isn't actually a car.
Otherwise known as "copium."
He also thinks it's terrible if the income tax were to become unnecessary "because Trump."
I NEVER said that. Actually, if you look I said if Trump pulls that off the Country will make him Emperor.
But, you actually think that has any chance of happening?
Not only that, none of these "savings" will ever hit the books. But, keep celebrating X posts.
Whiterock, if the tariffs do solve our financial woes I will be the first one to give him credit for pulling it off.
Strawman. No one is saying tariffs will "solve" our fiscal deficits. But its looking like they will cover a quarter or third or thereabouts = a meaningful contribution. Tariffs are first and foremost a policy choice to protect critical industries, like the ones Trump has (correctly) identified. Tariff income is quite a bit more volatile than income taxes. It ebbs and flows in direct response to business cycle dynamics, whereas payroll taxes are quite a bit less elastic. Neither is good or bad, just is (and you have to plan accordingly). And, unlike payroll taxes, tariffs are quite responsive to the Laffer Curve....if you raise them too much, you price the tariffed item out of the market and revenue plunges to zero. That dynamic doesn't exactly apply to income taxes.
My experience with you is that if you are wrong, you will re-package to say you weren't or change your position along the way. Sort of like now the "investments" are really loans and loan guarentees.
Another strawman. Pointing out what things mean and how things will actually happen is not changing a position.
When a foreign government of a market economy agrees to make investments, it can be safely presumed that the government itself is not making a private sector investment. Rather, it is using USD it holds in its system to loan (or guarantee loans) for its own companies to invest in the USA (for the purpose of moving a greater percentage of its US business inside the tariff barrier line). That government has an incentive to do so in order to avoid the tariffs, which could cost job losses in their country.
Again, you are making stuff up to avoid the bloody friggin' obvious. Trump's trade policies are going to deliver meaningful revenues at nominal cost to consumers, and are going to be powerfully economically stimulative. The revenues are already here. And the stimulus will be arriving soon (along with the BBB passed last month). Trying to deny that by saying "well, you know, Trump is a liar and none of the things he says ever happen" is just copium. Dude has a strong record in office of fighting like hell to get stuff done and making good on promises. And not just the easy promises. He's actually accomplished things that even his supporters thought would not be possible.
LOL. I mean, why is this so hard for you? You said you voted for the guy. So obviously you liked at least a few of his policies. Why do you then spin around, drop your zipper, and start hosing the guy down? Just because you don't like his rhetoric? Dude has lined up 5x the average annual GDP investment amount to occur in the next 2 years. It's unprecedented. Even US companies are redirecting investments in production back to the USA (Apple announcement).
FL can't get over DOGE firing some federal employees. It hit him personally or he took it personally, and he now filters everything through that lens.
I'll cautiously say this appears to be going far better than I thought. I was all for reciprocal tariffs, but Trump went way beyond that, brought people to the table, and the end result might be way better than I suspected. I was quite skeptical when he rolled it out, just taking a huge swing at trade deficits in general.
You miss my point. It is not what is being done, it is how it is being done. Other Presidents have reduced Government. Simplest way is the not fill open positions and attrition. The damage done to people is what bothers me, along with the haphazard way they chose. All political .
Got news for you, if you think people are not going to look at Trump's Administration through the lens of DOGE you are nuts. He made it the signature of his Administration with all the Musk sideshow. He had Musk with a Chainsaw. He impacts over a million lives through the "cuts," not to mention more through cancelled contracts. Of course people are going to look at him through a DOGE lens.
Again, the inconsistency. In one post you lambaste the spending. In another, you say we cut too much too fast.
We have a $1.9T deficit. You cannot fix that with attrition. You have to slash. You have slash quick. And you have to slash big. And even with all that slashing, the cuts to discretionary spending were modest..
You really are serious? We are spending too much AND they are slashing too quickly. You really don't see anyway that both are happening? You really believe that?
You really don't see the:
"What"- spending too much
and the
"How"- Chainsaw Elon
may happen concurrently? That to solve the "What", the "How" is using a harmful or destructive method? That the two are inconsistent with each other? The methods have nothing to do with solving the problem. I am starting to see how Iran-Contra happened...
I think you know it is BS, but you CANNOT say anything negative about Donald.
Talk about inconsistent, as you said, we have a 1.9T deficit. When I showed that Trump's budget actually raises the deficit, your response was it is "understood" that spending is still going up every year. What is it? Are we cutting with a chainsaw because the 1.9T deficit is that big of a problem or is it understood that the budget will go up under Donald and cutting is really a theoretical exercise (unless you are someone that Donald doesn't like, than chainsaw.)
If you are going to do this, it needs to be data based. Not the Donald "Tombstone" vendetta...
good grief you are confused. YOU are the one simultaneously complaining about the deficit being too big for too long and Trump slashing too much too fast.
I am the one who's speaking reality - that it would politically and economically reckless to try to slash the budget to balance in a single cycle, in no small part because it is entitlements driving the deficit. The more pragmatic policy would be to cut as much as you can up front and try to grow your way into sustainable ratios. That is exactly what Trump's stated plan is. And he is making good progress on it.
Trump's budget raises CBO deficit projections, which are never accurate, because they have too many static assumptions and baseline projections, leading to nonsense like keeping the current tax rates in place equating to a budget cut.
You are going to look really, really foolish as things continue to improve......
You do have a blind spot here. For a reasonable, normally intelligent poster the fact that you can't see that "how" they are implementing policies can be a negative. No matter how noble or correct a policy is if the execution is handled in a boorish, amatuerish method it is a negative. DOGE was just that, the amatuerish, boorish implementation of a policy everyone pretty much agrees.
Every president promises to cut the size of government, but none of them ever do anything about it. We finally get one who does. And you insist that how he did it undermines the benefit of actually doing it?
A good comparison, Biden leaving Afghanistan. We all agree, including Trump, that we needed to get out of Afghanistan. Sound policy decision. The execution of that policy was amateurish, haphazard and ultimately a negative.
What a misanthropic analogy. The cuts Trump has made to civil service payroll, honoring decades-old GOP promises to eliminate agencies, etc......has been rendered to the level of the Abby Gate bombing in Kabul? All those cuts to government, because of how they were done, is now equivalent to the Taliban retaking Afghanistan?
Regardless of whether things get better, how those people were treated and the side show Trump turned it into will be a negative in future elections going forward. You will see Elon with a Chainsaw, Elon standing at parade rest behind Trump in staff meetings, and hear how the FAA, NOAA and others had to hire people back because of the amateurish way they did it.
So if he'd just been nicer about how he slashed payroll and decomissioned agencies, everything would be peachy? None of the entrenched interests would have complained had they been cut by hands wearing velvet gloves?
Was the policy good? Absolutely, if he wants to reduce the size of Government, he isn't the first, we all agree. We all agree the inclusion training and diversity distracted from the mission. How, was a disaster.
As for those number getting better. What timeframe are we talking? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? 2028? In the short term, you will see revenue increases. What happens in the mid and long term?
So many problems with that last part.
1) CBO definitions are arbitrary, like extending current tax rates being equivalent to a tax cut.
2) CBO projections do not take future tariff revenues into account.
3) CBO projections are static, do not allow for any dynamic effect of stimulus or tax policies.
4) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE waste/fraud/abuse cuts into account.
5) CBO projections do not take any of the passed or pending recissions packages into account
6) CBO projections do not take any of the civil service workforce reductions into account.
7) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE process improvements into account (e.g. a single ERP for USG)
>>>DOGE fraud/abuse/waste numbers + annualized tariff revenues are over a quarter of the PROJECTED deficit.<<<
Again. Repeat after me:
-Slowing the rate of growth in government spending is a positive thing.
-Accelerating economic growth to generate more tax revenues is a positive thing.
-Trump has a pragmatic plan to grow our way into a viable financial situation.
-So far, Trump is making tangible, concrete progress on his plan.
The most unreasonable idea of all is that Trump could have done all that without making anyone angry.
So we should disregard CBO saying that if Trump tariffs are permanent that they would pay off 2.8T over 10 years?
Damn CBO and Fake News, I was excited...
Trump is bringing in so much revenue from tariffs that it's seriously reducing the $37 trillion national debt | Fortune
LOL do you even know what the CBO is?
(Hint: it was not the entity mentioned in your link…..)
whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Robert Wilson said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Robert Wilson said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:
Investment is part of the GDP equation. By definition.
C + I + G + T = GDP,
Where C is consumer spending, I is investment, G is government spending, and T is plus/minus the trade number.
That is elementary textbook Econ 101........
The only question is which years will the investments occur. They most certainly will not all happen at once. Mostly will be in 2026 & 2027.
The model Trump is working looks like this: USA demands (country X) reduce its trade surplus. (X files nails disinterestedly, for decades.) Finally, USA smacks X with a 65% tariff. X jolts upright and squeals. (as it is facing collapse of its export market to USA, with related job losses, hit to GDP/X). Negotiations happen. USA and X agree to a 20% tariff on all imports to USA, 10% tariff on USA exports to X, and X will invest $300b in production operations in the USA.
So what happened there? USA used the threat of tariffs to force X-based companies to move greater percentages of their US-oriented supply chains INSIDE the USA tariff barrier line. Not all of it. Just a portion of it. The capital flows are of course a linear jolt to the US economy (being part of the I variable) but they also create production jobs, create production machinery...INSIDE the USA (increasing tax base, wages, and wartime production capacity). The preferential tariff rate is an offset to X's VAT and other non-tariff subsidies/barriers promoting/protecting the surplus X traditionally ran with the USA.....making US goods somewhat more competitive. All of that serves to abate the trade deficit (strengthening the T variable). Ergo, trade deficit pressure on value of USD abates, and the T number turns from a negative to a positive (providing more upward pressure on GDP.
This is all very elementary macroeconomic stuff. Win/win. We nudge trade back toward balance by forcing investments and getting a preferential tariff rates. X gets a softening T variable in its own GDP equation, but retains access to US markets and sees support for the value of the USD it holds in reserves Best of all, it puts the reflexive neverTrumper critics in position of having to deny that any of it is as real (because if it is real it is going to have significant positive impact.)
Got it?
Yes, but what you are not adding is that it is a projection/forecast for a future year.
LOL I have specifically noted that these are projections for future years, even noted what those flows are likely to look like in practical terms (very little this year, mostly 2026-2027, tapering off thereafter).
The margin of error is pretty loose.
How tight does it have to be to recognize the powerful jolt it will give to GDP? Average annual investment as a component of GDP varies from 15-25% but has been around 20% for the last few years. On a $30T economy, that's about $6T. These investments are ADDITIONAL investments, planned to be made elsewhere, and they will more than double average annual investment even if they are off by a third. I mean, we're talking about new investments roughly equal to one year's GDP, spread out over 2-4 years. And critics are working overtime to waive all of as a chimera.
There are no contractual binding agreements on years of investment.
LOL see. they are part of a negotiated and signed international agreement between two countries. If the investments do not happen, the agreement will lapse and tariffs will go into action.
If Toyota determines it can't do it this FY it will be pushed off. All of this is forecasting based on future year projections with a margin of error.
The agreement isn't with Toyota. It's with the Government of Japan, who has agreed to help Japanese countries move greater percentages of their supply chains inside the US. If they do that, they get tariff relief on everything made in Japan, PLUS the profits made on Japanese-owned manufacturing operations in the USA. Probably will mostly be loans & loan guarantees to incentivize the companies to act.
The only thing we know will happen is after the fact and the audits are done. We are cherry picking data on what is accurate and what isn't.
How much of that investment is in the budget year and approved? That is the best place to start, the rest is work program fluff.
What you're doing here is pointing to a shiny new car sitting on the parking lot saying "well, it probably won't start because it's been sitting there for along time so the battery's probably dead....we don't know if there's enough gas in the tank for it to go anywhere, and might not even be bought by someone with a drivers' license. So obviously it isn't actually a car.
Otherwise known as "copium."
He also thinks it's terrible if the income tax were to become unnecessary "because Trump."
I NEVER said that. Actually, if you look I said if Trump pulls that off the Country will make him Emperor.
But, you actually think that has any chance of happening?
Not only that, none of these "savings" will ever hit the books. But, keep celebrating X posts.
Whiterock, if the tariffs do solve our financial woes I will be the first one to give him credit for pulling it off.
Strawman. No one is saying tariffs will "solve" our fiscal deficits. But its looking like they will cover a quarter or third or thereabouts = a meaningful contribution. Tariffs are first and foremost a policy choice to protect critical industries, like the ones Trump has (correctly) identified. Tariff income is quite a bit more volatile than income taxes. It ebbs and flows in direct response to business cycle dynamics, whereas payroll taxes are quite a bit less elastic. Neither is good or bad, just is (and you have to plan accordingly). And, unlike payroll taxes, tariffs are quite responsive to the Laffer Curve....if you raise them too much, you price the tariffed item out of the market and revenue plunges to zero. That dynamic doesn't exactly apply to income taxes.
My experience with you is that if you are wrong, you will re-package to say you weren't or change your position along the way. Sort of like now the "investments" are really loans and loan guarentees.
Another strawman. Pointing out what things mean and how things will actually happen is not changing a position.
When a foreign government of a market economy agrees to make investments, it can be safely presumed that the government itself is not making a private sector investment. Rather, it is using USD it holds in its system to loan (or guarantee loans) for its own companies to invest in the USA (for the purpose of moving a greater percentage of its US business inside the tariff barrier line). That government has an incentive to do so in order to avoid the tariffs, which could cost job losses in their country.
Again, you are making stuff up to avoid the bloody friggin' obvious. Trump's trade policies are going to deliver meaningful revenues at nominal cost to consumers, and are going to be powerfully economically stimulative. The revenues are already here. And the stimulus will be arriving soon (along with the BBB passed last month). Trying to deny that by saying "well, you know, Trump is a liar and none of the things he says ever happen" is just copium. Dude has a strong record in office of fighting like hell to get stuff done and making good on promises. And not just the easy promises. He's actually accomplished things that even his supporters thought would not be possible.
LOL. I mean, why is this so hard for you? You said you voted for the guy. So obviously you liked at least a few of his policies. Why do you then spin around, drop your zipper, and start hosing the guy down? Just because you don't like his rhetoric? Dude has lined up 5x the average annual GDP investment amount to occur in the next 2 years. It's unprecedented. Even US companies are redirecting investments in production back to the USA (Apple announcement).
FL can't get over DOGE firing some federal employees. It hit him personally or he took it personally, and he now filters everything through that lens.
I'll cautiously say this appears to be going far better than I thought. I was all for reciprocal tariffs, but Trump went way beyond that, brought people to the table, and the end result might be way better than I suspected. I was quite skeptical when he rolled it out, just taking a huge swing at trade deficits in general.
