The New Republican Budget Plan Is Unserious
It tries to offset as much as $4.8 trillion—mostly for tax cut extensions—with only $1.5 trillion in supposed spending reductions.

Serious problems should be met with serious solutions. We have serious problems, namely a fast-growing debt and a need to extend some tax cuts in an unforgiving environment where interest rates are high and inflation is rising again. Unfortunately, despite a new mandate, House Republicans have yet to rise to the occasion. Their latest budget blueprint shows that fiscal responsibility vanishes the moment real choices arise.
As a reminder, government debt stands at 100 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). It will grow to 117 percent by 2034 if the tax cuts are allowed to expire as scheduled this year. It was 76.5 percent when the cuts were first passed in 2017.
For those wondering why deficits and debt have accumulated so much, here are some more numbers. According to Center for a Free Economy President Ryan Ellis, since 2017, tax revenues have grown by 58 percent, while spending has grown by 75 percent. These hikes weren't driven by inflation alone, which was 31 percent cumulatively over the period.* As Ellis rightly notes, we can't blame taxpayers. The fault lies squarely with politicians' spending incontinence.
Enter the House Republican budget blueprint for a "big beautiful bill" as requested by the president. As the Committee for a Responsible Budget explains, "the budget resolution's instructions include a net $3.3 trillion in allowable deficit increases—or nearly $4 trillion including interest in additional debt by 2034." It also raises the debt ceiling by $4 trillion.
Basically, we're talking about offsetting as much as $4.8 trillion—mostly for tax cut extensions—with only $1.5 trillion in supposed spending reductions. The plan projects that additional tax revenue from economic growth will temper the debt impact.
While I've touted the potential for some tax cut extensions to boost economic growth, this is a case of wishful thinking by Republicans. In part, it's because the plan relies on the same kinds of budget gimmicks and unrealistic assumptions we've seen before, like counting on Congress to deliver on large future spending cuts to discretionary spending and Medicaid.
It's not as if there isn't lots to cut—there is, especially considering the unhinged government expansions of the last four years—but it remains politically tough. As the Manhattan Institute's Jessica Riedl notes, achieving the assumed level of cuts in the plan would require Congress to deliver the lowest discretionary spending share of GDP since the 1930s while simultaneously increasing defense and border security spending. Why would we expect Congress to have the stomach for that?
Many Republicans are putting their faith in Elon Musk's cost cutting, but it's not enough. Much of what needs to happen requires Congress, which apparently prefers to once again kick the can down the road.
The blueprint makes other questionable assumptions. I doubt we'll find $2.6 trillion in extra revenue from a highly improbable 2.8 percent annual GDP growth rate, considering the approximately 1.8 percent growth baseline.
Yes, extending the provision allowing businesses to quickly and fully deduct the cost of their investments would have a powerful, positive impact on growth. However, many of the other tax provisions have little growth oomph.
In addition, there are plenty of headwinds that will hamper growth, such as the increase of the debt itself and the uncertainty created by a president who spends his time threatening trading partners with ever more tariffs.
There's real risk that inflation may pick up again, in part because previous fiscal decadence has led to enormous interest payments on the debt, which has serious ripple effects. If Republicans decide to extend taxes without any concern for adding to the debt, they will contribute to the problem.
And indeed, it looks like that's what they are setting out to do. The saddest part is that this version of the plan will be better than whatever bargained budget congressional Republicans can get across the finish line—especially after caving to those who want to eliminate revenue savers from the 2017 tax reform, such as the limits put on the state and local tax deduction.
I get it: Governing is hard, so legislators tout savings and revenue that may never materialize. But glossy narratives do nothing to fix the nation's daunting debt trajectory, and budgets like this latest one push us closer to crisis. Without difficult structural reforms, debt will continue to mount, forcing harsher choices later.
