Despite widespread belief that conservatives are better for the economy, evidence suggests otherwise. Economic experts, including those from Goldman Sachs, warn that Trump's economic plan could lead to increased inflation. Additionally, many analysts argue that under Project 2025's proposed tax plan, low- and middle-class Americans would end up paying more, while the ultra-wealthy and corporations would see their tax burdens decrease. The plan also includes a consumption tax and new tariffs on China, which could negatively impact everyday Americans and small business owners by raising the cost of goods.
Goldman Sachs has publicly stated that Kamala Harris would be better for the economy.
Trump's economic plan would increase inflation
Goldman Sachs analysts have warned that a second Trump presidency could lead to reduced economic growth, predicting a half-percentage-point decrease in GDP in the latter half of 2025 due to his proposed immigration crackdowns and new tariffs on Chinese goods. They believe that these negative impacts would outweigh any positive fiscal effects. In contrast, they forecast better economic outcomes under a Kamala Harris presidency with Democratic control of Congress, suggesting that spending initiatives and tax credits would offset the negative effects of a proposed corporate tax increase to 28%. If Harris wins but Congress is divided, policy changes would be minimal and have a neutral impact on GDP. A spokesperson for Harris emphasized her vision for strengthening the economy through support for the middle class. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve is expected to cut interest rates for the first time in over five years, amid signals of a slowing job market.
Trump has a pretty low success in his business ventures. He filed Chapter 11 Bankruptcy four times. His Casino Bankruptcies screwed his workers out of retirement savings.
Trump Bankruptcies
- 1991: Trump’s Taj Mahal
- 1992: First of two Atlantic City casinos owned by Donald Trump.
- 1992: Second of two Atlantic City casinos owned by Donald Trump.
- 1992: Trump’s Plaza Hotel in New York City
- 2004: Trump’s Hotels and Casinos Resorts
- 2009: Trump’s Entertainment Resorts
During the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton asserted that Trump filed for bankruptcy relief six times, Trump countered with a count of four. This discrepancy may stem from how Trump interprets his 1992 filings—whether he sees them as one event or as three separate cases. The accurate count for that year would be three, whereas Trump may consider it a single larger occurrence.
The leaked texts from the Tucker Carlson Dominion Voting Machines Lawsuit.
Casino Bankruptcies
While Trump often touts these bankruptcies as evidence of his business acumen, many workers were encouraged to invest their retirement funds in company stock, which plummeted in value as the company faced financial difficulties. Following the 2004 bankruptcy filing, a class-action lawsuit revealed that over 400 employees collectively lost more than $2 million when they were forced to sell their stock at a significant loss. Although the lawsuit was dismissed due to a lack of illegal actions, it underscored how Trump's financial maneuvers often shifted the burden of his failures onto workers. Despite the company's struggles, Trump continued to earn a substantial salary and received millions in compensation during his tenure.
Trump's Tax Cuts did NOT help the middle class. Project 2025 wants to increase taxes for the average American family through a consumption tax.
In the video, economic experts Brendan Duke and Casey Mulligan discuss the implications of shifting the U.S. tax system toward a more consumption-based model. They explore how this could impact revenue generation and the overall economy.
Tariffs and the Economy
Mulligan argues that tariffs could contribute to federal revenue, but questions how significant that impact would be, emphasizing that many goods Americans purchase are domestic. He suggests that tariffs function as an investment tax rather than purely a consumption tax.
Trump's tax cuts would hurt low and middle income earners, which could harm economic growth.
Duke points out that proposed tax cuts predominantly benefit high-income earners, moving the revenue system from income taxes toward consumption taxes, which would disproportionately affect low- and middle-income families. He warns that this shift might harm economic growth.
Tax Loopholes and pushing the burden to families
The conversation also touches on President Trump’s tax proposals and the potential challenges of implementing a consumption tax, noting that such a system could still be riddled with loopholes. Ultimately, they conclude that while a consumption tax might streamline revenue collection, it could leave many families worse off due to increased overall tax burdens.
Trump wasted billions of dollars in taxpayer money for pipeline projects
Dominion Energy and Duke Energy cancelled the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, wasting taxpayer money without putting pipe in the ground
Despite a recent Supreme Court ruling favoring the project, new legal challenges have emerged, particularly a recent court decision in Montana that undermines federal permit authority for waterbody and wetland crossings. This legal uncertainty, alongside significant project cost increases—from an estimated $4.5-$5 billion to $8 billion—and timeline delays, has led the companies to conclude that further investment is no longer prudent.
The Keystone XL Pipeline (Northern Leg)
To add this extra leg to the already existing Keystone pipeline, it would cost roughly $5.4 Billion (in 2014 dollars) or 7.1 billion today. While proponents of the pipeline extension say it will create jobs, those opposed say that many of these jobs are temporary, and only 50 new permanent jobs would be created. Many also said that the project was in state 4 of completion when Biden revoked the permit, but only 8% of the pipeline had been built.
The United States produces more crude oil than any nation at any time for six years in a row, and has especially flourished under Joe Biden
“The profits of the top five publicly traded oil companies, for example — BP, Shell, Exxon, Chevron, and TotalEnergies — amounted to $410 billion during the first three years of the Biden administration, a 100% increase over the first three years of Donald Trump’s presidency, according to data compiled by Reuters.” See the chart here.
