3 ms·
The language under discussion is the national debt and deficit. You’re trying to make a political point by changing the definition of words. I may agree with
by jtbayly 1y ago
The language under discussion is the national debt and deficit.
You’re trying to make a political point by changing the definition of words.
I may agree with your point, but pretending like tariffs don’t generate income that bring down the deficit is not the way to argue it. It just convinces people you aren’t arguing in good faith, or don’t understand simple math.
- mullingitover 1y agoThe last legal ruling on the matter found that they are mostly being enacted illegally by using emergency powers[1] and may end up being refunded entirely. So until they are actually able to be booked, we can't say they are impacting the budget one way or another. If they aren't legalized then the work it took to collect and then refund them all is money that may as well have been incinerated. [1] https://www.npr.org/2025/08/29/nx-s1-5522457/tariffs-trump-trade-supreme-court https://www.npr.org/2025/08/29/nx-s1-5522457/tariffs-trump-t...
- jtbayly 1y ago> The tariffs don't actually bring in money, they just move money from one place (US taxpayers, who'd otherwise use it productively) and put it elsewhere (the treasury). So your argument seems to be “We have yet to see whether these new tariffs are legal and therefore whether the income will be able to be kept.” That’s a far cry from saying tariffs don’t generate income for the government, which is what I understood you to be saying.