Trump's Alternate-Reality Government

[Doc7505]

The alternate reality is from you TDS folks who are incapable of seeing how the same inflation rate coupled with tariff revenue is a gain. If US importers are eating the tariffs then you should be thrilled. Your side is all for raising corporate taxes, right? If foreign exporters/manufacturers are eating the tariffs, that is most certainly a win for the US. If the US consumers are eating some of the tariffs but inflation is virtually the same, that implies that inflation would be considerably lower if there were no increased tariffs, you know, like under Biden.

You can spin away, but there is no getting away from the fact that inflation is steady, which is not what Democratic economist said was going to happen when Trump started his tariff campaign.

<~~~~~~>​

As I wrote previously, these people need referrals to the same psychiatrist Rosie O'Donnell is using. This Doctor should be busy for the next 20 years, and make millions.

 

[SweetTea]

It's not an "alternate reality" to have a different opinion on the wisdom of tariffs.

You keep trying to change the subject because you know that Trump and his die hard supporters are trying to claim that inflation is down. Even you tried to say that CPI is down, which is just untrue. Now you're forced to admit that the rate of inflation is the same, which if we were to adopt the rhetoric from the campaign is a total disaster.

It reminds me of the first Trump administration. Back then, he had campaigned on Obama's economic disaster because GDP growth was less than 3%. Then during Trumps first administration, GDP growth was again less than 3%. Yet somehow Trump had an "economic miracle".

This is your alternate reality. Nothing really changes, yet you guys all say that everything is so much better now.

3% inflation under Biden was a disaster. Now it's a win.

Go figure.

And 3% is now all of a sudden an economic collapse to you folks.

Bottom line is that we are collecting more tariff revenue without any significant downside. That's the bottom line.

I don't expect you to understand that. Orange man bad.

 

[SweetTea]

And Trump has done nothing about this "damage" despite campaigning on doing so.

Sure he has, but you are too engrossed in your ideology to see it.

 

[struth]

It's not an "alternate reality" to have a different opinion on the wisdom of tariffs.

You keep trying to change the subject because you know that Trump and his die hard supporters are trying to claim that inflation is down. Even you tried to say that CPI is down, which is just untrue. Now you're forced to admit that the rate of inflation is the same, which if we were to adopt the rhetoric from the campaign is a total disaster.

It reminds me of the first Trump administration. Back then, he had campaigned on Obama's economic disaster because GDP growth was less than 3%. Then during Trumps first administration, GDP growth was again less than 3%. Yet somehow Trump had an "economic miracle".

This is your alternate reality. Nothing really changes, yet you guys all say that everything is so much better now.

3% inflation under Biden was a disaster. Now it's a win.

Go figure.

3%? The issue with xiden was that his four years gave us over 20 percent inflation

Trying to rewrite history won’t change that fact

 

[Marener]

And 3% is now all of a sudden an economic collapse to you folks.

Bottom line is that we are collecting more tariff revenue without any significant downside. That's the bottom line.

I don't expect you to understand that. Orange man bad.

Huh? I never said it was a "sudden economic collapse". 3% growth is okay. If you guys were actually confident about the state of the economy, you wouldn't be so obsessed with the Fed decreasing rates.

3% inflation under Biden was a disaster. 3% inflation under Trump is a "win".

Your "bottom line" is a desperate attempt to avoid the actual topic of discussion. I think you probably understand that, but then again people like you live in an alternate reality. The problem people are facing is affordability. Taking in more tariff revenue doesn't do anything about affordability.

 

[Marener]

Sure he has, but you are too engrossed in your ideology to see it.

Well, if you have any examples, you're more than welcome to provide it.

 

[SweetTea]

The problem people are facing is affordability. Taking in more tariff revenue doesn't do anything about affordability.

It certainly could if used to replace tax revenue allowing for a decrease in taxes, across the board, but you folks would hate that idea.

 

[Marener]

It certainly could if used to replace tax revenue allowing for a decrease in taxes, across the board, but you folks would hate that idea.

You already decreased taxes a lot. The best you can manage with higher tariff revenue is slightly decrease the size of the huge structural deficit you've created by passing tax cuts that predominantly reduce the tax burden on individuals who don't have an affordability crisis.

You guys keep thinking there's a free lunch somewhere.

Your alternate reality thinks that reducing taxes increases revenues. It doesn't. Now increasing tariffs doesn't have any harmful effects. It does.

 

[SweetTea]

You already decreased taxes a lot.

No, not really. The tax cuts were a correction to a tax code that was too punitive given the inflationary environment. The idea that the government doesn’t have enough revenue is absurd.

The best you can manage with higher tariff revenue is slightly decrease the size of the huge structural deficit you've created by passing tax cuts that predominantly reduce the tax burden on individuals who don't have an affordability crisis.

The tax burden was decreased across the board for virtually everyone that pays federal income taxes. The marginal tax rate is still higher on those with higher incomes. People who make more pay more. The fact that they pay less after the tax cut, but still more than everyone else, is irrelevant.

You guys keep thinking there's a free lunch somewhere.

