Trump 2025

Quote: GenoDRPh

(1) Your point about paying as much as 10 families? That's irrelevant, What's relevant is were paying as much as 1 SooPoo.

(2) Do you have any comment about the deficits and the Federal debt ballooning more under previous GOP post-war Presidents than under post-war Democratic Presidents? Do you have any comment about the US economy since World War II consistently doing better under Democratic presidents than under Republican presidents? Do you have any comment about the CBO scoring of the Big Beautiful Bill, with the CBO estimating that Public Law 119-21 will result in a net increase in the unified budget deficit totaling $3.4 trillion over the 2025-2034 period?

So please tell us more about how Democrats' economic policy is to just let the deficit explode, when the last President to have a balanced Federal budget, elimination of the Federal deficit AND lowered the Federal debt was under Bill Clinton, a Democrat? Please tell us all about how the national debt to GDP ratio has done better under Democratic Presidents than GOP Presidents since 1974?

Tell us more, and prove what you say isn't more of your conservative lies about the economy.

(3) If gas taxes were allocated to what they were supposed to do, which is maintaining roads and transportation infrastructure, there'd by no problem. As an aside, here in MA, boat fuel is exempt from gas tax. Win-win!

You want to know about the budget under Clinton? It had deficits as far as the eye could see until the Gingrich congress said “no.”


The “while Democrats ate in office” thing is a joke. Lots of Democrat good and GOP bad is hangover from the previous party policies. Clinton benefited from Reagan-Bush policies and Reagan winning the Cold War. Nixon-Ford bad was hangover from the disaster that was LBJ. Nixon took us off the gold standard yes but because by the time he go lt to office there was no choice. Then a Democrat Congress set the budget on autopilot, guaranteeing deficits forever.

Trump federalized DC. Broken window policing coming soon!


This will be a blueprint for red state governors with blue city problems.

Liberals are already screaming about laws being enforced. First sign that things will work.

DC quality of life getting so good it votes red? Too much to hope for most likely, but who knows?!

Quote: AZDuffman

You want to know about the budget under Clinton? It had deficits as far as the eye could see

Uhhh...

per google AI:

" Bill Clinton's presidency saw the United States achieve a federal budget surplus
. In fact, the last four budgets of the Clinton administration (fiscal years 1998-2001) marked the first time in over 70 years that the U.S. had four consecutive years of budget surpluses.
Here's a breakdown of the key elements that contributed to this:

1993 Deficit Reduction Plan: President Clinton enacted this plan, which included over $500 billion in deficit reduction, without a single Republican vote.
Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997: This bipartisan agreement aimed to eliminate the national budget deficit, and included middle-class tax relief and investments in education and healthcare programs.
Fiscal discipline and spending cuts: Under Clinton, federal spending as a share of the economy declined to its lowest point in decades.
A booming economy and increased revenue: The economy experienced strong growth during this period, fueled in part by a tech boom. Higher tax rates for the wealthy, coupled with the flourishing economy, led to increased tax revenue.

The budget surplus peaked at $236 billion in 2000 and allowed the U.S. to pay down over $450 billion of the national debt. It is important to note that the achievement of a balanced budget was a complex outcome resulting from a combination of policy choices and economic factors during the Clinton administration. "

Quote: missedhervee

Uhhh...

per google AI:

" Bill Clinton's presidency saw the United States achieve a federal budget surplus
. In fact, the last four budgets of the Clinton administration (fiscal years 1998-2001) marked the first time in over 70 years that the U.S. had four consecutive years of budget surpluses.
Here's a breakdown of the key elements that contributed to this:

Uh, his deficits were projected huge. Then Newt came and put him in line. It was not Clinton's plan in the least. He just took credit for it when things went right. Then he refused to cut taxes when we had a surplus.

Some of us here are old enough to remember it all.

Quote: AZDuffman

Uh, his deficits were projected huge. Then Newt came and put him in line. It was not Clinton's plan in the least. He just took credit for it when things went right. Then he refused to cut taxes when we had a surplus.

Some of us here are old enough to remember it all.

Oh?

Why then were there no surpluses in the following republican administrations it they're so frugal and public-spirted?

Quote: missedhervee

Oh?