You miss my point. It is not what is being done, it is how it is being done. Other Presidents have reduced Government. Simplest way is the not fill open positions and attrition. The damage done to people is what bothers me, along with the haphazard way they chose. All political .
Got news for you, if you think people are not going to look at Trump's Administration through the lens of DOGE you are nuts. He made it the signature of his Administration with all the Musk sideshow. He had Musk with a Chainsaw. He impacts over a million lives through the "cuts," not to mention more through cancelled contracts. Of course people are going to look at him through a DOGE lens.
Again, the inconsistency. In one post you lambaste the spending. In another, you say we cut too much too fast.
We have a $1.9T deficit. You cannot fix that with attrition. You have to slash. You have slash quick. And you have to slash big. And even with all that slashing, the cuts to discretionary spending were modest..
You really are serious? We are spending too much AND they are slashing too quickly. You really don't see anyway that both are happening? You really believe that?
You really don't see the:
"What"- spending too much
and the
"How"- Chainsaw Elon
may happen concurrently? That to solve the "What", the "How" is using a harmful or destructive method? That the two are inconsistent with each other? The methods have nothing to do with solving the problem. I am starting to see how Iran-Contra happened...
I think you know it is BS, but you CANNOT say anything negative about Donald.
Talk about inconsistent, as you said, we have a 1.9T deficit. When I showed that Trump's budget actually raises the deficit, your response was it is "understood" that spending is still going up every year. What is it? Are we cutting with a chainsaw because the 1.9T deficit is that big of a problem or is it understood that the budget will go up under Donald and cutting is really a theoretical exercise (unless you are someone that Donald doesn't like, than chainsaw.)
If you are going to do this, it needs to be data based. Not the Donald "Tombstone" vendetta...
good grief you are confused. YOU are the one simultaneously complaining about the deficit being too big for too long and Trump slashing too much too fast.
I am the one who's speaking reality - that it would politically and economically reckless to try to slash the budget to balance in a single cycle, in no small part because it is entitlements driving the deficit. The more pragmatic policy would be to cut as much as you can up front and try to grow your way into sustainable ratios. That is exactly what Trump's stated plan is. And he is making good progress on it.
Trump's budget raises CBO deficit projections, which are never accurate, because they have too many static assumptions and baseline projections, leading to nonsense like keeping the current tax rates in place equating to a budget cut.
You are going to look really, really foolish as things continue to improve......
You do have a blind spot here. For a reasonable, normally intelligent poster the fact that you can't see that "how" they are implementing policies can be a negative. No matter how noble or correct a policy is if the execution is handled in a boorish, amatuerish method it is a negative. DOGE was just that, the amatuerish, boorish implementation of a policy everyone pretty much agrees.
Every president promises to cut the size of government, but none of them ever do anything about it. We finally get one who does. And you insist that how he did it undermines the benefit of actually doing it?
A good comparison, Biden leaving Afghanistan. We all agree, including Trump, that we needed to get out of Afghanistan. Sound policy decision. The execution of that policy was amateurish, haphazard and ultimately a negative.
What a misanthropic analogy. The cuts Trump has made to civil service payroll, honoring decades-old GOP promises to eliminate agencies, etc......has been rendered to the level of the Abby Gate bombing in Kabul? All those cuts to government, because of how they were done, is now equivalent to the Taliban retaking Afghanistan?
Regardless of whether things get better, how those people were treated and the side show Trump turned it into will be a negative in future elections going forward. You will see Elon with a Chainsaw, Elon standing at parade rest behind Trump in staff meetings, and hear how the FAA, NOAA and others had to hire people back because of the amateurish way they did it.
So if he'd just been nicer about how he slashed payroll and decomissioned agencies, everything would be peachy? None of the entrenched interests would have complained had they been cut by hands wearing velvet gloves?
Was the policy good? Absolutely, if he wants to reduce the size of Government, he isn't the first, we all agree. We all agree the inclusion training and diversity distracted from the mission. How, was a disaster.
As for those number getting better. What timeframe are we talking? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? 2028? In the short term, you will see revenue increases. What happens in the mid and long term?
So many problems with that last part.
1) CBO definitions are arbitrary, like extending current tax rates being equivalent to a tax cut.
2) CBO projections do not take future tariff revenues into account.
3) CBO projections are static, do not allow for any dynamic effect of stimulus or tax policies.
4) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE waste/fraud/abuse cuts into account.
5) CBO projections do not take any of the passed or pending recissions packages into account
6) CBO projections do not take any of the civil service workforce reductions into account.
7) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE process improvements into account (e.g. a single ERP for USG)
>>>DOGE fraud/abuse/waste numbers + annualized tariff revenues are over a quarter of the PROJECTED deficit.<<<
Again. Repeat after me:
-Slowing the rate of growth in government spending is a positive thing.
-Accelerating economic growth to generate more tax revenues is a positive thing.
-Trump has a pragmatic plan to grow our way into a viable financial situation.
-So far, Trump is making tangible, concrete progress on his plan.
The most unreasonable idea of all is that Trump could have done all that without making anyone angry.
So we should disregard CBO saying that if Trump tariffs are permanent that they would pay off 2.8T over 10 years?
Damn CBO and Fake News, I was excited...
Trump is bringing in so much revenue from tariffs that it's seriously reducing the $37 trillion national debt | Fortune
LOL do you even know what the CBO is?
(Hint: it was not the entity mentioned in your link…..)
Congressional Budget Office. The Committee for Responsible Federal Budget used CBO numbers and their model. The CBO figures were good enough for their analysis, at least when it indicated a positive.
"theory, pouring $2.8 trillion from tariffs into the national coffers could markedly slow the growth of the federal debt. Congressional Budget Office figures and CRFB models suggest that, if kept permanent, Trump's tariff regime could reduce the deficit by up to $2.8 trillion in the next decade. "
Get it.
J.R. said:
let's see what ole Trumpy Bear can conjure up a distraction now. We have DC, Putin meeting currently. I will give that turd some credit as he is an absolute master of distraction and deflection.
You remain so focused on your hatred of the man who saved our southern border….that you can't recognize the bigger question …….
What do Biden and Trump BOTH know that makes it worthwhile to continue to cover up the Epstein disgrace ?
This is a BIPARTISAN cover up.
What in the world makes it so important ?
Suspect it involves Israeli intelligence. A blackmail operation that infests BOTH of our political parties.
An even bigger reason these files should ALL be released.
FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:
Again, the inconsistency. In one post you lambaste the spending. In another, you say we cut too much too fast.
We have a $1.9T deficit. You cannot fix that with attrition. You have to slash. You have slash quick. And you have to slash big. And even with all that slashing, the cuts to discretionary spending were modest..
You really are serious? We are spending too much AND they are slashing too quickly. You really don't see anyway that both are happening? You really believe that?
You really don't see the:
"What"- spending too much
and the
"How"- Chainsaw Elon
may happen concurrently? That to solve the "What", the "How" is using a harmful or destructive method? That the two are inconsistent with each other? The methods have nothing to do with solving the problem. I am starting to see how Iran-Contra happened...
I think you know it is BS, but you CANNOT say anything negative about Donald.
Talk about inconsistent, as you said, we have a 1.9T deficit. When I showed that Trump's budget actually raises the deficit, your response was it is "understood" that spending is still going up every year. What is it? Are we cutting with a chainsaw because the 1.9T deficit is that big of a problem or is it understood that the budget will go up under Donald and cutting is really a theoretical exercise (unless you are someone that Donald doesn't like, than chainsaw.)
