Here come the tariffs

[BrahmaBulls 929]

1 hour ago, Ron_Artest said:

Meh, first I would like to see us following the constitution and make things more affordable.  If people are dumb enough to vote R after all this, nothing we can do about it.

Prices didn't go up under Biden and Obama?  You're retarded

[The Real timschochet 7,436]

So based on what I’m reading, the 3 liberal judges are highly skeptical while Alito and Thomas are, naturally, in favor of Trump’s position. The remaining 4 expressed some skepticism  though Kavanaugh seemed open to the foreign policy argument. 

This looks to be a 5-4 decision either way. 

[Ron_Artest 2,211]

46 minutes ago, BrahmaBulls said:

Prices didn't go up under Biden and Obama?  You're retarded

That's your conclusion?  And you're calling me retarded?

[BrahmaBulls 929]

6 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

That's your conclusion?  And you're calling me retarded?

I did call you retarded because you are.

[squistion 2,526]

 

[The Real timschochet 7,436]

2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

So based on what I’m reading, the 3 liberal judges are highly skeptical while Alito and Thomas are, naturally, in favor of Trump’s position. The remaining 4 expressed some skepticism  though Kavanaugh seemed open to the foreign policy argument. 

This looks to be a 5-4 decision either way. 

I’m going to correct this- I now think it’s going to go 6-3 with Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh in dissent. 

[The Real timschochet 7,436]

One great question asked by one of the conservative justices (I think it was Gorsuch): Trump is claiming that the “emergency” gives him broad powers to impose tariffs without any restrictions based on the 1977 law. Gorsuch asked, under that interpretation could a future Democratic President decide that climate change is an emergency and tariff all gasoline fueled cars completely out of existence without Congress weighing in? The answer of course is yes. Trump is claiming all authority to himself in the name of the emergency. 

I doubt Trump helped his argument by threatening to tariff Brazil if Bolsonaro went to prison, and tariffing Canada because of a commercial he didn’t like. But I don’t know if these instances were brought up or not. 

[Mike Honcho 5,425]

5 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

So based on what I’m reading, the 3 liberal judges are highly skeptical while Alito and Thomas are, naturally, in favor of Trump’s position. The remaining 4 expressed some skepticism  though Kavanaugh seemed open to the foreign policy argument. 

This looks to be a 5-4 decision either way. 

6-3

ETA - just read your edit.  I think it 6-3 at a min, but most likely 7-2.  Once Kavanaugh reads Thomas dissent he'll jump to the other side. 

[FrancieFootball 162]

9 hours ago, BrahmaBulls said:

Prices didn't go up under Biden and Obama?  You're retarded

1.) Inflation was historically low under Obama with the exception of health insurance premiums and gas prices. Obamacare did cause premiums to go up, but gas prices rose due to worldwide conditions, not any Obama policy.

2.) Prices went up under Biden but very largely due to post-COVID supply and demand.

Prices across the board right now are increasing largely because of Trump's tariffs.

Feel free to blindly blame presidents, but it would serve you well and make you look more intelligent if you actually exercised some Economics 101.

[BrahmaBulls 929]

1 minute ago, FrancieFootball said:

1.) Inflation was historically low under Obama with the exception of health insurance premiums and gas prices. Obamacare did cause premiums to go up, but gas prices rose due to worldwide conditions, not any Obama policy.

2.) Prices went up under Biden but very largely due to post-COVID supply and demand.

Prices across the board right now are increase largely because of Trump's tariffs.

Feel free to blindly blame presidents, but it would serve you well and make you look more intelligent if you actually exercised some Economics 101.

Rusty is now a chick with a and thinks he's an Econ expert.  This board never disappoints

[FrancieFootball 162]

32 minutes ago, BrahmaBulls said:

Rusty is now a chick with a and thinks he's an Econ expert.  This board never disappoints

This is what you pivot to when you're too lazy to do research and just follow the other Trump sheeple off the cliff.

I have a doctorate in economics from Stanford, so you could learn a thing or two from me.

[Maximum Overkill 2,435]

6 hours ago, FrancieFootball said:

I have a doctorate in economics from Stanford

You should of taken Biology 

[thegeneral 3,593]

Is the SC really going to toss Trump’s tariffs out? What a complete fiasco if that happens. Crushing to this term. These tariffs are one of the pillars, probably the main one, of what he wanted to try and achieve. 

