State of the Union 2/24/2026

5,189 Views | 102 Replies | Last: 18 days ago by RD2WINAGNBEAR86
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 12:18a, 2/25/26
Redbrickbear said:

They're not shocked, literally or otherwise.
Reply Quote
1 edit
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 4:29a, 2/25/26
Sam Lowry said:
Redbrickbear said:

They're not shocked, literally or otherwise.


Backfired? Strange assessment. SCOTUS evaluate law. Law has no intent, they weren't trying to stop tariffs, only evaluating if way he did them was legal. They could care less as long as he follows law. MAGA has a strange view on the world, like everyone is trying to stop them when in reality it is how they do things that gets them in trouble, not what.
Reply Quote
3
Wangchung
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 7:35a, 2/25/26
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Redbrickbear said:

They're not shocked, literally or otherwise.


Backfired? Strange assessment. SCOTUS evaluate law. Law has no intent, they weren't trying to stop tariffs, only evaluating if way he did them was legal. They could care less as long as he follows law. MAGA has a strange view on the world, like everyone is trying to stop them when in reality it is how they do things that gets them in trouble, not what.
Yeah, and the Obamacare mandate was really just a tax...
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?

Reply Quote
6
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:36a, 2/25/26
Reply Quote
1
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BUDOS • 7:42a, 2/25/26
BUDOS said:
So childish of the Democrats to boycott. Some would think that is something he would do. If he would focus more on his successes that would make him sound at least more positive. But he has to remind some of his uncontrollable narcissism.

NARCISSIST
N - Never admits to being wrong
A - Avoids emotions and accountability
R - Rages if anyone challenge them
C - Childish when they don't get their way
| - Instithe doubt in their victim
S - Stonewalls during contacts
S - Smears and slanders you
1 - In denial and garlights you
S - Subjects you to the silent treatment
T - Triangulates you and turn you down

Describes Democrats perfectly.
Reply Quote
4
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:43a, 2/25/26
Reply Quote
3
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wangchung • 7:55a, 2/25/26
Wangchung said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Redbrickbear said:

They're not shocked, literally or otherwise.


Backfired? Strange assessment. SCOTUS evaluate law. Law has no intent, they weren't trying to stop tariffs, only evaluating if way he did them was legal. They could care less as long as he follows law. MAGA has a strange view on the world, like everyone is trying to stop them when in reality it is how they do things that gets them in trouble, not what.

Yeah, and the Obamacare mandate was really just a tax...

You really think Roberts did Obamacare a favor with that ruling? He doomed it. Have you read the ruling?

In order to remain a tax it has to stay low, you do not have to buy Health Insurance and the IRS collects it. if it does react to the market and raise too high it is not a tax. If it is market driven, it is unconstitutional.

He doomed ACA to financial insolvency. You could make an economic decision to pay the small amount and simply get insurance when you were sick. ACA could never offset the numbers to make it work. Which is exactly what happened, it is financially unworkable and needs to be overhauled.

I guess Voter ID is ok, but this isn't? ID is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, if we are going that route.

Also, the Court did not say Trump can't do Tariffs, just not the way he did them. There is a difference.
Reply Quote
1
ShooterTX
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:01a, 2/25/26
I still can't believe that the evil demoncrats refused to stand in agreement that the first job of congress is to protect American citizens, and not to protect illegal immigrants.

It was such an easy, low bar and yet they couldn't even agree on such a simple reality. It should be obvious to all that the Dems do not care about Americans ... they stated it for all to see last night.
Reply Quote
8
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:20a, 2/25/26
Reply Quote
3
Johnny Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wangchung • 8:22a, 2/25/26
Wangchung said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Redbrickbear said:

They're not shocked, literally or otherwise.


Backfired? Strange assessment. SCOTUS evaluate law. Law has no intent, they weren't trying to stop tariffs, only evaluating if way he did them was legal. They could care less as long as he follows law. MAGA has a strange view on the world, like everyone is trying to stop them when in reality it is how they do things that gets them in trouble, not what.
Yeah, and the Obamacare mandate was really just a tax...