If you are going to do this, it needs to be data based. Not the Donald "Tombstone" vendetta...
good grief you are confused. YOU are the one simultaneously complaining about the deficit being too big for too long and Trump slashing too much too fast.
I am the one who's speaking reality - that it would politically and economically reckless to try to slash the budget to balance in a single cycle, in no small part because it is entitlements driving the deficit. The more pragmatic policy would be to cut as much as you can up front and try to grow your way into sustainable ratios. That is exactly what Trump's stated plan is. And he is making good progress on it.
Trump's budget raises CBO deficit projections, which are never accurate, because they have too many static assumptions and baseline projections, leading to nonsense like keeping the current tax rates in place equating to a budget cut.
You are going to look really, really foolish as things continue to improve......
You do have a blind spot here. For a reasonable, normally intelligent poster the fact that you can't see that "how" they are implementing policies can be a negative. No matter how noble or correct a policy is if the execution is handled in a boorish, amatuerish method it is a negative. DOGE was just that, the amatuerish, boorish implementation of a policy everyone pretty much agrees.
Every president promises to cut the size of government, but none of them ever do anything about it. We finally get one who does. And you insist that how he did it undermines the benefit of actually doing it?
A good comparison, Biden leaving Afghanistan. We all agree, including Trump, that we needed to get out of Afghanistan. Sound policy decision. The execution of that policy was amateurish, haphazard and ultimately a negative.
What a misanthropic analogy. The cuts Trump has made to civil service payroll, honoring decades-old GOP promises to eliminate agencies, etc......has been rendered to the level of the Abby Gate bombing in Kabul? All those cuts to government, because of how they were done, is now equivalent to the Taliban retaking Afghanistan?
Regardless of whether things get better, how those people were treated and the side show Trump turned it into will be a negative in future elections going forward. You will see Elon with a Chainsaw, Elon standing at parade rest behind Trump in staff meetings, and hear how the FAA, NOAA and others had to hire people back because of the amateurish way they did it.
So if he'd just been nicer about how he slashed payroll and decomissioned agencies, everything would be peachy? None of the entrenched interests would have complained had they been cut by hands wearing velvet gloves?
Was the policy good? Absolutely, if he wants to reduce the size of Government, he isn't the first, we all agree. We all agree the inclusion training and diversity distracted from the mission. How, was a disaster.
As for those number getting better. What timeframe are we talking? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? 2028? In the short term, you will see revenue increases. What happens in the mid and long term?
So many problems with that last part.
1) CBO definitions are arbitrary, like extending current tax rates being equivalent to a tax cut.
2) CBO projections do not take future tariff revenues into account.
3) CBO projections are static, do not allow for any dynamic effect of stimulus or tax policies.
4) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE waste/fraud/abuse cuts into account.
5) CBO projections do not take any of the passed or pending recissions packages into account
6) CBO projections do not take any of the civil service workforce reductions into account.
7) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE process improvements into account (e.g. a single ERP for USG)
>>>DOGE fraud/abuse/waste numbers + annualized tariff revenues are over a quarter of the PROJECTED deficit.<<<
Again. Repeat after me:
-Slowing the rate of growth in government spending is a positive thing.
-Accelerating economic growth to generate more tax revenues is a positive thing.
-Trump has a pragmatic plan to grow our way into a viable financial situation.
-So far, Trump is making tangible, concrete progress on his plan.
The most unreasonable idea of all is that Trump could have done all that without making anyone angry.
So we should disregard CBO saying that if Trump tariffs are permanent that they would pay off 2.8T over 10 years?
Damn CBO and Fake News, I was excited...
Trump is bringing in so much revenue from tariffs that it's seriously reducing the $37 trillion national debt | Fortune
LOL do you even know what the CBO is?
(Hint: it was not the entity mentioned in your link…..)
Congressional Budget Office. The Committee for Responsible Federal Budget used CBO numbers and their model. The CBO figures were good enough for their analysis, at least when it indicated a positive.
"theory, pouring $2.8 trillion from tariffs into the national coffers could markedly slow the growth of the federal debt. Congressional Budget Office figures and CRFB models suggest that, if kept permanent, Trump's tariff regime could reduce the deficit by up to $2.8 trillion in the next decade. "
Get it.
Oh I get it. You don't.
CFRB uses CBO data (which is good) but not the CBO model (which terrible).
CFRB uses its own model.
That's why CBO projected the tariffs would generate $872B in revenues over the next ten years, but CFRB projects $2.8T in revenues over the same period.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2024-09/60692-Tariffs.pdf
See?
whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:
Again, the inconsistency. In one post you lambaste the spending. In another, you say we cut too much too fast.
We have a $1.9T deficit. You cannot fix that with attrition. You have to slash. You have slash quick. And you have to slash big. And even with all that slashing, the cuts to discretionary spending were modest..
You really are serious? We are spending too much AND they are slashing too quickly. You really don't see anyway that both are happening? You really believe that?
You really don't see the:
"What"- spending too much
and the
"How"- Chainsaw Elon
may happen concurrently? That to solve the "What", the "How" is using a harmful or destructive method? That the two are inconsistent with each other? The methods have nothing to do with solving the problem. I am starting to see how Iran-Contra happened...
I think you know it is BS, but you CANNOT say anything negative about Donald.
Talk about inconsistent, as you said, we have a 1.9T deficit. When I showed that Trump's budget actually raises the deficit, your response was it is "understood" that spending is still going up every year. What is it? Are we cutting with a chainsaw because the 1.9T deficit is that big of a problem or is it understood that the budget will go up under Donald and cutting is really a theoretical exercise (unless you are someone that Donald doesn't like, than chainsaw.)
If you are going to do this, it needs to be data based. Not the Donald "Tombstone" vendetta...
good grief you are confused. YOU are the one simultaneously complaining about the deficit being too big for too long and Trump slashing too much too fast.
I am the one who's speaking reality - that it would politically and economically reckless to try to slash the budget to balance in a single cycle, in no small part because it is entitlements driving the deficit. The more pragmatic policy would be to cut as much as you can up front and try to grow your way into sustainable ratios. That is exactly what Trump's stated plan is. And he is making good progress on it.
Trump's budget raises CBO deficit projections, which are never accurate, because they have too many static assumptions and baseline projections, leading to nonsense like keeping the current tax rates in place equating to a budget cut.
You are going to look really, really foolish as things continue to improve......
You do have a blind spot here. For a reasonable, normally intelligent poster the fact that you can't see that "how" they are implementing policies can be a negative. No matter how noble or correct a policy is if the execution is handled in a boorish, amatuerish method it is a negative. DOGE was just that, the amatuerish, boorish implementation of a policy everyone pretty much agrees.
Every president promises to cut the size of government, but none of them ever do anything about it. We finally get one who does. And you insist that how he did it undermines the benefit of actually doing it?
A good comparison, Biden leaving Afghanistan. We all agree, including Trump, that we needed to get out of Afghanistan. Sound policy decision. The execution of that policy was amateurish, haphazard and ultimately a negative.
What a misanthropic analogy. The cuts Trump has made to civil service payroll, honoring decades-old GOP promises to eliminate agencies, etc......has been rendered to the level of the Abby Gate bombing in Kabul? All those cuts to government, because of how they were done, is now equivalent to the Taliban retaking Afghanistan?
Regardless of whether things get better, how those people were treated and the side show Trump turned it into will be a negative in future elections going forward. You will see Elon with a Chainsaw, Elon standing at parade rest behind Trump in staff meetings, and hear how the FAA, NOAA and others had to hire people back because of the amateurish way they did it.