[TimHauck 3,307]

50 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Is the SC really going to toss Trump’s tariffs out? What a complete fiasco if that happens. Crushing to this term. These tariffs are one of the pillars, probably the main one, of what he wanted to try and achieve. 

Just gives him a built in excuse if there’s a recession 

[thegeneral 3,593]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

Just gives him a built in excuse if there’s a recession 

Only his biggest nuthuggers will believe that the conservative SC caused his recession. This would be a total disaster for Dementia Don.

Have a hard time believing this will get tossed, they’ll give the tariffs an out somehow.

[Ron_Artest 2,211]

The fact that it would be such a disaster to have to refund everyone I think they keep them.  SCOTUS doesn't care about the rule of law or the Constitution.

[BrahmaBulls 929]

9 hours ago, FrancieFootball said:

This is what you pivot to when you're too lazy to do research and just follow the other Trump sheeple off the cliff.

I have a doctorate in economics from Stanford, so you could learn a thing or two from me.

You beat off to cats and have 500 aliases on a fantasy football forum

[Ron_Artest 2,211]

There is another way out.  Have congress pass the tariffs that are currently in place.  That will force congress to face their constituents when it comes to voting with the tariffs on their record.

[Sean Mooney 2,049]

4 hours ago, thegeneral said:

Is the SC really going to toss Trump’s tariffs out? What a complete fiasco if that happens. Crushing to this term. These tariffs are one of the pillars, probably the main one, of what he wanted to try and achieve. 

It will just lead to Trump and MAGA land switching the argument to "See- the whole system is against Trump, and you by extension."

[Sean Mooney 2,049]

Quote

 

Fox News anchor Bret Baier confronted President Donald Trump with a plea from a loyal supporter who said she was “not happy” with rising prices, only for the president to insist, flatly, that the opposite is true and prices are “way down.”

The exchange came during a Fox News interview on Wednesday night’s Special Report with Bret Baier. Trump was weighing the damage from the GOP’s bruising losses the night before.

Baier read out a message from North Carolina retiree Regina Foley, a woman who has voted Trump “three times previously,” who warned that she did not “see the best economy now” and begged him: “Please do something, President Trump.”

“I want the Republicans to keep control of Congress in 2026, but something has to be done fast!” her statement continued. “I don’t see the best economy now – Wall Street numbers do not reflect Main Street money, please do something, President Trump.”

Trump, however, rejected the premise.

“Beef we have to get down. I think of groceries, it’s an old-fashioned word, but it’s a beautiful word. Beef we have to get down, but we’ve got prices way down,” he replied, launching into a long riff on energy prices. “Think of this, [Foley] drives a car, probably, and her energy prices are way down and energy is so all-encompassing it’s so big that when energy comes down, everything comes down. Everything follows it, and I have energy down to five-six-year lows now.”

He added: “I think they are coming down, but they are down already. I think the biggest problem is Republicans don’t talk about it. They don’t talk about the word affordability and the Democrats lie about it.”

Late October polling by Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos suggests Americans’ cost of living is very much not “way down.” Roughly seven in 10 adults said they were spending more on groceries than this time last year, and 59 percent said they were paying more for utilities (only 6 percent said less).

The strain is bipartisan: nearly nine in 10 Democrats said grocery costs have jumped, and while that figure was lower among Republicans, a majority of GOP respondents (52 percent) said they too were paying more. In terms of political consequence, 59% of all U.S. adults said they blame Trump a great deal or a good amount for the current rate of inflation.

 

1.) Where, oh where, is @RLLD to tell us how the Dems are the only ones who would lie about the economy. I'm sure the situations here (R) different.

2.) Also, the polls continue to be skewed in ways that are strange because the perception continues to be different than reality. 

[Ron_Artest 2,211]

 

Any of you Trump nut huggers actually believe this?

[FrancieFootball 162]

16 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

 

Any of you Trump nut huggers actually believe this?

And when Trump says or does something completely the opposite of what he said or did before, MAGAs are like a gaggle of geese just blindly following their cult leader wherever he leads them.

[Ron_Artest 2,211]

Do any of you actually believe this?

Also why does he still talk about Biden?

[FrancieFootball 162]

If the SC rules against Trump, then $90 billion would be given back to the business that paid the tariffs.

Not a penny would go to the Americans who have suffered higher costs due to these disastrous tariffs.

