Walmart Says It's Raising Prices Because of Trump's Tariffs

[j-mac]

Fine. But you don't have to spread your ignorance.

Do you like his message?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Do you like his message?

Whose message? Walmart? I didn't realize it was a person and they had a message.

 

[j-mac]

Whose message? Walmart? I didn't realize it was a person and they had a message.

Sorry, wrong thread

 

[Robert W]

Yeah, cutting the budget can result in economic harm.

Cut Medicaid and next thing you know hospitals in a rural community closes which results in lots of lost jobs.

Cut USAID and the humanitarian aid contracts dry up which are largely sourced domestically.

Cut federal loan programs and investment in risky energy projects disappears.

Not that it shouldn’t happen because we have a lot of debt. I think we should cut spending and raise taxes to close the deficit. That’s going to negatively affect the economy but we don’t have a lot of choice.

My main point is that Trump didn’t do that. He cut taxes, increased spending and deficits ballooned.

And he STILL had pretty only modest economic growth.

I checked the Congressional Budget office and at the time of my post, they still have not checked out the impact of the house approved budget. The talking heads are lying to us all since they can't perform nearly as well as the CBO can.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

I checked the Congressional Budget office and at the time of my post, they still have not checked out the impact of the house approved budget. The talking heads are lying to us all since they can't perform nearly as well as the CBO can.

Well..we do have this eh?

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-05/61422-Reconciliation-Distributional-Analysis.pdf

CBO estimates that if the legislation was enacted, U.S. households, on
average, would see an increase in the resources provided to them by the
government over the 2026–2034 period. The changes would not be evenly
distributed among households. The agency estimates that in general,
resources would decrease for households in the lowest decile (tenth) of the
income distribution, whereas resources would increase for households in
the highest decile.


The total effects reported in this analysis for the 2026–2034 period include
the following:
• An increase in the federal deficit of $3.8 trillion attributable to tax
changes, including extending provisions of the 2017 tax act, which
includes revenues and outlays for refundable credits.
• $698 billion less in federal subsidies from changes to the Medicaid
program.
• $267 billion less in federal spending for SNAP.
• $64 billion less in spending, on net, for all other purposes. That
includes increases in outlays for defense, immigration enforcement,
and homeland security. Those are offset by reductions in federal
pensions, receipts from spectrum auctions, and changes in receipts
and outlays associated with changes to emissions regulations.
• $78 billion in additional state spending, on net, accounting for
changes in state contributions to SNAP and Medicaid and for state
tax and spending policies necessary to finance additional spending.

 

[Robert W]

Well..we do have this eh?

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-05/61422-Reconciliation-Distributional-Analysis.pdf

CBO estimates that if the legislation was enacted, U.S. households, on
average, would see an increase in the resources provided to them by the
government over the 2026–2034 period. The changes would not be evenly
distributed among households. The agency estimates that in general,
resources would decrease for households in the lowest decile (tenth) of the
income distribution, whereas resources would increase for households in
the highest decile.


The total effects reported in this analysis for the 2026–2034 period include
the following:
• An increase in the federal deficit of $3.8 trillion attributable to tax
changes, including extending provisions of the 2017 tax act, which
includes revenues and outlays for refundable credits.
• $698 billion less in federal subsidies from changes to the Medicaid
program.
• $267 billion less in federal spending for SNAP.
• $64 billion less in spending, on net, for all other purposes. That
includes increases in outlays for defense, immigration enforcement,
and homeland security. Those are offset by reductions in federal
pensions, receipts from spectrum auctions, and changes in receipts
and outlays associated with changes to emissions regulations.
• $78 billion in additional state spending, on net, accounting for
changes in state contributions to SNAP and Medicaid and for state
tax and spending policies necessary to finance additional spending.

You left out the vital part of the report. It is preliminary!!!

"This analysis includes most, but not all, provisions of the bill. The analysisexcludes the effects of part 2 of subtitle D (Affordable Care Act) of thereconciliation recommendations of the Committee on Energy andCommerce, all the recommendations of the Committee on Education andWorkforce, and any provisions not allocated in JCT staff’s distributionalanalysis of the recommendations of the Committee on Ways and Means.2 Italso excludes interactions between the titles of the recommendations."

 

[konradv]

I will try my best to explain things about Government you apparently don't understand.
Think of the Kentucky Derby. A bunch or horses have jockeys on their backs. And as the gate opens, the winner might not be in front. At the end is the winner.
Congress is like the Jockeys. And they only control the horse slightly. Yet a winner ends up winning. Trump can't control all of the congress. The economy heads down the road. The economy and not Trump decides the outcome.

So, thrills won’t effect the economy?! Is this from the Krusty the Klown School of Economics?!