Trumpet
Verified User
You are using the Stoney Baloney losers tactic, because you're just not smart enough to post anything that is worthwhile.
Trump tariffs create budget surplus
- Thread starter T. A. Gardner
- Start date
It's being paid by the importer and then passed on to the consumer.
If the ruling that the tariffs are illegal is upheld then the money will be returned to the importer of record and the consumer will likely see no refund.
ThatOwlWoman
Not Nice
My apologies, it was @Poor Richard Saunders who described the temporary surpluses due to quarterly tax payments.
Whatever little business education Trump managed to squeak out was over half a century ago. Almost all economists agree that tariffs do more harm than good to the economy. But he knows more than them. *eyeroll*
LurchAddams
There Can be Only One!
He's starting to make sense. But you're right, it's likely it's short-lived.
The fucking irony here is beyond reason. But it did give me a long, healthy laugh.
Thanks, Toby. You always come through with something funny.
Schooling lesson for today:
If you are going to talk about someone being vile, insulting, and deranged...you gotta tone it own a notch or three.
Really!
Well, the OP article says that we have a surplus in a month we normally would not... Which means someone is paying tariffs, this could not happen unless your "always chickens out" is simple misinformation for simple minds.
I agree that the debt is absurdly high, the only way to pay off the debt is growth though, the percentage of growth must be above the inflation rate or we just lose ground.
The idea that we can magically take every dime from Elon and we'd pay the debt is absurd, the "top 1%" own about 5 Trillion of "stuff", 33 Trillion in debt would hardly be dented.
I do like the idea of growth in AI and "green" technology, just not to the detriment of other technology and without the instant negative judgement on Nuclear power and not solely through government grants/investment. The feasibility of this technology always resides with the cost, we should not hide the cost with government supplements convincing idiots that it's "cheaper" and "self-sustaining" when it hasn't reached that level yet. When the cost to the environment is a net positive from a windmill everyone will want one, hiding that it isn't cost effective with subsidies is IMHO, unethical.
I say this as a person who installed solar power knowing that it would take 30 years to pay back the installation, with a technology that lasts about 20 years. I did it not to save the world, but so that I have power when the power "collective" we have in this area once again fails to keep the power on...
Anyway... Agree. Debt is bad. However, this thread is about the fact that we are collecting money from tariffs, and that the month of June had a surplus because of this, which tells me that someone didn't "always chicken out".
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Godwin's law violation.
They are well documented.
LBJ: The President Who Marked His Territory
Here, we're choosing to remember Lyndon B. Johnson not by the many political wheels he set into motion, but by the stuff he kept by his side—and close to his heart.
www.mentalfloss.com
Why The Kennedys Couldn't Stand Lyndon B. Johnson - Grunge
During the first two years of Kennedy's administration, the Kennedy family were concerned about Lyndon B. Johnson in the Oval Office.
www.grunge.com
Three New Revelations About LBJ
The author of an about-to-be-published biography of Lyndon Johnson shares some of what he has learned
www.theatlantic.com
Did LBJ Say 'I'll Have Those N*****s Voting Democratic for 200 Years'?
A viral quote attributed to LBJ since the 1990s features the 36th president uttering the N-word and stating a cynical motive for his civil rights stance.
www.snopes.com
The most vulgar American president ever? It sure as #$@!%* isn't Donald Trump
How repulsive was Lyndon B. Johnson? Contact with him put one at risk of encountering a profane spectacle of burping, farting and crotch-scratching
nationalpost.com
'Lady Bird' Details Lyndon Johnson's Dark Side
Lyndon B. Johnson was moody, depressive, lecherous and lusty. He was crass and ill-mannered. He adored his wife, but he wasn't always nice to her. This is a portrait of a classic 1950s wife who loved…
www.oklahoman.com
Yes, he did. Up to that point the number of US troops in Vietnam numbered in the hundreds and they were all there as instructors and advisors, not in combat roles. That was true for both Eisenhower and Kennedy. LBJ used the lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident to send in tens of thousands of troops and open up a ground and air war.
Yes, he did. See the above links for starters.
As for the Great Society:
The Forgotten Failures of the Great Society
Amity Shlaes has written a powerful book. It is the most interesting and substantive account of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon’s “war on poverty” to date — and just in time. In Great Society: A New History, she notes that “just as the 1960s forgot the failures of the 1930s, we today forget the...
manhattan.institute
The Failure of LBJ's Great Society and What It Means for the 21st Century
In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson announced his plans for what he called "the Great Society," a sweeping set of programs…
reason.com
How Lyndon Johnson Failed to Make a 'Great Society'
The State clearly knew best what "these" people really needed for them to have some minimum form of a "decent life."
www.newsweek.com
The Failure of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society
Massive failure may be an understatement.