This is taxation without representation and clearly unconstitutional. 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/supreme-court-trumps-tariffs-illegal/story?id=127258770

[Ron_Artest 2,211]

Just now, FrancieFootball said:

If the SC rules against Trump, then $90 billion would be given back to the business that paid the tariffs.

Not a penny would go to the Americans who have suffered higher costs due to these disastrous tariffs.

This is taxation without representation and clearly unconstitutional. 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/supreme-court-trumps-tariffs-illegal/story?id=127258770

Yeah I was thinking the same thing, if they pay it back, there is no way it helps us anyway so fock it.

I honestly don't know what the best solution is.  Probably let it all play out and destroy the economy, then democrats take back the govt, pass laws overturning the tariffs, and Trump will be forced to sign them

[Fnord 2,515]

Trump Team Now Claims Its Trillions in Tariff Revenue Are ‘Incidental’ In arguments before the Supreme Court, the White House backed away from its claims that President Trump’s tariffs were about raising revenue.

When required to tell the truth about something (like in front of SCOTUS), this admin has no idea how to handle itself. Complete disgrace.

Quote

For months, President Trump and his top advisers described tariffs as an economic cure-all, one that would bring in revenue to pay down the national debt, offset tax cuts, support struggling farmers and even provide dividend checks to Americans.

But when the White House’s solicitor general, D. John Sauer, defended Mr. Trump’s expansive use of tariffs before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, he expressed a much different view. Despite all the public justifications of the tariffs, Mr. Sauer suggested that they were not really about the money at all.

“These are regulatory tariffs,” Mr. Sauer said. “They are not revenue-raising tariffs. The fact that they raise revenue is only incidental.”

In remarks at the White House on Thursday, Mr. Trump said that if the tariffs were deemed illegal it would be “devastating for our country,” and suggested that he was contemplating contingency plans. He warned that trillions of dollars of investments pledged by Japan, South Korea and the European Union would be at risk if he were unable to threaten them with tariffs.

At the center of the case is the question of whether Mr. Trump overstepped his legal authority by broadly imposing taxes, which is the job of Congress. The Trump administration argued in court that the tariffs were a foreign policy tool that was needed to deal with national security and economic emergencies.

That sudden admission that revenue is secondary represented a sharp reversal for an administration that has repeatedly justified the tariffs as a mechanism for making America rich again.

“When Tariffs cut in, many people’s Income Taxes will be substantially reduced, maybe even completely eliminated,” Mr. Trump said in a social media post in April, weeks after unveiling his so-called reciprocal tariffs on most countries around the world. “It will be a BONANZA FOR AMERICA!!!"

As the Trump administration pushed Congress to pass more than $4 trillion in tax cuts over the spring and summer, White House officials made the case that revenue from Mr. Trump’s tariffs would offset the cost of the legislation, and they assailed the Congressional Budget Office for failing to account for the import duties.

“Had the C.B.O. conducted an intellectually honest dynamic analysis AND accurately accounted for the Trump tariffs, it would have forecast a massive multitrillion-dollar surplus,” Peter Navarro, the White House trade adviser, wrote in an essay for Fox News in July.

Perhaps the biggest proponent of tariffs as a generator of revenue for the federal government has been Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

At a White House cabinet meeting in August, Mr. Bessent said he expected that annual tariff revenue could top $500 billion and potentially even go higher.

“So I think we could be on our way, well over half a trillion, maybe towards a trillion-dollar number,” Mr. Bessent said. “This administration, your administration, has made a meaningful dent in the budget deficit.”

The Treasury secretary posted a chart on X in August touting surging tariff income as a “stable, growing source of federal revenue.”

However, as the Supreme Court hearing grew closer, the White House started to change its tenor about tariffs.

In an October news conference at the Treasury Department, Mr. Bessent described tariffs as a “surcharge” akin to a fee that a driver would pay to acquire a license.

The White House also walked back the 100 percent tariffs that it had threatened to impose on China last month in exchange for promises that it would do more to curb fentanyl exports. This buttressed its argument that the threat of tariffs is a national security tool, and not primarily a tax.

“The move to focus on trade agreements and away from revenue is a massive tell,” said Scott Lincicome, the vice president for general economics at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. “You can see the administration is trying to publicly change its arguments and the focus of the tariffs.”

Some conservative members of the Supreme Court were skeptical of the administration’s rhetorical shift.