Sure, the Supreme Court Justices are SUPPOSED to independently/objectively evaluate cases based exclusively on the Constitution, but if that's what you think actually happens - especially with Justices like DEI Jumanji who can't define what a woman is having a vote - then I hope for your sake nobody approaches you with a an investment opportunity in a ski resort located in Kansas.
Reply Quote
Wangchung
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Johnny Bear • 8:27a, 2/25/26
Johnny Bear said:
Wangchung said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Redbrickbear said:

They're not shocked, literally or otherwise.


Backfired? Strange assessment. SCOTUS evaluate law. Law has no intent, they weren't trying to stop tariffs, only evaluating if way he did them was legal. They could care less as long as he follows law. MAGA has a strange view on the world, like everyone is trying to stop them when in reality it is how they do things that gets them in trouble, not what.
Yeah, and the Obamacare mandate was really just a tax...

Sure, the Supreme Court Justices are SUPPOSED to independently/objectively evaluate cases based exclusively on the Constitution, but if that's what you think actually happens - especially with Justices like DEI Jumanji who can't define what a woman is having a vote - then I hope for your sake nobody approaches you with a an investment opportunity in a ski resort located in Kansas.
Think you meant to reply to FLBear.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?

Reply Quote
Wangchung
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 8:31a, 2/25/26
FLBear5630 said:
Wangchung said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Redbrickbear said:

They're not shocked, literally or otherwise.


Backfired? Strange assessment. SCOTUS evaluate law. Law has no intent, they weren't trying to stop tariffs, only evaluating if way he did them was legal. They could care less as long as he follows law. MAGA has a strange view on the world, like everyone is trying to stop them when in reality it is how they do things that gets them in trouble, not what.

Yeah, and the Obamacare mandate was really just a tax...

You really think Roberts did Obamacare a favor with that ruling? He doomed it. Have you read the ruling?

In order to remain a tax it has to stay low, you do not have to buy Health Insurance and the IRS collects it. if it does react to the market and raise too high it is not a tax. If it is market driven, it is unconstitutional.

He doomed ACA to financial insolvency. You could make an economic decision to pay the small amount and simply get insurance when you were sick. ACA could never offset the numbers to make it work. Which is exactly what happened, it is financially unworkable and needs to be overhauled.

I guess Voter ID is ok, but this isn't? ID is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, if we are going that route.

Also, the Court did not say Trump can't do Tariffs, just not the way he did them. There is a difference.
He doomed it?!? It only exists because he ruled the mandate was illegal unless it was imposed as a tax. No one asked him to find a way to make it legal, he did that. You can stop pretending Roberts did anything other than find a way to make Obama's illegal take over of 1/4 of our economy legal.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?

Reply Quote
5
Johnny Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ShooterTX • 8:32a, 2/25/26
ShooterTX said:
I still can't believe that the evil demoncrats refused to stand in agreement that the first job of congress is to protect American citizens, and not to protect illegal immigrants.

It was such an easy, low bar and yet they couldn't even agree on such a simple reality. It should be obvious to all that the Dems do not care about Americans ... they stated it for all to see last night.

From a political standpoint, that was prolly the best moment during the speech, as the country got to see the dims visibly admit they aren't first and foremost loyal to legal citizens. The GOP would be wise to produce an attack ad featuring that sound bite and scene for any Republican running for office in November to use. And yeah, it's unbelievable, but still true all the same.
Reply Quote
6
2 edits
Johnny Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wangchung • 8:33a, 2/25/26
Wangchung said:
Johnny Bear said:
Wangchung said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Redbrickbear said:

They're not shocked, literally or otherwise.


