5 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

You mean we know we are getting a jackass? I fully agree.

Beyond that we have no idea. Trump has no plan and no principles. It is all by the seat of his pants with a 100% on him.

He's a chaos agent for sure.

6 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

You mean we know we are getting a jackass? I fully agree.

Beyond that we have no idea. Trump has no plan and no principles. It is all by the seat of his pants with a 100% focus on him.

I'm not sure about principals, but it seems to me that he is doing exactly what he said he was going to do. Close the border, use tariffs as a way to bring in new revenues and go after government waste...just to name a few..

12 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

lolwut? Trump tried to illegally overturn the results of the general election, submitting false slates of electors in multiple states and incited a riot at the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification, and you're gonna sit there with a straight face and act like you have any room to talk? You are an actual real life retarded person and I'm almost certainly going to hell for making fun of you on a daily basis.

And Biden tried to bankrupt and put his opponent in prison. But you had no issues with that.

2 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

And Biden tried to bankrupt and put his opponent in prison. But you had no issues with that.

Yeah, it was Biden that made Trump commit those crimes. There goes any sliver of hope of anyone taking you seriously ever again

8 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

I'm not sure about principals, but it seems to me that he is doing exactly what he said he was going to do. Close the border, use tariffs as a way to bring in new revenues and go after government waste...just to name a few..

He has no actual plan for any of those items. He’s going to succeed with one and that’s good.

14 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Yeah, it was Biden that made Trump commit those crimes. There's goes any sliver of hope of anyone taking you seriously ever again

Of course this was your response. Never change. 😂😂😂

24 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

He has no actual plan for any of those items. He’s going to succeed with one and that’s good.

Yes, the sausage making is ugly as hell. But the result often goes overlooked. For the record, I am not a fan of tariffs, I would much rather reform government spending and increase GDP to neutralize the deficit. Sadly, our political environment will not allow any common sense bipartisanship on entitlement reform, so here we are.

That being said, the tariffs (assuming they stay static) will bring in between 2 and 4 trillion dollars over the next decade. There is a dynamic offset for the negative impact of the tariffs themselves, but the revenue production still ends in a "T".

Reduction in regulations, extending the tax cuts and trade deals will stimulate growth and business onshoring which will increase government revenues. Nibbling away with Doge and reconciliatory bills chipping away at waste in entitlements will save real money if we keep at it through this, and future administrations.

Kamala's plan was simply to let the tax cuts expire. The border would still be porous, crippling business regulation would only increase, DEI insanity would metastasize and China would continue to eat our lunch. I just don't see how any of that is a better solution.

6 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

That being said, the tariffs (assuming they stay static) will bring in between 2 and 4 trillion dollars over the next decade.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Good God they're all so stupid

37 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

That being said, the tariffs (assuming they stay static) will bring in between 2 and 4 trillion dollars over the next decade. There is a dynamic offset for the negative impact of the tariffs themselves, but the revenue production still ends in a "T".

If he pushes the country into a big recession or even a depression the revenues will not matter and in fact won't be there anyway. The big picture to me is one of adding a new flat tax (tariffs) and removing the progressive aspects of the income tax. I could get behind the concept but not at the expense of killing the economy and possibly the entire stability of the western hemisphere and that really means it can't happen via tariffs.

Just now, DrPhilly said:

If he pushes the country into a big recession or even a depression the revenues will not matter and in fact won't be there anyway. The big picture to me is one of adding a new flat tax (tariffs) and removing the progressive aspects of the income tax. I could get behind the concept but not at the expense of killing the economy and possibly the entire stability of the western hemisphere and that really means it can't happen via tariffs.

The next six months will be key. If corporate earnings show significant negative impact from the tariffs, then yes...recession is possible and the whole experiment may have failed. I think more likely you will see subtle impact, but the promise of static tax rates and lowered regulations will offset most of the tariff impact. It is a high risk, high reward strategy...but I agree, that the downside could be devastating.

The problem I have with tariffs is that they hurt the little guy. Big import business like Walmart, Target and Amazon will push the cost increases back to their suppliers as much as possible. Therefore, US consumers of these brands will feel some of the impact from the tariffs, but not the full brunt. Smaller players don't have the same leverage so they will suffer and many will go under.

I'm all for a flat tax, but again you'd need 60 votes to get something like that through. Democrats have adamantly opposed it over the years, for reasons I don't really understand, and therefore it's a dead duck.

3 hours ago, The Norseman said:

The problem I have with tariffs is that they hurt the little guy.

...

I'm all for a flat tax... Democrats have adamantly opposed it over the years, for reasons I don't really understand

Hey guys, he's right.

If there's anything that's true about taxes, it's that they sure do drive consumption.

23 hours ago, The Norseman said:

The next six months will be key. If corporate earnings show significant negative impact from the tariffs, then yes...recession is possible and the whole experiment may have failed. I think more likely you will see subtle impact, but the promise of static tax rates and lowered regulations will offset most of the tariff impact. It is a high risk, high reward strategy...but I agree, that the downside could be devastating.

The problem I have with tariffs is that they hurt the little guy. Big import business like Walmart, Target and Amazon will push the cost increases back to their suppliers as much as possible. Therefore, US consumers of these brands will feel some of the impact from the tariffs, but not the full brunt. Smaller players don't have the same leverage so they will suffer and many will go under.

I'm all for a flat tax, but again you'd need 60 votes to get something like that through. Democrats have adamantly opposed it over the years, for reasons I don't really understand, and therefore it's a dead duck.

People are letting containers rot at the docks because its cheaper to pay the penalty and pray for TACO. This is already a disaster.

A USAID official and three government contractors pleaded guilty to a decade-long bribery scheme involving over $550 million in contracts, according to the Justice Department.

@The Norseman

Checking in to see how you are feeling about DOGE now three weeks on from Musk's exit. They've added 5B to their advertised savings and are WAY behind their goals. Looks like it has pretty much ground to a halt now.

2 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

@The Norseman

Checking in to see how you are feeling about DOGE now three weeks on from Musk's exit. They've added 5B to their advertised savings and are WAY behind their goals. Looks like it has pretty much ground to a halt now.

I mean, they didn't go away like all of you suggested. I have no problem with them inching along and canceling meaningless contracts, etc.

15 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

I mean, they didn't go away like all of you suggested. I have no problem with them inching along and canceling meaningless contracts, etc.

They did just what we said they would do, so far. I said, they would stop getting any perceived results and several of the young hacks would leave by the fall.

2 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

They did just what we said they would do, so far. I said, they would stop getting any perceived results and several of the young hacks would leave by the fall.

You said yourself that they just posted another $5B in savings. They are still updating their website with their activity, and by the looks of it, they are still cancelling needless grants and contracts daily.

Seems to me that nothing has changed.

Can't wait to see those savings on my taxes next year

3 hours ago, The Norseman said:

o

You said yourself that they just posted another $5B in savings. They are still updating their website with their activity, and by the looks of it, they are still cancelling needless grants and contracts daily.

Seems to me that nothing has changed.

We can wait until the final numbers are reviewed, summarized, and confirmed if that is how you'd like the discussion to go

13 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

We can wait until the final numbers are reviewed, summarized, and confirmed if that is how you'd like the discussion to go

I don't want the conversation to go anywhere. By most measures it has not been as successful as planned, I get it. But, it is ongoing, and I think the activity of rooting out and cancelling needless government spending is value added activity that should continue in perpetuity.