It's Rand Paul and Elon Musk vs. Donald Trump Over the 'Big Beautiful Bill'
Paul said he refuses to support "maintaining Biden spending levels," and Musk said the Trump-backed tax bill is "a disgusting abomination."

The intra-Republican fight over the future of a major tax and borrowing bill intensified on Tuesday, as President Donald Trump lashed out and former White House favorite Elon Musk offered a sharp criticism of the proposal.
The whole thing played out, as today's political dramas so often do, in a series of posts on social media.
Trump slammed Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) in a Tuesday morning post on Truth Social that accused the senator of having "very little understanding" of the so-called Big Beautiful Bill (BBB), which the House passed last week. The bill would extend the 2017 personal income tax cuts and includes a number of new tax and spending provisions.
Trump wrote that the bill is a big "WINNER." He may see it that way, but every independent assessment of the package says it will add at least $3 trillion to the long-term deficit (and potentially as much as $5 trillion). That means the bill is doing the opposite of what Trump vowed to do in March during his speech to Congress, when he promised to balance the budget.
The prospect of that increased borrowing is at the root of Paul's objections. In a post on X, Paul seemingly responded to Trump's criticism by showing that he understands exactly what the BBB would do.
"The math doesn't add up," Paul wrote. "I'm not supporting a bill that increases the debt by $5 [trillion]. I refuse to support maintaining Biden spending levels."
Paul reiterated his view on the bill: He wants to extend the 2017 tax cuts, but in such a way that does not add to the deficit. In his posts on Tuesday, Paul added that "at least 4 of us in the Senate feel this way." Four GOP votes against the bill would be enough to block its passage through the Senate.
Musk, who officially departed from his role in the White House last week, jumped into the debate to criticize the bill. "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk wrote. "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it."
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R–La.), who shepherded the BBB through the House last week, told The Hill that Musk was "terribly wrong" to criticize the bill. Other conservatives suggested that Musk was motivated more by the loss of tax credits that benefit Tesla than by genuine concern about the deficit.
Musk's motivations might not be pure, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. In a follow-up post on X, he wrote that "Congress is making America bankrupt." No lies detected there—and the BBB will make that situation worse.
Musk and Paul are at least living in reality. The White House, meanwhile, has resorted to trying to discredit the independent entities that have scored the bill. On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt accused the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) of engaging in partisan politics by saying the BBB would add to the deficit—echoing a criticism that Johnson made last week.
That's a rather absurd allegation, considering the current director of the CBO is Phillip Swagel, a Republican who previously worked in the Bush administration and at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
Math is not a conspiracy against Trump. The president and his supporters are free to disagree with the likes of Musk and Paul, but they should stop lying about the budgetary impact of the BBB and should admit that they support higher levels of borrowing. Then we could have an intellectually serious debate over the bill, instead of whatever this is.
In the meantime, give credit to Musk and Paul for holding the line on fiscal responsibility. Few of their fellow Republicans are willing to do that these days.
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
Why are you quoting musk, the notsee?
Boehm: "Musk's motivations might not be pure"
Boehm is such a crappy, overt shill for the blob.
Good for them. It's fucking insane that anyone is sitting there nodding along as if continuing spending at the current levels is not a disaster. No increased spending for anything. If it's impossible to cut entitlements right now, cut everything else. This is the time. Next year will be an election.
Much of what they are demanding cant actually be done through reconciliation.
They also just started introducing the DOGE reconciliation bills. 10B for the first one.
The whole point of this article is to create a perception that republicans are turning against Trump. As with all. Boehm articles, this is bullshit, from. bullshit Boehm.
On a side note. I asked ChatGPT why Boehm is a Marxist. Over the course of several exchanges, the AI insisted that Boehm and Reason are really libertarian. So I presented facts and whittled away at its reasoning. This ended with the AI acknowledging that Boehm and Reason are in fact leftist.
I don’t lose arguments, and certainly not to a badly programmed computer program.
This site has called trump a dictator for going against regular order and such.
Now they are complaining the senate is following the rules.
This was always going to be multiple paths to cuts.
Reconciliation for what's allowed.
Recission for what's allowed.
All while they ignore the vast majority of cuts require 60 senate votes.
Great. Is overall spending going to be less than the previous year?
Shhhh! Don’t ask awkward questions.
