Tariff ruling.

[pknopp]

Thats because you dont understand the ruling.
While the U.S. Constitution grants Congress sole authority to lay tariffs (Article I, Section 8), Congress has delegated significant, specific tariff-setting powers to the President through various statutes. Presidents use these delegated authorities—such as for national security or unfair trade practices—to impose tariffs without immediate congressional approval.
View attachment 1249301Tax Foundation +2
Key Delegated Authorities:

• Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962): Allows the president to adjust tariffs if imports threaten national security.
  Tax Foundation +1
• Section 301 (Trade Act of 1974): Permits actions, including tariffs, to address unfair or discriminatory foreign trade practices.
  Tax Foundation
• Section 201 (Trade Act of 1974): Allows temporary tariffs ("safeguards") if a surge in imports causes serious injury to a domestic industry.
  Tax Foundation +2
• International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA): While controversial for this use, some argue it permits tariffs to regulate imports during declared nationa

Has nothing to do with what I said. MAGA said Trump could do what the Supreme Court said he couldn't.

Same arguments were used.

It doesn't matter what Trump does, Constitutional or not, MAGA is going to claim he has the right to do it.

 

[Hafar1014]

Has nothing to do with what I said. MAGA said Trump could do what the Supreme Court said he couldn't.

Same arguments were used.

It doesn't matter what Trump does, Constitutional or not, MAGA is going to claim he has the right to do it.

Ignorance is bliss

 

[pknopp]

The U.S. government ended up losing $10.5 billion on the General Motors bailout, but it says the alternative would have been far worse.

The Treasury Department sold its final shares of the Detroit auto giant on Monday, recovering $39 billion of the $49.5 billion it spent to save the dying automaker at the height of the financial crisis five years ago.

Without the bailout, the country would have lost more than 1 million jobs, and the economy could have slipped from recession into a depression, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said on a conference call with reporters.

Government sells the last of its GM stake: Treasury

The US government ended up losing $10.5 billion on the General Motors bailout, but it says the alternative would have been far worse.

www.cnbc.com

Under the circumstances it was money worth spending to keep the country from falling in to economic collapse.

BTW, Bush initiated the first auto company bailout. Obama kept them out of bankruptcy.

Bush announces $17.4 billion auto bailout​

President George W. Bush stepped in Friday to keep America’s auto industry afloat, announcing a $17.4 billion bailout for GM and Chrysler, with the terms of the loans requiring that the firms radically restructure and show they can become profitable soon.

“If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy,” Bush said at the White House, in remarks carried live by the national broadcast networks. “In the midst of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action. The question is how we can best give it a chance to succeed.”

Bush said that “bankruptcy now would lead to a disorderly liquidation of American auto companies.”

“My economic advisers believe that such a collapse would deal an unacceptably painful blow to hardworking Americans far beyond the auto industry. It would worsen a weak job market and exacerbate the financial crisis,” he said. “It could send our suffering economy into a deeper and longer recession.”

Bush announces $17.4 billion auto bailout

The terms of the loans require that the firms radically restructure and show they can become profitable soon.

www.politico.com

The alternative would have been bankruptcy with someone stepping in to take over GM all without taxpayers losing $10 billion dollars.

 

[Care4all]

Thats because you dont understand the ruling.
While the U.S. Constitution grants Congress sole authority to lay tariffs (Article I, Section 8), Congress has delegated significant, specific tariff-setting powers to the President through various statutes. Presidents use these delegated authorities—such as for national security or unfair trade practices—to impose tariffs without immediate congressional approval.
View attachment 1249301Tax Foundation +2
Key Delegated Authorities:

• Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962): Allows the president to adjust tariffs if imports threaten national security.
  Tax Foundation +1
• Section 301 (Trade Act of 1974): Permits actions, including tariffs, to address unfair or discriminatory foreign trade practices.
  Tax Foundation
• Section 201 (Trade Act of 1974): Allows temporary tariffs ("safeguards") if a surge in imports causes serious injury to a domestic industry.
  Tax Foundation +2
• International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA): While controversial for this use, some argue it permits tariffs to regulate imports during declared nationa

Fake national security reasons don't count, as they didn't with his last set of tariffs....

