So if you have a trillion dollar deficit and do a tax cut of another trillion, you'd need a tariff of 50% on all imports to cover that 2 trillion gap. How does a 50% price hike going to create wealth for this country? Anyone else not feeling that inflationary shock?
Inflation happened after an unprecedented fiscal recklessness by the Biden Administration -- with budget deficits and the national debt skyrocketing. The Fed then had to issue debt to cover the difference, which led to a 60% increase in the money supply of US dollars. Any first year economics student could tell you that when the number of dollars goes up, the price per dollar of a good/service will go up. And that's exactly what happened. Trump will grow the economy (deregulation, tax incentives, allowing M&A again, bringing down energy costs) and work with DOGE to slash wasteful government spending. He will bring financial order to this country after the Democrats tried their best to burn the house down. Had we not elected Trump, the path that democratic leadership put us on was totally unsustainable and leading to financial ruin. GOOD DAY
100% lie from you. Biden added FAR MORE to the debt than the first Trump term. Trump's deficits were under $1 trillion each year until COVID hit in 2020 and the Democrats shut down the economy. Then the Biden Administration went absolutely crazy with government spending. The actual data is below. Year Government Spending (Trillion $) Tax Revenue (Trillion $) Budget Deficit (Trillion $) 2017 3.98 3.32 0.66 2018 4.11 3.33 0.78 2019 4.45 3.46 0.99 2020 6.55 3.42 3.13 (COVID economic impact - caused by Democrats shutting down blue states) 2021 7.25 3.58 3.67 2022 6.30 4.90 1.40 2023 6.10 4.40 1.70 2024 6.80 4.90 1.90
Tariffs are only one arrow in the quiver. Trump uses tariffs as a threat... to negotiate improved trade deals with other countries -- thereby LOWERING prices and improving the exchanges of goods and services. Tariffs are also used to incentivize bringing jobs back to the USA, and promoting economic growth at home. Tariffs are also used to get other countries to stop creating costs for the USA -- such as illegal immigration and the resultant crime. You can't judge the impact of tariffs in isolation -- our economy is dynamic. Trump uses tariffs in negotiations to BENEFIT the USA. Longer term, the cost of goods will come down as factories make more product here. This will also drive real wages up -- which makes Americans wealthier. This should be very simply to comprehend -- I'm surprised at how many people struggle to see the broader chess board.
It'll be interesting seeing whether Trump does more of the same from the first term. The economy is weaker and there's less belt loosening from when Obama started reducing GFC stimulus and spending through congress forced sequestration and the budget control act. This run around, there's no mattresses with stashed money to pilfer, so good luck reducing that debt and drawing the ire of poor rural states that suck the Feds teet the hardest while biting the hand that feeds it.
There are always two sides to the story. One thing is a fact though. Tariff-seeking industries were notorious for diverting resources into rent-seeking, or the lobbying of Congress for preferential rates with bribes and backroom deals. Trump can be bribed, and we've already seen billionaires coddling him for favors at Mar a Lago. The corruption has begun before he has even officially taken office. Farmers and others relying on exports and imports will suffer, but those with the most power and money will stand in line to bribe Trump to ensure they all flourish For a man who loves attention, a good grift, and the power to do anything he wants, it's a scary thought. The Problem of the Tariff in American Economic History, 1787–1934 From 1789 to 1934, tariff-seeking industries were notorious for diverting resources into rent-seeking, or the lobbying of Congress for preferential rates with bribes and backroom deals. Contrary to national conservatives’ claims, the empirical link between tariffs and 19th-century economic development is weak—a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning augmented by The Problem of the Tariff in American Economic History, 1787–1934 From 1789 to 1934, tariff-seeking industries were notorious for diverting resources into rent-seeking, or the lobbying of Congress for preferential rates with bribes and backroom deals. Contrary to national conservatives’ claims, the empirical link between tariffs and 19th-century economic development is weak—a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning augmented by bad statistics and tendentious historical narratives. Their account also overlooks the numerous instances in which tariff protectionism fomented diplomatic and constitutional crises, triggered international retaliation, and hindered American economic development. Industry representatives flooded the body with requests for preferential rates. Backroom deals were cut to support parallel rates for industries in other districts and states, and bribes changed hands on committee floors. Although Clay packaged his scheme as a strategic and finely tuned economic program, its practical reality turned into a free-for-all of public graft. The claimed correlation with growth is both exaggerated and likely spurious. There’s also evidence that the harms of late 19th-century protectionism outweighed the isolated benefits to selected industries on net. Economist Bradford DeLong identifies two such harms: (1) the loss of agricultural exports to Europe through symmetry effects, effectively harming farmers in order to prop up northeastern industries and (2) higher prices on imported machinery and other capital goods, which likely impaired the pace at which America industrialized. At the same time, high tariff protectionism continued to attract rent-seeking interest groups. The sheer extravagance of the public corruption around tariff schedule revisions came to a head in the late 19th century, eventually leading reformers to call for the abandonment of a tariff-based revenue system. https://www.cato.org/publications/problem-tariff-american-economic-history-1787-1934 A Brief History of Tariffs in the United States and the Dangers of their Use Today https://news.law.fordham.edu/jcfl/2...ed-states-and-the-dangers-of-their-use-today/ Tax History: Debunking Myths About 19th-Century Tariffs History is not a good place to look for policy specifics; things that worked 150 years ago are unlikely to function in a similar fashion today. Even if McKinley’s famous tariff had bolstered economic growth in the 1890s, that doesn’t mean high tariffs would do anything similar today. Too much has changed, including our modern, globalized economy. https://www.taxnotes.com/tax-histor...s-about-19th-century-tariffs/2024/09/20/7lm9y Industry representatives flooded the body with requests for preferential rates. Backroom deals were cut to support parallel rates for industries in other districts and states, and bribes changed hands on committee floors. Although Clay packaged his scheme as a strategic and finely tuned economic program, its practical reality turned into a free-for-all of public graft. The claimed correlation with growth is both exaggerated and likely spurious. There’s also evidence that the harms of late 19th-century protectionism outweighed the isolated benefits to selected industries on net. Economist Bradford DeLong identifies two such harms: (1) the loss of agricultural exports to Europe through symmetry effects, effectively harming farmers in order to prop up northeastern industries and (2) higher prices on imported machinery and other capital goods, which likely impaired the pace at which America industrialized. At the same time, high tariff protectionism continued to attract rent-seeking interest groups. The sheer extravagance of the public corruption around tariff schedule revisions came to a head in the late 19th century, eventually leading reformers to call for the abandonment of a tariff-based revenue system. https://www.cato.org/publications/problem-tariff-american-economic-history-1787-1934 A Brief History of Tariffs in the United States and the Dangers of their Use Today https://news.law.fordham.edu/jcfl/2...ed-states-and-the-dangers-of-their-use-today/ Tax History: Debunking Myths About 19th-Century Tariffs History is not a good place to look for policy specifics; things that worked 150 years ago are unlikely to function in a similar fashion today. Even if McKinley’s famous tariff had bolstered economic growth in the 1890s, that doesn’t mean high tariffs would do anything similar today. Too much has changed, including our modern, globalized economy. https://www.taxnotes.com/tax-histor...s-about-19th-century-tariffs/2024/09/20/7lm9y
Am I reading this right 2017 - 2020 = 3.98 - 6.55 = -2.57 2021 - 2024 = 7.25 - 6.80 = +.45 Dumping the big increase on democrats would be like me saying Biden would have done better if not for the Republican obstructionist congress Seems like you admitting that the president's impact is dependent on Congress Which means you have to admit that Mitch McConnell who has been controling congress for over a decade Maybe the primary culprit in alot of this What's the poiint of bringing jobs back only to hand them out to H1 Visas - which seems to work counter to the Anti Immigration Rocket River
Traitor George, stop lying this is too nuanced for you, Traitor George national debt has skyrocketed in every admin since Warren G Harding, including the Clinton admin which has been the only post-WW2 POTUS to have generated a budget surplus. Trump 1.0 increased the deficits / national debt, as does Biden like invisible fan, you are confused and all mixed up The Treasury Dept, not the Federal Reserve, issues debt. on the other hand, the Federal Reserve fine-tunes the money supply; not the Treasury Dept
