- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Court strikes down Trump 10 percent tariffs
Posted on 5/8/26 at 8:39 am to jrobic4
Posted on 5/8/26 at 8:39 am to jrobic4
quote:
Wasn't even a thing until 1980
What's your point? Before 1980 it was called The US Customs Court. The court has exclusive juriddiction in the US over civil cases involving customs and international trade.
This is the same court that ruled the IEEPA tariffs were unlawful, and is now over seeing the refund of those tariffs.
The Appeal of this case will go to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which did not exist until 1982. Before that it was the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. The CAFC ruled 7-4 against the IEEPA tariffs.
0
Posted on 5/8/26 at 10:39 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Also glad to see you are still melting down and spewing leftwing talking points
Since when did anti trust laws become Democrat talking points?
Posted on 5/8/26 at 11:33 am to Eurocat
Know a guy from Spain who works in shipping. He noted that Spain charges US imports about 20% in various fees, but they don't call them tariffs. Conversely, American tariffs and fees where in the 2% range.
Yeah, adjustments need to be made no matter what they are called.
Yeah, adjustments need to be made no matter what they are called.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 11:57 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:Because tariffs are not a moral system. They’re negotiating tools used by countries with different economies, labor costs, resources, industries, strategic goals, and levels of development.
Can you answer it?
The guy asked why is it perfectly fine for other counties to put tariffs on us but not us on them?
A poor country might tariff imported American goods to protect a small domestic industry that would otherwise get crushed by a massively more productive US company. Meanwhile the US might keep tariffs lower because we benefit more from cheap imports, reserve currency status, access to global supply chains, or because our economy is already dominant in the sector.
The actual question is not “are the tariffs balanced?” It’s “does the overall trade relationship benefit us more than it costs us?”
For decades the US accepted a lot of asymmetrical arrangements because we believed the tradeoff bought cheaper goods, lower inflation, stronger alliances, dollar dominance, and access to global markets.
You can disagree with whether that tradeoff was worth it. Plenty of people do.
But that’s different from claiming than basing economic policy on some arbitrary hypothetical notion that tariffs must be mathematically reciprocal. Because if tariffs were always forced into reciprocity country by country, you would eliminate their purpose as targeted economic and industrial policy tools in the first place and they wouldn't have a reason to exist.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 12:59 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
This is exactly what is called "deflection."
So, for the record, are you against tariffs OR the way DJT applied such tariffs?
Posted on 5/8/26 at 12:59 pm to Eurocat
quote:
In the case, the plaintiffs argued that the tariffs circumvented the Supreme Court’s January ruling that struck down Trump’s blanket tariffs, which were imposed under the International Emergency ?Economic Powers Act.
How do you argue that the Supremes said that Trump couldnt use an emergency power to tariff, therefore he cant use tariff laws in any way
What a joke
Posted on 5/8/26 at 1:28 pm to lsusteve1
quote:
are you against tariffs
I bitched about Obama's tariffs, like most of this board did. Remember his steel and tire tariffs?
I havent changed, y'all have.
quote:
President Obama stated on Jan. 24, 2012: “I will not stand by when our competitors don’t play by the rules. We’ve brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration – and it’s made a difference. Over a thousand Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires. But we need to do more. It’s not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated. It’s not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they’re heavily subsidized.”
quote:
In September 2009, President Obama approved a special tariff on imports of tires from China. In his 2012 State of the Union address, he stated that the policy had saved "over a thousand" jobs. Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Sean Lowry look at what happened in "US Tire Tariffs: Saving Few Jobs at High Cost," written as an April 2012 "Policy Brief" for the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
quote:
The basic economic lessons here are the same as ever. There's never been any question that imposing tariffs on foreign competition could dissuade imports, and thus allow U.S. manufacturers to keep production and prices higher than they would otherwise be. As a result, U.S. consumers pay more, the firms make higher profits--and workers for those firms get some crumbs from the table. In this case, Hufbauer and Lowry estimate that consumers paid $1.1 billion in higher prices for tires in 2011. This saved a maximum of 1,200 jobs, so the average cost of the tariff was $900,000 per job saved. But of course, the worker didn't receive that $900,000; instead, most of it went to the tire companies. And in an especially odd twist, most of it contributed to profits earned by non-U.S. producers.
