Make Argentina Great Again: US ready to support Argentina with 'large and forceful' action (i.e. $20B), Treasury chief says

[Desk trauma]

We do. It was the right who went on a crusade against foreign aid.

Much like the endless billions for and being at the beck and call of Israel this is different cuz reasons.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Democrats should simply consider this $20B of foreign aid.

What should America First Republicans consider it? A betrayal?

 

[Nithavela]

We do. It was the right who went on a crusade against foreign aid.

Socialism for us, dog eat dog for the rest. That's the way of many people on the right.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Socialism for us, dog eat dog for the rest. That's the way of many people on the right.

I’m a bit torn. As an Argentinian, I’m glad we’re helping my parent’s home country but as an American, I’m angry it takes having a goofy knockoff version of Trump running the country into the ground to get any help out of the current US administration.

 

[mark46]

I’m a bit torn. As an Argentinian, I’m glad we’re helping my parent’s home country but as an American, I’m angry it takes having a goofy knockoff version of Trump running the country into the ground to get any help out of the current US administration.

just be glad for the help.

BTW, do you think that Harris would be helping? Me neither.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

just be glad for the help.

K.

BTW, do you think that Harris would be helping? Me neither.

No. Why do you think Milei should get an off-ramp for his failure to address his country’s economic problems? Why should American taxpayers be on the hook for it when it?

 

[mark46]

K.

No. Why do you think Milei should get an off-ramp for his failure to address his country’s economic problems? Why should American taxpayers be on the hook for it when it?

Milei faced a total disaster. He has done a lot. There is so much more to do.

 

[Desk trauma]

Milei faced a total disaster. He has done a lot. There is so much more to do.

And we should foot the bill because?

 

[Pommer]

BTW, do you think that Harris would be helping? Me neither.

The instant case wouldn’t have materialized given that Harris did not have massive tariffs on her platform.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Camerawoman Captures Scott Bessent’s Texts, Exposing White House Panic​

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was spotted at the United Nations General Assembly last week reading a ... message from “BR,” who some have determined to be Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins. The message linked to the X account of Ben Scholl, a midwestern grain trader who has sounded the alarm on Washington’s newly-tossed lifeline to Buenos Aires.

“Just a heads up. I am getting more intel, but this is highly unfortunate. We bailed out Argentina yesterday and in return, Argentina removed their export tariffs on grains, reducing their price to China at a time when we would normally be selling to China,” the message read.

“Soy prices are dropping further because of it. This gives China more leverage on us,” the message continued, with Rollins adding: “On a plane but scott I can call you when I land.”

As for Scholl's comments...

 

[Gene2memE]

I actually had high hopes that Argentina could move to more of a free market system. Their VAT system though similar to tariffs,

VAT is common worldwide. About 80% of economies have one. Having a VAT doesn't preclude a free market. The countries with the highest economic freedom scores (Singapore, Ireland, Luxemborg, New Zealand, Switzerland) all have VATs or GSTs.

VATs are not "similar to tariffs".

VATs are a general tax on consumption, not on trade.

That means that they apply to all goods (domestic or foreign), and thus increase prices/reduce consumption generally. Tariffs only apply to foreign goods, increasing prices/reducing consumption of imported goods (or domestically produced goods that include foreign-sourced materials).

Quoting from the Cato Institute:

So why the misleading comparison? The VAT line gives cover to protectionism under the guise of “fairness.” If you can convince the public that other countries are taxing us and we’re not taxing them, then tariffs look like a justifiable policy correction. But the economics are clear: VAT is not a tariff, and tariffs are not a consumption tax.

https://www.cato.org/blog/no-tariffs-are-not-similar-consumption-taxes-vat

 

[Richard T]

VAT is common worldwide. About 80% of economies have one. Having a VAT doesn't preclude a free market. The countries with the highest economic freedom scores (Singapore, Ireland, Luxemborg, New Zealand, Switzerland) all have VATs or GSTs.

VATs are not "similar to tariffs".

VATs are a general tax on consumption, not on trade.

That means that they apply to all goods (domestic or foreign), and thus increase prices/reduce consumption generally. Tariffs only apply to foreign goods, increasing prices/reducing consumption of imported goods (or domestically produced goods that include foreign-sourced materials).