So if he'd just been nicer about how he slashed payroll and decomissioned agencies, everything would be peachy? None of the entrenched interests would have complained had they been cut by hands wearing velvet gloves?
Was the policy good? Absolutely, if he wants to reduce the size of Government, he isn't the first, we all agree. We all agree the inclusion training and diversity distracted from the mission. How, was a disaster.
As for those number getting better. What timeframe are we talking? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? 2028? In the short term, you will see revenue increases. What happens in the mid and long term?
So many problems with that last part.
1) CBO definitions are arbitrary, like extending current tax rates being equivalent to a tax cut.
2) CBO projections do not take future tariff revenues into account.
3) CBO projections are static, do not allow for any dynamic effect of stimulus or tax policies.
4) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE waste/fraud/abuse cuts into account.
5) CBO projections do not take any of the passed or pending recissions packages into account
6) CBO projections do not take any of the civil service workforce reductions into account.
7) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE process improvements into account (e.g. a single ERP for USG)
>>>DOGE fraud/abuse/waste numbers + annualized tariff revenues are over a quarter of the PROJECTED deficit.<<<
Again. Repeat after me:
-Slowing the rate of growth in government spending is a positive thing.
-Accelerating economic growth to generate more tax revenues is a positive thing.
-Trump has a pragmatic plan to grow our way into a viable financial situation.
-So far, Trump is making tangible, concrete progress on his plan.
The most unreasonable idea of all is that Trump could have done all that without making anyone angry.
So we should disregard CBO saying that if Trump tariffs are permanent that they would pay off 2.8T over 10 years?
Damn CBO and Fake News, I was excited...
Trump is bringing in so much revenue from tariffs that it's seriously reducing the $37 trillion national debt | Fortune
LOL do you even know what the CBO is?
(Hint: it was not the entity mentioned in your link…..)
Congressional Budget Office. The Committee for Responsible Federal Budget used CBO numbers and their model. The CBO figures were good enough for their analysis, at least when it indicated a positive.
"theory, pouring $2.8 trillion from tariffs into the national coffers could markedly slow the growth of the federal debt. Congressional Budget Office figures and CRFB models suggest that, if kept permanent, Trump's tariff regime could reduce the deficit by up to $2.8 trillion in the next decade. "
Get it.
Oh I get it. You don't.
CFRB uses CBO data (which is good) but not the CBO model (which terrible).
CFRB uses its own model.
That's why CBO projected the tariffs would generate $872B in revenues over the next ten years, but CFRB projects $2.8T in revenues over the same period.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2024-09/60692-Tariffs.pdf
See?
Whatever you want, you really know...
You set whatever parameters you like, I get it. You destroy CBO for years. Now, CBO data is good. You make it up as you go along, as long as you are right. Sort of tiresome, hard to have a real conversation with people that are really just pushing an agenda.
Keep cherrypicking and acting like you got a real grip... Maybe someone will believe you. Word of advice, take a good look at who believes you.
No need to respond, we are done.
whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:
Again, the inconsistency. In one post you lambaste the spending. In another, you say we cut too much too fast.
We have a $1.9T deficit. You cannot fix that with attrition. You have to slash. You have slash quick. And you have to slash big. And even with all that slashing, the cuts to discretionary spending were modest..
You really are serious? We are spending too much AND they are slashing too quickly. You really don't see anyway that both are happening? You really believe that?
You really don't see the:
"What"- spending too much
and the
"How"- Chainsaw Elon
may happen concurrently? That to solve the "What", the "How" is using a harmful or destructive method? That the two are inconsistent with each other? The methods have nothing to do with solving the problem. I am starting to see how Iran-Contra happened...
I think you know it is BS, but you CANNOT say anything negative about Donald.
Talk about inconsistent, as you said, we have a 1.9T deficit. When I showed that Trump's budget actually raises the deficit, your response was it is "understood" that spending is still going up every year. What is it? Are we cutting with a chainsaw because the 1.9T deficit is that big of a problem or is it understood that the budget will go up under Donald and cutting is really a theoretical exercise (unless you are someone that Donald doesn't like, than chainsaw.)
If you are going to do this, it needs to be data based. Not the Donald "Tombstone" vendetta...
good grief you are confused. YOU are the one simultaneously complaining about the deficit being too big for too long and Trump slashing too much too fast.
I am the one who's speaking reality - that it would politically and economically reckless to try to slash the budget to balance in a single cycle, in no small part because it is entitlements driving the deficit. The more pragmatic policy would be to cut as much as you can up front and try to grow your way into sustainable ratios. That is exactly what Trump's stated plan is. And he is making good progress on it.
Trump's budget raises CBO deficit projections, which are never accurate, because they have too many static assumptions and baseline projections, leading to nonsense like keeping the current tax rates in place equating to a budget cut.
You are going to look really, really foolish as things continue to improve......
You do have a blind spot here. For a reasonable, normally intelligent poster the fact that you can't see that "how" they are implementing policies can be a negative. No matter how noble or correct a policy is if the execution is handled in a boorish, amatuerish method it is a negative. DOGE was just that, the amatuerish, boorish implementation of a policy everyone pretty much agrees.
Every president promises to cut the size of government, but none of them ever do anything about it. We finally get one who does. And you insist that how he did it undermines the benefit of actually doing it?
A good comparison, Biden leaving Afghanistan. We all agree, including Trump, that we needed to get out of Afghanistan. Sound policy decision. The execution of that policy was amateurish, haphazard and ultimately a negative.
What a misanthropic analogy. The cuts Trump has made to civil service payroll, honoring decades-old GOP promises to eliminate agencies, etc......has been rendered to the level of the Abby Gate bombing in Kabul? All those cuts to government, because of how they were done, is now equivalent to the Taliban retaking Afghanistan?
Regardless of whether things get better, how those people were treated and the side show Trump turned it into will be a negative in future elections going forward. You will see Elon with a Chainsaw, Elon standing at parade rest behind Trump in staff meetings, and hear how the FAA, NOAA and others had to hire people back because of the amateurish way they did it.
So if he'd just been nicer about how he slashed payroll and decomissioned agencies, everything would be peachy? None of the entrenched interests would have complained had they been cut by hands wearing velvet gloves?
Was the policy good? Absolutely, if he wants to reduce the size of Government, he isn't the first, we all agree. We all agree the inclusion training and diversity distracted from the mission. How, was a disaster.
As for those number getting better. What timeframe are we talking? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? 2028? In the short term, you will see revenue increases. What happens in the mid and long term?
So many problems with that last part.
1) CBO definitions are arbitrary, like extending current tax rates being equivalent to a tax cut.
2) CBO projections do not take future tariff revenues into account.
3) CBO projections are static, do not allow for any dynamic effect of stimulus or tax policies.
4) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE waste/fraud/abuse cuts into account.
5) CBO projections do not take any of the passed or pending recissions packages into account
6) CBO projections do not take any of the civil service workforce reductions into account.
7) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE process improvements into account (e.g. a single ERP for USG)
>>>DOGE fraud/abuse/waste numbers + annualized tariff revenues are over a quarter of the PROJECTED deficit.<<<
Again. Repeat after me:
-Slowing the rate of growth in government spending is a positive thing.
-Accelerating economic growth to generate more tax revenues is a positive thing.
-Trump has a pragmatic plan to grow our way into a viable financial situation.
-So far, Trump is making tangible, concrete progress on his plan.
The most unreasonable idea of all is that Trump could have done all that without making anyone angry.
So we should disregard CBO saying that if Trump tariffs are permanent that they would pay off 2.8T over 10 years?
