Rex Racer said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Not sure I understand what you're saying. If our total spending exceeds our tax revenue over the period by $3T, then that is adding to the national debt and Congress/Trump are responsible for it. Since tax revenue stays roughly flat, that means they would have had to cut $3T in spending to avoid adding to the debt, and they didn't do that, which is on them.

---

A cut in tax rates does not necessarily mean a cut in tax revenue. If it spurs economic growth, it can actually mean an increase in tax revenues.

---

Fully understand and agree with that. Extending current rates that have been in place since 2017 shouldn't result in a drop or increase in tax revenue.

AggieVictor10 said:

---

Waiting for trump simps to tell us why this is actually a good thing.

---

Your conceited troll aside, how about you explain to the rest of us how free trade absolutism has set our nation up for multi-generational success?

The industry concession process is obvious at this point:
Gen1: outsourcing = company retains high pay & direct leadership jobs w/ reduced cost of goods
Gen2: executive control = profits for the company & cheap goods for consumers. SMEs are gone.
Gen3: foreign competition outcompetes and the American company gets pushed aside. American consumers get cheap crap but have no jobs in the industry.

"wE dIDnT wANt tHoSe JObS aNyHoW!"

Listening to some of the panic mongers and Chicken Littles out there, we were already supposed to be drowning in inflation due to the tariffs, so I think I will give Trump's policies a chance. The guy does tend to be right much more than he is wrong.

ts5641 said:

---

Goldman Sachs is no beacon of truth.

---

And neither is yahoo, extreme liberal bias. Stopped reading that garbage about 5 years ago. Pick and choose info, clickbait headlines to make Trump look bad.

There are better sources for financial news.

deddog said:

---

ts5641 said:

---

Goldman Sachs is no beacon of truth.

---

And neither is yahoo, extreme liberal bias. Stopped reading that garbage about 5 years ago. Pick and choose info, clickbait headlines to make Trump look bad.

There are better sources for financial news.

---

Wall Street Journal........... 2 front page stories today

Trump's Tariffs Are Being Picked Up by Corporate America

Resilient Trump Lifted by Improved View of Economy

Someone pays it. Mostly the consumer. Partly investors/owners by accepting narrower margins. Partly the foreign producer via reducing prices to try to maintain demand.

Im mostly entertained that this is being posted as if it's something surprising. I don't think anyone that has a reasonable amount of education in business and economics feels this is some kind of surprise. It's truly alarming how disconnected people are from how the world works.

eric76 said:

---

I'm surprised that they don't pass through much more of the tarriffs.

---

They will eventually. Lower profit margins will squeeze everyone and eventually weed out the weaker companies leaving only the strongest...which will then raise prices to cover.

Possibly. But other scenarios exist as well, weaker competitors move up the supply chain, cottage industries develop and grow quickly and of course stronger companies become more vertical internally developing US based suppliers….it ain't just about passing on costs

KerrAg76 said:

---

deddog said:

---

ts5641 said:

---

Goldman Sachs is no beacon of truth.

---

And neither is yahoo, extreme liberal bias. Stopped reading that garbage about 5 years ago. Pick and choose info, clickbait headlines to make Trump look bad.

There are better sources for financial news.

---

Wall Street Journal........... 2 front page stories today

Trump's Tariffs Are Being Picked Up by Corporate America

Resilient Trump Lifted by Improved View of Economy

---

I like WSJ, and Barrons.
The problem with yahoo, is exactly what i stated. Clickbait headlines and half truths.

javajaws said:

---

eric76 said:

---

I'm surprised that they don't pass through much more of the tarriffs.

---

They will eventually. Lower profit margins will squeeze everyone and eventually weed out the weaker companies leaving only the strongest...which will then raise prices to cover.

---

Yup.

KerrAg76 said:

---

Possibly. But other scenarios exist as well, weaker competitors move up the supply chain, cottage industries develop and grow quickly and of course stronger companies become more vertical internally developing US based suppliers….it ain't just about passing on costs

---

In Just Six Months into Trump 47’s Administration – US Business Investment is Surging at the Fastest Pace Since 1997 – Treasury Sec. Scott Bessent Weighs In | Jim Hoft, The Gateway Pundit

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent joined Maria Bartiromo on Mornings with Maria this week.… pic.twitter.com/zcYkITuK4T

— Owen Gregorian (@OwenGregorian) July 25, 2025

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Not sure I understand what you're saying. If our total spending exceeds our tax revenue over the period by $3T, then that is adding to the national debt and Congress/Trump are responsible for it. Since tax revenue stays roughly flat, that means they would have had to cut $3T in spending to avoid adding to the debt, and they didn't do that, which is on them.

