- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Top White House economic adviser says $2k tariff checks for Americans depends on Congress
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:42 am to RogerTheShrubber
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:42 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Vote buying is partially what got us in this mess.
Yeah it was never any presidents before him or the career Congress who blew money in USAID and pet projects for themselves. Just Trump
1
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:43 am to RogerTheShrubber
So that’s a no, RS? Dems do it but Republicans should not?
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:43 am to Jugbow
quote:
Yeah it was never any presidents before him or the career Congress who blew money in USAID and pet projects for themselves. Just Trump
Youre so stupid MoT.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:44 am to RogerTheShrubber
Great reply Roger
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:44 am to RCDfan1950
quote:
So that’s a no, RS? Dems do it but Republicans should not?
Correct, unless you desire to be exactly like them.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:45 am to ragincajun03
quote:
Top White House economic adviser says $2k tariff checks for Americans depends on Congress
Translation: "Americans will never see these checks because RINOs want people to hate tariffs and democrats will never vote for anything that makes the orange man look good."
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:46 am to Jugbow
quote:
I think the 2k check is stupid but what does it have to do with populism? The premise is funds to distribute not to sway anyone to vote.
sarcasm? 
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:46 am to Jugbow
quote:.
I think the 2k check is stupid but what does it have to do with populism? The premise is funds to distribute not to sway anyone to vote.
‘Funds’ suggests it is a pool of money that we have and need to decide what to do with it. It is not, as every dollar that will be given away to people because they can fog a mirror will have to be printed out of thin air
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:47 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
sarcasm?
Actual stupidity.
Its unbelievable. I dont know how that dude lived to see adulthood.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:49 am to OccamsStubble
Again I don’t want it because it solves nothing, having unappropriated funds also does nothing but allow Congress to blow it.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:50 am to ragincajun03
If it only goes to taxpayers then whatever. It will just be taxpayers getting a little of their money back.
If it goes to non-taxpayers also... that would be fricked up.
I'd be fine with no checks going to anyone, though.
If it goes to non-taxpayers also... that would be fricked up.
I'd be fine with no checks going to anyone, though.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:50 am to ragincajun03
I would rather eliminate the income tax. With that said, it would be a strategic misstep to cut out people making over $100,000 household income. Cut out people that don’t pay income taxes and run it up to at least $175,000 household. The people not paying taxes are not voting for you.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:51 am to ragincajun03
Dems will tank it claiming it’s too costly, then try to approve another 300 billion for Ukraine.
(funny thing how I was typing “billion” and the AutoCorrect popped up Ukraine without any prompt.)
(funny thing how I was typing “billion” and the AutoCorrect popped up Ukraine without any prompt.)
This post was edited on 12/22/25 at 8:52 am
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:54 am to SouthEasternKaiju
The unserious people crying because it’s Trump, they will cry when Congress doesn’t pay down debt which is their job and blame trump. Rinse & repeat.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:57 am to ragincajun03
Let’s just put it towards cutting the deficit.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 8:59 am to RogerTheShrubber
If one’s opponent goes low and the ref don’t step in and stop it, then one loses. The issues which I listed are a virtual fait accompli if Dems take the Congress so I’m good with hitting below the belt if it means preventing the total and irreversible scenario which a Dem takeover would ensure.
We nuked Japan and firebombed Dresden to keep our Constitutional Republic. So I think - assuming voters are swayed - that such policies would be money well spent. JMO.
We nuked Japan and firebombed Dresden to keep our Constitutional Republic. So I think - assuming voters are swayed - that such policies would be money well spent. JMO.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 9:00 am to Jugbow
quote:
Congress doesn’t pay down debt which is their job and blame trump.
It is both the job of Congress and the President.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 9:02 am to RCDfan1950
quote:
If one’s opponent goes low and the ref don’t step in and stop it, then one loses.
Well, go low again.
I'm not supporting the further destruction of this nation like y;'all are. You know Dem policies do not work, yet you want to copy them.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 9:03 am to ragincajun03
In other words, we will never see it
Posted on 12/22/25 at 9:07 am to OccamsStubble
quote:
Wasn’t the plan to use tariffs to reduce $2T deficit? Does tossing out printed money to buy bling and bass boat accessories and screaming “love me!!! I’m you benevolent benefactor!!!” Reduce the deficit?
The tariffs were always multi-purpose. The majority was for reducing the deficit, but from the beginning, Trump talked about using some of the money for payouts. This is not new information or some bait and switch. Money from tariffs can be spent on more than one thing.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News