Fallout From Tariff Smackdown

[The Duke]

November 1993. Why?

You didn't know that...did you dick breath?

BOOM! I love b!tch slapping you.

Nope Tariffs are taxes on American importers. Therefore they are the purview of Congress.

Scotus said the way he was doing it is not available...and thats a better thing. His own hand picked court kicked him in the nuts.

Gotta love it.

They were bribed. That was a shit congress. All have been since the Reagan days.
They got in there and did what some Founding Father said pure Democracy would do.
Only they did it just for Congress. They voted themselves wealth, and forget everybody else. I hate the cuss filter.
And okay, they did that in 1993. Was it good for America? Absolutely not.
Guaranteed they were bribed by corporations that wanted to offshore labor so they could pay less. Slave wages, even.
Do you post from an iPhone?

 

[citygator]

We sold our claim against the government to a law firm and used the money to pay out bonuses... THANKS TRUMP!

 

[wamose]

The bad part is, we have too many Democrats rooting against our country.

 

[The Duke]

The bad part is, we have too many Democrats rooting against our country.

And Republican Senators taking bribes to do the same.

 

[citygator]

The bad part is, we have too many Democrats rooting against our country.

How does "rooting" affect anything? Thinking and expressing Trump and the GOP are morons isnt rooting against the country genius.

 

[wamose]

How does "rooting" affect anything? Thinking and expressing Trump and the GOP are morons isnt rooting against the country genius.

Disgruntled Democrats are like disgruntled teammates. They're a cancer, capable of destroying everything. But I wouldn't expect someone as disgruntled as you to understand that.

 

[JohnDB]

 

[ColonelAngus]

How does "rooting" affect anything? Thinking and expressing Trump and the GOP are morons isnt rooting against the country genius.

Lay out specifically

Trump's own court slapped him down on tariffs. The fall out is that the government is apparently going to refund all of the illegal money it collected from businesses.

https://www.npr.org/2026/04/19/nx-s1-5786635/tariff-refunds-customs-ace-portal

Since America companies pay the tariffs, this could result in some expansion as there is an opportunity (albeit slight) for a bit of a windfall to be had

From the piece:

"U.S. Customs is launching just the first phase of payouts, so not all the goods imported under the illegal tariffs will immediately qualify. And the latest federal guidance says that after refund requests are approved, it could take 60 to 90 days to return the money to the importer."

A win for the good guys.

What is your specific plan to help us manufacturers sell more stuff?

 

[candycorn]

They were bribed.

Oh brother....

That was a shit congress. All have been since the Reagan days.
They got in there and did what some Founding Father said pure Democracy would do.
Only they did it just for Congress. They voted themselves wealth, and forget everybody else. I hate the cuss filter.
And okay, they did that in 1993. Was it good for America? Absolutely not.

Good for America? Absolutely yes:

Good for some sectors of the economy? Nope. That is Schumpeter's theory at work. Some sectors went bye-bye; others expanded. Currently, we're near max employment despite the bromide of "illegals stealing our jobs" you guys trot out. PS: If your job can be taken by someone who isn't documented and can't read or speak the language, was your job safe to start with? Probably not.

Anyway the stats speak for themselves.

Guaranteed they were bribed by corporations that wanted to offshore labor so they could pay less. Slave wages, even.
Do you post from an iPhone?

On this we agree. That is the other side of the coin of capitalism. Free markets allow companies to build anywhere and sell anywhere. Look at the stock market. It works....for them. It doesn't work for American workers who lose their jobs though.

Where we disagree is how to go about it. Slapping tariffs on imports was stupid. It just was. Lying about it was even dumber. But there you are...cheering each stupid move. You continue to do so today. Why? Because you're brainwashed for one thing and you just were not that smart to start with.

A better idea is to attack it from the legislative end. I'm a cruise nut. I think the the last time America built a commercial cruise ship was about the same time the pilgrims were landing. Finland just built the ICON of the Seas for Royal Caribbean based in Miami. The shipyard is getting about a billion dollars for one of these ships. The ship actually costs $2B but I'm estimating a billion of that is not done at the shipyard but in other docks. Anyway, you know who isn't getting a slice of that pie? Shipbuilders in the US. So my idea is to have the Congress come up with some legislation to where if a cruise line is going to operate in American waters, they have to have some American made ships. Put that into some sort of legislative language of course but rejuvenate an industry that has been dormant longer than some volcanoes. It probably falls under the heading of socialism. So what. It makes sense and it protects an industry vital to our national interest. We have the Jones Act that essentially is limited to ports; we need one that expands that spirit to ships and ship building.