---

I'm saying spending did NOT increase. Spending DECREASED in the bill.

But, the scoring that was used says that continuing the tax cuts will cause revenue to drop $4T over 10 years.

Do you think that is true?

From WSJ article:

Quote:

---

It is becoming increasingly clear that U.S. businesses, from General Motors and Nike to the local florist, are absorbing much of the costs for now. In a competitive market, a company that hikes prices could lose market share to a rival that keeps its prices steady. Many are reluctant to raise prices until they absolutely must, and until they know the ever-changing tariffs are sticking around. In some cases companies have said they plan to raise prices in the months to come.

---

My concern is that once one of these companies that is eating the costs right now decides that they're going to pass it on to consumers, then there is a chance the damn breaks for all of them and we see massive price increases across all industries all at once.

We will see, though. I think Trump has the right goals in all of this, though I am not sure some of it is going to matter if AI gets where some think it will get in the next decade.

e=mc2 said:

---

Why believe this source? Everyone has been wrong on the tariffs and the overall economy since Trump took office. I doubt this is true as well.

---

History proves the source correct.

Economics 101

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Tariffs always lead to loss of demand with the exporting country ultimately eating a lot of it when they inevitably have to drop prices to entice demand back up.

---

But I've been assured tariffs are inflationary...

Old McDonald said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Not sure anyone can tell what tariffs are going to do. WSJ just had an article over weekend that tariffs have not had the negative impact everyone thought and most people have downgraded their negative assumptions about tariffs.

---

negative effects of tariffs have been minimal so far because TACO, thankfully

even so, we'd be much better off if he got rid of the ones he's put in place

---

Just about every one of your doom and gloom tariff takes, and there have been MANY, have been wrong. Including this gem:

Quote:

---

we all know how this will play out, we just saw this show a month ago. to save face trump will negotiate a "deal" to remove tariffs in exchange for things that are already happening, take credit for solving his own mess, and send his sycophants out to twitter and friendly networks to praise his superior dealmaking abilities. wwe-ification of politics.

---

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3531061/replies/69776030

When exactly did that happen?

You post like you know stuff. Its all wishful thinking.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

DCAggie13y said:

---

It's a new consumption tax. We are 2 Trillion in the hole and BBB cut income taxes so we need more revenue. I prefer consumption taxes over income taxes and we will likely need more of both in the near future since neither party can cut spending.

The taxpayers save $300B in interest payments for every 1% reduction in interest rates. So the push for the new tax and lower rates is aimed at reducing the insane deficit.

Now we just need Congress to do their part and cut spending.

---

Other than tax on tips and a few other gimmicks, they didn't cut taxes much. They just extended current rates.

Trump and Congress had their chance to cut spending with BBB, gave it the middle finger instead, and will add $3T or more to the debt above the current run rate.

This new "consumption tax" -- if that's what we're calling it -- will just reduce consumption. When you tax something, you get less of it.

It's not in the Fed's mandate to minimize interest on the debt. They are charged with price stability (low inflation and full employment. It's the job of Congress and the president to minimize interest on the debt by keeping spending and taxes in balance, which they refuse to do.

We might look back five years from now and say this was pure genius on Trump's part and the majority of critical thinkers got it wrong. Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it. He said Chyna would pay the tariffs and he's been proven wrong, so I don't put a lot of stock into his other statements on this topic.

---

Bless your heart. Saving this email for future convo's and examples of folks who tried really hard to gaslight accomplishments.

YouBet said:

---

Not sure anyone can tell what tariffs are going to do. .

