Trump's tariffs will reduce deficit by $4 trillion

[Cope]

I put the chance of that happening slightly above zero.

Is the CBO lying to us?

Have they lied to us before?

That is really a rhetorical question i suppose because we all know they have (not intentionally of course) but simply because of what they are asked to use/and how to score things result in misleading the people.

 

[BabaVoss]

There are a lot of false assumptions built into this fantasy.

 

[hooligan]

 

[Cope]

That's an answer to a question that I didn't ask.
If you guys want to pretend that Trump didn't base a large portion of his campaign on prices! and criminal illegals! be my guest. Doesn't change the facts though.

You asked what happens with the price of goods.
They go up of course. There is some sort of sharing of the cost burden but undoubtedly they go up.

Tax increases are need in order to pay for our bloated government spending. I, for one, am glad that we will get a chance to pay down the deficit.
I don't give a shit what Trump campaigned on, or how this might hurt him if spun correctly, as I didn't and wouldn't vote for him.

If 'you guys' would focus less on how trump hurt your feelings, and pretend to care about the people NOW, after giving them all the finger by the failed policies, be my guest.

 

[hooligan]

 

[TangoNoCash]

Is the CBO lying to us?

Have they lied to us before?

That is really a rhetorical question i suppose because we all know they have (not intentionally of course) but simply because of what they are asked to use/and how to score things result in misleading the people.

I’m not saying they won’t collect that money. I’m saying it won’t be used to pay down the national debt.

 

[upsideguy]

Don't the upper class have to pay too?

To a much smaller extent as wealthy people have a much smaller part of their income on consumption, where the poorest among us spend nearly 100% of their income on consumption. This is way tariffs are a regressive tax.

 

[BabaVoss]

Trump is lying when he says "the money is flowing in". Money its NOT "flowing in", it is already here.

US consumers will pay these tariff costs.
Saying this is money "flowing in" is like moving money from your savings account to your checking and thinking you have more money.
Incredibly stupid.

The CBO analysis does not take into account the negative impact of rising costs due to the inflation inducing tariffs.
Tariffs will weaken the economy, risks recession, and will likely shrink the overall size of the US economy as a result.

Reality will take precedence over this seemingly endless fantasy that trump somehow knows what the hell he is doing.

.

 

[Cork]

You asked what happens with the price of goods.
They go up of course. There is some sort of sharing of the cost burden but undoubtedly they go up.

Tax increases are need in order to pay for our bloated government spending. I, for one, am glad that we will get a chance to pay down the deficit.
I don't give a shit what Trump campaigned on, or how this might hurt him if spun correctly, as I didn't and wouldn't vote for him.

If 'you guys' would focus less on how trump hurt your feelings, and pretend to care about the people NOW, after giving them all the finger by the failed policies, be my guest.

I don't understand this whole post. What failed policies failed the people that people cheer for? Be specific.

If you're concern about the debt why are you happy about tariffs? It's the worst way to tax people. It's also weird that some Republicans or conservatives are happy about this now when all my life I have to hear about how shitty higher taxes are.

 

[Jay59]

I don't understand this whole post. What failed policies failed the people that people cheer for? Be specific.

If you're concern about the debt why are you happy about tariffs? It's the worst way to tax people. It's also weird that some Republicans or conservatives are happy about this now when all my life I have to hear about how shitty higher taxes are.

That statement needs support.

 

[Cope]

I’m not saying they won’t collect that money. I’m saying it won’t be used to pay down the national debt.

I'm not in the know of what fund those would go into.

 

[Cope]

I don't understand this whole post. What failed policies failed the people that people cheer for? Be specific.

Democrat party focuses/pushes like social justice. Green Energy. Putting forth candidates that don't resonate with people. In the general.

If you're concern about the debt why are you happy about tariffs? It's the worst way to tax people. It's also weird that some Republicans or conservatives are happy about this now when all my life I have to hear about how shitty higher taxes are.

I'm always concerned about the debt. I am concerned that my kids, and their kids will get saddled with it.
"Worst" is a subjective measure.
Why do people always try to distill things into a binary choice?

I can be against tariffs in general, but FOR the paying down our debt. I tire of the overspending government always kicking the can down the road.
I do want lower taxes. I want less government involvement, and less overall spending.

So step 1: If you want to understand, stop making things a approve/disapprove when life is one big shade of grey.

 

[Cork]

That statement needs support.

When someone don't have much money to spend, making them spend more on goods makes poor people lives more difficult.

Why do you want to burden poor people more when you can tax richer people and it won't affect how they live at all.

 

[Cork]

Democrat party focuses/pushes like social justice. Green Energy. Putting forth candidates that don't resonate with people. In the general.

I'm always concerned about the debt. I am concerned that my kids, and their kids will get saddled with it.
"Worst" is a subjective measure.
Why do people always try to distill tings into a binary choice?

I can be against tariffs in general, but FOR the paying down our debt. I tire of the overspending government always kicking the can down the road.
I do want lower taxes. I want less government involvement, and less overall spending.

So step 1: If you want to understand, stop making things a approve/disapprove when life is one big shade of grey.

It's not grey at all. It's black and white that tariffs is the worst way to tax people.

I'm not gonna get into why you think social justice and green energy failed people. Those are grey areas where you think it's bad.