“It’s been suggested that the tariffs are responsible for significant reduction in our deficit,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said when the case was argued on Wednesday. “I would say that’s raising revenue domestically.”

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch indicated that he understood the legal rationale for the shift. “So revenue-raising tariffs are not foreign affairs, but regulatory tariffs are?” he asked.

The Supreme Court has sometimes overlooked statements from Mr. Trump that are at odds with the positions his lawyers have taken in court. In 2018, for instance, in sustaining Mr. Trump’s ban on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries, the chief justice discounted Mr. Trump’s many assertions about his desire to impose a “Muslim ban.”

“The issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility.”

“In doing so,” he wrote, “we must consider not only the statements of a particular president, but also the authority of the presidency itself.”

On Thursday, Mr. Trump again raised the specter of disaster should he lose the case.

“The decision in the Supreme Court would be devastating to our country,” he said during remarks in the Oval Office.

Following the hearing, as the justices begin their deliberations, Mr. Trump’s economic advisers reinforced the new rationale for the tariffs.

“The goal of his agenda is bringing back manufacturing and balancing the crisis-level deficits and trade barriers with our global trading partners,” Mr. Bessent wrote in a post on X on Wednesday afternoon. “The tariff income is incidental to these urgent goals — not the underlying reason for their application.”

Despite Mr. Trump’s sweeping approach to tariffs that imposed levies on allies such as Spain and France on national security grounds, on Thursday morning the president’s top trade negotiator suggested that the White House was mindful of the limitations of his tariff powers.

“The president has never purported to have unlimited authority in this area,” Jamieson Greer, the U.S. trade representative, said on the Fox Business Network. “In fact, his execution of tariffs has limitations — there are certain things you can’t tariff, Congress gets to have a say on all of this.”

 

[The Real timschochet 7,436]

Look if Trump is right about the economic benefits of tariffs let him convince Congress. He’s got a Republican House and Senate for another year. Should be easy. 

[Gepetto 1,454]

While Congress had close control over tariff rates for the first 150 years of the nation's history, it has, since the 1930s, passed legislation that delegates significant authority to the President to negotiate and adjust tariffs under specific circumstances, such as for national security or in response to unfair trade practices by other countries. Nonetheless, all tariffs fundamentally originate from the authority granted to the legislative branch by the Constitution.

 

• Delegation of authority: Over time, particularly after the Great Depression and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, Congress began delegating more authority to the President to negotiate trade agreements and adjust tariffs.
• Evolution of power: While Congress still retains the ultimate power to set tariffs, the President has been given the ability to act under specific laws passed by Congress, often as part of foreign policy and trade negotiations. 

[The Real timschochet 7,436]

26 minutes ago, Gepetto said:

While Congress had close control over tariff rates for the first 150 years of the nation's history, it has, since the 1930s, passed legislation that delegates significant authority to the President to negotiate and adjust tariffs under specific circumstances, such as for national security or in response to unfair trade practices by other countries. Nonetheless, all tariffs fundamentally originate from the authority granted to the legislative branch by the Constitution.

 

• Delegation of authority: Over time, particularly after the Great Depression and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, Congress began delegating more authority to the President to negotiate trade agreements and adjust tariffs.
• Evolution of power: While Congress still retains the ultimate power to set tariffs, the President has been given the ability to act under specific laws passed by Congress, often as part of foreign policy and trade negotiations. 

What’s the point you’re trying to make here? Yes Presidents have been given SOME authority over the years to negotiate tariffs. It’s never been absolute and it’s never been used as arbitrarily as Trump has. And the law he used to justify it, from 1977, never mentions tariffs and was actually designed to place a limit on Presidential powers, not to expand it. 

[Gepetto 1,454]

4 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

What’s the point you’re trying to make here? Yes Presidents have been given SOME authority over the years to negotiate tariffs. It’s never been absolute and it’s never been used as arbitrarily as Trump has. And the law he used to justify it, from 1977, never mentions tariffs and was actually designed to place a limit on Presidential powers, not to expand it. 

I'm saying there's a chance the President is justified in some or all of his tariff decisions. I really don't know what he's trying to accomplish or who got in his head regarding tariffs and really could care less if the Supreme Court rules against him. The laws should be followed in the Supreme Court's decision. I'll let them decide and I will accept their decision as they know way more about this than I ever could or want to even try to learn.