---

The only people who say this are Trump apologists

Everybody knows what Tariffs will do
they will make stuff more expensive
They will make some American businesses more profitable

For example Canadian lumber getting tariffed will make houses more expensive and will make American Lumber Companies more profitable. If your competitors have a 30% tax slapped on them You'd be an idiot not to raise your prices 20%

Lastly multinational companies will be less profitable GM just lowered earning forecast by $ 1 billion partially because of Tariffs

The only thing people are unsure about is if this will bring Jobs back.
Governance by EO can be quickly undone, A tariff system to help grow capacity in certain areas is a good idea but blanket tariffs is probably not the way to do it.

Lastly talking about cars because Trump always goes back there Most cars that are sold here are assembled here with a collection of domestic and imported parts. Subaru; BMW;Toyota; Mercedes ; Nissan all have domestic production facilities

No evidence of this in the U.S., ever

Yeah, I'm not a Trump apologist and you can look up comments from me blasting him on his "reciprocal" policy announcement in May.

What I'm saying here is that everyone keeps saying tariffs are going to f* us because in theory they should based on history and logic, but so far the economy has absorbed it.

So, he has so far defied prevailing expectations. This goes to my larger commentary over last few years that we are in totally unprecedented, economic waters in this country.

There is a hell of a lot of "things have always worked so surely they will always work" that is propping up our entire economy. And that applies from all political angles.

It's still early in the game to fully assess the impact of tariffs. A lot of them were delayed or minimized after he announced them in April. Businesses bought some time by building inventories in advance of tariffs. As the tariffs finalize over the next 90 days or so, it will still take time to understand the full impact. I'm thinking 2025 is a year of transition and 2026 will tell us what a fully baked-in tariff world looks like.

One thing that hasn't been discussed much is what happens from a labor standpoint if a lot of manufacturing is re-shored to the US? I've worked in manufacturing almost 35 years for a number of companies across the US, and we've been chronically understaffed 10% to 15% and can't fill all of our positions that are good jobs with good benefits. It results in a lot of overtime and missed sales.

A lot of these roles are on-the-ground and won't be replaced by AI. They're vacant today because our social safety net is so rich that many able-bodied people don't work. That's confirmed with the trend we've seen in the labor participation rate. As the demand for labor increases with additional manufacturing, I think we're setting ourself up for labor-induced inflation which will permeate the entire economy. Again, it will take time to manifest. Inflation of any kind will keep interest rates up, which then just exacerbates our national debt crisis.

I'm an optimist by nature, but also believe in being realistic. I"m not deliberately trying to throw cold water on the Trump train because I voted for him three times. I'm just concerned this broad-based economic warfare with tariffs hasn't been fully evaluated to calibrate it appropriately. Tariffs to protect strategic industries like steel and national defense could make a lot of sense. Tariffs to bring production of tennis shoes and Amazon gadgets to the US -- and increase the cost of them -- doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

Valid. Our labor mix going forward is going to be interesting to see unfold. Just posted on another thread where IT is in the ****ter and only getting worse. Outsourcing is all the rage again and now you have AI on top of it which just exacerbates the situation.

But then over here we might see new growth in manufacturing jobs. Maybe. So, a possible shift away from STEM and soft services back to blue collar Manufacturing and trade services.

This is not something that is going to solve itself overnight. If we can get some of these tariffs into law, then over the next few years there will be some things that are higher in price, but you will see more companies investing in America and while the labor will be higher the cost will be offset by these tariffs. That is why I never listen to anyone wearing clothes made in a sweat shop with an iphone complaining that minimum wage needs to be a living wage. They don't care about people in another country suffering to make their clothes and tech.

I want Elon to develop a smart phone made in America and would gladly pay a few dollars more for clothes made here.

Bondag said:

---

This is not something that is going to solve itself overnight. If we can get some of these tariffs into law, then over the next few years there will be some things that are higher in price, but you will see more companies investing in America and while the labor will be higher the cost will be offset by these tariffs. That is why I never listen to anyone wearing clothes made in a sweat shop with an iphone complaining that minimum wage needs to be a living wage. They don't care about people in another country suffering to make their clothes and tech.

I want Elon to develop a smart phone made in America and would gladly pay a few dollars more for clothes made here.

---

Acknowledging that costs will be higher for a lot of things I don't much care when it comes to discretionary consumer items because I don't buy much stuff anyway. When I buy stuff, I try to buy stuff made here if at all possible.

