Did Trump pull a bait and switch?
He campaigned on fixing what everyone wanted ASAP, which is make thigs affordable again. Let me preface those who understand how the economy works knew prices wouldn't snap back to yesteryear w/o a recession. But now he says 1-3 year pain until gain, how do voters not see the fucking bait and switch and still have faith in the Mango Messiah?
Save all the "this is what they voted for BS" no it's not!!
Replies to: Did Trump pull a bait and switch?
No! Trump did exactly what he promised in campaign. He is the only leader with courage to do it.
(no message)
Guess you failed math from whatever country you came from. Reciprocal means what over there?
(no message)
??? No idea what you're talking about from your own thread.
(no message)
Keep up Eli... I'll type slower
The higher prices will be direct result of the "reciprocal" tariffs. Reciprocity means equal in effect however that's not what the tariffs are. They're the result of some Auto Magic math that's not mathin.
Tarriff will raise price. If not raising the price, that means tariff doesn't work. But tariff will
also raise production of importing country which creates jobs, independence and eventually benefits consumers.
Thank you for eventually agreeing with me that Trump lied on bringing prices down now.
Voters didn't ask for even higher prices now with the possibility of the lower in three to four years.
No. In reality most countries will negotiate with US. The new deal will result in no tarriffs
increase on their imports to US, but these countries will lower tariff on US exports to their countries and/or they will increase US exports to their countries. That's why we always say Trump intends to use tariff as a tool for better deals. You knew that. I told you quite a few months ago. Yes, some products in some countries don't belong to the deals. They're not negotiatable because we intend to bring them back to US and make thrm made in US. We intend to rebuild manufacture in US.
Crazy how you have such blind faith broham. Aren't you the one who says you're not a Trumper?
Again I'll remind you Trump touted how he negotiated such a great trade deal with USMCA only to trash it 4 years later.
.
(no message)
And here I thought fixing decades of lack of will to do the tough things would be easy.
(no message)
Fixing it? Bwahahahaha. You mean making it worse.
He’s gonna add 20 trillion in 10 years. And the tariffs are an abomination for his own voting base.
You think DOGE is just a smoke screen to increase spending?
(no message)
I know what the numbers say. I have my own thoughts on the subject, but they are speculation.
If he was serious about cutting the debt, DOGE would not be the way to go about it. But he’s not. Again, the numbers don’t lie.
Round 1 of Trump was fixing the trade imbalance and he made it worse.
Now Round 2 he thinks going more extreme with made up formulas will make it better?
Maybe we need another "Inflation Reduction Act".
Which is now estimated to cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years and between $2 trillion and $4 trillion by 2050, and did absolutely nothing to reduce inflation. Ya know, a bait and switch.
What Trump should be doing now is negotiating with our allies (and Mexico with pressure to fix their damn country) for truly free trade, no tariffs. But I fear he really thinks we can go back to 1913 where the government is funded by tariffs and no income tax.
And then he needs to push to return the federal budget back to 2019 level: $4.4T. The 2024 federal revenue was $4.9T, this would be a surplus of $0.5T. I think we could survive at the 2019 level, even with the additional interest. Plenty of fat to trim (and pigs squeal).
Went straight to wahtaboutism, cool. Didn't Trump negotiate and come up with USMCA?
(no message)
You brought up bait and switch as if it was a new phenomenon.
You guys celebrated the "Inflation Reduction Act", own your vote.
How was the IRA a bait and switch, please explain?
(no message)
It was called the "Inflation Reduction Act" and did no such thing, for starters.
They said it would cost $370B and is now estimated to cost 3-4X that amount over 10 years and even more in the future.
Since you seem confused as to what "bait and switch" means, here's a definition: First, the merchant "baits" the customer by advertising a product or service at a low price; then when the customer goes to purchase the item, they discover that it is unavailable, and the merchant pressures them instead to purchase a similar but more expensive product ("switching").
So, they baited us with the promise of a reduction in inflation (at a time when the public was desperate for it), sold it at a modest cost and then the switch is what we actually got, no inflation reduction and much higher costs. Get it?
Inflation went down whether directly or indirectly of the IRA
You still seem to be confused on describing the actual bait and switch? Who was baited?
Economists are pretty unanimous that it had little to no effect.
I explained it pretty clearly, but you're not getting it, so good luck to you sir.