To capitalize on their opportunity, Republicans must confront reality. So stop the charade and cut both discretionary spending and the growth of runaway entitlement spending. And cut any unfair tax loopholes that prevent us from paying for a slightly more modest government.
*CORRECTION: The original version of this article misstated the rate of cumulative inflation since 2017.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"...with only $1.5 trillion in supposed spending reductions."
...and how much money did Biden & Company recommend in spending reductions?
Negative 10 percent reductions
It doesn't matter, they were The Adults In The Room.
All wearing the adult diapers in the room.
"Whatabout?" - inevitably.
Why can't you address the current elephant in the room, rather than the previous elephant?
We like to compare and contrast.
Why wouldn’t you want to talk about Biden? What with that roaring economy and no inflation in sight.
The elephant where you dumb liberal fucks think letting people keep their own money is spending?
They think it’s the government’s money.
$1.5 trillion in cuts!!!! Whoooot!
"Why can't you address the current elephant in the room"
Sure. Let's talk about the current elephant in the room, shill.
The idea that $1.5 trillion in cuts is somehow "unserious".
Defend that.
1.5 trillion cuts are “unserious”?
Perfect is the enemy of Good once again.
We could simply take the 2009 Stimulus, 2020 Pandemic, and the 2021-2022 American Rescue and Inflation Reduction bills out of the baseline, and fund government as if they never happened.
Well, that’s essentially what Musk is doing, all of those spending “projects” were about funding the Left with untraceable grants. Let’s keep unwinding that
Then bring back sequestration on the non-“emergency” baseline
A thoughtful article written by someone who understands economics.
Let the attacks commence.
LOL
Libertarians for Higher Taxes
He keeps saying he isn't pro tax too.
“The real tax burden is not measured by what government takes in taxes, but by what it spends. If it spends more, that means the government is taking resources from the private sector, whether it finances that spending through taxes, borrowing, or inflation.”
-Milton Friedman
So Donnie’s four year spending spree 2017-2021 was in fact a huge tax burden?
I knew that. I said that.
The Trump cult defended him.
Hey look, shrike is back to putting spending on the President again.
But wait you say, he was just complaining that the President can’t do shit about spending without involving Congress just a few days ago.
That’s our shrike.
Make up your mind, Clowntits. Is it the president or congresses fault?
It’s a good thing federal employees only cost less than $25 million per year, right?
So... you're supporting taxes? Because they are doing the fuck you cut spending you've demanded. But you're mad they want to also cut taxes.
Whatever the voices tell you. I'm not going to argue with them or for them or against them. They're in your head, not mine.
I thought you were done for the day.
Where am I wrong buddy?
"Whatever the voices tell you."
I think I've identified those voices that Sarc keeps invoking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_hallucinosis
"Alcohol hallucinosis is a rather uncommon alcohol-induced psychotic disorder almost exclusively seen in chronic alcoholics who have many consecutive years of severe and heavy drinking during their lifetime.[3]
Alcoholic hallucinosis develops about 12 to 24 hours after the heavy drinking stops suddenly, and can last for days. It involves auditory and visual hallucinations, most commonly accusatory or threatening voices."
Fuck you, cut spending?
The main difference between Democrat and Republican fiscal policy is that the Democrats will have us bankrupt in ten years and the Republicans will need fifteen.
FFS Veronique - you guys have spent three weeks screaming about Trump cutting spending.
Now you're mad that the proposed budget doesn't cut spending.
What you Trump defenders fail to understand, not sure if it's because you're blinded by feelings, dishonest, or just plain stupid, is that the "screaming about Trump cutting spending" is more about the how instead of the what.
We critics of Trump's actions want spending cuts to be permanent, not some EO that will be undone by the next Democratic administration. Yet for that we're attacked by people saying that if you don't like what Trump is doing then you don't want any cuts at all. Which is monumentally dishonest and stupid.
We are governed by a government of laws, not men. If you want to change the government you need to change the laws, not elect a strongman with a sledgehammer and no regard for the law.
