False. In process right now.
Dude. This is not how the debt works. Remember when I told you that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts could not pay for themselves and would add to the debt and you argued with me about it? Remember when I said the same thing in 2017 (I don’t remember you arguing about that one)?
The CBO estimate of the current house bill is that it will add about $3.8T by 2034 and $5.1T if the temporary stuff (no tax on OT/Tips is set to expire in 2029 so they can make it an issue in the 2028 election).
* That’s false. They are extending the 2017 and adding new ones
** I have no idea what you mean and I suspect you don’t either. It’s 2025 and tips are accounted for and taxed as income.
Also false, at least based on the bill in progress and virtually all public statements of objective. Of course we don’t know what will ultimately wind up on the president’s desk because it will be negotiated behind closed doors and signed without full analysis, but it will almost certainly be more inflationary and cover less of the proposed spending. Not that we have a discretionary spending problem, though- you could cut every dollar of discretionary spending and we wouldn’t have a balanced budget, thanks to the 2001, 2003, and 2017 tax cuts.
But sure, tell me more about inflation …
Is there a thesis here?
Tariffs are a tax on consumption and they function by raising producer costs for supply chains with imported inputs and prices for finished imports. That’s not what they cause. It’s what they are.
Wulaw, I’m sorry but you’re better than this. I have no idea what an “economic figure” is, but if you are talking about the consensus of mainstream economic thinking over the last 25 years (when you voted to take us out of budget surplus), their record is pretty good.
What does “work” mean in this context?