Republicans begin walking back campaign promises

[Peabody]

5 minutes ago, Presnock said:

I have to agree as your article should only have been about walking back promises, not the fact that many promises might find difficulty in finding Congressional dollars to accomplish.

Hence the walking back of his promises, i.e Repubs saying "We can't afford it".

They could only afford the promise.

So this retreat is only 3 days post-election. Watch this space to see what else their dear leader promised that won't happen.

[NoDisplayName]

1 hour ago, Peabody said:

Continue in your blissful ignorance and keep deflecting. What does Pravda have to do with NYT?

 

What deflecting?

 

I have now read the "article" and now have been informed that some people are considering ways of being fiscally responsible by finding ways to "pay for" tax cuts.

 

And that's a bad thing?

[spidermike007]

Well we all know that everybody makes promises during a campaign, and that only a relatively small percentage of them are ever followed up. I hope that Trump's campaign promises about import tariffs are never followed up, as I believe it would destroy the American economy, hurt the consumers, and hurt thousands of American companies. It would be a huge tax hike. 

 

Some politicians are more sincere than others, I do not believe that Trump was sincere about that many of his promises. 

[bunnydrops]

28 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Well we all know that everybody makes promises during a campaign, and that only a relatively small percentage of them are ever followed up. I hope that Trump's campaign promises about import tariffs are never followed up, as I believe it would destroy the American economy, hurt the consumers, and hurt thousands of American companies. It would be a huge tax hike. 

 

Some politicians are more sincere than others, I do not believe that Trump was sincere about that many of his promises. 

Can anyone imagine the cost per head to catch feed, house, and deport a million illegal immigrants a year? Just for some of them to slip back in through our 1000 mile+ border. I also agree about the tariffs.

Edited Friday at 09:50 AM by bunnydrops
addition

[Peabody]

2 hours ago, NoDisplayName said:

I have now read the "article" and now have been informed that some people are considering ways of being fiscally responsible by finding ways to "pay for" tax cuts.

"Narrowing" and "benefit(ing) fewer people" is backtracking. I stand by the original title.

"Mr. Paulson, a potential nominee for Treasury secretary, said that several other of Mr. Trump’s proposed tax cuts — including not taxing tips or overtime, and restoring a deduction for state and local taxes — should also become narrower so they benefit fewer people and cost less money."

[NoDisplayName]

34 minutes ago, Peabody said:

"Narrowing" and "benefit(ing) fewer people" is backtracking. I stand by the original title.

"Mr. Paulson, a potential nominee for Treasury secretary, said that several other of Mr. Trump’s proposed tax cuts — including not taxing tips or overtime, and restoring a deduction for state and local taxes — should also become narrower so they benefit fewer people and cost less money."

 

A guy who might possibly be under consideration for maybe being vetted for potential negotiations concerning inclusion in a future cabinet in three months or so said a thing we can quote mine and take out of context.

 

Sure, buddy.

Whatever fits the narrative.

[wombat]

And so it begins

[pattayasan]

"I don't know anything about Project 2025"

[jerrymahoney]

Archive version NY Times in the OP:

 

Trump Agenda Faces a Fiscal Reckoning
Advisers to President-elect Donald J. Trump and Republicans on Capitol Hill are already looking at ways to scale back some of his more expensive ideas.

 

https://archive.ph/coe0U

 

 

[pattayasan]

2 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Archive version NY Times in the OP:

 

Trump Agenda Faces a Fiscal Reckoning
Advisers to President-elect Donald J. Trump and Republicans on Capitol Hill are already looking at ways to scale back some of his more expensive ideas.

 

https://archive.ph/coe0U

 

 

 

My bet is that, apart from a few buses of convicts for show, Trump does nothing about mass deportations.

[cdemundo]

17 hours ago, Peabody said:

You'd have to read the article. I just posted some allowed highlights. Behind a paywall, so you may not be able to read the full article.

The article repeatedly mentions or quotes Republicans stating that the most aggressive Trump ideas may need to be modified to stay within the limits of fiscal possibility.

Some of you may be surprised to learn that campaign promises often get watered down after Election Day.

Nothing shocking about this.

[thesetat2013]

17 hours ago, Peabody said:

I just posted some allowed highlights. Behind a paywall

So you posted this without even reading the article. Trying to create turmoil and placing blame on Republicans and Trump for something they neither said nor did. I call foul. You should post some links to add credibility to your headline. Because the links you sent did not state as you claim. You are posting FAKE news to get a rise out of people in here. Where is the staff of this site to delete such posts?