Damn CBO and Fake News, I was excited...
Trump is bringing in so much revenue from tariffs that it's seriously reducing the $37 trillion national debt | Fortune
LOL do you even know what the CBO is?
(Hint: it was not the entity mentioned in your link…..)
Congressional Budget Office. The Committee for Responsible Federal Budget used CBO numbers and their model. The CBO figures were good enough for their analysis, at least when it indicated a positive.
"theory, pouring $2.8 trillion from tariffs into the national coffers could markedly slow the growth of the federal debt. Congressional Budget Office figures and CRFB models suggest that, if kept permanent, Trump's tariff regime could reduce the deficit by up to $2.8 trillion in the next decade. "
Get it.
Oh I get it. You don't.
CFRB uses CBO data (which is good) but not the CBO model (which terrible).
CFRB uses its own model.
That's why CBO projected the tariffs would generate $872B in revenues over the next ten years, but CFRB projects $2.8T in revenues over the same period.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2024-09/60692-Tariffs.pdf
See?
Interesting information.
Well done.
KaiBear said:J.R. said:
let's see what ole Trumpy Bear can conjure up a distraction now. We have DC, Putin meeting currently. I will give that turd some credit as he is an absolute master of distraction and deflection.
You remain so focused on your hatred of the man who saved our southern border….that you can't recognize the bigger question …….
What do Biden and Trump BOTH know that makes it worthwhile to continue to cover up the Epstein disgrace ?
This is a BIPARTISAN cover up.
What in the world makes it so important ?
Suspect it involves Israeli intelligence. A blackmail operation that infests BOTH of our political parties.
An even bigger reason these files should ALL be released.
dude, please live in the present. This is all Trumps now. Biden and Obama have nothing to do with our ****ty situation your fat ass has put us in and you just lap up what Fox tells you. I give fat boy credit on the border. I don't have blind hatred toward him. However, I think he is horrible for the country. I have no respect for liars, bullies, adulterers, convicted fellons, twice impeached, self absorbed people. Yes, why is he fighting so hard to release it all? The pole dancing AG is pathetic. They could release it all today. Please tell me why your people (trump admin) simply won't do it. Please tell me. Also please let us know how Maxwell got moved to club fed as that just doesn't happen. Who signed off on that? We need to know. You don't cut deals with serial pedophiles.
J.R. said:KaiBear said:J.R. said:
let's see what ole Trumpy Bear can conjure up a distraction now. We have DC, Putin meeting currently. I will give that turd some credit as he is an absolute master of distraction and deflection.
You remain so focused on your hatred of the man who saved our southern border….that you can't recognize the bigger question …….
What do Biden and Trump BOTH know that makes it worthwhile to continue to cover up the Epstein disgrace ?
This is a BIPARTISAN cover up.
What in the world makes it so important ?
Suspect it involves Israeli intelligence. A blackmail operation that infests BOTH of our political parties.
An even bigger reason these files should ALL be released.
dude, please live in the present. This is all Trumps now. Biden and Obama have nothing to do with our ****ty situation your fat ass has put us in and you just lap up what Fox tells you. I give fat boy credit on the border. I don't have blind hatred toward him. However, I think he is horrible for the country. I have no respect for liars, bullies, adulterers, convicted fellons, twice impeached, self absorbed people. Yes, why is he fighting so hard to release it all? The pole dancing AG is pathetic. They could release it all today. Please tell me why your people (trump admin) simply won't do it. Please tell me. Also please let us know how Maxwell got moved to club fed as that just doesn't happen. Who signed off on that? We need to know. You don't cut deals with serial pedophiles.
Maxwell obviously got sent to club fed within weeks of her conviction by keeping her mouth shut.
Smart choice or she would already be dead.
The AG is clearly doing what Trump tells her to do.
The files have to be released.
Suspect both DEMS and REPUBLICANS and ISRAEL are all worried like hell they will be.
KaiBear said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:
Again, the inconsistency. In one post you lambaste the spending. In another, you say we cut too much too fast.
We have a $1.9T deficit. You cannot fix that with attrition. You have to slash. You have slash quick. And you have to slash big. And even with all that slashing, the cuts to discretionary spending were modest..
You really are serious? We are spending too much AND they are slashing too quickly. You really don't see anyway that both are happening? You really believe that?
You really don't see the:
"What"- spending too much
and the
"How"- Chainsaw Elon
may happen concurrently? That to solve the "What", the "How" is using a harmful or destructive method? That the two are inconsistent with each other? The methods have nothing to do with solving the problem. I am starting to see how Iran-Contra happened...
I think you know it is BS, but you CANNOT say anything negative about Donald.
Talk about inconsistent, as you said, we have a 1.9T deficit. When I showed that Trump's budget actually raises the deficit, your response was it is "understood" that spending is still going up every year. What is it? Are we cutting with a chainsaw because the 1.9T deficit is that big of a problem or is it understood that the budget will go up under Donald and cutting is really a theoretical exercise (unless you are someone that Donald doesn't like, than chainsaw.)
If you are going to do this, it needs to be data based. Not the Donald "Tombstone" vendetta...
good grief you are confused. YOU are the one simultaneously complaining about the deficit being too big for too long and Trump slashing too much too fast.
I am the one who's speaking reality - that it would politically and economically reckless to try to slash the budget to balance in a single cycle, in no small part because it is entitlements driving the deficit. The more pragmatic policy would be to cut as much as you can up front and try to grow your way into sustainable ratios. That is exactly what Trump's stated plan is. And he is making good progress on it.
Trump's budget raises CBO deficit projections, which are never accurate, because they have too many static assumptions and baseline projections, leading to nonsense like keeping the current tax rates in place equating to a budget cut.
You are going to look really, really foolish as things continue to improve......
You do have a blind spot here. For a reasonable, normally intelligent poster the fact that you can't see that "how" they are implementing policies can be a negative. No matter how noble or correct a policy is if the execution is handled in a boorish, amatuerish method it is a negative. DOGE was just that, the amatuerish, boorish implementation of a policy everyone pretty much agrees.
Every president promises to cut the size of government, but none of them ever do anything about it. We finally get one who does. And you insist that how he did it undermines the benefit of actually doing it?
A good comparison, Biden leaving Afghanistan. We all agree, including Trump, that we needed to get out of Afghanistan. Sound policy decision. The execution of that policy was amateurish, haphazard and ultimately a negative.
What a misanthropic analogy. The cuts Trump has made to civil service payroll, honoring decades-old GOP promises to eliminate agencies, etc......has been rendered to the level of the Abby Gate bombing in Kabul? All those cuts to government, because of how they were done, is now equivalent to the Taliban retaking Afghanistan?
Regardless of whether things get better, how those people were treated and the side show Trump turned it into will be a negative in future elections going forward. You will see Elon with a Chainsaw, Elon standing at parade rest behind Trump in staff meetings, and hear how the FAA, NOAA and others had to hire people back because of the amateurish way they did it.
So if he'd just been nicer about how he slashed payroll and decomissioned agencies, everything would be peachy? None of the entrenched interests would have complained had they been cut by hands wearing velvet gloves?
Was the policy good? Absolutely, if he wants to reduce the size of Government, he isn't the first, we all agree. We all agree the inclusion training and diversity distracted from the mission. How, was a disaster.
As for those number getting better. What timeframe are we talking? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? 2028? In the short term, you will see revenue increases. What happens in the mid and long term?
So many problems with that last part.
1) CBO definitions are arbitrary, like extending current tax rates being equivalent to a tax cut.