Quoting from the Cato Institute:

So why the misleading comparison? The VAT line gives cover to protectionism under the guise of “fairness.” If you can convince the public that other countries are taxing us and we’re not taxing them, then tariffs look like a justifiable policy correction. But the economics are clear: VAT is not a tariff, and tariffs are not a consumption tax.

https://www.cato.org/blog/no-tariffs-are-not-similar-consumption-taxes-vat

Yes, thanks for correcting me. Though a VAT can effect trade flows, they are taxes applied at the point of sale on any products. I took that wrong cue from Kevin O'Leary, which I just found on a Trump facebook page. Source: Donald Trump For President

Donald Trump For President​

July 18 ·
NEW: Kevin O’Leary says Trump’s tariffs are actually a smart play....and the markets are about to explode.
Mr. Wonderful just connected the dots in a way no one else is saying:
“What Trump is really putting in place is a VAT tax. A consumption tax. He’s just not calling it that.”
He says the so-called “tariffs” are actually reciprocal taxes....no different from what Europe and Canada already do.
“You start to see tariff rates between 10 and 12%, that’s the same as the VAT taxes the Swiss, French, British, and Canadians already charge.”
He even predicts the final landing spot:
“If we end up globally with a reciprocal 10–12%, everything works out—and the market thinks that too.”
“That’s why these indices are near all-time highs.”
The panic over tariffs? About to get real quiet.

 

[Gene2memE]

The panic over tariffs? About to get real quiet.

Not really.

While global trade policy uncertainty is receding - which is good - the impact of tariffs on the US economy is becoming clearer. And, it's not good.

The US CBO trimmed its 2025 US GDP forecast from 1.9% (made in Jan-2025) to 1.4% (made in Sep-2025). The primary driver of that decrease was tariffs and trade uncertainty.

Similarly, Deloitte has cut its US GDP forecast from 2.8% to 2.1% (and cut its 2026 forecast to 1.4%). EY has cut its forecast from 2.2% to 1.7%. Vanguard lowered its forecast from 2% to 1.4%.

A 0.5% to 0.7% reduction in growth doesn't sound like much, but consider that the US economy is around $30.5 trillion. That means the economic slowdown is going to cost lost growth of anywhere from $185 billion to $235 billion.

Tariffs are adding to US inflation as well.

Core inflation is forecast to grow from 2.7% at present (12-month moving average) to around 3.0% to 3.3% in 2025 to 2026. For instance, the CBO has increased its inflation forecast for 2025 from 2.2% to 3.1%. Inflation is being driven by higher prices for goods and the majority of that increase is being driven by higher import prices.

US businesses spent an extra $88 billion dollars on imports for the year to August 2025. Most of that is being passed through directly to consumers. Estimates of tariff cost pass through rates start at 50% at the low end and top out above 80%, clustering around 62-68%.

That's only going to get higher - as built up inventories are eaten through, more and more businesses are going to have to purchase goods that are subject to significant tariffs. There's good modelling that pass through rates are going to end up close to 100%, and even some (somewhat convincing) arguments that pass through rates will actually exceed 100% as businesses crank up prices due to domestic substitution impacts.

 

[Richard T]

Not really.

While global trade policy uncertainty is receding - which is good - the impact of tariffs on the US economy is becoming clearer. And, it's not good.

The US CBO trimmed its 2025 US GDP forecast from 1.9% (made in Jan-2025) to 1.4% (made in Sep-2025). The primary driver of that decrease was tariffs and trade uncertainty.

Similarly, Deloitte has cut its US GDP forecast from 2.8% to 2.1% (and cut its 2026 forecast to 1.4%). EY has cut its forecast from 2.2% to 1.7%. Vanguard lowered its forecast from 2% to 1.4%.

A 0.5% to 0.7% reduction in growth doesn't sound like much, but consider that the US economy is around $30.5 trillion. That means the economic slowdown is going to cost lost growth of anywhere from $185 billion to $235 billion.

Tariffs are adding to US inflation as well.

Core inflation is forecast to grow from 2.7% at present (12-month moving average) to around 3.0% to 3.3% in 2025 to 2026. For instance, the CBO has increased its inflation forecast for 2025 from 2.2% to 3.1%. Inflation is being driven by higher prices for goods and the majority of that increase is being driven by higher import prices.