$10 billion (which will end up being much, much less) vs. a $5 trillion deficit spending bill. Oh, sure. This administration is really trying to balance the budget. There isn’t a single thing these guys say that isn’t transparently obvious bullshit.
Lol. At least they’re not passing a 2 trillion dollar boondoggle and calling it the inflation reduction act.
They’re fucking pikers at bullshitting compared to your side, Nelly.
I thought the “Inflation Reduction Act t” was nonsense, too. It was wasteful deficit spending and shouldn’t have happened. It’s a large part of what spiked inflation because it was all borrowing.
So which side are you speaking of, Mr. Whataboutism?
a $5 trillion deficit spending bill.
Wow, it keeps getting worse! The lies, that is.
It will be between $2.4 and $5.1 trillion. Do you really think it will stay at the lowest possible price tag? I never believe that things will cost what the government says. It always costs more.
And when you factor in the Trump-level bullshit, it will almost certainly be at the high end.
The problem is that entitlements (and defense) are the only things that are going to actually make a dent. As I've mentioned already, the delta between what the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services shelled out, versus what the FHITF brought in for Medicare Part A, was over $1.7 trillion, all by itself, and equaled the deficit.
Cutting park rangers and cutting/incentivizing DC chair moisteners to leave federal service is nice, but it's on the margin compared to those things. You could slice off every federal employee from the payroll, and you'd still only save about $275 billion, total. Where's the rest going to come from?
You might get there most of the way by aggressively pursuing Medicaid/Medicare and Social Security fraud, but you need an army of investigators and lawyers to mitigate that shit, given the scale the system operates. But don't expect anyone in Congress to have any motivation to get that through for signature. The Dems don't want the gibs to stop flowing, and the Reps don't want to increase the number of government employees.
No one really wants to cut defense; too many Congressmen have military assets or ops of some kind in their district, and the only way to substantively cut back is to end the American imperial defense experiment, when the post-WW2 liberal order built massive welfare states while under our defense umbrella.
Believe it or not, I agree 100% with your first two paragraphs. The fact that they aren’t willing to touch entitlements or defense is why they are growing the deficit, most likely by close to $5 trillion. But after that, we diverge.
“ You might get there most of the way by aggressively pursuing Medicaid/Medicare and Social Security fraud”
There is, percentage-wise, very little fraud in the Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security systems. The total dollars are large, but that’s because of the massive size of the programs. Hiring enough people and giving them enough resources to reduce fraud by 1% might end up being net-positive, but probably not by much. Getting it to 3% or 2% would take far more money than would be recovered. Everyone who has ever run a budget knows that there is just a minimum level of fraud in any large system that isn’t worth the cost to eliminate.
We absolutely wouldn’t get anywhere, never mind “most of the way” by “aggressively pursuing Medicaid/Medicare and Social Security fraud”. There isn’t enough marginal benefit.
The only way to get towards sustainability in SS/Medicare/Medicaid is to raise the age (adding one year every two years for 10 years would be a good benchmark), eliminate the income cap on FICA, and allow the federal government to negotiate for ALL medications, not just 10 new drugs every year, just to start. More costly, but still giving a net positive result, would be means testing for SS.
“ No one really wants to cut defense”
Agreed. There is far more fraud in defense spending than SS/Medicare/Medicaid, but my suspicion is that that is a means to fund clandestine operations. Trying to audit the DOD would be a nightmare because of it.
I almost never agree with you, but in this case I am right there with you.
ya ya pass the fucking tax cuts
hey iirc previously didn't you guys stick up for this spy?
https://www.deadlinedetroit.com/articles/33256/u-m_chinese_scholar_charged_in_conspiracy_to_smuggle_dangerous_biological_weapon_through_detroit_metro_airport
'Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R–La.), who shepherded the BBB through the House last week, told The Hill that Musk was "terribly wrong" to criticize the bill.'
Yeah, what do billionaires know about money? Or maybe Musk is just not into "I'll suck your dick if you suck mine" politics.
That’s impossible, as we all know Trump’s cult of personality completely consumed the entirety of the GOP back in 2016.
Sarcs hardest hit 🙂
I want to hit him even harder.
All but one is close enough. And he’s never been accepted as a true party member anyway.
You're so fucking broken lol.
If only he would die.
If there is one thing that unites Republicans and Democrats in Congress it’s their agreement to spend the country into oblivion. They may differ on how to spend the discretionary portion of the budget but they agree on spending too much and have zero political will to address the true drivers of deficits/debt.
Truth, Bro or Bro-esse!!! Ye speak Truth to the deflowered, empowered, and money-and-power-addicted!!!
Rand Paul's comments dont make logical sense to me.
He says he supports the current cuts (but not big enough)
He says he supports extending the tax cuts.
He admits the bill reduces spending
But then says he doesn't want the hit to the deficit.
The entirety of the "hit" to the deficit is because CBO baseline in assuming income taxes increases.
Paul even admits they are limited in what reconciliation can accomplish.
So on reality it appears he wants to increase income taxes.
Sometimes you need to give up perfection for the right step towards it.
Rand Paul's comments dont make logical sense to me.
Yeah. We know.
So on reality it appears he wants to increase income taxes
And here's the proof. Your same tired accusation now hurled at Rand Paul. It puts Sarc in good company though, doesn't it?
Is he doing his thing where he attacks people who say that it’s irresponsible to pair tax cuts with spending increases, and dishonestly accuses them of promoting higher income taxes? It’s one of his favorite strawmen.
Ideas™ !
Indeed.
It’s ad if he’s reading off cue cards while he accuses others of getting paid to post comments.
Said the “this doesn’t exist “ guy.
He's not saying that at all Dee.
Awww. That's cute. But if you could invoke logic despite your limerance you'd see it's exactly that.
Mike isn't the brightest retard. But he is our retard.
I'll take it.
And how does one achieve the status of "brightest retard"?
We get it. You're guys want income taxes to increase. Because as we've seen in history, spending never goes up when taxes are raised.
LOL
spending never goes up when taxes are raised.
Spending always goes up. So it doesn't matter what else you say. Spending goes up when taxes are raised. Spending goes up when taxes are lowered. Spending goes up when monkeys fly out of my butt.
And people are going to pay for the spending one way or another. That doesn't mean I want taxes increased. It means FUCK YOU CUT SPENDING.
Donnie is the self proclaimed King of Debt.
All your predictions have failed. How do you feel about that?
Shrike has no shame, you know that.
He fucks children too, and traffics in child rape videos.
And coming in $2T shy of Biden [D] trifecta.
He's just an amateur to the real Kings of Debt.
Cunt.
Trump says that Rand Paul has "very little understanding" of the bill. This bill is over a 1000 pages and I doubt Trump could read even the cover page. President Trump would need to have a Fox News producer distill it down to a few minute clip for him to even start to understand the bill. So I am guessing that Paul know a lot more than Trump.
You poor thing.
Fox News used emails from a woman who "talks to ghosts and listens to the wind" as their source for the election fraud claims, so they've lost what little credibility they had left.
Multiple courts ruled there were violations of law by dem election boards.
There are numerous examples of relaxed signature verification.
Since 2020 there have now been 3 elections overturned due to mail ballot fraud.
But continue.
Serious question. Do you actually believe that? That "their source for the election fraud claims" was a "woman who talks to ghosts"?
Just a yes or no will do.
Yes. And it resulted in Faux News having to pay out over seven hundred million dollars in damages.
And Charlie continues to show his ignorance.
The settlement came solely because the judge ruled Fox couldn't use the defense they were going to use or to show the company was lying about their finances. Since then we've seen for a fact the company was lying about their losses.
The settlement came because Fox continued to push lies long after they knew they were lies. No defense was going to change that, unless you count "People should know we're full of shit!" as a valid defense.
But, hey, recycling is good for the environment, so go right on recycling lies.
After 2020-2024, your side has no credibility when it comes to trafficking in truth, shitlib.
And yeah, it's been shown now that Dominion was hiding shit during discovery.
44% of USAians say they they interact with dead people.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/23/many-americans-report-interacting-with-dead-relatives-in-dreams-or-other-ways/
Then there are all those people who pray to that legendary dead carpenter, or to various saints (all dead.)
It’s hilarious that a proven subnormal idiot, such as yourself, impugns the intellect of those so clearly superior.
You’re a silly, retarded bitch. Did you know that?
No, because I am literate enough to be able to read the OBBBA and the current President cannot.
Why do you financial "experts" constantly confuse this?
Long term debt or annual deficit?
They are different.
Because they're not even financial "experts".
They're not even really journalistic experts.
They are not different the nanosecond a Treasury auction occurs. Some of that is a debt rollover (previous deficits that turned into debt the nanosecond they were previously auctioned) - some is newly incremental (this years deficits that turn into debt the nanosecond they are tured into debt via the Treasury auction.
I've seen this so much for the last decade from R's. Flim flam about deficits (which apparently can be ignored because deficits go off to Never Never Land) and debt (which is evil because the D's did that).
"They are not different the nanosecond a Treasury auction occurs."
Do you imagine using the word nanosecond makes you sound smarter?
Perhaps he meant deficit over the long term, or cumulative deficit, which is a component of the total debt.
Go Rand and Musk!!!
CUT some-more and try again.
Maybe Trump should've never promised not to touch security for the socialists.
Because I have to agree; An 8% less-than the 300% Democrats tripling baseline is FAR from preventing bankruptcy and if you can't stomach preventing a Venezuala collapse maybe someone else should be elected --- Like Rand Paul or Thomas Massie for 2029!!! 🙂
Or just eliminate the democrats entirely so we can save the country.
The Republicans should have finished the job in 1865.
It’s still not too late.
Maybe one day, congress will actually follow the rules and pass an actual budget set of bills.
(And include a pony for every kid)
Trump signed what was the biggest aid package ever at that time, all financed by debt, that kick-started Bidenflation, then dictated the biggest single tax hike in generations.
Fuck him.
And fuck you, cut spending.
Hey buddy. Your demand to let the 2017 tax cuts expire is more than double the estimates on tariffs. Lol.
I do like how you say you aren't a Democrat but even blame Trump for inflation under Biden as if democrats didn't pass 2 high spending bills under Biden. Also added 5T in regulations under Biden.
Fucking hilarious.
And fuck you, cut spending.
Except for that stuff Doge is doing. It’s just not worth it.
It’s only ok if his his democrat party does it.
"And fuck you, cut spending."
Except you shit yourself with rage every time they do and insist only congress can cut spending and they should be forced to wait for them.
Sarc doesn’t give a shit about spending. He only cares about hating Trump, and getting blackout drunk.
"The math doesn't add up," Paul wrote. "I'm not supporting a bill that increases the debt by $5 [trillion]. I refuse to support maintaining Biden spending levels."
Paul reiterated his view on the bill: He wants to extend the 2017 tax cuts, but in such a way that does not add to the deficit.
Show us math that adds up then, Sen. Paul. Show us what spending you would decrease and/or eliminate in order to extend the tax cuts without increasing borrowing.
Letting the 2017 cuts expire will result in less revenue to the treasury. How do you not understand that?
When has this Laffer Curve nonsense ever been shown to actually work?
http://www.lisdatacenter.org/wps/liswps/711.pdf
See page 11 and the set of graphs on page 14.
That paper looked to estimate where the peak of the Laffer curve was for each OECD country and compare that to each country's top marginal income tax rate. The peaks varied, but mostly around 70%. That paper listed the top rate in the U.S. as 48%, but I think that is an effective marginal rate that factors in other things, since the top IRS tax bracket the year of that paper was 39.6% plus an ACA surtax of just under 4%.
The table on page 11 includes a "degree of self-financing" which the paper defines as the extent to which a tax cut would 'pay for itself'. That is, how much of the revenue lost under a static assumption is recovered due to the incentive to increase one's income. For the U.S., that was 30%.
Republican politicians never admit that the research by economists in the decades since Reaganomics became an article of GOP faith is squarely against any notion that tax cuts pay for themselves. They just don't.
I looked this guy up. What I get out of it is that this paper was part of Jacob Lundberg’s doctoral thesis given it was published in 2017. The same year he received his PhD.
So basically, you expect us to take the word of some random doctoral candidate to discredit Art Laffer? Seriously?
Nice try. Thanks for playing.
So basically, you expect us to take the word of some random doctoral candidate to discredit Art Laffer? Seriously?
"I don't understand this any better than you do, so I'll just laugh at you because you question this authority figure that tells me something I like."
How about a CBO analysis from 2005?
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/109th-congress-2005-2006/reports/12-01-10percenttaxcut.pdf
I'm at least trying to find empirical data to support or refute that the Laffer curve applies to the real world. You seem to simply take it as a given.
