It's way past time this has happened.

[Seymour Flops]

Tonight, the Senate passed a bill stating the obvious. That trump claiming emergency power to "fix" the economy because it was in crisis was bullshit. Essentially taking his ability to unilaterally declare these tariffs away. Except Mike Johnson decided the rest of the year is only one day long. So the House can't vote on the Senate bill.

Waste of time.

Odds of President Trump signing the bill?

At least by passing a bill to outlaw what Trump is doing, the Senate admits that what Trump is doing is currently perfectly legal.

 

[Mac-7]

Earned income credit is NOT welfare moron and SNAP. Adds up to about $120 a month

It is welfare

The woman gets way more money back than she paid in

 

[berg80]

At least by passing a bill to outlaw what Trump is doing

Not outlaw it. Require congressional consent as was the case in the past.

The Trade Review Act of 2025, co-sponsored by Senator Chuck Grassley, a top Republican lawmaker from Iowa, a state heavily reliant on farm exports, and Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington, whose state shares a border with Canada, would require the president to notify Congress of new tariffs, and provide a justification for the action and an analysis on the potential impact on US businesses and consumers.

For the tariff to remain in effect, Congress would need to approve a joint resolution within 60 days. If Congress failed to give its consent within that timeframe, all new tariffs on imports would expire. The legislation would also allow Congress to terminate tariffs at any time through a resolution of disapproval.

Senators unveil bill to claw back power over tariffs amid Trump trade wars

Trade Review Act would require greater checks on tariffs in further sign of congressional disquiet over president’s plans

www.theguardian.com

 

[SeaMajor7]

Not outlaw it. Require congressional consent as was the case in the past.

The Trade Review Act of 2025, co-sponsored by Senator Chuck Grassley, a top Republican lawmaker from Iowa, a state heavily reliant on farm exports, and Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington, whose state shares a border with Canada, would require the president to notify Congress of new tariffs, and provide a justification for the action and an analysis on the potential impact on US businesses and consumers.

For the tariff to remain in effect, Congress would need to approve a joint resolution within 60 days. If Congress failed to give its consent within that timeframe, all new tariffs on imports would expire. The legislation would also allow Congress to terminate tariffs at any time through a resolution of disapproval.

Senators unveil bill to claw back power over tariffs amid Trump trade wars

Trade Review Act would require greater checks on tariffs in further sign of congressional disquiet over president’s plans

www.theguardian.com

Yeah, keep SUPPORTING tariffs AGAINST the United States from countries around the world ripping us off.
Die on that hill.
DIE!!!

 

[Seymour Flops]

Not outlaw it. Require congressional consent as was the case in the past.

The Trade Review Act of 2025, co-sponsored by Senator Chuck Grassley, a top Republican lawmaker from Iowa, a state heavily reliant on farm exports, and Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington, whose state shares a border with Canada, would require the president to notify Congress of new tariffs, and provide a justification for the action and an analysis on the potential impact on US businesses and consumers.

For the tariff to remain in effect, Congress would need to approve a joint resolution within 60 days. If Congress failed to give its consent within that timeframe, all new tariffs on imports would expire. The legislation would also allow Congress to terminate tariffs at any time through a resolution of disapproval.

Senators unveil bill to claw back power over tariffs amid Trump trade wars

Trade Review Act would require greater checks on tariffs in further sign of congressional disquiet over president’s plans

www.theguardian.com

Okay, Jan Brady.

Outlaw doing it without Congressional consent.

So, it is perfectly legal to do it until such time as that bill become law.

You know . . . when Trump signs it!

 

[Lesh]

Not outlaw it. Require congressional consent as was the case in the past.

The Trade Review Act of 2025, co-sponsored by Senator Chuck Grassley, a top Republican lawmaker from Iowa, a state heavily reliant on farm exports, and Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington, whose state shares a border with Canada, would require the president to notify Congress of new tariffs, and provide a justification for the action and an analysis on the potential impact on US businesses and consumers.

For the tariff to remain in effect, Congress would need to approve a joint resolution within 60 days. If Congress failed to give its consent within that timeframe, all new tariffs on imports would expire. The legislation would also allow Congress to terminate tariffs at any time through a resolution of disapproval.

Senators unveil bill to claw back power over tariffs amid Trump trade wars

Trade Review Act would require greater checks on tariffs in further sign of congressional disquiet over president’s plans

www.theguardian.com

Now THAT makes sense

Republicans are scared of what Trump is doing to the economy and rightly so

 

[Lesh]

Waste of time.

Odds of President Trump signing the bill?

At least by passing a bill to outlaw what Trump is doing, the Senate admits that what Trump is doing is currently perfectly legal.

Vetoes, even pocket vetoes can be over ridden

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You understand there's an application process people have to go through to qualify for social safety net programs, right? Therefore, your assumption, based on the "welfare queen" mythology established when the addled R. Reagan was exploding the deficit while degrading the middle class, doesn't match reality.

The rich paid a much larger share of federal income taxes after Reagan than before.
And the middle class shrank because many of them moved into the upper class.

 

[Lesh]

The rich paid a much larger share of federal income taxes after Reagan than before.
And the middle class shrank because many of them moved into the upper class.

Bullshit

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bullshit

 

[Lesh]

View attachment 1097563

View attachment 1097565

What’s your point?

They pay more because they MAKE more

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What’s your point?

They pay more because they MAKE more

They always made more.
Now they pay a much larger share of federal income taxes paid.

 

[Lesh]

They always made more.
Now they pay a much larger share of federal income taxes paid.

Cause they make a much larger share of all income

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cause they make a much larger share of all income

In 1980, the top 10% made 32% of AGI and paid 49% of all income taxes.
In 2021, the top 10% made 53% of AGI and paid 76% of all income taxes.

Like I said, in post #88
The rich paid a much larger share of federal income taxes after Reagan than before.

 

[Lesh]

In 1980, the top 10% made 32% of AGI and paid 49% of all income taxes.
In 2021, the top 10% made 53% of AGI and paid 76% of all income taxes.

Like I said, in post #88
The rich paid a much larger share of federal income taxes after Reagan than before.

They pay the most because they make the most

You just illustrated that

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They pay the most because they make the most

You just illustrated that

Yes, I claimed that the rich paid much more after Reagan than before.
And I proved it.
I proved your claim of "bullshit" was wrong.

 

[Lesh]

Yes, I claimed that the rich paid much more after Reagan than before.
And I proved it.
I proved your claim of "bullshit" was wrong.

You @proved” that they make much more of the income now than then

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Illegal deportations have no support.

Illegal immigration has no support.

 

[IM2]

Illegal immigration has no support.

Illegal immigrants contribute 100 billion in taxes. You descend from illegal immigrants, so you support it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You @proved” that they make much more of the income now than then

Never claimed they didn't.
I'm happy to educate you.