The climax of that failure came with the infamous Watts riots.
I showed clearly in the above links it was. LBJ was both dismissive and hateful towards Blacks. He regularly called them the N word usually with some vulgarities tossed in.
He's not "...destroy(ing) our Republic." Now, for recent attempts look no further than Biden's open borders policies. Sure the Biden administration denied that was the case, but all the evidence points to exactly that.
Tom Homan Accuses Biden Admin Of 'Lying' About Properly Vetting After MS-13 Kingpin's Capture
Border czar Tom Homan accused former President Joe Biden's administration of lying about properly vetting illegal immigrants.
dailycaller.com
Tom Homan ‘convinced’ US will see major terror attack because of Biden’s lax border policies: ‘It’s coming’
“This scares the hell out of me and I’ve been doing this for 40 years. It should have scared the hell out of every American what the Biden administration did.”
nypost.com
MAGA celebrates arrest of top MS-13 leader: "Tom Homan is a superstar"
The suspect is one of the top three MS-13 gang leaders in the U.S., according to Attorney General Pam Bondi.
www.newsweek.com
ICE captures alleged MS-3 kingpin, with associate also in custody
WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 10: Trump administration "border czar" Tom Homan talks with reporters outside the White House on July 10, 2025 in Washington, DC. Homan answered a range of questions related to border security and immigration enforcement actions. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
thenationaldesk.com
Biden more than doubled the population of criminal aliens in the US in just four years. He let in an unknown number of likely terrorists along with the criminals. That is purely an attempted destruction of our society.
Nor am I. That would be nice, but Trump is a "bulldozer" personality. We just have to put up with that for the next three and a half years. Also, in politics, always remember, nice guys finish last.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Never.
Tobytone
Verified User
So, Rossy the Biden is back at it, pudding time is over. I'm starting to get it now, cranking up the font size, slapping on some bold for flair, tossing in a weak “irony” claim, and faking a chuckle is what you, a two-time letter-to-the-editor hack, call schooling me. Hilarious, I’m actually laughing, no acting required, unlike your pathetic performance.
I’m still waiting for a shred of wit to back up that inflated ego you keep bragging about. Remember? First, it was two letters to Newsweek, then you magically bumped it to 200, and what, a Pulitzer thrown in for kicks? I bet your wife or 'partner' mistook two inches for eight in for a long time too.
Also, I love the new “fucking” in your rant to toughen up the libtard image. Taking cues from your party’s playbook, huh? Thinking a few four-letter words will herd the brain-dead sheep back into the fold? Very cute. Let me play, thanks for the world-class schooling, you fucking fossilized, senile windbag, I’m dying from your fucking elusive brilliance over here. LOL Did I sound tougher like you did?? What a dumbass.
Tbird19482
Verified User
Here do some reading and learn something.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Thanks. Not a business guy, but I do understand trends. If it becomes a trend, then good.
Disagreed about "the only way". While I voted for Reagan twice and agreed with him that constantly taxing the rich wasn't the best solution, after 45 years, it's clear GHW Bush was correct about "Voodoo economics". In short, we need a balance between taxes and cutting costs. It's one thing to cut the fat, but Republicans have been whacking at meat and bone for over a decade and all we see is the rich get richer and the national debt keeps rising. What's wrong with this picture?
Nobody attacks the spending. Even when the budget was "balanced" for four years running by Newt and the GOP congress during Clinton's term they simply stole from Social Security (that lockbox was not locked) and pretended that taking it from the right pocket and leaving IOUs for Social Security later was fiscally responsible.
We will have to balance, some things like later retirement for young kids coming into the market are going to have to hit our radar. We cannot have a welfare economy and invite all comers to the US either, if you do both you will bankrupt yourself.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
You can claim it but it doesn't make it true.Here do some reading and learn something.
Is It ‘Irrefutable’ That The Economy Performs Better Under Democrats?
A discussion that elevates neither side, and not because policy doesn’t matter.
www.forbes.com
Does the economy always do better under Democratic presidents?
Hillary Clinton talked big about the economy, including raising the minimum wage and equal pay for women, at a rally ahe
www.politifact.com
Your claim only has some--some--validity when discussing presidents. When discussing parties, the picture is much more of one that Democrats lead to economic disaster.