Backfired? Strange assessment. SCOTUS evaluate law. Law has no intent, they weren't trying to stop tariffs, only evaluating if way he did them was legal. They could care less as long as he follows law. MAGA has a strange view on the world, like everyone is trying to stop them when in reality it is how they do things that gets them in trouble, not what.
Yeah, and the Obamacare mandate was really just a tax...

Sure, the Supreme Court Justices are SUPPOSED to independently/objectively evaluate cases based exclusively on the Constitution, but if that's what you think actually happens - especially with Justices like DEI Jumanji who can't define what a woman is having a vote - then I hope for your sake nobody approaches you with a an investment opportunity in a ski resort located in Kansas.
Think you meant to reply to FLBear.

True - I was just tagging onto your post to do it.
Reply Quote
1
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 8:57a, 2/25/26
Sam Lowry said:
Redbrickbear said:

They're not shocked, literally or otherwise.

Very telling only 4 of the five justices showed up last night. Can't say I blame them. Trump walked by and didn't even look at Amy Coney Barrett before the speech started.
Call it a tax, the people are outraged! Call it a tariff, the people get out their checkbooks and wave their American flags!!!
Reply Quote
Wangchung
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Johnny Bear • 9:00a, 2/25/26
Johnny Bear said:
Wangchung said:
Johnny Bear said:
Wangchung said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Redbrickbear said:

They're not shocked, literally or otherwise.


Backfired? Strange assessment. SCOTUS evaluate law. Law has no intent, they weren't trying to stop tariffs, only evaluating if way he did them was legal. They could care less as long as he follows law. MAGA has a strange view on the world, like everyone is trying to stop them when in reality it is how they do things that gets them in trouble, not what.
Yeah, and the Obamacare mandate was really just a tax...

Sure, the Supreme Court Justices are SUPPOSED to independently/objectively evaluate cases based exclusively on the Constitution, but if that's what you think actually happens - especially with Justices like DEI Jumanji who can't define what a woman is having a vote - then I hope for your sake nobody approaches you with a an investment opportunity in a ski resort located in Kansas.
Think you meant to reply to FLBear.

True - I was just tagging onto your post to do it.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?

Reply Quote
1
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mitch Blood Green • 9:09a, 2/25/26
Mitch Blood Green said:
Get your popcorn ready.

I gave Trump a solid B for his speech last night.

Two big things he said early on were completely false and should not be overlooked:

1. He claims that Americans no longer pay taxes on a Social Security. This is absolutely pure bu!!****. Not true.

2. He claims that income taxes will be replaced by tariff revenue. The total U.S. budget in 2025 was $7.2 trillion. The U.S. Treasury collected $190 billion in tariffs in 2025. Does anybody else see a math problem here?
Call it a tax, the people are outraged! Call it a tariff, the people get out their checkbooks and wave their American flags!!!
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
william
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mitch Blood Green • 9:11a, 2/25/26
Mitch Blood Green said:
Jack Bauer said:





- UF

Go Bears!

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating donut }
pro ecclesia, pro javelina
Reply Quote
william
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wangchung • 9:15a, 2/25/26
Wangchung said:
Johnny Bear said:
Wangchung said:
Johnny Bear said:
Wangchung said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Redbrickbear said:
like DEI Jumanji who can't define what a woman is having a vote - then I hope for your sake nobody approaches you with a an investment opportunity in a ski resort located in Kansas.





Think you meant to reply to FLBear.

True - I was just tagging onto your post to do it.


Beer and Loafing ...........

- UF

... in Bremond

D!

{ sipping coffee }

pro ecclesia, pro javelina
Reply Quote
1
Wangchung
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:25a, 2/25/26
"We can't stop here! This is roast beef country!"
Au Jus?
Pls adv
And as always
TIA
-The Peccary
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?

Reply Quote
1
william
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wangchung • 9:27a, 2/25/26
Wangchung said:
"We can't stop here! This is roast beef country!"
Au Jus?
Pls adv
And as always
TIA
-The Peccary

... interesting that Chip & JA's new digs are at Woody Creek.