US businesses spent an extra $88 billion dollars on imports for the year to August 2025. Most of that is being passed through directly to consumers. Estimates of tariff cost pass through rates start at 50% at the low end and top out above 80%, clustering around 62-68%.

That's only going to get higher - as built up inventories are eaten through, more and more businesses are going to have to purchase goods that are subject to significant tariffs. There's good modelling that pass through rates are going to end up close to 100%, and even some (somewhat convincing) arguments that pass through rates will actually exceed 100% as businesses crank up prices due to domestic substitution impacts.

Yes, that was Trump's quote not mine. To me we might have a repeat of the Smoot-Hawley Act. I would have supported reciprocal tariffs or that certain nations be moved out of normal trade relations.

 

[rambot]

11 billion for Argentina.

butkiss for those in america who may need it i guess.

 

[essentialsaltes]

US kicks off controversial financial rescue plan for Argentina​

The US has purchased Argentine pesos, taking the next step in a controversial effort to calm a currency crisis hitting the South American country and its president, Trump ally Javier Milei.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the purchase on social media, while saying the US had finalised terms of a planned $20bn (£15bn) financial rescue for the country.

The Treasury Department did not respond to questions seeking more detail about the US support, including how much of embattled peso the administration had purchased or the terms of the $20bn currency swap line, which will allow Argentina to exchange pesos for dollars.

Speaking later on Fox News, Bessent said the support was not a bailout for Argentina and that the peso was undervalued.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

It looks like Trump cares more about other countries. Then helping people in America. This money can go into funding Obama care.

 

[wing2000]

Trump's suggestion to buy more beef from Argentina isn't sitting well with beef farmers.

Trump told reporters on Sunday that his administration is “thinking about doing” a deal with Argentina in which “we would buy some beef” from the South American nation.
“If we do that, that will bring our beef prices down,” he said.

The comments drew swift rebukes from U.S. cattle ranchers.

“This plan only creates chaos at a critical time of the year for American cattle producers, while doing nothing to lower grocery store prices,” National Cattlemen’s Beef Association CEO Colin Woodall said in a statement on Monday.

In response to Trump’s Truth Social post on Wednesday, Woodall said that his organization “cannot stand behind the President while he undercuts the future of family farmers and ranchers by importing Argentinian beef in an attempt to influence prices.”

“It is imperative that President Trump and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins let the cattle markets work,” Woodall said.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/22/trump-ranchers-beef-tariffs-argentina.html

 

[Desk trauma]

Trump's suggestion to buy more beef from Argentina isn't sitting well with beef farmers.

But not our faces surely!

 

[mark46]

It looks like Trump cares more about other countries. Then helping people in America. This money can go into funding Obama care.

The issue for Republicans with regard to reducing the pandemic subsidies is not primarily about money.

Trump wants states to pay a larger share of the subsidies (and every other social program).
Trump wants the emergency pandemic federal actions to end.

Should emergency actions really last forever?
===========
Many of us want the federal government to spend more on federal programs. If that is the case, we might try to elect more Democrats.
====================
I don't think that the people are served better just because the federal government spends money on programs. The states and local school boards are much more able to make decisions on how to use federal dollars to help their constituents.

PROPOSAL
1) Consider all non-mandated social welfare programs. Put them under HHS.
2) Determine how much each state and local government now gets under these programs.
3) Send the monies (plus 10%) to the states and local governments to make decisions with regard to how to spend that money.
4) I assure you that the excess admin cost is over 10%.
5) Yes, jobs would be cut. Under Clinton, over 350K federal jobs were cu with zero lawsuits.
6) Go to ALL remaining departments and ask for plans to cut 10% of costs, primarily through procurement improvement, process improvement and through reduced numbers.
7) Use the savings to spend these federal dollars to improve federal technologies, R&D (especially in health and weather), and restore some of the jobs that should not have been eliminated in areas where the feds should be doing the work instead of local governments.
8) Appoint a tech czar to give advice to the president. Homeland Security and Defense need lots and lots of technological improvements. And yes, review major programs. For me, I WANT a defense shield against incoming missiles and a plan to defend our government computers from being hacked.
9) Have a Department of Climate Change which addresses mitigation (not causes). Under this department would be the development of a federal food and water policies and programs. Our food and water supply are in serious crisis NOW. Also, insurance reform needs to be addressed.