Boy this is rich. The Democratic Party is the party of the free lunch.

As long as you can tax “someone else,” everything magically balances out.

Couple this mentality with limitless spending for social programs, including financing anybody and everybody that walks across our border, and that is the real free lunch fantasy.

Your alternate reality thinks that reducing taxes increases revenues. It doesn't. Now increasing tariffs doesn't have any harmful effects. It does

Tax cuts should be accompanied by spending decreases. The idea that taxes can never be cut without revenue collapsing is economically illiterate. Many taxes are so distortionary that lowering them does boost economic activity, at least enough to offset the revenue loss, which is a win. Capital gains, corporate taxes, dividend taxes(corporate) and yes, even federal income taxes on higher incomes when they reach a certain level. Democrats are against decreasing any of them, in fact, they generally in favor of raising all of them, no matter how distortionary. The decision not to cut or completely remove raise capital gains taxes, for example, isn’t driven by economic reasoning, but by the political stance of “we can’t give wealthy individuals a break,” even though a cut could spur additional economic activity. This same politically and socially driven reasoning is the basis for much of the Democratic Party’s economic philosophy. In short, most Democrats, including economists, are guided more by ideals than by pragmatic solutions.

Tariffs can be inflationary, but they also may not be. I agree that somebody in the supply chain has to “eat” tariffs. You tend to believe that is the consumer, but the US is not a typical tariff case. I tend to believe that due to the US’s unique position in the world as the by far and away number one consumer market, foreign exporters and manufacturers will “eat” the majority of them. They don’t want to lose out and don’t want to be undercut by other countries who are willing to cut margins to retain the US consumer base. This has shown to be true thus far as the rate of inflation has not increased. Most Democrats I know don’t tend to believe in American exceptionalism. The fact that the US consumer is the golden goose of the world doesn’t register with them because they have been taught the US=BAD. ALWAYS!

 

[Marener]

No, not really. The tax cuts were a correction to a tax code that was too punitive given the inflationary environment. The idea that the government doesn’t have enough revenue is absurd.

Obviously you’ve been cutting taxes for decades. The Bush tax cuts, Trump tax cuts, none of these provided the economic glory that was predicted.

The tax burden was decreased across the board for virtually everyone that pays federal income taxes. The marginal tax rate is still higher on those with higher incomes. People who make more pay more. The fact that they pay less after the tax cut, but still more than everyone else, is irrelevant.

It’s just a fact that the cost of the tax cut was skewed predominantly for the wealthy.

The deficit is $2 trillion.

Boy this is rich. The Democratic Party is the party of the free lunch.

As long as you can tax “someone else,” everything magically balances out.

Not at all. All taxes bear a cost. So do massive deficits and so does failure to care for our population.

Couple this mentality with limitless spending for social programs, including financing anybody and everybody that walks across our border, and that is the real free lunch fantasy.

Immigrants work their assess of. That’s why ICE has been raiding Home Depot parking lots.

Tax cuts should be accompanied by spending decreases. The idea that taxes can never be cut without revenue collapsing is economically illiterate. Many taxes are so distortionary that lowering them does boost economic activity, at least enough to offset the revenue loss, which is a win. Capital gains, corporate taxes, dividend taxes(corporate) and yes, even federal income taxes on higher incomes when they reach a certain level. Democrats are against decreasing any of them, in fact, they generally in favor of raising all of them, no matter how distortionary. The decision not to cut or completely remove raise capital gains taxes, for example, isn’t driven by economic reasoning, but by the political stance of “we can’t give wealthy individuals a break,” even though a cut could spur additional economic activity. This same politically and socially driven reasoning is the basis for much of the Democratic Party’s economic philosophy. In short, most Democrats, including economists, are guided more by ideals than by pragmatic solutions.

Talk about distortionary! Hello tariffs. Nothing more distortionary than that.

Republicans have been cutting taxes for decades and they’ve never paid for themselves, but your dogma keeps pretending like they will.

Tariffs can be inflationary, but they also may not be. I agree that somebody in the supply chain has to “eat” tariffs. You tend to believe that is the consumer, but the US is not a typical tariff case. I tend to believe that due to the US’s unique position in the world as the by far and away number one consumer market, foreign exporters and manufacturers will “eat” the majority of them. They don’t want to lose out and don’t want to be undercut by other countries who are willing to cut margins to retain the US consumer base. This has shown to be true thus far as the rate of inflation has not increased. Most Democrats I know don’t tend to believe in American exceptionalism. The fact that the US consumer is the golden goose of the world doesn’t register with them because they have been taught the US=BAD. ALWAYS!

Oh look, more wishful thinking.

Did you investigate if the data supports your beliefs? Nope. Because that raises the chance that you’re wrong and it’s best to just believe wherever you want rather than find out the truth.

US businesses and consumers bear majority of tariff costs, study finds | Fox Business

Goldman Sachs economists projected that U.S. consumers will absorb 55% of tariff costs by the end of 2025, up from their current 37% share of the tariff burden.

www.foxbusiness.com

Tariffs are not being paid by foreign exporters. For now, companies are paying the lions share.