Maybe if democrat faggots like you weren’t obsessed with tearing him down we could get more permanent spending cuts.
You don’t really give a shit about any of that. Your hatred of Trump is more important anything else, except getting blackout drunk.
Or maybe EOs that give immediate relief to the average working person are a good thing, with the intent to make things permanent later. Not to mention that many of these EOs specifically dismantle excessively burdensome and twisted EOs implemented by the previous admin. Is that a possibility, you disingenuous twat?
Sarc wants to keep spending now, claiming he wants cuts, and then blame Trump if Congress doesn't make cuts.
You keep saying he is doing g it wrong but won't explain which laws or appropriation he is violating.
We critics of Trump's actions want spending cuts to be permanent, not some EO that will be undone by the next Democratic administration.
Which is why you attack Trump and not Congress. And attack these cuts because you want higher taxes.
Makes so much sense to the retarded.
I'll take what no one said and what Jesse doesn't understand for $400 Alex.
You attacked him for covid spending in the other thread TODAY you retarded fuck. Lol.
You're attacking these cuts for extending existing tax cuts lol.
Did you even think through your fucking logic? I know you suck at it.
This 4.8T "cost" is KEEPING the current tax cuts or baseline. The spending cuts are from CURRENT spending.
So take the 1.5T from current deficit. This cuts spending for the current baseline.
But you and VDR fail to understand this reality so assume it means he is adding 2.3T to the deficit. He is not because the CURRENT baseline is the tax cuts he wants extended.
You're too fucking retarded to see how dumb you look.
It is an intentional misunderstanding of what is being written.
I'm not going to defend the things you rehearsed arguments against.
Maybe I would if you wanted me to play devil's advocate. But then you would have to stop being a dick. That's not going to happen.
This is where you realize you didn't realize the 4.8T was an extension. Lol.
Where am I wrong? You're defending the expiration of current tax policy that has been in place for 5 years.
I'm not going to defend the things you rehearsed arguments against.
Maybe I would if you wanted me to play devil's advocate. But then you would have to stop being a dick. That's not going to happen.
What is your srgument against 1.5T in cut? Explain. Use small words if you have to.
I just told you I'm not asserting the the things you want to argue against.
If you want me to play the part of someone who supports what you want to argue against, I might. But you'd have to stop being a dick.
Let me try in really small words.
Why are you against the 1.5T in cuts and supporting VDRs take about taxes as a cost?
Her entire premise is retarded as these are extensions. Your defense of her argument shows you agree with her retarded take, which is letting current tax cuts subset increasing taxes.
Let me try in really small words.
I'm not promoting what you are arguing against.
If you want me to play the other side for the sake of argument I might, but you'd have to stop being a dick and stop attacking me for things I didn't say that you want me to defend.
You're such a fucking shit weasel. Your entire agreement above with VDR, your comment, is about not allowing the Trump tax cuts to be extended.
Then you pretend you are saying nothing.
You're so fucking pathetic.
I'm going to copy that into a .txt file.
Lol. .txt file. God damn. How computer illiterate are you.
Bookmarks are easy buddy. You'll figure them out some day.
Oh fuck, I just became you. Never mind. File deleted.
I don't lie about my past statements like you lol.
You make repetitive posts all the time.
Poor sarc, always the victim.
The second Sarcasmic gets punched back he's suddenly an innocent bystander who's being bullied.
What a fraud he is.
The job of the executive is to execute laws passed by Congress.
I'm not saying that Trump is violating the law.
However his job is to do what Congress says.
Whatever leeway he has, that he is exploiting, will be gone without legislation.
I want him to be more like FDR, and do the job with legislation.
Or it's all for nothing.
However his job is to do what Congress says.
This is why you're fucking retarded.
Article 2 has the president faithfully executed the laws, not be subservient to Congress retard. That is what he is doing.
