Will Trump support our Founder’s big beautiful original tax plan?

It seems to me those advising Trump, who constantly demand having an annually balanced federal budget and forcing fiscal restraints upon Congress’s spending, suspiciously avoid any mention of our Founder’s original tax plan which would, if returned to, accomplish their asserted goals.

To Trump’s credit, he apparently sees the advantage of taxing at our border’s edge as a primary means to fill our national treasury, and using tariffs to advance an America first policy which includes using tariffs to encourage a healthy domestic manufacturing base, which is critical to our national defense and is in perfect harmony with our Founder’s thinking.

For example, knowing full well that building a strong domestic merchant marine, necessary to defending the United States, one of the very first revenue raising Acts of Congress included giving hometown ship builders an advantage when taxing imports, thus leading to a healthy domestic ship building industry. See: July 4, 1789, CHAP. II.—An Act for laying a Duty on Goods, Wares, and Merchandises imported (Section 5 . . . Discount on duties for goods imported in vessels of citizens.)

Also see: CHAP. III.—An Act imposing Duties on Tonnage.(a) July 20th, 1789, [further down the page] continuing an advantage to encourage domestic ship building.

Getting back to our Founder’s big beautiful original tax plan, currently being promoted as the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, I’m beginning to believe some of Trump’s most trusted advisors are really flimflam con artists and have no intention to actually force fiscal restraints upon Congress nor end reckless federal spending which has become a clever device to plunder the people’s treasury by distributing its contents into the pockets of countless non-government organizations created for money laundering operations and defy the defined and limited objects for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend.

The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment would go a long way to end the massive corruption now taking place in Washington, because it creates a very real moment of accountability when each State’s Congressional Delegation would have to return home with a bill in hand for their State Legislature to pay an apportioned share, out of their own state treasury, to extinguish a federal deficit created by Congress when it spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year.

JWK

“A national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one,that, while it secures the object of revenue, it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___James Madison speaking before Congress during our NATION’S FIRST REVENUE RAISING ACT

1 Like

The cultural, political, societal dislocation that this would cause makes this a non-starter.

You’ve brought it up before, and I’ve seen just about every facet of discussion on it in your previous threads. So I may as well tell you now that I’m not going to answer your objections. They’ve been answered before.

1 Like

I guess we must be overdue for another of your platitude laden Balanced Budget Amendment fantasy discussions.

In direct response to your question, the answer is no. I see no real need to rehash all of your founding father platitudes yet again. I’ll sit this one out.

1 Like

Your naysaying fear mongering is without foundation since our founder’s original tax plan

does not limit the amount of revenue Congress may raise,

nor limit the amount of revenue Congress may spend.

All you do along with your naysaying crowd is make stuff up and fear monger.

You apparently have a problem with making each state’s Congressional Delegation immediately accountable when Congress spends more than what is brought in from imposts, duties and excess taxes. Why?

So tell me, Peek-a-boo, how much will Speaker Johnson’s big beautiful spending bill increase our national debt if adopted?

Are you really on board with adding to our national debt which currently is approximately $136 trillion, when including unfunded federal debt liabilities?

Are you really on board with Johnson’s con game which reflects Whimpy’s thinking?
.

.
JWK

We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in-between and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

Common sense thinking people agree that taxing imports can encourage the rebuilding of America’s domestic manufacturing base.

Trump is spot on!

33,000,000,000,000 and thats a conservative figure.

Allan

Talk about pulling a number out of your ass :laughing::sweat_smile:. No source as usual. Good job on being consistent in lying though.

3 Likes

Show me your work. How did you come up with that conservative figure?

3 Likes

so the big beautiful bill is deficit neutral?.

so your answer will be zero, right?

Allan

Nobody said that. Youre moving goalposts again. You made a claim.

Never said it was. I’m simply asking you to support your $33 trillion claim.

3 Likes

Deflection from answering the question posed.

2 Likes

dont think the founding father had massive deficit spending on their minds when founding this gr3at nation.

BBB will increase the deficit a lot.

Allan

Still dodging the question.

Also didn’t see you bitching like this when a D is in office.

Predictable.

3 Likes

A different view on Johnson’s "One Big Beautiful Bill Act’’.

See: CBO wrong. Big Beautiful Bill will not increase the deficit.

On May 20, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its estimate for the negative impact of the Big, Beautiful Bill (BBB) on the nation’s deficit and public debt. The CBO, which has been notoriously inaccurate with its estimates in the past, really missed the boat on this one.

I see you decided to move the goalposts.

2 Likes

See, I thought he meant 3.3 trillion and just got carried away with zeroes. Not that I take any lib’s complaints about deficit spending as anything more than taunting from the cheap seats, of course. But personally I think the BBB could end up with a deficit even larger than that. And I don’t like it one bit. I’m hoping the Senate process will trim some more spending. (A handful of GOP senators are balking at the deficit before it’s even in the floor there.)

Or maybe Big Al was thinking of the overall national debt when he typed in 33 trillion. That’s a national disgrace too, but he’s more than a year behind the curve. We’re into the upper 30 trillions already, and accelerating. Again, coming from a lib, it’s just spittle from the losers’ party. But it’s not wrong. Technically.

Hoping for some more trimming of overall spending here…

lol, it is a lot of zeros. both parties are to blame.

Allan