Senate Bipartisan Effort to Claw Back Control of Tariffs

[Seymour Flops]

"Face the Nation" pushed that idea this weekend with a Democrat and a Republican Senator (neither of whom I ever heard of) to tout the idea.





I gather that the Constitution grant congress the power to levy tariffs, but over the decades, it has ceded that power to the president.

How Congress delegates its tariff powers to the president | Constitution Center

President Donald Trump is expected to announce wide-sweeping tariffs on Wednesday, in a move with potentially broad consequences. So how does the president have the ability to levy tariffs under the Constitution?

constitutioncenter.org

Now some are trying to shift it back.

Absent President Trump, I don't think that I'd have much of an opinion about it. By the same token, absent President Trump, it would not have come up, as it has not before him.

The U.S. has always let itself be played when it comes to tariffs, since we have traditionally been without real peer in world economics. Basically, the middle class takes a screwing in the prices of goods, and the loss of manufacturing jobs, so that other countries can catch up, seems to have been the idea. Wouldn't matter whether Congress or the President sets the tariffs, nor which party is in what power. They've all followed that model of letting the other countries win, or at least score more.

But this seems to have only come up because Trump said, WTTE of they have had enough time to catch up. We don't need to keep sacrificing our betterment for theirs. Let me use tariffs as a way to convince them to level the playing field for our manufacturers and farmers. Now they want to take away his ability to do so.

What do any of you think? Is this just another part of the effort to slow Trump's agenda, or is it something that really needs to be changed? Is this really because they are concerned about the effects of Trump's tariffs? Is it really bi-partisan or just some Democrats and Never Trump Republicans?

Let's keep the discussion as civilized as much as possible, huh?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

fighting for unfair trade that destroys American industries and jobs is dumb

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

"Face the Nation" pushed that idea this weekend with a Democrat and a Republican Senator (neither of whom I ever heard of) to tout the idea.





I gather that the Constitution grant congress the power to levy tariffs, but over the decades, it has ceded that power to the president.

How Congress delegates its tariff powers to the president | Constitution Center

President Donald Trump is expected to announce wide-sweeping tariffs on Wednesday, in a move with potentially broad consequences. So how does the president have the ability to levy tariffs under the Constitution?

constitutioncenter.org

Now some are trying to shift it back.

Absent President Trump, I don't think that I'd have much of an opinion about it. By the same token, absent President Trump, it would not have come up, as it has not before him.

The U.S. has always let itself be played when it comes to tariffs, since we have traditionally been without real peer in world economics. Basically, the middle class takes a screwing in the prices of goods, and the loss of manufacturing jobs, so that other countries can catch up, seems to have been the idea. Wouldn't matter whether Congress or the President sets the tariffs, nor which party is in what power. They've all followed that model of letting the other countries win, or at least score more.

But this seems to have only come up because Trump said, WTTE of they have had enough time to catch up. We don't need to keep sacrificing our betterment for theirs. Let me use tariffs as a way to convince them to level the playing field for our manufacturers and farmers. Now they want to take away his ability to do so.

What do any of you think? Is this just another part of the effort to slow Trump's agenda, or is it something that really needs to be changed? Is this really because they are concerned about the effects of Trump's tariffs? Is it really bi-partisan or just some Democrats and Never Trump Republicans?

Let's keep the discussion as civilized as much as possible, huh?

Well, unfortunately, Republicans are cucks and mewls so I don't expect this to go anywhere. Horses are already out of the barn.
He'll snarl, and Republicans will fall in line.

 

[pknopp]

fighting for unfair trade that destroys American industries and jobs is dumb

View attachment 1097727

Vietnam tariffs were roughly 15% on the US. Trump enacted tariffs of 46% on Vietnam.

Reciprocal?

 

[1srelluc]

Vietnam tariffs were roughly 15% on the US. Trump enacted tariffs of 46% on Vietnam.

Reciprocal?

MSN

Vietnam Offers to Remove Tariffs on US After Trump’s Action​

Vietnam offered to remove all tariffs on US imports after President Donald Trump announced a 46% levy on the Southeast Asian nation, according to an April 5 letter from Vietnam’s communist party.

 

[pknopp]

MSN

Vietnam Offers to Remove Tariffs on US After Trump’s Action​

Vietnam offered to remove all tariffs on US imports after President Donald Trump announced a 46% levy on the Southeast Asian nation, according to an April 5 letter from Vietnam’s communist party.

I did this once and no one replied. Vietnam placed around 15%. They export around 120 billion in goods to the U.S. The U.S. exports around 11 billion to Vietnam.

Why is that? Vietnam can't afford US products. So they remove their 15% and they still can not afford US products.

So what is the point?