Do you read your own words? He has to execute laws. The only thing Congress can do is pass laws. So that means he's subservient to them. Your ego is so fucking huge that you can't agree with me? Dude. Leave AZ and got to Vegas.
You doubled down on your fucking idiocy.
Where is he violating any laws or appropriation retard?
He executes his duties under the take care. The laws are general. He is executing them in the manner he believes is upholding both law and constitution. He hasn't violated shit. But you keep making this retarded claim.
And again, no he is not subservient to congress. He is a coequal branch you retarded leftist fuck.
Congress can and has passed unconstitutional laws. In your view a president should execute unconstitutional laws. Lol.
It's pathetic you can't see how wrong you are. Read the fucking constitution. Read the Federalist papers. You sound like a big standard leftist.
Oh. And bookmarked. I will use this a lot.
So that means he's subservient to them.
Let's just say that I've got no argument with anything you just said. Let that be a premise of this argument.
How long will Trump's changes last without legislation?
Surely your beloved democrats wouldn’t increase spending.
Permanent as the money isn't being spent. Future presidents can spend what they are appropriated after he leaves.
Do you even understand the issue?
Do you understand the interest starts when the money is spent?
I already told you yesterday I am good with not spending now with changes to spending in Congress as well. But you refuse to acknowledge the former. Because of your blind hate.
But following your retarded question...
How long will spending cuts last if Congress cuts spending? The same useless question you just posed. As soon as Congress passes new appropriation. You thinking they are permanent if Congress does it is fucking hilarious though.
Try again without attacking assumptions.
Fuck you're dumb.
I answered your question. Answer mine retard.
The word co-equal means nothing to sarc.
He is a fucking imbecile.
Notice he fully exposed his colors here by wanting Trump to be more like the lion of the left, FDR.
Notice how fucking emotional and shortsighted you and the rest of your Trump defending ilk are by not caring that all of His EOs will be undone, and things will be back-to-Biden unless Congress acts.
So when I say He needs to be more like FDR, I mean I want His changes to be harder to undo.
I capitalize His pronouns because He's a religion to you.
And you fucking morons think I don't want to cut government because I disagree with how He is doing it.
If anything it's you who doesn't, because you defend temporary changes while attacking anyone who wants it done legislatively.
Fuck fucking fuckity fuck you.
Poor sarc.
Congress can not bind a future congress.
Your entire argument about something bring undone in the future applies to congress as well you dumb leftist fuck. Your argument is retarded.
You stupid phagoot, this is an article about Congress making spending cuts permanent, and you are in the Nay column again. Quit your concern trolling, nobody GAS what you say or think
The nerve of this rag to call anything unserious.
So continuing at the same tax rates requires spending cuts?
Actually, no.
VDR and sarc don't understand this.
CountmontyC: Have you forgotten how high the budget deficit is? Continuing the same rate of taxation without very deep spending cuts is the route to turn the current inflation of 10 percent or so (in real store prices, not government statistics) into 20 percent or more.
Not that ending those tax cuts (which de Rugy dishonestly mischaracterized) would do much to balance the budget - it would slow the economy so not only are most Americans poorer, but tax revenues would be much less than expected. Spending has to be cut by much more than 1.5 billion, and by much more than Trump can legally cut it without Congressional action.
Don't let Congress slide Trump/DOGE. Need to whip them into real spending cuts. Don't play nice and shield them from their disastrous stewardship of the nation's finances. Use the bully pulpit and name names of those who refuse to make the needed reductions if needed. Let their constituents know who isn't serious about putting our financial house in order.
123% debt to GDP ratio is completely unsustainable.
^ This
Republicans claim a mandate, then they bloody-well need to use it. Make DOGE's spending cuts permanent. Make the tax cuts permanent. Trump has the power to take down any Republican that doesn't support this. Do it!
hear hear!
And if Trump does any of those things you will condemn him in another drunken tantrum.
Wait... does you "hear hear" include the cuts that laid off your poor shipyard friends, you know, all the welders and machinists?