Would also like another phone option as well. We currently have a duopoly in that industry, and it would be nice to have more options. I'm assuming Elon would have his own OS which might not be the case if he ever offered a phone. In that case, I would have little incentive to switch from my iphone.

How is it bad for the economy if I choose to buy an American made product over a more expensive foreign made item? Especially if my new demand is creating more American jobs?

From the same Goldman that brought us calls for $200 oil followed by calls for sustained price handles in the teens, the same Goldman that has repeatedly whiffed on forecasts for indices like the S&P 500, the same Goldman that has been wildly wrong on their recession predictions in both directions(they said everything was just swell in January of 2008), and on and on. They are no different than any other Wall Street giant these days. Everything they say is self serving with an end goal of manipulating markets in their favor as much as they can.

RafterAg223 said:

---

From the same Goldman that brought us calls for $200 oil followed by calls for sustained price handles in the teens, the same Goldman that has repeatedly whiffed on forecasts for indices like the S&P 500, the same Goldman that has been wildly wrong on their recession predictions in both directions(they said everything was just swell in January of 2008), and on and on. They are no different than any other Wall Street giant these days. Everything they say is self serving with an end goal of manipulating markets in their favor as much as they can.

---

I personally enjoy bringing these things up to my FA (Goldman) and giving him **** about it. He doesn't always agree with the mother ship's take on things, thankfully.

It's only been recently that they even acknowledged the debt problem, but that's all it is - an acknowledgement. According to them we don't even approach a concerning level for another 25 years when they expect us to be at 180% debt to GDP ratio or something absurd. I'll have to look it up. I was just amazed that even at that point their hypothesis was still - concerned but fine, more or less.

This is DemTard fake news. Food prices are down. Fuel prices are down. Autos prices are down. Home prices are down. Have a nice day, losers!

I am extremely pro reciprocal tariffs. The US has been taken advantage of for far too long by nations using our market as their dumping ground for their goods. Between corporate taxes, labor expenses and import tariffs on US goods there's no way US manufacturing can compete for foreign consumers unless it is just something no one else can do as well. At least leaving the field with reciprocal tariffs and in certain cases punitive tariffs means that US companies can have a fighting chance at competing in markets outside the US. There is no rational reason or argument that can be made for why our export goods should face tariffs in 10-30% range and our import goods from the same country coming into the US face 0% tariffs.

I think most of us were at least neutral on actual reciprocal tariffs.

Where he lost me for a bit was his May announcement where he announced reciprocal tariffs that were, in actuality, global tariffs across the board regardless of reciprocity.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Other than tax on tips and a few other gimmicks, they didn't cut taxes much. They just extended current rates.

---

This is what I don't get, is they had outrageous growth assumptions to make the tax work, but if it's really the same rate, then growth shouldn't be all that different than before.

Supply and demand.

If you tariff the lowest cost supplier, the next supplier steps up. If the low supplier doesn't eat the costs, it loses business.

So, actual practice shows not all tariffs are passed on to consumers.

I don't think much will be re-shored. It'll just move from China to somewhere else in SE Asia where it'll still be cheaper even with a 15% tariff

Quote:

---

One thing that hasn't been discussed much is what happens from a labor standpoint if a lot of manufacturing is re-shored to the US? I've worked in manufacturing almost 35 years for a number of companies across the US, and we've been chronically understaffed 10% to 15% and can't fill all of our positions that are good jobs with good benefits. It results in a lot of overtime and missed sales.

---

Agreed we need to reform entitlements to promote work.

Quote:

---

A lot of these roles are on-the-ground and won't be replaced by AI. They're vacant today because our social safety net is so rich that many able-bodied people don't work. That's confirmed with the trend we've seen in the labor participation rate. As the demand for labor increases with additional manufacturing, I think we're setting ourself up for labor-induced inflation which will permeate the entire economy. Again, it will take time to manifest. Inflation of any kind will keep interest rates up, which then just exacerbates our national debt crisis.

---

AnScAggie said:

---

Between corporate taxes, labor expenses and import tariffs on US goods there's no way US manufacturing can compete for foreign consumers ...

---

No tariffs will fix the issues that drove, and still are driving, mfg away.

We need to massively deregulate, gut spending, and cut taxes across the board (not just extend current rates which are too high). Without that, tariffs are only an additional tax on US consumers.