This is in addition to Biden’s investing in clean energy infrastructure.
If you watch conservative educational videos from PragerU, you can see how they leave out critical facts (like Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, as stated in their cited source) to persuade voters that fossil fuels, and not renewable energy, is the answer. They are blaming energy shortages on green energy policies instead of international conflict and sanctions.
Trump claims he created more jobs than Biden. In a month-by-month comparison, Trump only had higher numbers for TWO MONTHS
Trump’s Golf Trips Could Cost Taxpayers Over $340 Million
Only about a third of the $800 billion of PPP loans went to workers who would have otherwise lost their job.
Only about a third of the $800 billion went directly to workers who otherwise would have lost their jobs. Most of the money ended up in the hands of business owners and shareholders.
Over one billion dollars went to businesses that are now closed (from 2020).
Every job saved by PPP loans cost taxpayers between $170,000 and $257,000, which is nearly double what Biden’s student debt forgiveness would have.
Right-Wing media unfairly blamed Biden for gas prices and praised Trump for lower prices during the pandemic
Project 2025 wants the FHA (Federal Housing Administration) to Increase the Mortgage Insurance Premium for 30 year home loans
Project 2025 wants to incentivize people taking shorter loans for homeownership (removing 30 year mortgages), preventing even more people from buying a house
Project 2025 Wants to RAISE student loans, eliminate the SAVE program, eliminate income-driven repayment plans
The removal of the SAVE plan would have a significant negative impact on young parents and couples who rely on it to manage their monthly debt payments. Currently, this plan allows them to make more affordable payments, which helps them maintain financial stability. If these payments were to increase, it could severely limit their ability to save for major milestones, such as purchasing a home. Given that many young people are already struggling to enter the housing market, heightened financial pressure from increased debt payments could push homeownership further out of reach. This situation not only affects their immediate financial health but could also have long-term implications for their ability to build wealth and secure a stable future.
Trump complains about a worker shortage, but Project 2025 wants to incentivize women staying home to care for children, and suggests having employers cover the cost of childcare
According to Project 2025, Congress should incentivize on-site childcare and have the employer should burden the expense. If you've worked for any large retail corporation, know how this went when employers needed to cover health insurance costs. They scheduled most employees under the 30 hour requirement to receive benefits. Project 2025 wants to push women of childbearing age out of the workforce.
Project 2025 wants to eliminate overtime pay as it currently exists.
Congress should provide flexibility to employers and employees to calculate the overtime period over a longer number of weeks. Specifically, employers and employees should be able to set a two- or four-week period over which to calculate overtime. This would give workers greater flexibility to work more hours in one week and fewer hours in the next and would not require the employer to pay them more for that same total number of hours of work during the entire period.
Project 2025 wants to Privatize the National Weather Service and repeal climate change initiatives. This will decimate crops, bankrupt farmers, make food more expensive, and increase homeowners insurance prices in disaster-prone areas like Florida.
Project 2025 wants to privatize the national weather system, which would lead to people needing to subscribe to a service to find out the temperature or whether to bring an umbrella with them when they leave their house.
This would also negatively impact farmland and rural food producers that rely on weather apps to take care of their crops.
Project 2025 also wants to defund weather infrastructure like the planes that fly into hurricanes, preventing us from learning about these storms that are only able to get worse as waters in the gulf get warmer. This will negatively impact homeowners insurance rates in coastal states from Texas to the northeast and make it even harder for people to afford to insure their own homes.
Project 2025 wants to enforce work requirements for people receiving federal benefits like food stamps. Project 2025 also wants to ban abortion. This combination would harm children's well-being and the ability for single mothers to take care of their children.
Some are obvious and long-standing goals like eliminating marriage penalties in federal welfare programs and the tax code and installing work requirements for food stamps. But we must go further. It’s time for policymakers to elevate family authority, formation, and cohesion as their top priority and even use government power, including through the tax code, to restore the American family.
Project 2025's policies appear to disproportionately affect single mothers, as they propose implementing work requirements for individuals receiving food assistance. Additionally, the initiative seeks to restrict access to abortion services. These measures could significantly impact children living in single-parent households, potentially making it more challenging for them to access essential nutrition and other basic needs.
Project 2025 wants to ensure that only poor (BELOW 185% OF THE FEDERAL POVERTY LINE) kids can have free lunches at school
Heritage Foundation research from 2019 found that after the enactment of the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) in 2010, the share of students from middle- and upper-income homes receiving free meals in states that participated in CEP doubled and in some cases tripled—all in a program meant for children from families with incomes at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty line (Children from homes at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty line are eligible for free lunches, while students from families at or below 185 percent of poverty are eligible for reduced-priced lunches).
Conservative perspectives on school lunch programs have increasingly framed them as problematic. Project 2025 seeks to limit assistance primarily to low-income children, while also proposing significant changes to nutrition guidelines that would reduce standards to what is deemed essential for basic survival. This approach raises concerns about the adequacy of support for those who depend on school meals for their daily nutritional needs.