Here's a story you won't read in keeping with your idiocy:

 

[candycorn]

Lay out specifically


What is your specific plan to help us manufacturers sell more stuff?

See post 29 for one thing.

Post in thread 'Ghosts of Former Soviet Union Leaders Grin As Mamdani's $30M NYC Communist Grocery Store Unveiled'

Thursday at 7:31 AM

What is a bad idea for a local government (as this sounds like it is) can be a good idea in the macro. I’ve long held that we should do something like this on the federal level. Essentially it is the modern equivalent of “priming the pump” back during the depression.

The way it would work is like this. If you filed a tax return in (pick a year....2028), in 2029, you’re given a $50 stipend to spend. 400M filers X $50.00 is $20 Billion dollars a month or $240B a year. Yes we can afford it; considering out “conservative” presidents ahve spent upwards of 2-6 times that on defense every...

• candycorn

• 
• 

For another.

 

[ColonelAngus]

See post 29 for one thing.

Post in thread 'Ghosts of Former Soviet Union Leaders Grin As Mamdani's $30M NYC Communist Grocery Store Unveiled'

Thursday at 7:31 AM

What is a bad idea for a local government (as this sounds like it is) can be a good idea in the macro. I’ve long held that we should do something like this on the federal level. Essentially it is the modern equivalent of “priming the pump” back during the depression.

The way it would work is like this. If you filed a tax return in (pick a year....2028), in 2029, you’re given a $50 stipend to spend. 400M filers X $50.00 is $20 Billion dollars a month or $240B a year. Yes we can afford it; considering out “conservative” presidents ahve spent upwards of 2-6 times that on defense every...

• candycorn

• 
• 

For another.

I like the ship idea.

How about we extend that to alot of stuff?

I know stuff made here can cost more, but often it is also better quality.

Just as an example, I have purchased 3 USB wireless keyboard mouse setups in the past year. So much stuff we get from China is utter GARBAGE. Even my 65 inch SONY TV….BUT MADE IN CHINA has issues.

CHINESE PRODUCTS SUCK.

Again, just an example.

I do no have a problem with making barriers to entry to the US market higher for foreign competitors.

 

[The Duke]

Oh brother....

Good for America? Absolutely yes:

View attachment 1246230

Good for some sectors of the economy? Nope. That is Schumpeter's theory at work. Some sectors went bye-bye; others expanded. Currently, we're near max employment despite the bromide of "illegals stealing our jobs" you guys trot out. PS: If your job can be taken by someone who isn't documented and can't read or speak the language, was your job safe to start with? Probably not.

Anyway the stats speak for themselves.

On this we agree. That is the other side of the coin of capitalism. Free markets allow companies to build anywhere and sell anywhere. Look at the stock market. It works....for them. It doesn't work for American workers who lose their jobs though.

Where we disagree is how to go about it. Slapping tariffs on imports was stupid. It just was. Lying about it was even dumber. But there you are...cheering each stupid move. You continue to do so today. Why? Because you're brainwashed for one thing and you just were not that smart to start with.

A better idea is to attack it from the legislative end. I'm a cruise nut. I think the the last time America built a commercial cruise ship was about the same time the pilgrims were landing. Finland just built the ICON of the Seas for Royal Caribbean based in Miami. The shipyard is getting about a billion dollars for one of these ships. The ship actually costs $2B but I'm estimating a billion of that is not done at the shipyard but in other docks. Anyway, you know who isn't getting a slice of that pie? Shipbuilders in the US. So my idea is to have the Congress come up with some legislation to where if a cruise line is going to operate in American waters, they have to have some American made ships. Put that into some sort of legislative language of course but rejuvenate an industry that has been dormant longer than some volcanoes. It probably falls under the heading of socialism. So what. It makes sense and it protects an industry vital to our national interest. We have the Jones Act that essentially is limited to ports; we need one that expands that spirit to ships and ship building.