Somehow before the dod made cuts.
You just blamed Trump for covid spending in the fdr thread... lol.
It won't matter. Boehm, sullum, vdr, and people like sarc will still blame Trump and not congress.
This is no surprise to anyone familiar with historical spending patterns. The GOP are profligate spenders, and they just lurv a rising deficit when they're in power. And the stats show that most tax cuts don't pay for themselves (though this idea was only ever a marketing gimmick.)
"But Biden!" (as one cretin above said, in effect.) So what? If the GOP are supposedly the party of fiscal responsibility, how about they show some?
$1.5 trillion cut to spending = profligate spending? This is about as sane as the pro free speech Nazis.
Reminder. Idiots like shrike think it is spending to let you keep your own money.
Look at actual spending under GOP congresses and presidents.
They're profligate, all right.
Here you go: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/BUDGET-2025-TAB/context
Also tax cuts usually increase tax revenue. Time after time.
It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. - the Gipper
And here it isn't a tax cuts but a current tax policy extension. Shrike is actually arguing for a tax increase which leads to lower economic activity.
Also tax cuts usually increase tax revenue. Time after time.
That article doesn't support its own title. It makes the case that revenue rises after tax cuts, but that is not relative to without tax cuts. Yes revenue increases in a nation with a growing economy and population despite the tax cuts. But even this piece admits revenue losses.
Some quotes frome the atricle:
When people in the press or on television talk about tax cuts reducing revenue, they’re talking about revenue compared with what might have been, not in actual terms. They like to talk about budget baselines—straight-line revenue projections that assume nothing will change—and then argue that tax cuts hurt the Treasury because the actual revenue growth didn’t meet the predicted growth.
Ummm yeah?
And a time series analysis published in the years following [the U.S. Revenue Act of 1964] found that it led to a cumulative revenue loss of just $2.5 billion through 1966, compared with the estimate of what revenue would have been without the tax cuts.
Federal revenue did fall after the [Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001]—which were signed into law when the economy was in recession and three months before the Sept. 11 attacks—but by only $210 billion, or 10.6%, over the next two years
In a new research paper, Charles Blahous...determined that 83% of the deficit is due to spending growth (especially with Social Security and Medicare and other government healthcare programs), while 16.8% is the result of tax cuts over several decades.
That's not to say tax cuts can't boost revenue. Obviously both 0% and a 100% tax rate would result in 0 revenue so there's a sweet spot somewhere and anything higher or lower would decrease revenue.
Based on this year over year list, the dips all coincide with recessions, some of which saw tax cuts implemented concurrently (like 2001). I think it’s foolhardy to just automatically blame the cuts for that revenue loss (not saying that’s what you’re doing).
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762
“it led to a cumulative revenue loss of just $2.5 billion through 1966, compared with the estimate of what revenue would have been without the tax cuts.”
This drives me nuts. We have no way of knowing what revenue would have actually been. Argh.
Personally, I don’t know which side is closer to the truth about government revenue in our current tax rate range. It's my belief, like I quoted above, that it doesn't matter, we pay what they spend, now or later, by taxes, inflation or stalled economic activity.
Gene Epstein is my go to economist as a starting point on economic issues if I haven't done a deep dive. Here is a quote from him:
Dude, the idea that cutting taxes necessarily increases revenue to the Treasury is quite debatable. Why would you want to increase revenue to the Treasury anyway? Why not cut gov't spending so that we remove any need to increase revenue to the Treasury?!
https://x.com/GeneSohoForum/status/1834270431995429223
“ Also tax cuts usually increase tax revenue. Time after time.”
This is one of the most dishonest talking points ever. As long as the economy grows, tax revenues will grow. So tax cuts can’t claim the increased revenue that growth will automatically provide. They can only claim the net increase over what revenues would have been without the tax cuts, adjusted for any additional costs the cuts themselves create through increased borrowing costs (because we have never had a tax cut instituted when there wasn’t a deficit).