[nattaya09]

18 hours ago, Peabody said:

That didn't take long. Regarding no tax on tips, lower corporate taxes, no tax on Social Security benefits.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/07/us/politics/trump-fiscal-republicans.html

Trump Agenda Faces a Fiscal Reckoning

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that just continuing all of the expiring provisions would cost roughly $4 trillion over a decade, and Mr. Trump’s campaign proposals could add trillions more to the debt.

 Markets and investors are preparing for higher deficits under a second Trump administration, selling bonds that could become less valuable if the government has to issue many more to finance a larger debt.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has estimated that Mr. Trump’s agenda, including higher tariffs, could add roughly $7.5 trillion to the debt over the next decade.

Total in 10 years? Biden added about $8T in 46 months

[WDSmart]

Does this surprise anyone? 😄

[RetiredNavy71]

19 hours ago, Peabody said:

You'd have to read the article. I just posted some allowed highlights. Behind a paywall, so you may not be able to read the full article.

Define paywall

[newbee2022]

19 hours ago, Peabody said:

That didn't take long. Regarding no tax on tips, lower corporate taxes, no tax on Social Security benefits.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/07/us/politics/trump-fiscal-republicans.html

Trump Agenda Faces a Fiscal Reckoning

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that just continuing all of the expiring provisions would cost roughly $4 trillion over a decade, and Mr. Trump’s campaign proposals could add trillions more to the debt.

 Markets and investors are preparing for higher deficits under a second Trump administration, selling bonds that could become less valuable if the government has to issue many more to finance a larger debt.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has estimated that Mr. Trump’s agenda, including higher tariffs, could add roughly $7.5 trillion to the debt over the next decade.

...and what is the problem? Just print more Dollars....as before.

[simple1]

20 hours ago, mogandave said:

The same NYT that call the Hunter laptop story fake, and the Russia collusion story real.

 

They are lying whores that will say anything to hurt Trump and his agenda.

 

Current debt is costing the US taxpayer approx $850 billion p.a. So how will trump admin finance all their new  policies without going further into debt by the trillions of dollars?

[newnative]

20 hours ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

For those who may have been stymied by the NYT paywall, I'm gifting this to you:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/07/us/politics/trump-fiscal-republicans.html?unlocked_article_code=1.YU4.JMrW.0wkYymnx0V6H&smid=url-share

Thank you!  Interesting article.  

[AgMech Cowboy]

23 hours ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

For those who may have been stymied by the NYT paywall, I'm gifting this to you:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/07/us/politics/trump-fiscal-republicans.html?unlocked_article_code=1.YU4.JMrW.0wkYymnx0V6H&smid=url-share

Yes, Thank You, Etaoin. I see only an article written by a very biased NYT rag.  I don't doubt that everything President Trump campaigned on will have problems in Congress or with the Budget Office. It was an obvious hit piece.  Me... I'm retired and live in Thailand.  I'm not really worried about it or Social Security.

[mogandave]

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

Current debt is costing the US taxpayer approx $850 billion p.a. So how will trump admin finance all their new  policies without going further into debt by the trillions of dollars?

What new policies are you talking about that need funding? 

 

How was Harris going to give new home buyers $25k to help with down payments, and black men $20k forgivable “loans” to open weed stores.

 

Heres an idea, why don’t we start collecting on delinquent loans? 

 

Democrats started taxing tips. To fund “no tax on tips”, how about we tax university endowments? 

 

I think waitresses and poker dealers are more deserving than university administrators. 

 

 

 

 

[simple1]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

What new policies are you talking about that need funding? 

 

For a stater tariffs, e.g. the $ billions for soya farmer subsidies or are you OK for the tax payer to absorb the costs

[mogandave]

12 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

For a stater tariffs, e.g. the $ billions for soya farmer subsidies or are you OK for the tax payer to absorb the costs

Tariffs require funding? 

 

Did Trump promise billions of dollars to the soy farmers? 

 

I’m generally against farm subsidies and I think tge USDA could be cut significantly, you?

[G_Money]

On 11/8/2024 at 1:39 PM, Peabody said:

It also doesn't say Daffy Duck is walking back his promises. What's your point?

