President Trump repeatedly tells the American people that the government is taking in lots of cash from tariffs. But the same government is going further into debt and racking up deficits with a Big Beautiful Bill. Wasn't the goal of electing Donald Trump to cut the government down in size? Instead, the government grows, and Americans added yet another tax (tariffs) to pay for its growth.
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
|
Tariffs And Taxes
00:13:03
|
|
| Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Rod Paul Liberty Report. | |
| Today we have Chris Rossini, our co-host. | |
| Chris, welcome to the program. | |
| It's great to be with you, Dr. Paul. | |
| Very good. | |
| I want to talk a little bit about tariffs. | |
| You know, the President's taking a lot of credit for raising a lot of money, putting this money into the Treasury, and everybody's better off for it. | |
| But when you look into the details, exactly what's going on, you might have a few questions to ask about it. | |
| And it fits into the category of just a mere tax on the American people that we're witnessing right now. | |
| And this is something that is disturbing because it's different. | |
| I was under the impression at one time that the money, when there was a tax on such and such country, that they paid the tariffs. | |
| And that's why they didn't like it. | |
| But no, that isn't the case. | |
| And evidently what happens is the people in this country that imports the goods and services, they pay the tariff. | |
| So the companies in America pay the taxes, and individuals can pay the taxes. | |
| And it's always called a tariff, not a tax. | |
| But literally, what happens to the money when we collect it? | |
| Because Trump is bragging about all this money we're putting in the bank, but the money's coming out of the pockets of our corporations. | |
| And they think this is a solution to our problem. | |
| But what does the Treasury do with it? | |
| They can do anything they want with it. | |
| They can pay off debt or whatever. | |
| It's in the general revenue fund, and there are no strings attached to it. | |
| And this is something that I think is very disturbing, that it's a transfer. | |
| So therefore, you could rate the tariff as a tax on the American people, whether it's an American corporation or what, because the corporations, if they have to pay all these extra prices just to get their goods and services sent in, they have to pass along or they'll go broke because unless they're extremely wealthy, so they have to pass it on to the consumer. | |
| So all this noise is meaning that the American people are paying a tax. | |
| It's either going to add up on deficits, which then would be inflated in order to support it. | |
| But it's a real discouraging situation where the American people ultimately look like they're the very victims, although at the beginning, it sounds good. | |
| That was the claim was that they just collected $29 billion last month. | |
| They said, yeah, but that's just a small amount when you're dealing with $36 trillion. | |
| So some of the rationale is a bit awkward. | |
| But all the intervention is enough for people to question this whole principles of tariff. | |
| But it's something that is going to have to be sorted out, even though at the moment people have not been really annoyed by the tariff program that's been existing for several months now. | |
| But eventually it'll be caught up and the Piper will have to be paid. | |
| That's right, Dr. Paul. | |
| And, you know, my problem with the tariffs is more of a big picture problem. | |
| You know, it's undeniable that Donald Trump was elected to shrink the size of government, trade the swamp, you know, the whole deal. | |
| And at first, it really looked like it was happening with Doge. | |
| They were ripping through the government. | |
| We had shows every week praising what was happening. | |
| And we were attributing this to President Trump because it's his administration. | |
| And then all of a sudden it was a hard stop. | |
| And then Elon was given it a key and shown the door. | |
| There was a big, beautiful bill. | |
| And we are heading in the other direction. | |
| Now government's expanding, racking up deficits. | |
| And Doge, as great as it was, it didn't even scratch the surface on what they could have done. | |
| So now we're going in the wrong direction. | |
| It's not shrinking. | |
| It's expanding. | |
| Debts, deficits. | |
| And Americans have another tax to pay, tariffs. | |
| On top of the million other taxes that we pay, we have tariffs. | |
| Now, if President Trump kept with the way it was going and shrinking the state, tariffs would be more palatable. | |
| We could swallow it and swallow our pride, even if you're against the tariffs. | |
| But it's not. | |
| He just added another tariff. | |
| And like you said, Dr. Paul, the Americans are paying it. | |
| And he's bragging about all the money that's coming in. | |
| Yeah, he's taking our tax money. | |
| That's nothing to brag about. | |
| That's not what we wanted. | |
| So wrong direction. | |
| And, you know, we're not fans of tariffs. | |
