Trump Tariffs Deliver Surprise Budget Surplus

[Invisible Man]

LOL

I suppose you supported the Big Bill then, right?
Or did you oppose it because while it cut spending it also kept tax cuts and that was counted as increasing the deficit?


LOL


And we want tariff revenue to be very high so we can replace the evil Income Tax.

You just oppose anything good for America.

Foreign countries are paying the tariffs in order to try to keep market share so don't even try to pretend it's Americans being taxed.

I opposed the BBB because it increased spending.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I opposed the BBB because it increased spending.

It did not.

 

[Invisible Man]

It did not.

So you are claiming that the federal government will spend less in 2026 than in 2025?

 

[Swordsmyth]

So you are claiming that the federal government will spend less in 2026 than in 2025?

The only way the bill "spent more" was if the retention of the tax cuts was counted as spending.

 

[Invisible Man]

The only way the bill "spent more" was if the retention of the tax cuts was counted as spending.

So you are claiming that federal spending in 2026 will be less than in 2025?

 

[Swordsmyth]

So you are claiming that federal spending in 2026 will be less than in 2025?

That is a different question related to many things other than the bill.
Which is why you are trying to change the subject.
The bill cut spending unless you count preventing the automatic tax hike as "spending".

The fact is you opposed the bill because it "increased spending" by not raising taxes.


You just oppose what's good for America.

 

[nikcers]

LOL

I suppose you supported the Big Bill then, right?
Or did you oppose it because while it cut spending it also kept tax cuts and that was counted as increasing the deficit?


LOL


And we want tariff revenue to be very high so we can replace the evil Income Tax.

You just oppose anything good for America.

Foreign countries are paying the tariffs in order to try to keep market share so don't even try to pretend it's Americans being taxed.

Foreign producers are in a bind.

Most of them have either been dumping so they can corner the market or they have already cornered the market so they control the price.

So they either eat the cost of tarrifs or they lose all of the revenue to other countries that can now compete with them at costs and they dont want to lose the USA as a customer nobody buys more product and if they lose the scale of production their costs go up.

So what happens is they increase the price they sell it to other countries to a small amount to offset the cost and the USA gets the best deal.

Trump is essentially eating their margins up and since other countries dont have reciprocal trade they cannot retaliate against us. We are the consumer and in capitalism the consumer is king.

 

[Invisible Man]

That is a different question related to many things other than the bill.
Which is why you are trying to change the subject.
The bill cut spending unless you count preventing the automatic tax hike as "spending".

The fact is you opposed the bill because it "increased spending" by not raising taxes.


You just oppose what's good for America.

That sounds an awful lot like an admission that federal spending in 2026 will be higher than in 2025, meaning spending is going up, not down.

Spending cuts would mean spending goes down.

 

[nikcers]

That sounds an awful lot like an admission that federal spending in 2026 will be higher than in 2025, meaning spending is going up, not down.

Spending cuts would mean spending goes down.

Spending was always going to go up because NATO can no longer afford not to invest in defense because we are in a new cold war.

If you don't invest in defense while you are in a cold war you get a hot war.

Hot wars happen when there is no balance of power.

Trump is growing the economy which is going to offset the cost of keeping the peace.

 

[Swordsmyth]

That sounds an awful lot like an admission that federal spending in 2026 will be higher than in 2025, meaning spending is going up, not down.

Spending cuts would mean spending goes down.

I admit nothing, I do not know the answer to the question, I hope to be able to show that it will be lower.

But the spending in 2026 will depend on many other bills and other factors than the Big Bill.
The Big Bill cut spending, and that is why you are trying to change the subject to the total 2026 spending.

 

[Invisible Man]

Spending was always going to go up

Right. Meaning it's not being cut.

 

[Invisible Man]

I admit nothing, I do not know the answer to the question,

OK. Fair enough. Then you don't know if the BBB actually cut spending. The jury is still out.