This post was edited on 5/8/26 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 5/8/26 at 4:01 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
How do you argue that the Supremes said that Trump couldnt use an emergency power to tariff, therefore he cant use tariff laws in any way
What a joke
Thats not what the CIT ruling is based on. The article says the plaintiffs made the argument, but I doubt it. You can always count on reporters to get facts wrong about legal proceedings.
This case is pretty complicated, and really only understood by accountants and economists with experience in International trade and currency exchange rates...Im certainly not one of those. Im just an attorney.
Section 122(a) authorizes POTUS to enact tariffs up to 15% to address "balance of payment" deficits. This is completely different from trade deficits. The statute was written after the US went off the Gold standard and the Bretton Woods International trade agreement was being replaced by the Smithsonian agreement.
With variable exchange rates now in play, the CIT seems to agree that its impossible for balance of payment deficits to exist, so section 122(a) has no real meaning and the tariffs are not authorized
Im not picking a side in this one, because its above my pay grade.
The tariffs were set to expire in July, anyway. Trump.just needs to move on to section 301. The required USTR investigations are underway...the public comment period should be interesting.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 7:57 pm to DeBoar
quote:
Student loan forgiveness has nothing to do with policy,
Thats fricking retarded.
Were the courts right to step in or were they just being disruptive?
Posted on 5/8/26 at 7:59 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Roger siding with the Dems again. 
it’s almost like you’re the one going to Harvard. Although…seriously…that’s super impressive and I hope she enjoys it.
it’s almost like you’re the one going to Harvard. Although…seriously…that’s super impressive and I hope she enjoys it. 
Posted on 5/8/26 at 9:11 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
bitched about Obama's tariffs, like most of this board did. Remember his steel and tire tariffs? I havent changed, y'all have.
My only retort is the US be on a level playing field - that’s it
Posted on 5/8/26 at 9:14 pm to lsusteve1
quote:
only retort is the US be on a level playing field - that’s it
Will never exist, outside of a one world government monopoly.
It's pure uptopian fantasy.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 9:16 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Will never exist, outside of a one world government monopoly. It's pure uptopian fantasy.
We disagree
Posted on 5/8/26 at 9:20 pm to lsusteve1
quote:
We disagree
We must define "level playing field" very differently.
Taxes, wages, subsidies (think about how many US companies are subsidized) regulations all vary too greatly to "level the playing field."
This post was edited on 5/8/26 at 9:21 pm
Posted on 5/8/26 at 9:20 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
Let me guess, China is ripping us off? If that's your position, tell me what should be the appropriate wage for that manufactured good you want back here. And let me guess, you hate unions. So, what is the sweet spot? $20 an hour in Tennessee for a non-union job, but not $30 an hour in Michigan for a union job? Where do you draw the line for when a laborer is a "slave"? Why not let China just produce cheap toasters so we can get them for $10 at Target or Walmart here?
Minimum wage in China is $275-450 a MONTH. But the cost of living is 79 percent lower than the US. So it’s a wash, right. That’s what your boy Roger thinks.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 9:22 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Why did the courts continually strike down Bidens student loan fortgiveness?
Equating student loan forgiveness to the power to levy tariffs is one of the most idiotic arguments I have ever seen.
The courts ruled against Biden’s loan forgiveness because he lacked congressional authority. There are several instances where Congress expressly delegates authority to levy tariffs to the president. You ignorant clown.
This post was edited on 5/8/26 at 9:24 pm
Posted on 5/8/26 at 9:22 pm to Eurocat
LMAO.....
Posted on 5/8/26 at 9:23 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Equating student loan forgiveness to the power to levy tariffs
More faux histrionics from the low brow crowd.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 9:24 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Equating student loan forgiveness to the power to levy tariffs is one of the most idiotic arguments I have ever seen.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 9:24 pm to Eurocat
good
only morons support these tariffs
only morons support these tariffs
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News