 

[eohrnberger]

Trump's tariffs will reduce the deficit by $4 trillion, but thats over the 2025-2035 period.
This according to the Congressional Budget Office (CB), which is not thought to be a friend of Republican presidents or Congress.

MORNING GLORY: Are President Trump’s tariffs actually working?

Maybe, just maybe, we free marketeers ought to consider that perhaps, Trump has been right about tariffs and America’s strength relative to that of our trading partners.

www.foxnews.com

The projected U.S. national debt is expected to rise to 120% of GDP by 2035, which translates to approximately $53 trillion. This increase is due to ongoing budget deficits and rising interest costs.​

An August 2025 Budget Baseline | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

2025-08-20-The enactment of the

www.crfb.org

US debt set to surge to 120% of GDP as federal deficits spiral over next decade under new projections

A new analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget shows that federal deficits and the national debt are expected to grow at a faster pace over the next 10 years.

www.foxbusiness.com

$4T of $53T is a 7.5% reduction in debt.

Whether that's significant enough reduction of the debt, or fast enough reduction of the debt to avoid the terrible financial consequences THIS becomes the real question, doesn't it?

 

[Cope]

It's not grey at all. It's black and white that tariffs is the worst way to tax people.

I'm not gonna get into why you think social justice and green energy failed people. Those are grey areas where you think it's bad.

It was bad enough that they voted Trump to be President.

That really is all the argument needed. That's bad.

 

[Yes_Minister]

The projected U.S. national debt is expected to rise to 120% of GDP by 2035, which translates to approximately $53 trillion. This increase is due to ongoing budget deficits and rising interest costs.​

An August 2025 Budget Baseline | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

2025-08-20-The enactment of the

www.crfb.org

US debt set to surge to 120% of GDP as federal deficits spiral over next decade under new projections

A new analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget shows that federal deficits and the national debt are expected to grow at a faster pace over the next 10 years.

www.foxbusiness.com

$4T of $53T is a 7.5% reduction in debt.

Whether that's significant enough reduction of the debt, or fast enough reduction of the debt to avoid the terrible financial consequences THIS becomes the real question, doesn't it?

Why didn't Trump reduce the debt in his first administration, what is different now?

 

[lynnwinslow]

You asked what happens with the price of goods.
They go up of course.

Good to know that your replies aren't completely delusional.

There is some sort of sharing of the cost burden but undoubtedly they go up.

Tax increases are need in order to pay for our bloated government spending. I, for one, am glad that we will get a chance to pay down the deficit.
I don't give a shit what Trump campaigned on, or how this might hurt him if spun correctly, as I didn't and wouldn't vote for him.

If 'you guys' would focus less on how trump hurt your feelings, and pretend to care about the people NOW, after giving them all the finger by the failed policies, be my guest.

Oops, disregard the observation above.

 

[mrjurrs]

Trump's tariffs will reduce the deficit by $4 trillion, but thats over the 2025-2035 period.
This according to the Congressional Budget Office (CB), which is not thought to be a friend of Republican presidents or Congress.

MORNING GLORY: Are President Trump’s tariffs actually working?

Maybe, just maybe, we free marketeers ought to consider that perhaps, Trump has been right about tariffs and America’s strength relative to that of our trading partners.

www.foxnews.com

Right.
Remember how much his tariffs reduced the debt in his firs term?

I hope not.
AI
"During Trump's first term, U.S. tariff revenues increased significantly due to new tariffs on imported goods, but these costs were largely passed on to consumers through higher prices. Farmers faced significant hardship from retaliatory tariffs, particularly on agricultural exports like soybeans, leading the Trump administration to provide billions in aid to farmers to offset these losses."

 

[element94]

Trump's tariffs will reduce deficit by $4 trillion​

And pigs have been spotted flying.

 

[Cope]

Good to know that your replies aren't completely delusional.

Oops, disregard the observation above.

You responded to say ...



nothing?

 

[hooligan]

The projected U.S. national debt is expected to rise to 120% of GDP by 2035, which translates to approximately $53 trillion. This increase is due to ongoing budget deficits and rising interest costs.​

An August 2025 Budget Baseline | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

2025-08-20-The enactment of the

www.crfb.org

US debt set to surge to 120% of GDP as federal deficits spiral over next decade under new projections

A new analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget shows that federal deficits and the national debt are expected to grow at a faster pace over the next 10 years.

www.foxbusiness.com

$4T of $53T is a 7.5% reduction in debt.

Whether that's significant enough reduction of the debt, or fast enough reduction of the debt to avoid the terrible financial consequences THIS becomes the real question, doesn't it?

That $53T already includes the tariff revenue, no?

...CRFB published an updated budget baseline as of August 2025 that incorporates the enactment of Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) along with the Trump administration's new framework for tariffs to account for legislative and administrative changes, though it doesn't include economic changes...

 

[lynnwinslow]

You responded to say ...



nothing?

Why should I bother responding with a seriously reply? So I can wade through more ad homs and logical fallacies? No thanks.

 

[Cope]

Why should I bother responding with a seriously reply? So I can wade through more ad homs and logical fallacies? No thanks.

So again, nothing?

As you ad hom.

 

[Jay59]

When someone don't have much money to spend, making them spend more on goods makes poor people lives more difficult.

This does not make it the worst possible tax.

Why do you want to burden poor people more when you can tax richer people and it won't affect how they live at all.

You are taxing richer people.

Your opinion is noted but it seems unsupported.