The story told by journalist Jude Wanniski is that he communicated this idea while arguing against tax increases during Ford's administration. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were among those present in addition to Wanniski, and Laffer made his point by drawing it on a napkin. It got put into practice, somewhat, during Reagan's administration. How did that work out for the federal debt?
double post
https://www.statista.com/statistics/200405/receipts-of-the-us-government-since-fiscal-year-2000/
Notice anything? That’s right, tax revenue only ever goes down when the economy contracts, regardless of any tax cuts being passed. Now look at 2004, 2011, and 2018 and notice that revenue went up the year after tax cuts were passed/extended.
Get bent.
Whether or not tax revenue went up isn’t the standard. It’s whether or not tax revenue went up compared to where it would have been without the tax cuts.
That number never ends up positive. All you have to do to see what a supply-side utopia looks like is to check out what happened to Kansas under Sam Brownback.
But if you like supply-side economics, I wouldn’t eat first. It’s a bloodbath for Kansas.
And making importers pay taxes will result in MORE revenue to the treasury.
How do you not understand that?
You know the tax cuts don’t actually cost us money, right?
^THIS. It's the [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] costing us all our labors.
...because that's exactly what they lobby for; STEALING / ENSLAVING.
Once the party-of-slavery ... still the party of slavery.
Something, something about a leopard and it's spots.
He really doesn’t. Above, he linked a study from some random doctoral candidate to discredit Art Laffer.
No, but it does add to the deficit because tax cuts have never paid for themselves. There’s a reason it is referred to as “voodoo economics”.
The Laffer Curve is a joke. A really, really bad joke.
NOT stealing doesn't pay for itself? /s
The very curs-id root failure of leftard criminal-minded economics.
STEALING doesn't PAY period because no add-value comes-out of stealing.
'Guns' don't make sh*t.
BUBBA, the Butt Ugly Budget Busting Act, should be thrown out and the clowns in Congress sent back to the drawing board. Anyone who runs a household budget knows you don't reduce income and increase debt if you want your budget to balance.
And yet, you retarded fuck, the tax cuts didn’t actually reduce federal tax revenue.
Quite the opposite. Far left democrats are painfully ignorant of even recent history.
Relative to what they would have been without the cuts, they do. Every single time it’s been done.
And so they add to the deficit. Significantly. The last time it was roughly $2 trillion. This time it’s looking more like $5 trillion.
I keep hoping that the GOP will learn that a “-“ in from of a number (or a number in parentheses) isn’t a gain. They keep failing to understand.
The only way to balance the budget is to cut non-discretionary spending (SS, Medicare, and Medicaid) and military spending. Cutting the deficit (or ideally balancing the budget) will slowly lower the other main driver of deficit, interest on our debt. A flat tax (per individual, no other status) would also go a long way towards helping, with the first $25k free and no deductions or credits. But the only party that says they want to balance the budget, doesn’t. So we’re all screwed.
A flat tax sounds good, but you need to think it through. If the goal is to keep revenue the same, then for every taxpayer that ends up paying less, there has to be at least one person paying more.
Whenever I see Republicans or libertarians arguing for a flat tax, it always seems to come with the understanding that people with high incomes will end up paying a lower percentage of their gross income than they do now. And I don't just mean lower than the current top marginal tax rates; I mean lower than the effective tax rate that they actually pay. The reasoning there is the usual supply-side thinking, but that has to come with tax increases for people with lower incomes.
If the goal is not to give tax cuts to people at the top of the income distribution, then why is a flat tax rate preferable to progressive marginal tax rates? The benefits of that elude me.
The elimination of deductions will impact high-earners more. Hell, the elimination of the lower rate for capital gains will generate a crapload of revenue. The part that democratizes a flat tax is the “no loopholes” part. Those almost exclusively benefit high-earners.
The elimination of deductions will impact high-earners more.
I don't think that this will work out the way you think it will. Even with the spin that the right-leaning Tax Foundation puts on things, it is clear that a flat tax, limited deductions or not, would take a progressive tax structure we have now and turn into one that isn't. Meaning, instead of paying an effective tax rate of 26%* for the top 1% of income earners, a flat tax of 20% would be a tax cut for them, even if the allowed deductions were zero. And it would be a tax hike for everyone else if deductions were also limited for them.
*The effective tax rate that they calculated simply takes their total taxes paid and divides by their total taxable income, then expresses that as a %. Deductions are irrelevant to that calculation.
Besides, deductions are not what the most wealthy people use to reduce their tax bill. They use tax shelters, offset income with losses from investment income, and most of all, they get more of their income from investments and pay the capital gains rate instead of the much higher marginal rates on ordinary income.
A true test of an organizations biases is revealed by the stories they cover. What I see consistently from Reason is left leaning coverage. We have an administration that is actively trying to reduce the size of the government, rooting out the fiscal corruption and trying to return the control to the people. As this is happening Reason chooses to cover second order issues. Libertarians should be thrilled, yet you guys are so distressed that you can't take a leak without pissing on your leg.
Seriously, take a look in the mirror, pause for a second, and internalize that what is stated above is all true.
We have an administration that is actively trying to reduce the size of the government, rooting out the fiscal corruption and trying to return the control to the people.
You seriously believe that? We have a government of laws, not a government of men. Firing people while leaving all the laws in place will not change a thing in the long run. As far as rooting out fiscal corruption goes, DOGE saved a few days worth of federal spending at most, and Trump added more. Stop believing the bullshit.
What did you save? What plan do you have to reduce spending and balance the budget without raising taxes?
Cut entitlements and defense spending. There is no other way to do it. Those are almost 2/3 of the budget, with interest on the debt bumping it up to almost 3/4.
If they aren’t cutting entitlements, they aren’t even trying to reduce the deficit, let alone balance the budget.
Trumps BBB is an 8% CUT to last years.
Trump didn't "add more" you lying sack of sh*t.
A true test of an organizations biases is revealed by the stories they cover. What I see consistently from Reason is left leaning coverage. We have an administration that is actively trying to reduce the size of the government, rooting out the fiscal corruption and trying to return the control to the people. As this is happening Reason chooses to cover second order issues.
This is some serious question begging. We read 'stories' (news, analysis, and commentary) to find out things we don't already know and to check whether the things we think we know are really true. At least, that is the ideal. You just complained that Reason isn't telling you the things that you "know" are true. You're saying that Reason's failure is that it isn't confirming your priors.
“ We have an administration that is actively trying to reduce the size of the government, rooting out the fiscal corruption and trying to return the control to the people.”
Not at all. They are actively trying to convince people of that, but nothing they actually do is accomplishing any of those things.
Reducing the size of government isn’t a goal, in and of itself. There are plenty of parts of the government that are doing exactly what the need to. And those tasks are important. Wholesale firing of employees (especially when you have to go back and rehire a lot of them when you figure out they’re needed) is a terrible idea. You need to identify those who are superfluous or agencies that are overstaffed and cut there. Otherwise you’re just firing people for the sake of firing people, and that is ineffective.
Rooting out fiscal corruption is the same thing. Finding and targeting waste is a good plan. Making grandiose, factually-deficient claims about how much you are saving by slashing departments and firing people is useless when a little investigation reveals they are all accounting tricks and phantom cuts. This administration hasn’t even found, let alone eliminated, any fiscal corruption. The farce of the 130-year-olds on the Social Security is the perfect example of that.
And how, exactly, are they trying to return control to the people? Not through the rule of law, which is the biggest and strongest control that the people have against the government. Not through fiscal responsibility, since they are outdoing Biden in the deficit spending department. So how are they returning control to us?
So how are they returning control to us?
You misunderstood who is included in "us". For MAGA supporters, "We" in "We the people" consists of other MAGA supporters, just like Trump, the loyalists surrounding him, and his MAGA supporters are "us" in their minds.
lol, the Marxistarians don't know WHAT to do with this one.
Kinda evidences how all their articles are ultimately just revolve around the question of, "How can this be spun anti-Donald." Like they have no principles whatsoever.
Jeep pushing Rand and Musk. The fools in Congress will keep increase spending until the levee finally breaks.
123% debt to gdp. Yearly trillion dollar interest payments on the debt. These are not healthy fiscal indicators.
Musk v. Trump has gotten very, very good today and needs its own new article, stat.
Right? Nothing like two egomaniacal children having a pissing contest to make the day more interesting.
Personally, I choose Musk. An entrepreneur who saw the future markets better than anyone else vs. the born-on-third-base trust fund baby who couldn’t keep his business afloat. Four times.
One of them is a genius, with a healthy dose of madness included. The other is Trump.
Musk is not shy about articulating his views and since they are libertarianish in this matter I hope he bends the course of events somehow toward smaller government. Others have stated Musk and Trump are acting like children and even if an accurate characterization, doesn't negate the essential argument that Musk is in the right.
Ben Shapiro has a timely take on the feud:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vjnGeIDIfc