Why then were there no surpluses in the following republican administrations it they're so frugal and public-spirted?

Well, there was this little thing called 9/11 that caused need for spending increases. Also the dotcom bubble bursting deflated the economy as well.

For those of us who lived thru and remember it I can say it was not a good time.

Sorry, but I cannot credit the republicans for having a surplus in Clinton's admin: credit to Bill, not Newt.

per google AI:

"Surpluses were attributed to a combination of factors:


Economic Growth: A booming economy, significantly driven by the rise of the internet and technology sector (the dot-com bubble), led to increased tax revenues.
Tax Increases: The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, often referred to as the "Clinton tax increases," raised taxes on high-income earners and corporations, further boosting government revenue.
Spending Restraint: The Clinton administration and Congress implemented policies to control government spending, especially in defense following the end of the Cold War. This included the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

In essence, a combination of a strong economy leading to higher tax receipts, coupled with deliberate policies to raise taxes on the wealthy and control spending, contributed to the budget surpluses during the Clinton administration. "

Quote: SOOPOO

Dr.SOOPOO, during the BIDEN administration, bought an expensive ring on a trip to Greece. Upon coming home, the BIDEN administration charged me a TARIFF to get it back home. Oh wait, they called it a ‘duty’ so it’s ok.

To be clear, I am not saying I am in favor of Trump’s proposed usurious tariffs, but how about this….. ‘I am going to levy a 2% tariff on all goods coming from abroad, with ALL of that money being used directly for border security measures’.

Huge difference between tarriffs and duties. For one thing, duties tend to have a minimum value per purchase. For example you are not paying a duty on a fridge magnet you purchased in Greece. You may have to agree to pay a duty on a 10K ring or whatever the case is...

I have not looked carefully into it, but I am not aware of Biden changing duties when before he was President, so whatever you paid was likely designed by Trump. So the whole Biden thing is political misdirection. (Edit: A quick google search seems to confirm that he only made changes to duties as far as increases for products purchases is when visiting China, so unless you took a day trip to China for the ring, it is unlikely Biden being President had any impact. In fact a further google search indicates your purchase would be even more expensive under Trump because he actually increased more than his last term even... So you really are ranting about Biden duties for literally no reason, it literally would have been more if Trump won in 2020...)

As far as 2% for border security, that wouldn't be bad, but the tarriffs are way above 2%, and by the way things are going, will likely be even higher... But, tarriffs are more so products being commercially sold here, not so much you going on vacation to buy expensive jewelry to bring back...

Quote: missedhervee

Sorry, but I cannot credit the republicans for having a surplus in Clinton's admin: credit to Bill, not Newt.

per google AI:

"Surpluses were attributed to a combination of factors:


Economic Growth: A booming economy, significantly driven by the rise of the internet and technology sector (the dot-com bubble), led to increased tax revenues.
Tax Increases: The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, often referred to as the "Clinton tax increases," raised taxes on high-income earners and corporations, further boosting government revenue.
Spending Restraint: The Clinton administration and Congress implemented policies to control government spending, especially in defense following the end of the Cold War. This included the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

In essence, a combination of a strong economy leading to higher tax receipts, coupled with deliberate policies to raise taxes on the wealthy and control spending, contributed to the budget surpluses during the Clinton administration. "

The only reason for the spending restraint was the GOP congress. Instead of using AI some of us use our own I and memories of the actual time.

Quote: Gandler

Huge difference between tarriffs and duties. For one thing, duties tend to have a minimum value per purchase. For example you are not paying a duty on a fridge magnet you purchased in Greece. You may have to agree to pay a duty on a 10K ring or whatever the case is...

Not really, either is a tax to bring things into the country. Difference is a "duty" is what you pay as an individual to bring things you bought usually while on holiday while a tariff is what is paid by an importer.

For example, you can bring a set amount of booze in from duty free shops. If you bring in more, you are supposed to pay a duty. If you stop at duty free coming back from Canada they alert USA customs you are coming. They generally will not even allow you to buy more than is exempt.

Meanwhile, the truck bringing in a trailer of beer subject to tariff has to pay on each case. In reality it is probably pre-cleared an sealed so he can pass by with minimal delay, but figuratively he pays per case at the border.