Earlier you asserted that it did, as if that were a settled fact.

 

[nikcers]

Right. Meaning it's not being cut.

You cant cut defense when you are in a war.

The war we are in is cold but if you cut the defense it will be hot.

Other countries like China are in a demographics collapse so their population of fighting age men will never be as large as it is now in this century.

Their chance at a bite at the apple will never cost as low as it does now.

In nature if you are weak you get eaten.

 

[Invisible Man]

You cant cut defense when you are in a war.

My point was not to get into a debate on whether cutting spending is good or bad. It's good. Period. If you want to debate that, find someone else to engage.

My point was just to say that simply as a matter of fact, Trump is not cutting spending.

If you want to defend him on that, fine. Suit yourself. But it sounds like we agree on that basic fact.

 

[Swordsmyth]

OK. Fair enough. Then you don't know if the BBB actually cut spending. The jury is still out.

Earlier you asserted that it did, as if that were a settled fact.

False.
I know what the Big Bill did, it cut spending.
You don't get to pretend there won't be many other things that determine total 2026 spending.

I have repeatedly pointed out your attempt to conflate this bill and total 2026 spending and you have the gall to keep doing it anyway.

 

[nikcers]

My point was not to get into a debate on whether cutting spending is good or bad. It's good. Period. If you want to debate that, find someone else to engage.

My point was just to say that simply as a matter of fact, Trump is not cutting spending.

If you want to defend him on that, fine. Suit yourself. But it sounds like we agree on that basic fact.

Cutting the Sentinel ICBM program isnt good. If you lose mutually assured destruction you are more likely to get nuked.

 

[Invisible Man]

False.
I know what the Big Bill did, it cut spending.
You don't get to pretend there won't be many other things that determine total 2026 spending.

I have repeatedly pointed out your attempt to conflate this bill and total 2026 spending and you have the gall to keep doing it anyway.

Please substantiate that claim.

But when doing that, please apply the following rule. The only cuts that count are the ones that take effect no later than the 2026 budget. Alleged cuts in future years that pretend that legislation passed in 2025 can somehow force future Congresses to have the courage to cut spending that the Congress in 2025 doesn't have the courage to cut now don't count.

I maintain that if you apply this restriction, you will find that the BBB legislates net spending increases, not decreases. It includes an immediate increase of $150 billion in annual spending for the military. Does it have cuts that take effect immediately that add up to more than that? I highly doubt it. But I'm open to being proven wrong.

And no, I am not counting tax cuts as spending increases. Leave the tax parts of the bill out and just focus on what it legislates for spending.

 

[nikcers]

Please substantiate that claim.

But when doing that, please apply the following rule. The only cuts that count are the ones that take effect no later than the 2026 budget. Alleged cuts in future years that pretend that legislation passed in 2025 can somehow force future Congresses to have the courage to cut spending that the Congress in 2025 doesn't have the courage to cut now don't count.

I maintain that if you apply this restriction, you will find that the BBB legislates net spending increases, not decreases. It includes an immediate increase of $150 billion in annual spending for the military. That takes effect immediately. Does it have cuts that take effect immediately that add up to more than that? I highly doubt it. But I'm open to being proven wrong.

And no, I am not counting tax cuts as spending increases. Leave the tax parts of the bill out and just focus on what it legislates for spending.

There is no way to force future Congress's not to spend money unless you change the government and become a dictatorship.

Voters are always going to have a say in how much money we spend on government and how much taxes are.

 

[Invisible Man]

There is no way to force future Congress's not to spend money

Exactly. Therefore, politicians should never be given credit for legislation that pretends to do that.

When counting up spending cuts, the only ones that count are the ones that take effect by the end of the next budgetary year.

 

[acptulsa]

It did not.

And you wonder why just about everybody considers you delusional.

There is no way to force future Congress's not to spend money

I don't recall ever seeing you switch from denial to excuse making so fast