2) CBO projections do not take future tariff revenues into account.
3) CBO projections are static, do not allow for any dynamic effect of stimulus or tax policies.
4) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE waste/fraud/abuse cuts into account.
5) CBO projections do not take any of the passed or pending recissions packages into account
6) CBO projections do not take any of the civil service workforce reductions into account.
7) CBO projections do not take any of the DOGE process improvements into account (e.g. a single ERP for USG)
>>>DOGE fraud/abuse/waste numbers + annualized tariff revenues are over a quarter of the PROJECTED deficit.<<<
Again. Repeat after me:
-Slowing the rate of growth in government spending is a positive thing.
-Accelerating economic growth to generate more tax revenues is a positive thing.
-Trump has a pragmatic plan to grow our way into a viable financial situation.
-So far, Trump is making tangible, concrete progress on his plan.
The most unreasonable idea of all is that Trump could have done all that without making anyone angry.
So we should disregard CBO saying that if Trump tariffs are permanent that they would pay off 2.8T over 10 years?
Damn CBO and Fake News, I was excited...
Trump is bringing in so much revenue from tariffs that it's seriously reducing the $37 trillion national debt | Fortune
LOL do you even know what the CBO is?
(Hint: it was not the entity mentioned in your link…..)
Congressional Budget Office. The Committee for Responsible Federal Budget used CBO numbers and their model. The CBO figures were good enough for their analysis, at least when it indicated a positive.
"theory, pouring $2.8 trillion from tariffs into the national coffers could markedly slow the growth of the federal debt. Congressional Budget Office figures and CRFB models suggest that, if kept permanent, Trump's tariff regime could reduce the deficit by up to $2.8 trillion in the next decade. "
Get it.
Oh I get it. You don't.
CFRB uses CBO data (which is good) but not the CBO model (which terrible).
CFRB uses its own model.
That's why CBO projected the tariffs would generate $872B in revenues over the next ten years, but CFRB projects $2.8T in revenues over the same period.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2024-09/60692-Tariffs.pdf
See?
Interesting information.
Well done.
It is interesting.
That is what CFRB does, their model measures the impacts of different policies. Scenario testing is fun and interesting. Keep in mind, CFRB is estimating for 10 years. What from 10 years ago is accurate today?
CBO has to use existing laws and policies. CBO uses existing data, it does not project what may happen like CFRB does. So, CBO estimates what a tax cut would do under current conditions, not adding growth (which would give you a higher estimate like the Trump tax cuts rigged numbers) or taking out recessionary which would give a high estimate.
CFRB's model is designed to measure policy from a Responsible Budgeting perspective and does take into account estimates of economic impact. CBO would be a more conservative estimate as it can't look at "maybes"
I actually thought our MAGA fans would like using a more robust model. Apparently even showing a potential plus is not enough to save from a lecture...
KaiBear said:J.R. said:KaiBear said:J.R. said:
let's see what ole Trumpy Bear can conjure up a distraction now. We have DC, Putin meeting currently. I will give that turd some credit as he is an absolute master of distraction and deflection.
You remain so focused on your hatred of the man who saved our southern border….that you can't recognize the bigger question …….
What do Biden and Trump BOTH know that makes it worthwhile to continue to cover up the Epstein disgrace ?
This is a BIPARTISAN cover up.
What in the world makes it so important ?
Suspect it involves Israeli intelligence. A blackmail operation that infests BOTH of our political parties.
An even bigger reason these files should ALL be released.
dude, please live in the present. This is all Trumps now. Biden and Obama have nothing to do with our ****ty situation your fat ass has put us in and you just lap up what Fox tells you. I give fat boy credit on the border. I don't have blind hatred toward him. However, I think he is horrible for the country. I have no respect for liars, bullies, adulterers, convicted fellons, twice impeached, self absorbed people. Yes, why is he fighting so hard to release it all? The pole dancing AG is pathetic. They could release it all today. Please tell me why your people (trump admin) simply won't do it. Please tell me. Also please let us know how Maxwell got moved to club fed as that just doesn't happen. Who signed off on that? We need to know. You don't cut deals with serial pedophiles.
Maxwell obviously got sent to club fed within weeks of her conviction by keeping her mouth shut.
Smart choice or she would already be dead.
The AG is clearly doing what Trump tells her to do.
The files have to be released.
Suspect both DEMS and REPUBLICANS and ISRAEL are all worried like hell they will be.
No Maxwell was sent to club fed 2 days after she met with Trumps lawyer and her lawyer. This smells.
If these files ever see the light of day Clinton won't be the only one...but I'm guessing he will be the Michael Jordan of the Epstein files.
BILL CLINTON NAMED ‘PRIME SUSPECT’ IN OVERSIGHT PROBE INTO EPSTEIN CASE, SAYS GOP LAWMAKER.
— First Squawk (@FirstSquawk) August 14, 2025
J.R. said:KaiBear said:J.R. said:KaiBear said:J.R. said:
let's see what ole Trumpy Bear can conjure up a distraction now. We have DC, Putin meeting currently. I will give that turd some credit as he is an absolute master of distraction and deflection.
You remain so focused on your hatred of the man who saved our southern border….that you can't recognize the bigger question …….
What do Biden and Trump BOTH know that makes it worthwhile to continue to cover up the Epstein disgrace ?
This is a BIPARTISAN cover up.
What in the world makes it so important ?
Suspect it involves Israeli intelligence. A blackmail operation that infests BOTH of our political parties.
An even bigger reason these files should ALL be released.
dude, please live in the present. This is all Trumps now. Biden and Obama have nothing to do with our ****ty situation your fat ass has put us in and you just lap up what Fox tells you. I give fat boy credit on the border. I don't have blind hatred toward him. However, I think he is horrible for the country. I have no respect for liars, bullies, adulterers, convicted fellons, twice impeached, self absorbed people. Yes, why is he fighting so hard to release it all? The pole dancing AG is pathetic. They could release it all today. Please tell me why your people (trump admin) simply won't do it. Please tell me. Also please let us know how Maxwell got moved to club fed as that just doesn't happen. Who signed off on that? We need to know. You don't cut deals with serial pedophiles.
Maxwell obviously got sent to club fed within weeks of her conviction by keeping her mouth shut.
Smart choice or she would already be dead.
The AG is clearly doing what Trump tells her to do.
The files have to be released.
Suspect both DEMS and REPUBLICANS and ISRAEL are all worried like hell they will be.
No Maxwell was sent to club fed 2 days after she met with Trumps lawyer and her lawyer. This smells.
To the best of my memory she was quietly sent to a minimum security prison after less than 4 months in maximum security.
I commented about it on this message board long ago.
Regardless all Epstein files need to be made public and let the chips fall where they may.
Suspect the biggest loser will be Israel.
KaiBear said:J.R. said:KaiBear said:J.R. said:KaiBear said:J.R. said:
let's see what ole Trumpy Bear can conjure up a distraction now. We have DC, Putin meeting currently. I will give that turd some credit as he is an absolute master of distraction and deflection.
You remain so focused on your hatred of the man who saved our southern border….that you can't recognize the bigger question …….
What do Biden and Trump BOTH know that makes it worthwhile to continue to cover up the Epstein disgrace ?
This is a BIPARTISAN cover up.
What in the world makes it so important ?
Suspect it involves Israeli intelligence. A blackmail operation that infests BOTH of our political parties.
