Tariff Man and his tariff plan cause market plunges

[HDGristle]

A 10% Section 122 tariff? Will require Congress to help keep it longer than 150 days unless he allows it to expire and then reissues later.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

A 10% Section 122 tariff? Will require Congress to help keep it longer than 150 days unless he allows it to expire and then reissues later.

He’ll obviously do what he wants. According to existing trade laws. Tariffs didn’t go away. I bet there are countries that wish the SC didn’t rule this way. The World trade imbalance was long over due for an overhaul. They were established to help rebuild Europe, Japan and parts of Asia after WW2. That’s been done long ago. Time to even the playing field.

[bambino]

JUST IN: Treasury Sec. Scott Bessent just STUNNED the "Experts," he and Trump have been making big plans and it's FULL-STEAM AHEAD

Tariff revenue will be *unchanged* in 2026. Boom.

"Let's be clear about what today's ruling WAS and what it WASN'T. Despite the misplaced GLOATING from Democrats, ill-informed media outlets, and the very people who gutted our industrial base, the Court did not rule against President Trump's tariffs."

"Six justices simply ruled that IEEPA authorities cannot be used to raise even $1 of revenue."

"This administration will invoke alternative legal authorities to replace the IEEPA tariffs."

"We will be leveraging Section 232 and Section 301 tariff authorities that have been validated through thousands of legal challenges."

"Treasury's estimates show that the use of Section 122 authority, combined with potentially enhanced Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs, will result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026."

https://x.com/ericldaugh/status/2024...493677217?s=42

[HDGristle]

You'd be better off cribbing from this.

https://www.cato.org/blog/supreme-co...-champagne-yet

[HDGristle]

[bambino]

HOLY CRAP. President Trump hints he is about to expose the exact foreign influences who swayed SCOTUS' opinion on tariffs

REPORTER: Foreign influence...do you have evidence of that? Will you investigate that?

TRUMP: You’re going to find out.

����

https://x.com/ericldaugh/status/2024...770733407?s=42


BOOM

[bambino]

Joe Lange

I keep telling people that everything has changed and nothing can stop what’s coming.

The Supreme Court just “helped” Trump and most people can’t see it.

They struck down tariffs based on the IEEPA law, that has been abused by past presidents, especially Obama, as I just laid out in a two part thread.

That law is so broad, that it actually endangers America, when used by a corrupt president like Obama.

And this ruling did nothing to stop Trump from imposing tariffs.

Trump immediately declared that he would restore the tariffs struck down because of the IEEPA law.

How?

NATIONAL SECURITY.

And here’s what most people are missing in this Supreme Court decision.

The Supreme Court did not give a remedy.
They didn’t demand that the tariffs be given back or how.

Why?

I would argue that they knew what was coming.
The Supreme Court did not throw out the tariffs that Trump placed on countries because of “national security.”

Why?

The Constitution gives the president “plenary power” over “national security.”

The Supreme Court knew that was coming.

They literally DISTINGUISHED what tariffs are legal and what tariffs aren’t.

That’s a great PRECEDENT for the future.
Clear law instead of purposely ambiguous law, that allows for future abuse.

Trump just exposed the corrupt IEEPA law in order to set the table to get rid of it.

[jayzee43]

Lomg story short, POTUS does NOT have the authority to levy taxes (which is what tariffs are, for the dumbasses who seem to think higher taxes are good thing). This from the SCOTUS ruling:

The facial breadth of this definition places in stark relief what "regulate" is not usually thought to include: taxation. Many statutes grant the Executive the power to "regulate." Yet the Government cannot identify any statute in which the power to regulate includes the power to tax. The Court is therefore skeptical that in IEEPA-and IEEPA alone-Congress hid a delegation of its birth-right power to tax within the quotidian power to "regulate."

While taxes may accomplish regulatory ends, it does not follow that the power to regulate includes the power to tax as a means of regula-tion. Indeed, when Congress addresses both the power to regulate and the power to tax, it does so separately and expressly. That it did not do so here is strong evidence that "regulate" in IEEPA does not include taxation.

A contrary reading would render IEEPA partly unconstitutional. IEEPA authorizes the President to "regulate ... importation or expor-tation." §1702(a)(1)(B). But taxing exports is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. Art. 1, 89, cl. 5.

Got that? trump's tariffs are UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[eyecu2]

Joe Lange (snick)

Good lord what a bunch of fn fools

[jayzee43]

Originally Posted by eyecu2

Joe Lange (snick)

Good lord what a bunch of fn fools

SCOTUS has spoken.

trump's tariffs are unconstitutional. Period.

Joe Lange can go piss up a rope.

[eyecu2]

Originally Posted by bambino

The market was above 50k before this decision. It’s based on the confidence in the Trump economy. Tariffs have little to do with it. Besides, Trump just invoked a 10% global tariff. He’s probably going to raise existing tariffs.

Yes, President Trump announced a 10% baseline tax on imports from all countries....
ap.org news.bloomberglaw.com

What you should have said was markets are doing well DESPITE Trump's illegal tariffs in a GLOBAL ECONOMY.

What is it you think he's actually done besides tariff the fuck out of domestic consumers? Affordability - nope.
Better healthcare solutions.....nah not even part of the discussion on team MAGA. Trump RX,- even GoodRx has same or lower prices and many more drugs covered.

But to your last part of course Trump announced 10% global tariffs- cause he saves a little face. BUT still, hasn't learned a god damned thing about how they work, who pays them, and why 70% of America hates his fucking ugly ass .

An idiot is doomed to continue repeat their mistakes, and Trump is perfect example of insanity - doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Maybe he should stick to ballroom designs and destroying the republic.

[jayzee43]

I just don’t get it.

Wait, what am I saying, of course I get it: IT'S A CULT.

But it is hilarious that MAGA is now clamoring for higher taxes. Between the Minnesota debacle and the SCOTUS smackdown on tariffs, MAGAs now hate the 2nd Amendment and they love higher taxes.

MAGA is a cult, by every definition of the word.

[HDGristle]

For the record, the Supremes ruled today on the case mentioned all the way back in post 17. Just in case people want to pretend that I haven't been focused on IEEPA until recently and pretend the goal posts changed here's the link

https://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p...5&postcount=17

At that point in time we know the market was down, importers were freaking out, Trump was blowing smoke up your asses about 90 deals in 90 days before serving up TACO platters and backing off his more insane ideas after the bond market revolt.

Meanwhile, a group of CONSERVATIVES helped a small business file suit against Tariffman's inappropriate power grab.

They won in court. They won the appeal. They won the SCOTUS case.

And now Tariffman is scrambling. Remember how he lied to us about how the U.S. would end if he didn't have the power to tariff. He had methods to implement these the right way. He didn't.

And he's held back the economy and interjected all of this chaos only to have it blow up in his face as the Supremes confirmed he used power he never had to begin with to shortcut the system.

Today is a beautiful day. Enjoy it.

Thank you valued posters.

[bambino]

⚡️��⚡️Per D.J.T. (courtesy of Justice Kavanaugh):⚡️��⚡️
Those "OTHER ALTERNATIVES" include...

TRADE EXPANSION ACT SECTION 232
TRADE ACT OF 1974 SECTIONS 122, 2011, 301
TARIFF ACT OF 1930 SECTION 338

ALWAYS 12 STEPS AHEAD!!
������
��������������

[HDGristle]

If he was really 12 steps ahead he would have just used those, Bam. Not taken the loss and the public egging

Follow the polls, my dude

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox...urt-ruling.amp