And adjust tariffs one by one in a REAL emergency is NOT what Trump did in defiance....he added a 15% tariff across the board universally and without a security emergency....which is unconstitutional.

These new tariffs will be shot down by the SC for the same reason his first set of tariffs were shot down by the Supreme Court.

 

[pknopp]

Ignorance is bliss

Remember arguing how Garcia wasn't going to be brought back to the US?

 

[Care4all]

Nope..tariffs are not taxing Americans. If so, our CPI and core inflation numbers would reflect that. They don’t.

Ahem....tariffs are taxes on Americans and have always been taxes on Americans

And the Supreme Court ruling shooting g Trump's tariffs down was BECAUSE he was taxing Americans without Congress....our representation.

Tariffs = taxes and the Supreme Court confirmed this....

 

[Delldude]

And that simply is The Man of Lawlessness, ignoring the Constitution and Supreme Court.....

How did He ignore the Scotus?

 

[OldFlame]

Tariffs aren't paid by foreign exporters, they are paid by US importers and those costs are passed along to consumers. That means the import tax is paid by US tax payers.

WW

Just like high taxes on millionaires, billionaires and corporations, funny how it's understood when applied to tariffs but not when it comes to taxing the 'rich' and corps.

 

[berg80]

The alternative would have been bankruptcy with someone stepping in to take over GM all without taxpayers losing $10 billion dollars.

AI Overview

If General Motors (GM) had been forced into bankruptcy without government support in 2009, it likely would have led to liquidation, causing a collapse of the U.S. auto supply chain, the immediate loss of over 1 million jobs, and severe damage to the American manufacturing economy. A chaotic bankruptcy could have shuttered all brands, including Chevrolet, resulting in a permanent shutdown rather than a restructured company.

The loss of an additional 1M jobs and the economic fallout from it would have cost the government far more than $10B.

 

[task0778]

CPI is 3.3% and most of that is due to the Iran conflict and the subsequent rise in gas, not tariffs, as evidenced by the lower CPI numbers prior to the conflict.

Core inflation is 2.6%, under control by every measure.

Tariffs aren’t causing a significant rise in inflation, CPI nor core.

Trump's tariffs have been so chaotic that the impact on consumers and businesses has been hard to determine. At first we were told the tariff revenue would be around $500 billion a year but it ended up being considerably less. which means the inflationary impact has been somewhat less as well, not significant as you say but slight and varied. There are other factors of course, but inflation was increasing just a bit before the gas prices went up.


Overall, there is evidence, consistent with economic theory, that tariffs have raised both additional revenue ($214.7 billion above the 2022–2024 average) and led to higher prices (Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) core goods up 1.9% year-over-year as of January 2026). However, after the SCOTUS decision on the IEEPA tariffs, approximately $165 billion in unlawfully collected duties may be refunded to importers. This implies that tariffs so far have raised $49.7 billion of revenue through February 2026. There is less clear evidence about the impacts of tariffs on the wider economy: for example, employment in tariff-exposed industries is not appreciably lower or higher than what would have been expected prior to 2025. Importantly, these statistics are representations of the current economy, and it is difficult to disentangle what changed due to tariffs versus the many other economic changes over the past year.

https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/tracking-economic-effects-tariffs

tariffs are not taxing Americans. If so, our CPI and core inflation numbers would reflect that. They don’t.

Consumers are paying more for the same things and that is the definition of inflation. It isn't reflected in the numbers cuz it ain't consequential. So far. A tariff is specifically not a tax per se cuz Congress did not authorize it, but the end result is the same. The gov't got additional revenue that came out of people's pockets when they bought something with a tariff on it.