- UF

TrOwl Farm.

BID.
pro ecclesia, pro javelina
Reply Quote
1
Mitch Blood Green
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RD2WINAGNBEAR86 • 9:41a, 2/25/26
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Mitch Blood Green said:
Get your popcorn ready.

I gave Trump a solid B for his speech last night.

Two big things he said early on were completely false and should not be overlooked:

1. He claims that Americans no longer pay taxes on a Social Security. This is absolutely pure bu!!****. Not true.

2. He claims that income taxes will be replaced by tariff revenue. The total U.S. budget in 2025 was $7.2 trillion. The U.S. Treasury collected $190 billion in tariffs in 2025. Does anybody else see a math problem here?


I ended up mostly watching the Bears. App kept showing we were competing.
Reply Quote
Johnny Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RD2WINAGNBEAR86 • 9:47a, 2/25/26
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Sam Lowry said:
Redbrickbear said:

They're not shocked, literally or otherwise.

Very telling only 4 of the five justices showed up last night. Can't say I blame them. Trump walked by and didn't even look at Amy Coney Barrett before the speech started.

Sotomayor and Jumanji along with Kagan (who did show up) viscerally hate him and are always foregone conclusions to oppose him on any cases involving him and/or his policies. Matters not how solid or how Constitutionally based the case is - if it helps Trump and his supporters they'll be a no vote based on some kind of made up legal mumbo jumbo. Gorsuch was prolly offended by Trump's comments following the tariffs case decision. Don't have an explanation for why Thomas and Alito weren't there.
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:02a, 2/25/26
Reply Quote
3
Johnny Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RD2WINAGNBEAR86 • 10:17a, 2/25/26
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Mitch Blood Green said:
Get your popcorn ready.

I gave Trump a solid B for his speech last night.

Two big things he said early on were completely false and should not be overlooked:

1. He claims that Americans no longer pay taxes on a Social Security. This is absolutely pure bu!!****. Not true.

2. He claims that income taxes will be replaced by tariff revenue. The total U.S. budget in 2025 was $7.2 trillion. The U.S. Treasury collected $190 billion in tariffs in 2025. Does anybody else see a math problem here?

Per your first point, he should've said most, or the vast majority of social security recipients no longer pay taxes on that income. Per your 2nd point, he never said that tariffs collected in 2025 (as if no additional tariffs in greater amounts will be collected going forward) will replace income taxes. The comment had more to do with a shift to greater amounts of revenue being collected from tariffs to replace a significant amount of income taxes in the future. I agree it remains to be seen if that will happen, but I believe that's what the comment was intended to mean.
Reply Quote
1
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Johnny Bear • 11:07a, 2/25/26
Johnny Bear said:
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Mitch Blood Green said:
Get your popcorn ready.

I gave Trump a solid B for his speech last night.

Two big things he said early on were completely false and should not be overlooked:

1. He claims that Americans no longer pay taxes on a Social Security. This is absolutely pure bu!!****. Not true.

2. He claims that income taxes will be replaced by tariff revenue. The total U.S. budget in 2025 was $7.2 trillion. The U.S. Treasury collected $190 billion in tariffs in 2025. Does anybody else see a math problem here?

Per your 2nd point, he never said that tariffs collected in 2025 (as if no additional tariffs in greater amounts will be collected going forward) will replace income taxes. The comment had more to do with a shift to greater amounts of revenue being collected from tariffs to replace a significant amount of income taxes in the future. I agree it remains to be seen if that will happen, but I believe that's what the comment was intended to mean.

I love you Johnny, but C'MON MANNNNNN!!!!!!

$190 billion tariff revenue would represent less than 3 percent of the $7.2 trillion budget. Trump has said that EVERYONE is getting a tax cut. Where will the lost revenue come from? Do you think the world is going to happily subsidize the United States for the next three years? I don't think so.