And when you actually account for everything, supply-side tax cuts have always lost us a significantly larger amount than the rates they replaced. Demand-side cuts (non-corporate and middle/lower class focused cuts) are always more successful, but cuts like the ones from Trump’s first term always blow up the deficit. Which is exactly what happened.
Supply-side economics doesn’t work. It never has because math doesn’t work that way. It would be less damaging without deficits, but we haven’t had that since Clinton.
Also tax cuts usually increase tax revenue.
I always get suspicious when someone wants to use actual dollars rather than constant - inflation adjusted - dollars. So should you.
Tax cuts aren’t spending. That’s not their fucking money to begin with.
It blows my mind that the DNC agitators here think it's somehow a viable argument for a libertarian comment thread.
It’s bonkers.
Tax cuts aren’t spending.
No. Spending is spending. And the GOP do a very bad job of it when they're in power.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2025-TAB/xls/BUDGET-2025-TAB-2-3.xlsx
They have been showing some for several weeks now.
And you've been screaming at them to stop it.
I like to see the Congress start with the spending cuts and leave the tax cut extension sit. The fact is they have all of 2025 to show they can cut some spending before they do a tax cut extension. I would personally like to see them skip the tax cut extension but that is too much to ask for, so at least do the spending cuts first.
Yes. You democrats love raising taxes.
You Republicans don’t like paying your bills.
Hahahahahahahahahaha
You did not actually try to go there.
Hahahahahahahahahaha
Except the Democrats are not raising taxes. The extension is needed because the Republican chose to let the 2017 tax cuts expire in 2025 when they wrote the original bill.
No one cares what you Proggy idiots think
There should not be net tax cuts while the government runs a deficit. It is entirely irresponsible to dump the cost of the present government on future generations.
Libertarians for higher taxes! That will surely spur the economy.
Molly is a leftist so she thinks any money we have is at the pleasure of the government.
Yes, no, maybe. Look up the Laffer Curve on whatever you trust. There is a Goldilocks zone. In theory.
Then politicians get involved and it becomes stupid.
You do realize taxes take money out of the economy, slowing growth, which means less taxes in the future? Of course you do, that's exactly what you want. Slow the economy so you can blame Trump. Fuck off.
Yeah, that’s the supply-side talking points that we’ve heard for the last 45 years. It never works. It never will work because it’s a scam.
It’s almost like paying your bills and a small deficit (Clinton and Obama) are better for the economy than hacking the top rate and running up the debt (Bush and Trump).
Everything conservatives say is bullshit.
Clinton and Obama didn’t do shit till forced by, wait for it, Republican Congress’s, you fucking simp.
You claimed to be a pro capitalist yesterday. Now you're demanding government taxation. Weird. While arguing leftist taxation talking points. So fucking weird.
I am a capitalist. Capitalism doesn’t mean embracing bad policies. Reducing taxes is a good thing only if it stimulates the economy. Otherwise it just drives up the deficit. Supply-side tax cuts don’t stimulate the economy as well as demand-side tax cuts.
Put money in the pockets of the rich and corporations and they will use it to increase the value of stocks and their profit margins. But they won’t use it to raise wages or put more money in the pockets of consumers (the demand side).
The economy grows through increased economic activity. If you put more money in the pockets of the middle class and taxpayers (demand-side), the economy takes off.
You seem to be unable to understand that opposing supply-side economics isn’t the same thing as opposing capitalism. You’re literally too stupid to understand such a basic concept.
Demand-side tax cuts, spending cuts, and a balanced budget will stimulate the economy immensely. That is what I’m in favor of because that’s how capitalism works.
Supply-side tax cuts, spending increases, and fiscal irresponsibility (the Republican/Trump plan) will continue to grow the debt and do little to strengthen the economy.