The point is after you recovered from your meltdown (please post it) you and the leftist MSM are desperate to come up with a new boogeyman.  Un Fact Checked.

 

FFS, he’s not even been sworn in yet.

 

And the nutters wonder why We the People have had it with leftists lies, propaganda and ideology.

 

Your fired!

[mogandave]

On 11/8/2024 at 4:12 PM, Peabody said:

Hence the walking back of his promises, i.e Repubs saying "We can't afford it".

They could only afford the promise.

So this retreat is only 3 days post-election. Watch this space to see what else their dear leader promised that won't happen.

You are disgraceful. 

 

Please provide the names and direct quotes about what plans are in place, or you are just regurgitating lies.

 

This kind of disinformation is why you guys lost. 

 

 

[mogandave]

12 hours ago, pattayasan said:

 

My bet is that, apart from a few buses of convicts for show, Trump does nothing about mass deportations.

Do you support mass  deportations? 

[mogandave]

11 hours ago, WDSmart said:

Does this surprise anyone? 😄

That someone is lying about Trump? Not at all.

[WDSmart]

12 hours ago, mogandave said:

23 hours ago, WDSmart said:

Does this surprise anyone? 😄

That someone is lying about Trump? Not at all.

I think you mistyped this. It should be, "That Trump is lying about someone? Not at all." 😉 

[simple1]

14 hours ago, mogandave said:

Tariffs require funding? 

 

Did Trump promise billions of dollars to the soy farmers? 

 

I’m generally against farm subsidies and I think tge USDA could be cut significantly, you?

 

So far as I know trump has kept very quiet of the negative impact of tariffs on the US tax payer, In any case last time he lied constantly about this matter.

 

Tariffs are not one way. If tariffs are to paid by US consumers on imported goods, then either the retail cost of goods increase or subsidised by federal government. As an example of the two way street, last time round PRC stopped importing US soya beans due to implementation of tariffs on their goods. and US government subsidised farmer by approx $5 billion, total farm aid was $28billion. BTW the tariffs imposed on PRC imports did not work, it increased the trade gap with PRC. Link below provides more info on Fed Govt tariff costs for US tax payers and analysis of the previous trade war

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2020/01/21/trump-tariff-aid-to-farmers-cost-more-than-us-nuclear-forces/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China–United_States_trade_war#:~:text=After the trade war escalated,place during the Biden administration.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 02:49 AM by simple1

[mogandave]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

So far as I know trump has kept very quiet of the negative impact of tariffs on the US tax payer, In any case last time he lied constantly about this matter.

 

Tariffs are not one way. If tariffs are to paid by US consumers on imported goods, then either the retail cost of goods increase or subsidised by federal government. As an example of the two way street, last time round PRC stopped importing US soya beans due to implementation of tariffs on their goods. and US government subsidised farmer by approx $5 billion, total farm aid was $28billion. BTW the tariffs imposed on PRC imports did not work, it increased the trade gap with PRC. Link below provides more info on Fed Govt tariff costs for US tax payers and analysis of the previous trade war

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2020/01/21/trump-tariff-aid-to-farmers-cost-more-than-us-nuclear-forces/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China–United_States_trade_war#:~:text=After the trade war escalated,place during the Biden administration.

 

 

You answered none of my questions. 

 

I know what tariffs are and what they do, and as I said previously, I generally do not support them. 

 

Why do you (I think) support increasing corporate income taxes, when all they do is drive up consumer prices? 

 

If you are against one, you should be against both, unless you love Chinese corporations more than US corporations.

[simple1]

9 minutes ago, mogandave said:

You answered none of my questions. 

 

I know what tariffs are and what they do, and as I said previously, I generally do not support them. 

 

Why do you (I think) support increasing corporate income taxes, when all they do is drive up consumer prices? 

 

If you are against one, you should be against both, unless you love Chinese corporations more than US corporations.

 

I am not qualified to comment clearly on corporate taxation, though I have worked for Multi National Corporations. . BUT broadly I am of the opinion there are too many loopholes, especially with moving profits around the world for tax minimisation. Plus of course trump reducing corporate tax which significantly increased the national debt and was utilised to increase share buyback, and not the average working persons income. Given tariff implementation is one of trump's main platforms to improve the US economy, it will not, why are you such as ardent supporter of trump?

Edited Sunday at 05:11 AM by simple1