| But if he was going in the right direction, we could at least, you know, stomach a little bit. | |
| You know, as they work on the tariff issue, they're also working on the, you know, just generally the rules and regulations of how these special companies, you know, run their businesses. | |
| And these are the people who, especially in the technological industry, because they have to, Navidia and others, you know, are into a lot of negotiations with Trump, and he seems to like this. | |
| But I'm very fearful already, I think, the way the money is taken care of and the question about tariffs. | |
| I see this also when they start talking about these agreements, that we're rapidly expanding our nation as one that is operating on corporatism because the government and the business people are always together. | |
| All you have to do is think about the military-industrial complex. | |
| That's government and business willing and dealing. | |
| But this is even more so, it mixed in with all these trade agreements. | |
| The quid pro quo agreement between major corporations and the president, and we read about them and hear about them every day, holds little or no precedent. | |
| So this is new and different. | |
| And that, to me, should wake up people. | |
| So, yes, maybe it will only go a week and fail and it'll disappear. | |
| Or maybe it's just a further expansion of this partnership between big business and the government. | |
| And I think there's another statement here I want to read that emphasizes this point. | |
| It says, oh, they refer back to the Japan-based Nipon Steel agreement. | |
| When Japan-based Nipon Steel acquired U.S. Steel in June, you know, that was a very controversial issue. | |
| The previous administration didn't want to do it, but not for free market reasons. | |
| The Trump administration received a golden share. | |
| That's in quotes, when this condition was agreed to. | |
| A golden share that this is the point I want to make, that affords the White House significant influence over the company. | |
| The golden share allows the Trump administration to influence the makeup of the company's board and assert veto power over a host of major decisions. | |
| The White House does not retain a financial stake In the firm. | |
| But I would say he has a financial stake at running the whole show. | |
| So this is the kind of thing that's operating. | |
| And it is complex. | |
| And a lot of people just think, well, we just have to accept that. | |
| We have to trust our leaders and this will work out. | |
| But some of this stuff, and I've always been fearful of the connection to the partnership of big government and business, and it gets expansing. | |
| And the other example of a connection like this was the continues to be the pharmaceutical industry. | |
| So you can go on and on how big government, and I think that is the opposite of utilizing the principles of free markets and freedom. | |
| Yes, Dr. Paul, it is concerning because he's taking, he's making individual deals with individual companies. | |
| I mean, saying you could sell this to China, but we get 15% of the revenues. | |
| I mean, this is like Soviet-style stuff, central planning, which we know turns into total disaster because President Trump cannot, he can't possibly know as much. | |
| As smart as everybody thinks he is, the world is extremely complex. | |
| And if you get the president involved with individual company decisions with other countries, you're just setting a bad precedent. | |
| And the problem with our system is precedent. | |
| The Democrats do something and they say, well, the Republicans did it, so we can do it. | |
| And the Republicans do the same thing. | |
| Well, the Democrats did it, so we can do it. | |
| And they just keep adding and adding and adding to the pile. | |
| And both parties do it. | |
| They add, and then you have government so intertwined with every single decision. | |
| And so what President Trump does today, a future president, AOC or Newsom or Harris or whoever, will do the same. | |
| We want President Harris to make deals with individual companies on what they can sell and what the government takes in. | |
| I mean, what a bad thing to do. | |
| We should have gone in the direction at the beginning with what Doge was doing, get government out, not further put government in, which is going to end, like the Soviets, in total disaster. | |
| You know, in working out an agreement for AI chip makers and the trade that goes on, there was a promise that the United States would get 15% of the money collected for what is sold in China. | |
| And I don't understand all the details of this. | |
| Some of it might have a temporary benefit for us, and it might be, they think that's the only thing they can do. | |
| But once again, it's the kind of stuff that I think is, you know, essentially will expand. | |
| And for this 15%, Trump has promised to pass out licenses to do the trade. | |
| Once again, it's this big business and big government. | |
| And I think a lot of that goes on already, but it looks like this is an opportunity, you know, for expanding this close relationship. | |