All of this reminds me of a term coined by former President George W. Bush, - "Fuzzy math!"

Call it a tax, the people are outraged! Call it a tariff, the people get out their checkbooks and wave their American flags!!!
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Johnny Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RD2WINAGNBEAR86 • 11:18a, 2/25/26
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Johnny Bear said:
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Mitch Blood Green said:
Get your popcorn ready.

I gave Trump a solid B for his speech last night.

Two big things he said early on were completely false and should not be overlooked:

1. He claims that Americans no longer pay taxes on a Social Security. This is absolutely pure bu!!****. Not true.

2. He claims that income taxes will be replaced by tariff revenue. The total U.S. budget in 2025 was $7.2 trillion. The U.S. Treasury collected $190 billion in tariffs in 2025. Does anybody else see a math problem here?

Per your 2nd point, he never said that tariffs collected in 2025 (as if no additional tariffs in greater amounts will be collected going forward) will replace income taxes. The comment had more to do with a shift to greater amounts of revenue being collected from tariffs to replace a significant amount of income taxes in the future. I agree it remains to be seen if that will happen, but I believe that's what the comment was intended to mean.

I love you Johnny, but C'MON MANNNNNN!!!!!!

$190 billion tariff revenue would represent less than 3 percent of the $7.2 trillion budget. Trump has said that EVERYONE is getting a tax cut. Where will the lost revenue come from? Do you think the world is going to happily subsidize the United States for the next three years? I don't think so.

All of this reminds me of a term coined by former President George W. Bush, - "Fuzzy math!"

If memory serves the "fuzzy math" comment by GHWB was directed at Reagan who was a pretty great POTUS (just sayin'). Again time will tell as far as the long term impact of using tariffs as an additional or substitutive option for revenue generation, but as one of millions of over taxed taxpayers, at a minimum I like the idea of increased external revenue replacing the same old same old concept of just continuing to 100% soak individual taxpayers. And as far as the short term goes so far, we're doing fine.
Reply Quote
3
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RD2WINAGNBEAR86 • 11:21a, 2/25/26
All of this reminds me of a term coined by former President George W. Bush, - "Fuzzy math!"



There is a lot of fuzzy math going on.
Reply Quote
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:29a, 2/25/26
Reply Quote
3
Wangchung
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 11:29a, 2/25/26
FLBear5630 said:
All of this reminds me of a term coined by former President George W. Bush, - "Fuzzy math!"



There is a lot of fuzzy math going on.
If only someone would just talk to the national debt and de-escalate.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?

Reply Quote
canoso
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:47a, 2/25/26
SOTU last night: 2025 Washington DC homicides lowest in 30 years.

Major Argentine newspaper today: 2025 Buenos Aires homicides lowest in 31 years.

You'd almost think both presidents are leading their countries in the same direction.

Which, according to some here, is unmitigated disaster.

Yet it is what it is.
Reply Quote
1
fubar
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Johnny Bear • 12:12p, 2/25/26
Johnny Bear said:
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Johnny Bear said:
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Mitch Blood Green said:
Get your popcorn ready.

I gave Trump a solid B for his speech last night.

Two big things he said early on were completely false and should not be overlooked:

1. He claims that Americans no longer pay taxes on a Social Security. This is absolutely pure bu!!****. Not true.

2. He claims that income taxes will be replaced by tariff revenue. The total U.S. budget in 2025 was $7.2 trillion. The U.S. Treasury collected $190 billion in tariffs in 2025. Does anybody else see a math problem here?

Per your 2nd point, he never said that tariffs collected in 2025 (as if no additional tariffs in greater amounts will be collected going forward) will replace income taxes. The comment had more to do with a shift to greater amounts of revenue being collected from tariffs to replace a significant amount of income taxes in the future. I agree it remains to be seen if that will happen, but I believe that's what the comment was intended to mean.

I love you Johnny, but C'MON MANNNNNN!!!!!!

