• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tax Cuts Are An Expense To The Federal Government

No you didn’t.
Apparently I didn't lay out that revenue = rate x base whatsoever. And I guess I didn't talk about how base expansion > rate cut loss -> more revenue. Basic algebra doesn't exist in this world anymore.
Base expansion doesn’t happen.
Well now you're shifting to empirical claims. It's not a math impossibility, all you're saying is "it didn't happen historically enough."
22% of something will always be less than 29% of something.
That assumes same something. I'm saying the something (base) can change. If the base grows, 22% of a bigger pie can be more than 29% of a smaller one. This is like basic stuff dude.
Tax cuts have never boosted revenue. It’s mathematically impossible to do so
"Never happened at scale" isn't the same as "mathematically impossible" which I'm saying what math allows instead of your selective history.
It’s mathematical. 22% will always be less than 29%.
Again, that's if the base is the same. Which is the whole point I've been making, the base can change. So thank you for once again proving my point. Although you do need to actually explain yourself instead of a common "nuh uh!"
Tax rate cuts are also conditional.
Thank you. That's all I've been saying, outcomes depend on conditions and not impossibilities.
 
Apparently I didn't lay out that revenue = rate x base whatsoever. And I guess I didn't talk about how base expansion > rate cut loss -> more revenue. Basic algebra doesn't exist in this world anymore.
22% is and will always be less than 29% of something.
Well now you're shifting to empirical claims.
I haven’t made any claims. I’m pointing out basic math, and 4 decades of economic data.
It's not a math impossibility, all you're saying is "it didn't happen historically enough."
It’s a mathematical impossibility.
That assumes same something. I'm saying the something (base) can change. If the base grows, 22% of a bigger pie can be more than 29% of a smaller one. This is like basic stuff dude.
personal tax rates do not increase the base something.
"Never happened at scale" isn't the same as "mathematically impossible" which I'm saying what math allows instead of your selective history.
It’s objective history, and mathematical impossibility. 22% will always remain less than 29%.
Again, that's if the base is the same. Which is the whole point I've been making, the base can change. So thank you for once again proving my point. Although you do need to actually explain yourself instead of a common "nuh uh!"
Already explained why you are wrong. I can’t dumb it down any further for you. 22% is less and will always be less than 29%.
 
This would be the immediate conclusion of a TDS encumbered mind, but it's not that.

No, it would be their reaction to trump's reckless application of tariffs that threaten to damage not just the U.S. economy, but economies all over the world. Most world leaders look at trump as a toddler with a loaded gun.

This is largely, by far, a strictly money centric concern, specifically US federal government debt load, and the credibility given to the US federal government making good on its debt.

Debt load has no bearing on the government's ability to meet their obligations. I have been trying to explain to you that sovereign debt is different than household debt. When a person or a company takes on more debt, their ability to repay it is limited by their income, and their creditworthiness takes into consideration their current debt load when judging their ability to take on new debt. None of that applies for governments with their own currencies.

There are some foreign powers who would like to see the US Dollar supplanted and the international reserve currency, but that's going to be a really heavy lift, but it is also something that the US can't afford to ignore.

The only thing that can really hurt our economy is if other countries decide to stop buying American goods and services. And trump is trying his best to ruin our trade relationships.


That's not an explanation of what you think could happen, or how it could happen.

Bonds do not increase the money supply, as people take some of their money and buy those bonds.

Yeah, that was my point, in response to your claim that deficit spending flooded the economy with dollars and caused inflation.

Appears you have some confusion here as to what the Fed and inflation does to the value of the currency.

Judging by some of your incorrect assumptions about the mechanics of federal finance and deficit spending, I think the confusion is yours.

Blaming the central bank for any and all economic hiccups is a favorite pastime of righty debaters who don't understand Fed mechanics. I don't know who puts those ideas out there for their consumption, probably the Austrians, but that's all it is, scapegoating. It's where all the "End the Fed" nonsense comes from.
 
No, it would be their reaction to trump's reckless application of tariffs that threaten to damage not just the U.S. economy, but economies all over the world.
I wasn't thrilled with that approach either, but I understand what his goals were by using tariffs as he has. That said, it is true that there have been quite a few nations which have gone to zero or minimal tariffs because of those actions.

Most world leaders look at trump as a toddler with a loaded gun.
This would be unsupported and subjective opinion combined with supposed mind reading capabilities, which I don't think you possess.

Debt load has no bearing on the government's ability to meet their obligations.
This is factually incorrect.
If what you are claiming were correct, then how can it be that the interest payments on the national debt is squeezing funding away from all the other programs?
This is exactly what's happening right now, and has been building for years already, surely only to get worse and more pronounced should the debt load continue to increase.

Sorry, no sale. I'm not buying your claims here.

I have been trying to explain to you that sovereign debt is different than household debt. When a person or a company takes on more debt, their ability to repay it is limited by their income, and their creditworthiness takes into consideration their current debt load when judging their ability to take on new debt. None of that applies for governments with their own currencies.

The only thing that can really hurt our economy is if other countries decide to stop buying American goods and services.
Considering how heavily imbalanced trade is, with the trade deficits and all, this also something Trump has highlighted.

A good analogy for this is your corner grocer. It is a near certainty that your household has a 'trade imbalance' with the grocer, as for sure that you are buying more from him than he is buying from you, yet, it doesn't impoverish your household that this exists.

And trump is trying his best to ruin our trade relationships.
Again, unsupported and subjective.

That's not an explanation of what you think could happen, or how it could happen.

Yeah, that was my point, in response to your claim that deficit spending flooded the economy with dollars and caused inflation.
As we have experienced post-COVID, a constrained and disrupted supply chain, dumping federal spending into the economy causes more dollars to chase the same amount of goods causes inflation.

Judging by some of your incorrect assumptions about the mechanics of federal finance and deficit spending, I think the confusion is yours.
Given your disputed claim about, that 'sovereign debt doesn't matter' (when clear it does), I'm not inclined to take your assertion above seriously.

Blaming the central bank for any and all economic hiccups is a favorite pastime of righty debaters who don't understand Fed mechanics.
Its not 'any and all economic hiccups' when the fed clicks its mouse, fabricates more currency in circulation, devaluing the currency, so your accusation doesn't apply.

I don't know who puts those ideas out there for their consumption, probably the Austrians, but that's all it is, scapegoating. It's where all the "End the Fed" nonsense comes from.
Where in any of my posts have I asserted or claimed "End the Fed"? Do please quote my post.
Oh, right. You can't, because I haven't. Tough luck there.
 
I'm well aware of human nature. Billionaires make political campaign contributions, because they have a vested interest in lower taxes.



So, what do you favor? Ammending NAFTA? Passing protectionist tariffs? America is still a major world consumer. We are transitioning into a service based economy. And I look forward to the strides made in the energy field, over the course of my lifetime. I'm failing to see the incentive for someone to leave the country to avoid being taxed at a higher rate. I believe this to be right wing spin. Warren Buffet has contradicted conventional wisdom regarding investments. To paraphrase Mr. Buffet, he basically said, that in his 60 years in investment banking he's never seen anyone shy away from a sensible investment for fear of a tax on the potential gain. Wanting a tax system similar to what we had pre-Reagan is not a radical idea.



I think we should take deductions on a case by case basis. What is the net benefit to society? Are we hurting society, so the individual can benefit? If this is the case, get rid of that specific deduction. As for housing prices, IMO, interest rates have far more to do with mortgage lending than tax codes. The people that tax cuts are aimed at probably own 3 different places.



Agreed. You have to observe complex interactions within society. Unfortunately, I'm pretty immovable on the tax code. We need to tax high income earners more, finagle corporations into paying into the society that allowed them to become so successful. If we are to succeed, we need to allow people a shot at an education and guarantee them health care, no matter the situation they are born into. They need to have upward mobility. Right now, we are giving away revenue to high income earners, increasing spending, and telling people that low taxing produces revenue. We need to reform our tax policy, to scoop the revenue we are missing on high income earners, cut spending on defense, and the war on drugs, and use the revenue to offer state-paid tuition. My argument hinges on using revenue for state-paid tuition. A more educated population gets better jobs, that pay more in taxes. Under the European system, they have a different idea of welfare. I'm taking this directly from an economist named Mark Blyth. If you want to understand how a progressive thinks of economics, look no further than Mark Blyth. Under the European model of welfare, they pay for their citizen's educations because they acknowledge, that once the student is finished, they will get a better jobs, that will pay for the elder's health care. It's a dance of cooperation, that is alien to Americans.


Some countries have campaign finance laws.

America should try it.

In Canada you have to actually get out and meet the public. Maybe if you crippled the lavish campaign financing and made them actually get out and meet the voters....

Maybe you wouldn't end up with "rich and stupid" anymore
 
I wasn't thrilled with that approach either, but I understand what his goals were by using tariffs as he has. That said, it is true that there have been quite a few nations which have gone to zero or minimal tariffs because of those actions.

Really? Does that include those two uninhabited islands? Don't give credence to trump's idiotic actions as if he knows what he's doing. Companies are already going bankrupt because of those stupid tariffs. That's trump's only real area of expertise - leading companies into bankruptcy.

This would be unsupported and subjective opinion combined with supposed mind reading capabilities, which I don't think you possess.

And this would be you, once again, trying extra hard to not see what is obvious to the rest of us.

This is factually incorrect.

No, it's not.

If what you are claiming were correct, then how can it be that the interest payments on the national debt is squeezing funding away from all the other programs?

It isn't squeezing funding away from other programs. The government simply chooses not to fund those programs, and they use the national debt as one of their excuses. Yet when we really need money, and politics is pushed to the back burner, we always seem to come up with the money. Wars, banking crises, pandemic - any time we needed a large amount of money in a short period of time, we did it (and we did it without raising taxes).

This is exactly what's happening right now, and has been building for years already, surely only to get worse and more pronounced should the debt load continue to increase.

Sorry, no sale. I'm not buying your claims here.

I don't expect you to. But hopefully, other, more open-minded people may read this exchange and better understand the subject. Meanwhile, you have provided exactly zero evidence or examples to back your dire claims. Surely there will be some evidence somewhere down the line, right? I mean, when all of your claims come to pass, like in those zero historical examples you have provided, you will have the evidence you need to back your claims, right?

Considering how heavily imbalanced trade is, with the trade deficits and all, this also something Trump has highlighted.

The U.S. is the second largest exporter in the world. Why didn't trump highlight that? What he "highlighted" was the gap, and he ignorantly claimed that a trade deficit meant that we were losing money in that amount. He basically pissed off the corner grocer from your example, so now you have to go further and pay more to buy your groceries.

A good analogy for this is your corner grocer. It is a near certainty that your household has a 'trade imbalance' with the grocer, as for sure that you are buying more from him than he is buying from you, yet, it doesn't impoverish your household that this exists.

That is a good analogy for my side of the argument.

Again, unsupported and subjective.

He slapped large tariffs on our closest ally and trading partner, Canada. And he has been insulting their leaders, too. You think that is some kind of genius strategic move on trump's part?

Some of these things you dismiss as subjective are just so obviously bad that they transcend subjectivity. It would be nice to see you admit once in a while that trump makes mistakes. The tariff war, especially the way trump handled it, is one of those obvious mistakes that we should all be able to agree on.

 
As we have experienced post-COVID, a constrained and disrupted supply chain, dumping federal spending into the economy causes more dollars to chase the same amount of goods causes inflation.

It was the supply chain issues that caused the inflation. It was the COVID payments (which I think were handled poorly) that kept people off the street and businesses from closing.

Given your disputed claim about, that 'sovereign debt doesn't matter' (when clear it does), I'm not inclined to take your assertion above seriously.

I have correctly explained the mechanics of deficit spending (which you did not know), and I have also explained why your fears have not and will not come to pass. You have provided nothing in the way of evidence or historical precedents to back your claims.

Its not 'any and all economic hiccups' when the fed clicks its mouse, fabricates more currency in circulation, devaluing the currency, so your accusation doesn't apply.

Clearly you don't understand how money gets into circulation.

The last time that the Fed did more "money printing" than normal was QE, and QE didn't have any of the disastrous effects that a lot of economists were worried about. That was 16 years ago; it's about time you figured that out for yourself.

Where in any of my posts have I asserted or claimed "End the Fed"? Do please quote my post.
Oh, right. You can't, because I haven't. Tough luck there.

I didn't say that you said "end the Fed." I just said that you are adopting the same arguments as those who say "end the Fed." You both blame the central bank for inflation.
 
Yep, but that would also increase the annual federal “budget”deficit and the national debt. Let’s borrow our way to prosperity! ;)

Instead of issuing bonds, would you be happier if we just issued currency and paid for deficit spending that way? No "debt," no interest payments, same contribution to GDP. How does that sound to you?
 
Instead of issuing bonds, would you be happier if we just issued currency and paid for deficit spending that way? No "debt," no interest payments, same contribution to GDP. How does that sound to you?

Highly inflationary. Maybe it’s time to stop increasing annual federal spending as a percentage of GDP.
 
You and I both know that's nothing but bullshit, and those proffering this up as a 'solution' are the same ones who had proffered previous 'solutions' which have landed the nation in its present financial bind.

Are we in a financial bind? A few short months ago, our economy was declared "the envy of the world."

Don't be a Chicken Little.
 
Highly inflationary. Maybe it’s time to stop increasing annual federal spending as a percentage of GDP.

What if there was some way to spend those dollars, then pin them down so they wouldn't be used again and cause inflation?
 
Name the last expensive goodie that Congress has bestowed upon the people.

Expanded Medicaid was a significant “expensive goodie”, but I doubt it was (or will be) the last. Federal student loan ‘forgiveness’ should make the list.
 
Expanded Medicaid was a significant “expensive goodie”, but I doubt it was (or will be) the last. Federal student loan ‘forgiveness’ should make the list.

Expanded Medicaid only covered about 300K people, less than 1% of the population. Student loan forgiveness was killed in the cradle.

I would argue that tax cuts are the biggest goodie, since they cost a ton of revenue. The party buying votes is the Republican party.
 
Expanded Medicaid only covered about 300K people, less than 1% of the population. Student loan forgiveness was killed in the cradle.

I would argue that tax cuts are the biggest goodie, since they cost a ton of revenue. The party buying votes is the Republican party.
Since debt doesn’t exist, and the government can print as much money as they want, tax cuts don’t matter nor have any relevance to deficits.
 
22% is and will always be less than 29% of something.
Which I've already told you like 4 times that depends on the "something." Let's have R = T x B (R = revenue, T = tax rate, B = tax base.),
then let's have T₁ = 0.22, T₂ = 0.29
If B₁ > B₂ such that T₁ x B₁ > T₂ x B₂, then R₁ > R₂
This would satisfy arithmetic. Meaning that it would be logically possible under defined conditions that a lower tax rate produces a higher revenue. If you were to deny this however, you would be saying T x B does not = R which would be a contradiction.
Now obviously rahl, you may be asking "oh but how would this at all apply to this conversation we're having right now?" Well it should be self explanatory but if you're saying that it's a mathematical impossibility (which is also a claim, I don't know why you said you didn't make a claim), then you would be asserting
∀B₁,B₂: (T₁ < T₂) -> (T₁ x B₁ < T₂ x B₂), which would only be valid if B₁ ≤ B₂ in all cases and of course you never proved nor justified this.
I haven’t made any claims. I’m pointing out basic math, and 4 decades of economic data.
You claimed that it's a mathematical impossibility. That alone is a claim, which is false.
personal tax rates do not increase the base something.
None of what you're saying is a mathematical point. Here you would just be assuming tax policy would have no behavioral effects on investment, income generation, or work (i.e., ∂B/∂T ≈ 0). The Laffer Curve (as I mentioned before) is based on the fact that ∂B/∂T ≠ 0.
It’s objective history, and mathematical impossibility. 22% will always remain less than 29%.
If and only if the base remains unchanged. Now, the moment B₁ > B₂ by a sufficient margin, 0.22 x B₁ > 0.29 x B₂. This would be analytically valid under arithmetic. Which denying this would be rejecting the function R(T, B) = T x B as a model, which you need to explain what function you do think governs revenue.
 
Which I've already told you like 4 times that depends on the "something."
The “something” doesn’t change because of tax cuts.
Now obviously rahl, you may be asking "oh but how would this at all apply to this conversation we're having right now?" Well it should be self explanatory but if you're saying that it's a mathematical impossibility (which is also a claim, I don't know why you said you didn't make a claim), then you would be asserting
No, it isn’t a claim. 22% will forever and always be less than 29%.
You claimed that it's a mathematical impossibility. That alone is a claim, which is false.
I have made no claims. I pointed out 22% Will always be less than 29%.
None of what you're saying is a mathematical point.
Other than showing basic math precludes collecting more of something by collecting it at a lower rate.
Here you would just be assuming tax policy would have no behavioral effects on investment, income generation, or work (i.e., ∂B/∂T ≈ 0). The Laffer Curve (as I mentioned before) is based on the fact that ∂B/∂T ≠ 0.
Which is true. It doesn’t have any effect. We have decades of data showing this.
If and only if the base remains unchanged. However, the moment B₁ > B₂ by a sufficient margin, 0.22 x B₁ > 0.29 x B₂. This would be analytically valid under arithmetic. Which denying this would be rejecting the function R(T, B) = T x B as a model, which you need to explain what function you do think governs revenue.
22% remains and will forever be less than 29%. tax cuts do not magically increase economic output, and never have. Which is why every single time republicans have cut taxes, we collected less revenue and GDP increases remained unchanged.
 
The “something” doesn’t change because of tax cuts.
So what you're asserting now is that B (the tax base) is invariant to changes in T (the tax rate), which isn't a mathematical principle, just a empirical generalization that for the 5th time you haven't even demonstrated. The Laffer Curve, even if you think it's rare, the possibility alone would negate your claim of mathematical impossibility.
No, it isn’t a claim. 22% will forever and always be less than 29%.
Yeah! Not like you were making a universal affirmative that under no conditions can 22% of a base exceed 29% of a base, good going rahl you got me there! You're just making the generalization of:
∀B₁,B₂: 0.22 x B₁ < 0.29 x B₂
this is a logically false proposition if ∃B₁,B₂ such that B₁ > (29/22) x B₂
Other than showing basic math precludes collecting more of something by collecting it at a lower rate.
Wow this is one tough cookie to crack rahl! It's almost like you didn't "show" that and instead asserted it while completely dodging the model. Here, let me restate the model: R = T x B. Now let me tell you what you're doing: pretending the function has only one variable (T), when it has two! So can you prove ∀B₁,B₂: (T₁ < T₂) -> (T₁ x B₁ < T₂ x B₂). Which (and I'm being charitable here) is just absolutely wrong.
Which is true. It doesn’t have any effect. We have decades of data showing this.
Funny thing is that this isn't about what has historically happened and is instead about what is mathematically possible. Do note, all I'm really saying is that it's mathematically possible.
22% remains and will forever be less than 29%. tax cuts do not magically increase economic output, and never have. Which is why every single time republicans have cut taxes, we collected less revenue and GDP increases remained unchanged.
I think I need to dumb this down for you so here:
- The "22% < 29%" is tautology
- The revenue claim of "22% of B₁ < 29% of B₂" is conditional
- Now guess what your error is here rahl, I'll let you think..... confusing the former for a universal claim about the latter.
However, your conclusion would only be valid if B remains fixed or always decreases when T decreases which is what I've been going against this entire time. You didn't even address the function model (R = T x B).
 
So what you're asserting now is that B (the tax base) is invariant to changes in T (the tax rate), which isn't a mathematical principle, just a empirical generalization that for the 5th time you haven't even demonstrated. The Laffer Curve, even if you think it's rare, the possibility alone would negate your claim of mathematical impossibility.

Yeah! Not like you were making a universal affirmative that under no conditions can 22% of a base exceed 29% of a base, good going rahl you got me there! You're just making the generalization of:
∀B₁,B₂: 0.22 x B₁ < 0.29 x B₂
this is a logically false proposition if ∃B₁,B₂ such that B₁ > (29/22) x B₂

Wow this is one tough cookie to crack rahl! It's almost like you didn't "show" that and instead asserted it while completely dodging the model. Here, let me restate the model: R = T x B. Now let me tell you what you're doing: pretending the function has only one variable (T), when it has two! So can you prove ∀B₁,B₂: (T₁ < T₂) -> (T₁ x B₁ < T₂ x B₂). Which (and I'm being charitable here) is just absolutely wrong.

Funny thing is that this isn't about what has historically happened and is instead about what is mathematically possible. Do note, all I'm really saying is that it's mathematically possible.

I think I need to dumb this down for you so here:
- The "22% < 29%" is tautology
- The revenue claim of "22% of B₁ < 29% of B₂" is conditional
- Now guess what your error is here rahl, I'll let you think..... confusing the former for a universal claim about the latter.
However, your conclusion would only be valid if B remains fixed or always decreases when T decreases which is what I've been going against this entire time. You didn't even address the function model (R = T x B).
Refuted all of this already. 22% is always less than 29%. Tax cuts do not and have never resulted in higher revenue, because it’s mathematically impossible. There has never been a magical increase in economic output when republicans slashed revenues.
 
Refuted all of this already. 22% is always less than 29%. Tax cuts do not and have never resulted in higher revenue, because it’s mathematically impossible. There has never been a magical increase in economic output when republicans slashed revenues.
I've shown it to be mathematically possible and you're just restating what you said before, now for anyone reading through this besides you would pretty much understand how you haven't did anything besides talk about history which isn't relevant in this case and restate the same things I've been debunked. But you can go by what you believe I guess...
 
I've shown it to be mathematically possible and you're just restating what you said before, now for anyone reading through this besides you would pretty much understand how you haven't did anything besides talk about history which isn't relevant in this case and restate the same things I've been debunked. But you can go by what you believe I guess...

Let’s examine your “mathematically possible” scenario. A tax rate of 29% on $100 of X gets you $29 of tax revenue. It would take about $132 of X (32% more) in order to get $29 of tax revenue at a tax rate of 22%.

That shows it would take about a 32% growth of the tax base (a tall order indeed) for a tax rate of 22% just to break even with a tax rate of 29%.
 
Really? Does that include those two uninhabited islands? Don't give credence to trump's idiotic actions as if he knows what he's doing. Companies are already going bankrupt because of those stupid tariffs. That's trump's only real area of expertise - leading companies into bankruptcy.
I see your TDS affliction is making itself known, as is ignoring the results, namely countries reducing tariffs to zero or minimal.
But do continue to irrational rant, as you must.

And this would be you, once again, trying extra hard to not see what is obvious to the rest of us.
Rrriiiiggghhtt. </sarcasm>

No, it's not.



It isn't squeezing funding away from other programs. The government simply chooses not to fund those programs, and they use the national debt as one of their excuses. Yet when we really need money, and politics is pushed to the back burner, we always seem to come up with the money. Wars, banking crises, pandemic - any time we needed a large amount of money in a short period of time, we did it (and we did it without raising taxes).
LOL. In which reality do you exist?

Rising interest payments on the U.S. federal debt have increasingly strained the federal budget, limiting funds available for other government programs. Below is evidence from various sources demonstrating how interest expenses are crowding out funding for other priorities:​
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Projections: In 2024, net interest costs on the federal debt reached $881 billion, surpassing most other federal budget categories except Social Security. The CBO projects these costs will rise to $952 billion in 2025 and climb to $1.8 trillion by 2035, totaling $13.8 trillion over the next decade. As a share of federal revenues, interest payments are expected to hit 18.4% in 2025 and 22.2% by 2035, reducing the budget available for programs like Medicare, infrastructure, and education. By 2031, interest costs are projected to account for 15.6% of total federal spending, exceeding historical highs and squeezing discretionary spending.​

Highlighting: "net interest costs on the federal debt reached $881 billion, surpassing most other federal budget categories except Social Security"
Sorry, but you've just blown any credibility you might have had on the topic.

I don't expect you to. But hopefully, other, more open-minded people may read this exchange and better understand the subject. Meanwhile, you have provided exactly zero evidence or examples to back your dire claims. Surely there will be some evidence somewhere down the line, right? I mean, when all of your claims come to pass, like in those zero historical examples you have provided, you will have the evidence you need to back your claims, right?
See above.
 
The U.S. is the second largest exporter in the world. Why didn't trump highlight that? What he "highlighted" was the gap, and he ignorantly claimed that a trade deficit meant that we were losing money in that amount. He basically pissed off the corner grocer from your example, so now you have to go further and pay more to buy your groceries.
I posted that analogy because I don't agree with Trump conflation on trade deficits and tariffs.

That is a good analogy for my side of the argument.
Somehow you seem to be suffering under delusion or confusion that I have taken some position other than the one shown by the analogy which I posted?

He slapped large tariffs on our closest ally and trading partner, Canada.
As I have posted, I understand the end goal, the desired results, and agree with them, but I wasn't thrilled with his approach in dosing so.
How many times do I have to post it before that sinks in with you?

And he has been insulting their leaders, too.
This I file under 'So What?' The leaders of other nations are big boys and can, or at least should, be able to handle this cajoling.

You think that is some kind of genius strategic move on trump's part?
Strategic or genius? Off into the subjective again.
How about we stick to the factual results, of which is that many nations have, are, or will, be dropping their tariffs to zero or minimal?

Some of these things you dismiss as subjective are just so obviously bad that they transcend subjectivity. I
Asserting something is 'bad' isn't subjective?

t would be nice to see you admit once in a while that trump makes mistakes.
Do please read for comprehension, especially this post, and my one or two prior posts stating my disagreement with Trump's approach on this topic.

The tariff war, especially the way trump handled it, is one of those obvious mistakes that we should all be able to agree on.
 
Back
Top Bottom