| And sometimes I think that, you know, if Donald Trump was in a different position, maybe that would be his role. | |
| But when you represent the U.S. government deciding on these contracts and all this money going on and tariffs and billions and billions of dollars, I agree. | |
| A lot of people like what he's doing, and I've like some of the things he's doing. | |
| I like his exposure of the wasteful spending. | |
| But I don't think these kind of programs where there's wheeling a dealing between big business and big government is healthy for us. | |
| Excellent, Dr. Paul. | |
| I'll finish up my closing statement. | |
| How sad, you know, we have to constantly criticize President Trump. | |
| I remember we were wishing him well at the beginning, but we have to do what we have to do. | |
| And my last pet peeve with him that's, you know, he's setting his own precedent for himself is this whatever numbers that come out and he doesn't like them, like with the jobless, the job numbers that came out, he just fired the BLS person, you know, because he didn't like it. | |
| And I'm not saying that what they're doing was their government, you know, so we're not defending them. | |
| And he does the same thing with Fed Chair Powell. | |
| He doesn't like the interest rates, so he wants Powell fired, too. | |
| Again, we don't think there should be a Federal Reserve, not defending Powell. | |
| But you see how this is now, you know, this is very Stalin-esque of if you don't, if, you know, the emperor doesn't like the number, you better give him a number he likes. | |
| You know, and again, we're not defending, you know, Trump may in certain cases be correct, but how he's acting like a bully central planner. | |
|
People Ought to Protect Their Finances
00:03:38
|
|
| And again, we have a precedent. | |
| The next president will do the same. | |
| I don't like that number. | |
| Fire the person until they give me a number that I like. | |
| You know, hopefully this should be obvious to people that this is not the road that we want to go down, but we're going down it. | |
| So that's it for me today, Dr. Paul. | |
| Very good. | |
| You know, I think now more and more Americans are getting to the point where they don't trust the government. | |
| And I think that's healthy, to tell you the truth, the more people that understand that our governments can't be trusted very often. | |
| We certainly had that experience in the COVID finascal for FNESCI. | |
| And the people, the lies they tell, sometimes it's just borderlines on the term spin. | |
| We have to just spin it a certain way to get the people to go along with it. | |
| And they also work on the operation on the understanding that people can't know these things. | |
| You have to be smart and you have to make these deals and to protect the people. | |
| It's always noble and humanitarian to take care of the people. | |
| Who would take care of the poor if you had the introduction to these free markets that we promote? | |
| And it is very evident if you study history closely that the freer a society, the more prosperous it is. | |
| And arguing the case for freedom and letting people make their own choices on trade. | |
| I try to simplify the trade, international trade, by saying, you know, if a poor person in this country wants to buy tennis shoes, an American shoe is $100, but China's selling to you for $25, and if somebody wants to get them out of the competition and start messing around with the controls, with tariffs and this mischief, | |
| it's not a very good idea. | |
| The people ought to have the right to spend their money the way they want. | |
| It's their money. | |
| But that principle isn't guarded. | |
| It isn't understood very well because the big spending comes where it's going into the hands of the military-industrial complex to fight endless, stupid wars that provides nothing for our country. | |
| And that is where the real problem is. | |
| This is why we have deficits. | |
| This is why we have too much government. | |
| This is why we have an erosion of our personal liberties. | |
| And it's on and on. | |
| And it's that very simply, the people ought to tell the truth, and we ought to have an honest monetary system to prevent some of these economic problems we have. | |
| Because right now, the Congress and the administration are making no effort and no inroads to the deficit. | |
| And we can't claim that collecting that we're collecting more money from tariffs and also putting different things in the Federal Reserve that will protect the finances and protect us against dollar erosion and all this stuff. | |
| And they think that that's just to pacify the people because the only thing that has to be done is spending has to be cut, and it's not going to happen until it'll be cut when the body doesn't buy anymore. | |
| And we'd like to prevent that catastrophe from happening, but we're rapidly moving in that direction, and there's a lot we can do about it. | |
| One is to seek the path to sound money and to seek the path of personal liberty. | |
| I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report. | |