The Historical Puzzle of US Economic Performance under Democrats vs. Republicans
We have heard much about the puzzle that US economic performance under President Joe Biden has been much stronger than voters perceive it to be. But the current episode is just one instance of a bigger historical puzzle: the US economy has since World War II consistently done better under...
Tbird19482
Verified User
I am NOT the one calming it I posted links that say it does.You can claim it but it doesn't make it true.
Is It ‘Irrefutable’ That The Economy Performs Better Under Democrats?
A discussion that elevates neither side, and not because policy doesn’t matter.
Does the economy always do better under Democratic presidents?
Hillary Clinton talked big about the economy, including raising the minimum wage and equal pay for women, at a rally ahe
Your claim only has some--some--validity when discussing presidents. When discussing parties, the picture is much more of one that Democrats lead to economic disaster.
The Historical Puzzle of US Economic Performance under Democrats vs. Republicans
We have heard much about the puzzle that US economic performance under President Joe Biden has been much stronger than voters perceive it to be. But the current episode is just one instance of a bigger historical puzzle: the US economy has since World War II consistently done better under...www.belfercenter.org
Take some time and read them.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Again, not a business guy, but if the books aren't balanced then those in charge should balance them. For most families that means raising revenue and/or cutting costs. I fail to see why our government is any different.
Agreed on not having a welfare economy nor inviting "all comers" to the US, but closing the doors to low income workers is not the answer either. The reason your kids are going to have to retire in their 80s or whenever is because the nation is growing older and lacks younger workers to fill the labor force. This is a problem seen in all highly industrialized nations. The White Nationalist answer is to ban abortion and encourage white people to have more babies. IMO, that's a stupid and short-sighted solution.
The government relies on idiots to vote for them who refuse to accept any "lower" amount from their "entitlements". Even with me mentioning a later retirement for some folks in the workforce (folks live waaay longer than when SS was instituted, we need to adjust)... you will find some folks think that I want to "push grandma off a cliff", they'll run ads, idiots will believe them and vote for folks that refuse to adjust any spending... And rinse and repeat.
Tbird19482
Verified User
Well according to this and the other links the Dems are better for our economy.You can claim it but it doesn't make it true.
Is It ‘Irrefutable’ That The Economy Performs Better Under Democrats?
A discussion that elevates neither side, and not because policy doesn’t matter.
Does the economy always do better under Democratic presidents?
Hillary Clinton talked big about the economy, including raising the minimum wage and equal pay for women, at a rally ahe
Your claim only has some--some--validity when discussing presidents. When discussing parties, the picture is much more of one that Democrats lead to economic disaster.
The Historical Puzzle of US Economic Performance under Democrats vs. Republicans
We have heard much about the puzzle that US economic performance under President Joe Biden has been much stronger than voters perceive it to be. But the current episode is just one instance of a bigger historical puzzle: the US economy has since World War II consistently done better under...
And another fact is Trump is one of the very few Presidents to leave office with LESS people working then when he took office.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Democracy sucks? LOL
I think one reason why those on the Left think those on the Right want to push Granny off a cliff is because those on the Right are enriching themselves at the cost of Granny. Trickle down economics doesn't work.
While there's a valid point about people living longer, I don't consider the life expectancy of 74 in 1980 to be "waaay longer" than the life expectancy of 80 in 2025. The current age of full retirement benefits is 67. What age do you want to raise it to for your kids? Do you want them to work until 70 or 75 to collect medicare too thereby forcing them to work simply for medical benefits?
U.S. Life Expectancy (1950-2025)
Life expectancy at birth indicates the number of years a newborn infant would live if prevailing patterns of mortality at the time of its birth were to stay the same throughout its life.
www.macrotrends.net
Social Security Age of Retirement (specific to birth year) – Social Security Intelligence
www.socialsecurityintelligence.com
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
So? One link is not the be-all, end-all, of the subject. I read your link. "Presidents." That doesn't mean parties. The Democrats are far worse for the economy by party. That's what counts. What you are doing is a cherry-picking fallacy. Presidents do not, by themselves, determine what the federal budget is. They don't get to create legislation and new bureaucracy out of thin air for the most part. That means what counts in this discussion is PARTIES. And it is the Democrats on the whole that bust budgets and create huge new deficits. Republicans do it too but not on the scale and longevity that Democrats do.
Social-welfare programs have gone from nothing to almost two-thirds of the US federal budget, and nearly all of those programs were created by Democrats. Those programs are also off limits to budget cuts, and many have automatic spending increases "for inflation..." built in.
