Thread: 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

From below: " ... 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 ..."

Since their new budget is over $1 trillion, with a LOT going to the Military Industrial Complex, it looks like any "savings" from DOGE is going right back into the swamp.

See https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/02/polit...fense-spending

Originally Posted by GaiaGoddess

From below: " ... 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 ..."

Since their new budget is over $1 trillion, with a LOT going to the Military Industrial Complex, it looks like any "savings" from DOGE is going right back into the swamp.

See https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/02/polit...fense-spending

The question is, how much will Speaker Johnson’s big beautiful spending bill increase our national debt if adopted?

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

Are we supposed to be 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.

Originally Posted by johnwk

The question is, how much will Speaker Johnson’s big beautiful spending bill increase our national debt if adopted? Are we supposed to be on board with adding to our national debt which currently is approximately $136 trillion, when including unfunded federal debt liabilities? ...

How much is 136 trillion seconds =

1 million seconds = about 11 days
1 billion seconds = about 31 years
1 trillion seconds = about 31,689 years

136 trillion seconds = 4,309,668 years

Originally Posted by GaiaGoddess

How much is 136 trillion seconds =
1 million seconds = about 11 days
1 billion seconds = about 31 years
1 trillion seconds = about 31,689 years
136 trillion seconds = 4,309,668 years

It boggles the mind of thinking people how Congress has knowingly and willingly brought us to a point in time when our national debt, including unfunded debt liabilities, is now at about $136,000,000,000,000.00

And now, they are working to add even more to the debt.



.

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.

.
See: Tariffs Done Right Can Rebuild Our Economy

"Proposals for new tariffs face a lot of criticism these days, from the media, from economists, and from foreign policy types. Part of the reason is that it’s Donald Trump making the proposals and many in those groups don’t like Trump. But the fact is that tariffs can work to build our economy. They have worked before and they have worked recently as well."

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 our Founders included giving hometown ship builders an advantage when taxing imports, and thus led to America's merchant marine becoming the most powefull on the face of the planet. 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.