An even bigger reason these files should ALL be released.
dude, please live in the present. This is all Trumps now. Biden and Obama have nothing to do with our ****ty situation your fat ass has put us in and you just lap up what Fox tells you. I give fat boy credit on the border. I don't have blind hatred toward him. However, I think he is horrible for the country. I have no respect for liars, bullies, adulterers, convicted fellons, twice impeached, self absorbed people. Yes, why is he fighting so hard to release it all? The pole dancing AG is pathetic. They could release it all today. Please tell me why your people (trump admin) simply won't do it. Please tell me. Also please let us know how Maxwell got moved to club fed as that just doesn't happen. Who signed off on that? We need to know. You don't cut deals with serial pedophiles.
Maxwell obviously got sent to club fed within weeks of her conviction by keeping her mouth shut.
Smart choice or she would already be dead.
The AG is clearly doing what Trump tells her to do.
The files have to be released.
Suspect both DEMS and REPUBLICANS and ISRAEL are all worried like hell they will be.
No Maxwell was sent to club fed 2 days after she met with Trumps lawyer and her lawyer. This smells.
To the best of my memory she was quietly sent to a minimum security prison after less than 4 months in maximum security.
I commented about it on this message board long ago.
Regardless all Epstein files need to be made public and let the chips fall where they may.
Suspect the biggest loser will be Israel.
she was move at the end of July . 2 days after meeting with Trumps lawyer and we still have not gotten the read out on that. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/ghislaine-maxwell-moved-federal-prison-texas-rcna222497
J.R. said:KaiBear said:J.R. said:KaiBear said:J.R. said:KaiBear said:J.R. said:
let's see what ole Trumpy Bear can conjure up a distraction now. We have DC, Putin meeting currently. I will give that turd some credit as he is an absolute master of distraction and deflection.
You remain so focused on your hatred of the man who saved our southern border….that you can't recognize the bigger question …….
What do Biden and Trump BOTH know that makes it worthwhile to continue to cover up the Epstein disgrace ?
This is a BIPARTISAN cover up.
What in the world makes it so important ?
Suspect it involves Israeli intelligence. A blackmail operation that infests BOTH of our political parties.
An even bigger reason these files should ALL be released.
dude, please live in the present. This is all Trumps now. Biden and Obama have nothing to do with our ****ty situation your fat ass has put us in and you just lap up what Fox tells you. I give fat boy credit on the border. I don't have blind hatred toward him. However, I think he is horrible for the country. I have no respect for liars, bullies, adulterers, convicted fellons, twice impeached, self absorbed people. Yes, why is he fighting so hard to release it all? The pole dancing AG is pathetic. They could release it all today. Please tell me why your people (trump admin) simply won't do it. Please tell me. Also please let us know how Maxwell got moved to club fed as that just doesn't happen. Who signed off on that? We need to know. You don't cut deals with serial pedophiles.
Maxwell obviously got sent to club fed within weeks of her conviction by keeping her mouth shut.
Smart choice or she would already be dead.
The AG is clearly doing what Trump tells her to do.
The files have to be released.
Suspect both DEMS and REPUBLICANS and ISRAEL are all worried like hell they will be.
No Maxwell was sent to club fed 2 days after she met with Trumps lawyer and her lawyer. This smells.
To the best of my memory she was quietly sent to a minimum security prison after less than 4 months in maximum security.
I commented about it on this message board long ago.
Regardless all Epstein files need to be made public and let the chips fall where they may.
Suspect the biggest loser will be Israel.
she was move at the end of July . 2 days after meeting with Trumps lawyer and we still have not gotten the read out on that. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/ghislaine-maxwell-moved-federal-prison-texas-rcna222497
You won't he is going to Federalize enough cities to wipe Epstein out of the news cycle...
Along with deportation of illegals, which has already reduced crime rates in some cities, Trump might federalize enough cities to end the Democrat crime wave. That's the stated goal and that's what the American people want.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
historian said:
Along with deportation of illegals, which has already reduced crime rates in some cities, Trump might federalize enough cities to end the Democrat crime wave. That's the stated goal and that's what the American people want.
Suspect most Americans with personal experience in DC; support Trumps actions there. After all it's our national capital and currently a **** hole.
But that doesn't mean most Americans would support the Feds taking over the police departments of our other ****holes.
I do not.
Let the other **** holes fix themselves or go broke as their residents with money continue to move away.
For the record I haven't been on Epstein Island. I have however taken the ferry from St Thomas to St John so I have been close to Epstein Island as the ferry goes near it.
ScottS said:
For the record I haven't been on Epstein Island. I have however taken the ferry from St Thomas to St John so I have been close to Epstein Island as the ferry goes near it.
That's because you aged out.
KaiBear said:historian said:
Along with deportation of illegals, which has already reduced crime rates in some cities, Trump might federalize enough cities to end the Democrat crime wave. That's the stated goal and that's what the American people want.
Suspect most Americans with personal experience in DC; support Trumps actions there. After all it's our national capital and currently a **** hole.
But that doesn't mean most Americans would support the Feds taking over the police departments of our other ****holes.
I do not.
Let the other **** holes fix themselves or go broke as their residents with money continue to move away.
Good point. I see both sides of the issue. Personally, I generally oppose the use of federal power in local issues because the Dems have an abysmal record of abusing federal power & the GOP is only slightly more trustworthy.
DC is different because it's the nation's capital & has a constitutional distinction.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
Apparently the governor of New Mexico has declared a state of emergency in the area around Espanola ( north of Santa Fe ).
Criminal activity involving illegal drugs is causing ' rampant homelessness, family instability and overdoses'.
Local resources are 'overwhelmed' and she is now asking for Federal Assistance.
Good for her.
Hope Trump supports her actions in a positive non combative manner. Might encourage other Dems to do the same.
By the way …..have been to Espanola a few times while visiting various Indian Pueblos in the region. Was a **** hole even 10 years ago. Can't even imagine how bad it is now.
Criminal activity involving illegal drugs is causing ' rampant homelessness, family instability and overdoses'.
Local resources are 'overwhelmed' and she is now asking for Federal Assistance.
Good for her.
Hope Trump supports her actions in a positive non combative manner. Might encourage other Dems to do the same.
By the way …..have been to Espanola a few times while visiting various Indian Pueblos in the region. Was a **** hole even 10 years ago. Can't even imagine how bad it is now.
Isn't New Mexico a sanctuary state? The two are related.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
KaiBear said:
Apparently the governor of New Mexico has declared a state of emergency in the area around Espanola ( north of Santa Fe ).
Criminal activity involving illegal drugs is causing ' rampant homelessness, family instability and overdoses'.
Local resources are 'overwhelmed' and she is now asking for Federal Assistance.
Good for her.
Hope Trump supports her actions in a positive non combative manner. Might encourage other Dems to do the same.
By the way …..have been to Espanola a few times while visiting various Indian Pueblos in the region. Was a **** hole even 10 years ago. Can't even imagine how bad it is now.
I agree. You want to win them over, help them without embarrassing or demeaning the Governor.
Put her in a bad position the next time Chuckie and AOC come calling. Nothing would help Trump more with t he IND is NM saying how surprised how much Trump helped them and was understanding.
Feelings doesn't matte to this Board much, but the Left runs on them. That is how you get them, not logic or force.
ScottS said:
For the record I haven't been on Epstein Island. I have however taken the ferry from St Thomas to St John so I have been close to Epstein Island as the ferry goes near it.
In my best Southpark voice 'He said 'ferry'
Facebook Groups at; Memories of Dallas, Mem of Texas, Mem of Football in Texas, Mem Texas Music and Through a Texas Lens. Come visit! Over 100,000 members and 100,000 regular visitors