Here's a story you won't read in keeping with your idiocy:

I've said we need tariffs for over a decade. You're talking to the wrong cracker here.
I'm not alone, either. Since Obama was president and there was no Trump on the horizon whatsover.
As for any of that being good for America? It's not.
You know what is? Being self-sufficient.
Also not letting foreign entities take advantage of us.
Yeah, which is what you seem to be advocating for. Why?

 

[WorldWatcher]

^That's some Cloward-Piven crap right there, and the president absolutely sets foreign policy as per the Constituion.
Whoever's running that should be defunded. Feck this traitorous nonsense.

As per the Constitution the power to taxes, duties, import (imposts) and excise (excises) is held by Congress.

The President gets to set foreign policy, true. But CONGRESS gets to set taxes and tariffs are an import tax on consumers.

WW

 

[The Duke]

As per the Constitution the power to taxes, duties, import (imposts) and excise (excises) is held by Congress.

The President gets to set foreign policy, true. But CONGRESS gets to set taxes and tariffs are an import tax on consumers.

WW

View attachment 1246235

Ah, but what branch do the powers of the Treasury lie in?
And uh, if we have to depend on Congress to defend our trade integrity, 80% of them are Democrats or traitors and will sell us down the river to the highest bidder.
The Founding Fathers did not have a contingency plan for when the Congress voted themselves the wealth. That wasn't supposed to happen.
Yet it did, in the 1980s. When Biden was front and foremost in Congress.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Ah, but what branch do the powers of the Treasury lie in?
And uh, if we have to depend on Congress to defend our trade integrity, 80% of them are Democrats or traitors and will sell us down the river to the highest bidder.
The Founding Fathers did not have a contingency plan for when the Congress voted themselves the wealth. That wasn't supposed to happen.

So screw the Constitution?

It's a living documents that you can change and apply at will? That's a very progressive view.

WW

 

[The Duke]

So screw the Constitution?

It's a living documents that you can change and apply at will? That's a very progressive view.

WW

Let's talk about Article IV, Section 4.
Yeah, that does not pertain to the rest of this post.
The president is who chooses foreign policy, that can extend to trade relations as well, by nature. The president can ban trade with any country, but can't set tariff rates? We gotta wait on Congress to do that? It would take an act of Congress to set fluctuating tariff rates?
You're outta your funking mind.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

The president sets foreign policy, fuckface, not Congress.
If the Chief says a country is persona non grata, they are.
Tariffs are fees on goods coming in from foreign countries, retard.
In reality, America needs none of that.
We can't roll with Congress having to vote on things like that.
It's like herding cats with them sumbitches, and they're just out to line their pockets.
It's just common sense.

The majority of your beloved conservative judges in the Supreme Court concluded this was a tax on American consumers. That’s not foreign policy. Americans are not foreigners.

 

[candycorn]

I do no have a problem with making barriers to entry to the US market higher for foreign competitors.

That is the proper (and more effective) way to go about it. The problem with Trump is that it doesn't "make a splash" or cause consternation....so it was a non-starter. If a 50 something kid from East Texas can come up with an idea, there are certainly more brilliant minds who have thought of it before and can maximize the effect. The issue then becomes special interest get their cut-outs--it will takes some fortitude to stand up to the lobbyists.

I will say this though; let China continue to make crap and let US companies continue to sell crap. Earnings are up. Again, Trumpism brainwashing effects on you guys have lead you to believe that trade deficits are bad because the word "deficit" is in it. We're supporting American manufacturers and ones from overseas as well. Its a testament to our economy and our consumer class. Even with the tariffs, few gave a more expensive American product a sniff because price is all that matters when you're talking about underwear or tennis shoes.

The reason I brought up ship building is that it is heavy industry and national security specific. But yeah...roll that out to vehicles, rail, offshore platforms, diesel trucks, tractors, bulldozers, etc...

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Let's talk about Article IV, Section 4.

This guy got crushed in the Supreme Court by his own judges and he’s still trying to flex about articles and sections

 

[WorldWatcher]

Let's talk about Article IV, Section 4.

Talk about it all you want. Doesn't change that Taxation and the Budget are powers of Congress.

The president is who chooses foreign policy, that can extend to trade relations as well, by nature. The president can ban trade with any country, but can't set tariff rates?

Correct.

We gotta wait on Congress to do that? It would take an act of Congress to set fluctuating tariff rates?

Correct.

You're outta your funking mind.

No, thats what the Constitution says.

WW