Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Tariff Man and his tariff plan cause market plunges
test
The Sandbox - PittsburghThe Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here. If it's NOT an adult-themed topic, then it belongs here
Well, Bam. I think you need to read up on what the Tax Foundation analysis has been of the tariff impact vs the tax cut benefits. They seem to disagree with you and trust me, they understand this better than you do
A good example on how tariffs are taxes being imposed on the middle class which offset the middle class tax cuts in the Big Beautiful Bill. The only winners are the wealthy.
A good example on how tariffs are taxes being imposed on the middle class which offset the middle class tax cuts in the Big Beautiful Bill. The only winners are the wealthy.
And the wealthy only win because they convince the poor and middle class to fight it out amongst themselves. It's always been this way, most likely all throughout human history.
In this most recent example, MAGA carries all the water for trump and his criminal friends, then MAGA gets shit on and begs for more.
What is NOT affected
• The ruling does not invalidate all of Trump's tariffs. It specifically targets those relying on IEEPA. Tariffs imposed under other legal authorities remain in place, such as:
—— Section 232 tariffs (national security-based, e.g., on steel and aluminum).
—— Section 301 tariffs (unfair trade practices).
—— Other targeted levies (e.g., on specific products like copper or certain goods).
In practical terms, this decision destroyed his “Liberation Day” tariffs”, and Could now lead to refunds of billions (estimates in the $100–$180+ billion range) in already-collected duties for importers, depending on ongoing processes.
This also sets the precedent that Limits future presidents' ability to use IEEPA for broad tariff policies without new legislation.
BREAKING: Justice Clarence Thomas just UNLEASHED pure FIRE in his dissent on the tariff ruling, dropping TRUTH BOMBS that expose the majority’s BS and defend President Trump’s America First authority like a boss!
He didn’t mince words. He straight-up NAILED it:
“NEITHER the statutory text nor the Constitution provide a basis for ruling against the President.”
BOOM. Read that again. The Constitution and the law ITSELF back Trump—no ifs, ands, or buts.
Thomas keeps swinging:
“Congress authorized the President to ‘regulate . . . importation.’ Throughout American history, the authority to ‘regulate importation’ has been understood to include the authority to impose duties on imports.”
Historical facts don’t care about your feelings, globalists.
He doubles down:
“The meaning of that phrase was beyond doubt by the time that Congress enacted this statute, shortly after President Nixon’s highly publicized duties on imports were UPHELD based on identical language.”
Nixon did it. Courts said YES. Same exact words. Case closed.
Then the kill shot:
“The statute that the President relied on therefore authorized him to impose the duties on imports at issue in these cases.”
SCOTUS only considered tariffs issued under the IEEPA & struck those down.
President Trump primarily relied on IEEPA for sanctions & emergency-based restrictions. Numerous major tariffs were imposed under standard trade statutes, not emergency powers, so many remain in effect.
The Supreme Court majority today issued a very messy and problematic decision. See below. The fact is the majority agreed on an outcome but not so much on the reasoning for the outcome. Furthermore, it struck tariffs under a single statute, yet created chaos or, actually, left it to the president to decide if and/or how to treat the revenue those tariffs already created for the federal Treasury.
The majority had a problem, which I said it would, should the Court move in this direction: tariffs are more than indirect taxes; they do, in fact, impact foreign affairs and national security matters and have been used for those specific purposes. Therefore, the question is not who has the power to tax per se, but a more complicated question about where the separation of powers is. The majority, apparently, chose to duck the question and stick with the indirect tax characterization and focus on a single statute, which is outrageous. It could not figure out how to bifurcate the Congress's power of the purse from the President's foreign policy powers, so it redefined the issue to reach the outcome -- and even then, they argued over the rationale.
So, we are left with even a worse ambiguity. 1. If only Congress can raise taxes, even indirectly, then how does the Court justify the entire regulatory state in the executive branch that raises indirect taxes hourly? Congress may have delegated that power to the bureaucracy, but it does not have the power to delegate legislative power and taxation. This goes back as far as John Locke's Second Treatise on Government. Yet the Court is okay with that since it is okay with the massive welfare state. 2. Putting aside the specific statute, it appears the President is still free to raise or cut tariffs under other statutes, but that will no doubt be challenged as well. The Court succeeded only in creating confusion going forward. 3. Since the Court foolishly decided to get involved in this matter, even though the majority states it is not getting involved in policy, it has gotten into policy, and it has not drawn a clear line on separation of powers because it cannot, and it created a terrible mess -- both legally and economically.
Ok… so I did some digging, and yes, it appears President Trump did have a PLAN B if SCOTUS ruled against him.
The contingency plans include EXPANDED use of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which allows tariffs on national security grounds and has already been used to target steel, aluminum, autos, copper and lumber.
And guess what SCOTUS did not rule against… Section 232
Read that again… on NATIONAL SECURITY GROUNDS. I mean, everything Trump is dealing with could be classified as National Security Grounds.
Just a guess..
I imagine Trump might post his disappointment about the ruling, and he will go on to say he has no choice but to expand Section 232. Or, expand on other tariff powers yet unnamed.