You are obviously clueless about what capitalism is, how it works, and why it is such a successful system. Corporate welfare and giveaways to the thin top end of the income curve aren’t capitalist. They distort the market, they don’t enhance it.
Letting the market determine corporate success and targeting tax cuts to the thickest part of the bell curve is the best (and most capitalist) way to manage the economy.
Every time I think you couldn’t possibly say anything more economically ignorant, you prove me wrong. Find a basic macroeconomics textbook and learn something. It will make you much less of a fool and a dupe.
While you’re at it, read up on capitalism and Marxism. You’re woefully ignorant about those, too.
That’s not a talking point, it’s simple math.
Taxes can be structured to minimize the effect on the economy by going lighter on lower and middle incomes that spend much of their earnings and going heavier on the wealthier that spend lower percentages. That is why this country uses a progressive income tax.
TaX the RiCh!
That is the purpose of a progressive tax system like the US Income tax. It is also true that the wealthiest drive the most benefit from government spending. Amazon uses USPS for much of its shipping. Companies like Google and X work in the internet which was developed first by the government. Companies rely on educated workers meaning they benefit from schools. Shipping companies depend on roadways and airports.
You didn't have a problem with that last year.
Yes, Fatass Donnie is “unserious”, Peanuts.
You want proof? He has been floating the idea of a $5000 payout from the lame $50 billion Doge savings.
His $1400 handouts in 2020 cost $2 trillion.
There is not a goddamn serious thing about the con man other than Owning the Libs.
About 250,000 federal employees know how serious he is. And shit posting 50 centers who no longer get their 50 cents from USAID.
I put that in the Owning the Libs category. He knows the vast majority of federal workers vote Democrat.
USAid should be cut. He also flew some 170 ratty migrants to Gitmo today.
See, I can give him credit when he deserves it.
Too be fair, Open Society canned Buttplug two years ago. The politruk work that he's doing right now is out of rage against the posters who cost him his job. That's why it's gotten more trolly and extra retarded. He has to hunt for the talking points himself now, but he's lazy.
We need to crank out more babies. We can't let this entitlement Ponzi scheme fizzle out due to a dearth of new pigeons! Birth, baby, birth!
"we're talking about offsetting as much as $4.8 trillion—mostly for tax cut extensions"
"created by a president who spends his time threatening trading partners with ever more tariffs"
You're being incoherent Veronique de Rugy.
And Trump and Republicans 'plan' isn't ... precisely because it puts a Tax on a 'loophole' of ZERO-Tax International Trade (i.e. Tariff) for Domestic Tax-Cuts.
So, wasn't this the same chick who last week said
"Congress Should Extend the Trump Tax Cuts."
and "Not doing so could be harmful for just about everyone."
Fucking Reason, man. Nothing but rage bit and complaining.
You're missing the point. Yes, existing tax cuts should be extended, in fact they should be cut even further. AND this should be paired with just as deep cuts in government spending.
Otherwise it's just a continuation of the same statist practices of government living beyond its means and trying to please everyone, at the cost of future generations, and indeed the very sustainability of the United States.
It is easy to gripe about what is being done when you have no responsibility and therefore can ignore the political calculus of how to actually accomplish something with minimal majorities.
NPR is reporting that the $55 billion in savings that the Department of Government Efficiency is claiming to have produced is based in large part on a typo, and grossly exaggerates the actual amount of cuts, which is more like $2 billion.
So then why are they bitching about the DOGE cuts if they're so minimal? They seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. Either DOGE is cutting so much and it's a problem (in their outlook) or DOGE in inefficient and barely cutting anything.
But a Democrat budget plan would be serious? When in the history of America has that EVER been true even once?
I have a surreal feeling when I start watching the news. First about politics, then about economics.. You know what.. I understand that no one will take care of me and my family better than me.. There is nothing to hope for and my hand reaches for the link to 1xbet bonus code. It's good that at least there is something that I can do and God bless the Super Bowl.