It's like arguing you are going to tax poor people because they don't buy Mercedes.

 

[1srelluc]

I did this once and no one replied. Vietnam placed around 15%. They export around 120 billion in goods to the U.S. The U.S. exports around 11 billion to Vietnam.

Why is that? Vietnam can't afford US products. So they remove their 15% and they still can not afford US products.

So what is the point?

It's like arguing you are going to tax poor people because they don't buy Mercedes.

Don't care....We hold all the cards....They don't. Why not flex on them?

Trade is a blood sport, the thing is the US, up till now, has been too limp-dicked to play. That is over.

 

[pknopp]

Don't care....We hold all the cards....They don't. Why not flex on them?

Trade is a blood sport, the thing is the US, up till now, has been too limp-dicked to play. That is over.

You sound like a real idiot.

 

[BackAgain]

"Face the Nation" pushed that idea this weekend with a Democrat and a Republican Senator (neither of whom I ever heard of) to tout the idea.





I gather that the Constitution grant congress the power to levy tariffs, but over the decades, it has ceded that power to the president.

How Congress delegates its tariff powers to the president | Constitution Center

President Donald Trump is expected to announce wide-sweeping tariffs on Wednesday, in a move with potentially broad consequences. So how does the president have the ability to levy tariffs under the Constitution?

constitutioncenter.org

Now some are trying to shift it back.

Absent President Trump, I don't think that I'd have much of an opinion about it. By the same token, absent President Trump, it would not have come up, as it has not before him.

The U.S. has always let itself be played when it comes to tariffs, since we have traditionally been without real peer in world economics. Basically, the middle class takes a screwing in the prices of goods, and the loss of manufacturing jobs, so that other countries can catch up, seems to have been the idea. Wouldn't matter whether Congress or the President sets the tariffs, nor which party is in what power. They've all followed that model of letting the other countries win, or at least score more.

But this seems to have only come up because Trump said, WTTE of they have had enough time to catch up. We don't need to keep sacrificing our betterment for theirs. Let me use tariffs as a way to convince them to level the playing field for our manufacturers and farmers. Now they want to take away his ability to do so.

What do any of you think? Is this just another part of the effort to slow Trump's agenda, or is it something that really needs to be changed? Is this really because they are concerned about the effects of Trump's tariffs? Is it really bi-partisan or just some Democrats and Never Trump Republicans?

Let's keep the discussion as civilized as much as possible, huh?

They abandoned it before. So, why cowboy back?

(That said, at least there is something to be said for contemplating it.)*

retarded horses has a thread up asking if the Presidential decisions on tariffs are Constitutional. Hat tip for asking it. But it is not an obvious question.

 

[task0778]

It's not law unless the president signs it, right? What are the odds that Trump or any other president will do that?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Any legislation can be vetoed by Trump, and I don't see him getting 2/3d overrides in either chamber.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It's not law unless the president signs it, right? What are the odds that Trump or any other president will do that?

Any legislation can be vetoed by Trump, and I don't see him getting 2/3d overrides in either chamber.

Good points.

If this could be done, it would have to be a lame duck congress and an outgoing president with the new president being from the other party.

 

[task0778]

Good points.

If this could be done, it would have to be a lame duck congress and an outgoing president with the new president being from the other party.

It would require 60 votes in the Senate and the congressional members in the same party as the new president won't vote for it. They should IMHO, I think the Executive Branch has too much power, thanks to a cowardly Congress over the last several decades that didn't have the balls to do their job. But well, it's politics.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It would require 60 votes in the Senate and the congressional members in the same party as the new president won't vote for it. They should IMHO, I think the Executive Branch has too much power, thanks to a cowardly Congress over the last several decades that didn't have the balls to do their job. But well, it's politics.

It is true that Congress has abdicated much of it responsibility not just to the executive, but to executive agencies specifically.

Now that we have a president who actually wants to run those executive agencies instead of being run by them, suddenly that’s a problem. Congress loves having executive agencies pass regulations that they don’t have the courage to pass as laws. That way they get what they want, but take none of the blame.

If they want to call back something, instead of meddling in foreign policy, let them claw back their own responsibilities to pass laws, instead of allowing regulations to be quasi laws.

 

[bendog]

It is true that Congress has abdicated much of it responsibility not just to the executive, but to executive agencies specifically.

Now that we have a president who actually wants to run those executive agencies instead of being run by them, suddenly that’s a problem. Congress loves having executive agencies pass regulations that they don’t have the courage to pass as laws. That way they get what they want, but take none of the blame.

If they want to call back something, instead of meddling in foreign policy, let them claw back their own responsibilities to pass laws, instead of allowing regulations to be quasi laws.

But that's not what's happening with tariffs. This is not about "regulators."