Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
This is not winning this is robbery.
Companies are raised prices and pushed tariffs costs onto US consumer, and now the Treasury department is going to refund the companies. CONSUMER GETS NOTHING BUT CONTINUED HIGHER PRICES
They'll bring the prices down, for about a week before the midterms so Trump can take credit, then they'll jack them back up again.
And the worst part is, it'll work. The electorate has the collective memory of a goldfish.
They misunderstood Ted Lasso so hard.
If this makes prices go down, whenever that happens, like you say, I guarantee that Trump will take the credit. Probably as soon as he can make a post about it.
My understanding is that it was generally expected that SCOTUS would rule against it, but also expected that the administration would then fall back to other authorities to achieve a similar goal, so it's not clear whether we're going to be functioning without tariffs.
That doesn't meant that it isn't impactful
it's important from a legal technical standpoint, in terms of defining powers of Congress and of the President.
I also expect that it will likely result in importers getting reimbursements, which is going to create a lot of financial and political issues, since the tax cuts for the wealthy were functionally in part paid for by tariffs, and all that money just evaporated. I have wondered whether the Trump administration will try to push the tax increases down the road to the next (potentially-Democratic) administration, then blame them for having to cover the costs that the Trump administration incurred.
EDIT: Probably be a lot of news coverage and analysis of this from experts coming up, not to mention responses from the administration and maybe more legal challenges, so I imagine that it'll become clearer over time.
If these other avenues for enforcing tariffs are better why not just start there? Why start with blatantly shitting on the wording of the constitution.
Gotta go fast sonic meme.gif
Their strategy has always been "go so fast no one can keep up with the awful things, and pile controversies to cover up controversies". A slow durable administrative action that respects separation of powers and doesn't treat the executive as a godking was never in the cards.
I think you answered your own question.
If these other avenues for enforcing tariffs are better why not just start there?
So, I haven't read deeply into what other routes would be used, just read that they exist. Thus, I'm not the best source for this, and I'm sure that there are people who are and will have more-informed commentary who will be getting interviewed on the news a lot in the aftermath of this. However, if I had to take a guess, my understanding is that Congress has extended the President the authority to block trade with a country entirely, and that that's on firmer ground. Trump might be able to say "I'm now entirely blocking trade, but if you agree to functionally accept tariffs, I'll unblock you" or something like that. From the Trump administration's standpoint, that's more hassle and difficulty, but he might avoid the ruling here.
But don't take that as authoritative, please
as I said, I haven't spent time on it, and a lot of people who are better-equipped to answer will be answering the same question on the news and such. I just want to raise the prospect that we may still be looking at tariffs, to make people aware of it, before everyone starts throwing a party and saying that everything will be as it was pre-Trump.
I don't think they are concerned with funding the government. They are borrowing, putting it all on the card. They will be out by the time the bill is due, by the time they max out the borrowing, they figure.
Every excuse they will borrow as much as possible. I mean what they gave homeland security 200 billion last summer, and Ice what was it, 60 billion? Just an incredible amount of money, imagine how much health care that could buy if a single payer system eliminated parasites that didn't contribute value. They are giving them MORE money as we speak. If AI pops, they will bail them out, any recession they will borrow trillions, if not tens of trillions. Which they will be able to do until they destroy the trust in the system, which could evaporate sooner than we think.
There are and still will be tariffs (like section 232 steel and softwood lumber)... but I think that it's understood that he can no longer declare his hurt feelings as an emergency, and levy blanket tariffs on a country in response to anything he doesn't like. The incompetent scraps left in his administration have to put together an explanation on what specifically is tariffed and why Congress had authorized it. It's his choice to keep screaming "tariff" but those threats are emptier than ever.
Edit: See? His first "escalation threat" is a global tariff not really directed at anyone (aside from the USA)
It's too bad the president has given tariffs a bad name, it's a labor movement issue to want tariffs on goods from countries that undercut us on labor and the environment. It's created a race to the bottom, exported all of our tech, and built factories for repressive regimes, and has enslaved entire populations, forcing them to work 6-12s for starvation wages, 6 days a week, 12 hours a day. No protections, retirement, health care to speak of usually, no workers comp. Toxins are dumped in the ditch. All to make cheap and sell expensive, to undercut our own gains made by labor, and our gains fighting for a clean environment where we don't (didn't) allow companies to poison us and every living animal in entire aquifers to save a buck on waste disposal, as much.
Those countries should see tariffs to make up for the advantages of undercutting our standards by exploiting their workers under dictatorial systems that brutally repress their exploited workforces. But the president while getting support from the America First crowd that didn't know better than to support him on this, and on his promise of ending foreign wars to benefit the rich and connected, was never going to do this well. He is too mean, too corrupt, and whatever else, to do anything well, and constitutionally against improving the lot of people.
It's a cudgel for him to influence other countries, and a protection racket, he's been trying to turn it into a global protection racket, probably taking under the table pay offs to shell companies in tax shelters to exempt industries and from countries even.