92% reduction in the debt increase.

[Winco]

OMG, tell me how you guys are all about "critical thinking"....

https://www.piie.com/publications/piie-briefings/2025/us-revenue-implications-president-trumps-2025-tariffs

The US revenue implications of President Trump's 2025 tariffs​

From your link, you think this is good?

• Under each of these three tariff rate scenarios, the United States would see lower GDP, investment, employment, and real wages over the following decade than otherwise—i.e., than without the tariff increases—and higher inflation over the initial two years.
• The US sectors hit hardest would be agriculture, mining, and manufacturing because of their relatively high reliance on foreign demand for their exports. The harm would be amplified by retaliation from trading partners.

 

[Robert W]

You're making the claim, you find the data.

Quit being lazy.

You are strange as hell. I asked what you claim. Not what I claim. If you want me to do your talking, check out my proof with a graph included.

 

[g5000]

Hell yes! Only 8% to go before we start reducing the debt instead of adding to it.

Trump Cuts National Debt Growth by 92 Percent

townhall.com

Exactly what I voted for is happening.

We are still under the FY2024 budget, moron.

Let's wait and see how much Trump's tax cuts add to the debt. Let's wait and see how much the Trump budget adds to the debt.

 

[Robert W]

We are still under the FY2024 budget, moron.

Trump really can only impact our revenue by doing what DOGE is doing.
We are indeed under the Biden Budget. So when the crap hits the fan, keep that fact in mind. DOGE removes some obligations but it is hard to say DOGE changes revenue.

 

[Nostra]

We are still under the FY2024 budget, moron.

Let's wait and see how much Trump's tax cuts add to the debt. Let's wait and see how much the Trump budget adds to the debt.

Um, fiscal year 2025 started in October.

 

[Robert W]

It’s your pathetic claim, Kleetus.

That causes you such angst but understand that when you make moronic claims you will be called out for the moron you choose to be.

How about him being named Clem Kadiddlehopper?

 

[kyzr]

From your link, you think this is good?

• Under each of these three tariff rate scenarios, the United States would see lower GDP, investment, employment, and real wages over the following decade than otherwise—i.e., than without the tariff increases—and higher inflation over the initial two years.
• The US sectors hit hardest would be agriculture, mining, and manufacturing because of their relatively high reliance on foreign demand for their exports. The harm would be amplified by retaliation from trading partners.

1. My link was to show you that Trump's tariffs generate significant new revenue, which could account for the reduction of the deficit as the OP noted. At the time the article was written Trump had a 145% tariff on China, and China had a 125% tariff on the US, those tariffs have since been lowered to 30% and 20%.
2. The bullet points you referenced are under various tariff scenarios which have not been finalized yet. I disagree with the dire predictions. For example, Trump has $10T in commitments for new US manufacturing plants. There may be fewer dock workers importing goods, but more workers in US manufacturing exporting goods.
3. Your 2nd bullet is based on presumed "retaliation". If the trade agreements with Britain and China are any indication, there will be more balanced trade without retaliation.

 

[Robert W]

From your link, you think this is good?

• Under each of these three tariff rate scenarios, the United States would see lower GDP, investment, employment, and real wages over the following decade than otherwise—i.e., than without the tariff increases—and higher inflation over the initial two years.
• The US sectors hit hardest would be agriculture, mining, and manufacturing because of their relatively high reliance on foreign demand for their exports. The harm would be amplified by retaliation from trading partners.

Ah yes, predictions again. Well how about that. We have the Great Kreskin among us.

 

[Winco]

Ah yes, predictions again. Well how about that. We have the Great Kreskin among us.

Oh Robert.
Your attempt at "SPIN" has failed you once again.

I'm just quoting directly from the link kyzr put in his post.
These are NOT my predictions.

 

[Robert W]

Oh Robert.
Your attempt at "SPIN" has failed you once again.

I'm just quoting directly from the link kyzr put in his post.
These are NOT my predictions.

Your spin worked.

 

[Winco]

Your spin worked.

No SPIN by me.

I thought you said you were smarter than you are currently exhibiting?
Nice try Robert.

 

[Robert W]

1. My link was to show you that Trump's tariffs generate significant new revenue, which could account for the reduction of the deficit as the OP noted. At the time the article was written Trump had a 145% tariff on China, and China had a 125% tariff on the US, those tariffs have since been lowered to 30% and 20%.
2. The bullet points you referenced are under various tariff scenarios which have not been finalized yet. I disagree with the dire predictions. For example, Trump has $10T in commitments for new US manufacturing plants. There may be fewer dock workers importing goods, but more workers in US manufacturing exporting goods.
3. Your 2nd bullet is based on presumed "retaliation". If the trade agreements with Britain and China are any indication, there will be more balanced trade without retaliation.

I don't think the USA collected much from the 145 percent tariffs due to them being suspended virtually immediately.

 

[Robert W]

No SPIN by me.

I thought you said you were smarter than you are currently exhibiting?
Nice try Robert.

I did expect you to deny. No shock.

 

[Winco]

I did expect you to deny. No shock.

Be simple with your answer and don't deflect.
Answer these 2 questions with straight forward responses.

1). What was 'my spin'?
2). What was my denial?

 

[Robert W]

Oh Robert.
Your attempt at "SPIN" has failed you once again.

I'm just quoting directly from the link kyzr put in his post.
These are NOT my predictions.

I want to hear your spin.

When will you attack the Democrats? I see you attacking Republicans all the time.

Today I watched the Democrats in the House wage war for illegal aliens. None of them waged war for we citizens.

 

[Robert W]

Be simple with your answer and don't deflect.
Answer these 2 questions with straight forward responses.

1). What was 'my spin'?
2). What was my denial?

1. Oh Robert. Your attempt at "SPIN" has failed you once again.

2. No SPIN by me.
This reminds you.

 

[Winco]

1. Oh Robert. Your attempt at "SPIN" has failed you once again.

2. No SPIN by me.
This reminds you.

Spin this ^^^^^ Robert W

 

[Robert W]

View attachment 1111397

Spin this ^^^^^ Robert W

Which direction? I answered this moments ago. Before you asked me.

 

[Winco]

View attachment 1111397

Spin this ^^^^^ Robert W

Which direction? I answered this moments ago. Before you asked me.

Does the (R) bill support the following:
No tax on tips?
No Tax on OT?
No Tax on SS?

Or is the Black Box above all a LIE, and therefore FAKE NEWS.

Which is it Robert?

 

[Robert W]

Does the (R) bill support the following:
No tax on tips?
No Tax on OT?
No Tax on SS?

Or is the Black Box above all a LIE, and therefore FAKE NEWS.

Which is it Robert?

I have not read the bill. No opinion as of this moment.