 

[pknopp]

AI Overview

If General Motors (GM) had been forced into bankruptcy without government support in 2009, it likely would have led to liquidation, causing a collapse of the U.S. auto supply chain, the immediate loss of over 1 million jobs, and severe damage to the American manufacturing economy. A chaotic bankruptcy could have shuttered all brands, including Chevrolet, resulting in a permanent shutdown rather than a restructured company.

The loss of an additional 1M jobs and the economic fallout from it would have cost the government far more than $10B.

Total B.S. There is a zero chance that GM wouldn't have been bought and continued.

 

[Delldude]

Tariffs aren't paid by foreign exporters, they are paid by US importers and those costs are passed along to consumers.

Tarrifs have been paid by the exporters.

 

[0311]

So he is trying to work around the SC?

Like Biden tried to do with student loan forgiveness

Biden trying to work around SCOTUS = BAD

The Five Deferment Draft Dodging Coward, the Convicted Felon, the Adjudicated Rapist and PEDOPHILE trying to work around SCOTUS = GOOD.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Tarrifs have been paid by the exporters.

No they are not.

They are paid to US Customs by the US importer and the port of entry.

For example, a fertilizer company orders Candadian Potash for production. The US wholesale seller is the importer. At customes the US wholesale importer pays the duty (import tax, tariff - whatever you want to call it), the product is released by customes and US wholesale importer then gets custody of the product. They then charge the fertilzer manufacture for the cost of the good + the tariff cost. That becomes an operational expense for the fertilizer manufacture who then charges farmers more for fertilizer. The farmer then has to charge more for their crop. This evenutally hits the consumer that pays the import tax as part of the purchase.

WW

 

[Delldude]

The Five Deferment Draft Dodging Coward,

Biden?

 

[task0778]

Tarrifs have been paid by the exporters.

This flat out not true.

On Wednesday, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that foreign companies were paying only 5% of the tariffs, leaving U.S. companies and consumers to pay the remaining 95%.+ The CBO went further and estimated that U.S. companies only paid 30% of the tariff burden, passing the rest on to consumers. [Feb 12, 2026]

https://www.investopedia.com/a-year-after-trump-s-tariff-war-began-evidence-mounts-that-americans-are-paying-for-them-11905890

 

[Delldude]

No they are not.

There have been instances where exporters have lowered the price on goods to absorb the cost of the tarrifs.

 

[WorldWatcher]

There have been instances where exporters have lowered the price on goods to absorb the cost of the tarrifs.

Anecdotal "there have been instances"...

Temporarily to keep market share.

Not long term.

WW

 

[0311]

Tariffs aren't paid by foreign exporters, they are paid by US importers and those costs are passed along to consumers. That means the import tax is paid by US tax payers.

WW

Basic High School Econ 1.

 

[Vrenn]

Harkens back to the days Obama lost billions on GM.

Wow we all should take your moronic fake news as fact., Here is the Factcheck.org answer.

General Motors’ Debt​

• Yes, it’s true that GM paid back its loan from the Treasury Department, in full, ahead of schedule.
• But the debt was only part of the automaker bailout package. Through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Treasury gave GM $49.5 billion, most of which was converted into an ownership stake in the form of stock. Through this equity stake, the government still owns 61 percent of GM.
• Some Republicans, including Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa have pointed out that GM used TARP money to pay back its TARP debt. That’s true, but GM simply handed back TARP money it had been lent and hadn’t used. Those funds had been sitting in an escrow account, should the automaker need them. (The company didn’t borrow new money to pay back an older loan.)

Grassley has argued that this wasn’t a “meaningful” repayment of a loan, since it didn’t come from earnings. That’s an opinion, and we’ll leave it to readers to agree or disagree with the senator. The TARP special inspector general, Neil Barofsky, has said the repayment was “good news,” since it meant the automaker didn’t need to use those funds held in escrow. In testimony before the Senate Finance Committee on April 20, Barofksy made it clear GM still was operating with government help: