Rand Paul: Trump's tariffs will hurt Americans...

[acptulsa]

It's the right way to reduce spending and the debt, and it will restore our economy.

You heard it here first, folks. Increasing spending and debt is the right way to reduce both, and inflation is good for the economy.

Wait, we didn't hear it here first. That's just liberal Modern Monetary Theory. We heard it there first.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You heard it here first, folks. Increasing spending and debt is the right way to reduce both, and inflation is good for the economy.

Wait, we didn't hear it here first. That's just liberal Modern Monetary Theory. We heard it there first.

The right way is tariffs, reduced direct taxation on Americans, and reduced spending.

Lying about what I advocate for, and what Trump is pushing that Rand is opposing won't do you any good.

 

[TheTexan]

When? Where? Is that what you call giving tax breaks to corporations for outsourcing and offshoring?

Also, just to point out the obvious, there isn't any explicit tax breaks in the tax code for outsourcing. So, if you wanted to tax this behavior, it would be basically a new tax. And if you're going to make a new tax anyway, why not a tariff?

 

[acptulsa]

Lying about what I advocate for, and what Trump is pushing that Rand is opposing won't do you any good.

Lying about it isn't doing you any good. Not even when you lie to yourself about it so you can be more convincing.

 

[tebowlives]

Things will be worse for Americans if the bill isn't passed.
The debt will not be meaningfully less, Americans will pay a greater share of the taxation/inflation total, and spending will be higher.

Here is a good take/explanation on it. Not too long. A lot of moving parts

 

[acptulsa]

Also, just to point out the obvious, there isn't any explicit tax breaks in the tax code for outsourcing.

In what country?

I guess it all depends on whether your definition of 'explicit' bears any resemblance whatsoever to the definition of 'obvious'...

 

[Swordsmyth]

Here is a good take/explanation on it. Not too long. A lot of moving parts

So, you and Rand object to (quotes from the thread)

save $500B over a decade.

cutting $4B per day. At that pace, they’d shave off $1 trillion by end of Sep 25 (if not May).

offering some near-term relief.Tax cuts have already been floated to help offset the cost burden on households.

Don’t forget: tariffs also bring in revenue.Estimates suggest they could raise over $700 million within the first year.That’s not a game-changer on its own, but it gives the Treasury a bit more room to maneuver—especially if paired with deficit cuts.

So here’s the big picture: → Lower yields ease the debt wall → Spending cuts restore fiscal discipline → Tariffs jumpstart domestic growth → And geopolitics gets rewritten in America’s favor

And also to getting rid of the income tax by replacing it with tariffs?


Did you even read the thread?
You are making my case for me.

 

[TheTexan]

In what country?

I guess it all depends on whether your definition of 'explicit' bears any resemblance whatsoever to the definition of 'obvious'...

Either way, whatever you're suggesting would be a tax increase. Which is what most people who are against tariffs, are generally against. If you're against tariffs, but for tax increases, that just seems like an odd combination.

 

[acptulsa]

If you're against tariffs, but for tax increases...

...you're obviously selective about which tax increases you favor.

And if you're against inflation and inflationary borrowing, but for tax increases, you're obviously selective about which tax increases you favor.

I'm against all three. All three are tax increases. Put them in a Venn diagram and two of the circles are contained entirely within the third. I'm not in favor of any of them.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Either way, whatever you're suggesting would be a tax increase. Which is what most people who are against tariffs, are generally against. If you're against tariffs, but for tax increases, that just seems like an odd combination.

It's what benefits the Chamber of Commerce at the expense of the American people.

 

[TheTexan]

...you're obviously selective about which tax increases you favor.

And if you're against inflation and inflationary borrowing, but for tax increases, you're obviously selective about which tax increases you favor.

Yes, I'm extremely selective about which tax increases I favor. Most people see that as a good thing.

 

[acptulsa]

Yes, I'm extremely selective about which tax increases I favor.

I'm not, yet I oppose more of them than you do.

 

[TheTexan]

I'm not, yet I oppose more of them than you do.

I doubt it. I don't even support tariffs. I support trade bans.

Tariffs are a half measure.

The only way I support tariffs is if income tax is eradicated.

 

[Madison320]

They'll all be on his side when he turns out to be right.

You know you will too.

They'll all be on his side when he turns out to be right.

You know you will too.

I can't believe half the members of this forum think a massive tax hike is going fix our economy. This won't age well.

 

[acptulsa]

Inflation is a tax, but it is a slower indirect tax that also happens to hit the rest of the world, and that reduces the damage to Americans.

Slower and indirect don't count and the main thing you want to export is pain.

And when we no longer are the home base for the world's reserve currency it all comes tumbling down.

You can't see past next week.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Slower and indirect don't count and the main thing you want to export is pain.

And when we no longer are the home base for the world's reserve currency it all comes tumbling down.

You can't see past next week.

Utter nonsense.

 

[tebowlives]

So, you and Rand object to (quotes from the thread)



And also to getting rid of the income tax by replacing it with tariffs?


Did you even read the thread?
You are making my case for me.

Of course I read the thread nenard. Did you even read my response or are you too busy trying to be right?
My obvious point >>> many moving parts and it's an interesting read

Where's the proof the income tax will be lowered? I'll wait.

 

[CCTelander]

 

[spudea]

I am Stephen Miller!

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The Senate took an initial vote Thursday to advance a budget blueprint for enacting President Trump’s agenda, with all but one Republican unifying around the outline for sweeping tax and spending cuts.

Ultimately, only one Republican, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, could not be swayed to support it.

Thursday’s procedural test vote advanced, 52-48.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/apr/3/senate-republicans-minus-rand-paul-coalesce-around-budget-plan/

Senate Republicans, minus one, coalesce around budget plan

The Senate took an initial vote Thursday to advance a budget blueprint for enacting President Trump’s agenda, with all but one Republican unifying around the outline for sweeping tax and spending cuts.

www.washingtontimes.com

From the article:

"Fiscal hawks were worried the blueprint would not provide adequate guarantees the budget reconciliation bill it sets up will cut deep into federal spending...
...
Fiscal hawks were worried the blueprint would not provide adequate guarantees the budget reconciliation bill it sets up will cut deep into federal spending.
...
He predicted Republicans will ultimately find trillions of dollars in spending to cut but that they need flexibility to ensure they can get enough votes to pass the bill.

“We’ll cut spending until you run out of votes,” Mr. Graham said.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, Louisiana Republican, worried the budget blueprint did not call for enough spending reductions to pay for the tax increases it would allow. He does not buy into the “current policy” baseline Senate Republicans are using to exempt the cost of extending tax cuts that are already in law, but voted to advance the budget nonetheless.
...
Fiscal hawks agreed to back the budget based on commitments the reconciliation package will include the trillions in cuts needed to reduce federal spending to pre-pandemic levels.
...
Sen. Rick Scott, Florida Republican, also said the president’s personal commitment to reduce spending to pre-pandemic levels pushed him to support the budget plan.

“I like what the president is saying. I like what [Majority Leader John] Thune is saying; he’s committed to pre-pandemic levels,” he told The Times."

...

"sweeping tax and spending cuts."

LOL. There will be no sweeping spending cuts. That is a bald faced lie from the usual suspects. Rand is right, although Bill Cassidy may have made the more politically prudent vote. It passed anyway, so there was room for Rand to make his point.

And there were no cuts in this vote. It was purely procedural. The GOP establishment will hide behind the ten year threshold. "Sure, it will raise spending for 9 years, but just wait until that 10th year!"