$190 billion tariff revenue would represent less than 3 percent of the $7.2 trillion budget. Trump has said that EVERYONE is getting a tax cut. Where will the lost revenue come from? Do you think the world is going to happily subsidize the United States for the next three years? I don't think so.

All of this reminds me of a term coined by former President George W. Bush, - "Fuzzy math!"

If memory serves the "fuzzy math" comment by GHWB was directed at Reagan who was a pretty great POTUS (just sayin'). Again time will tell as far as the long term impact of using tariffs as an additional or substitutive option for revenue generation, but as one of millions of over taxed taxpayers, at a minimum I like the idea of increased external revenue replacing the same old same old concept of just continuing to 100% soak individual taxpayers. And as far as the short term goes so far, we're doing fine.

"Fuzzy math" was GWB in response to Al Gore at their first debate. Seems like he said it a dozen times.

GHWB's dig at Reagan was "voodoo economics."
Gunter gleiben glauchen globen
Reply Quote
3
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wangchung • 12:14p, 2/25/26
Wangchung said:
FLBear5630 said:
All of this reminds me of a term coined by former President George W. Bush, - "Fuzzy math!"



There is a lot of fuzzy math going on.

If only someone would just talk to the national debt and de-escalate.

I agree! Even if he is bringing in more money, he is spending more money. He wants 1.5T SecDef budget.

Debt is not coming down...
Reply Quote
1
Wangchung
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 12:15p, 2/25/26
FLBear5630 said:
Wangchung said:
FLBear5630 said:
All of this reminds me of a term coined by former President George W. Bush, - "Fuzzy math!"



There is a lot of fuzzy math going on.

If only someone would just talk to the national debt and de-escalate.

I agree! Even if he is bringing in more money, he is spending more money. He wants 1.5T SecDef budget.

Debt is not coming down...
Exactly! All he needs to do is just talk to the national debt in the right way to de-escalate it!
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?

Reply Quote
Jack Bauer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fubar • 12:16p, 2/25/26
fubar said:
Johnny Bear said:
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Johnny Bear said:
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Mitch Blood Green said:
Get your popcorn ready.

I gave Trump a solid B for his speech last night.

Two big things he said early on were completely false and should not be overlooked:

1. He claims that Americans no longer pay taxes on a Social Security. This is absolutely pure bu!!****. Not true.

2. He claims that income taxes will be replaced by tariff revenue. The total U.S. budget in 2025 was $7.2 trillion. The U.S. Treasury collected $190 billion in tariffs in 2025. Does anybody else see a math problem here?

Per your 2nd point, he never said that tariffs collected in 2025 (as if no additional tariffs in greater amounts will be collected going forward) will replace income taxes. The comment had more to do with a shift to greater amounts of revenue being collected from tariffs to replace a significant amount of income taxes in the future. I agree it remains to be seen if that will happen, but I believe that's what the comment was intended to mean.

I love you Johnny, but C'MON MANNNNNN!!!!!!

$190 billion tariff revenue would represent less than 3 percent of the $7.2 trillion budget. Trump has said that EVERYONE is getting a tax cut. Where will the lost revenue come from? Do you think the world is going to happily subsidize the United States for the next three years? I don't think so.

All of this reminds me of a term coined by former President George W. Bush, - "Fuzzy math!"

If memory serves the "fuzzy math" comment by GHWB was directed at Reagan who was a pretty great POTUS (just sayin'). Again time will tell as far as the long term impact of using tariffs as an additional or substitutive option for revenue generation, but as one of millions of over taxed taxpayers, at a minimum I like the idea of increased external revenue replacing the same old same old concept of just continuing to 100% soak individual taxpayers. And as far as the short term goes so far, we're doing fine.

"Fuzzy math" was GWB in response to Al Gore at their first debate. Seems like he said it a dozen times.

GHWB's dig at Reagan was "voodoo economics."




Reply Quote
1
Page 2 of 3 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.