- 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
Friday 10-12.5% permanent tariffs were put in to replace the 10% stop gap ones
Posted on 7/26/26 at 6:04 am
Posted on 7/26/26 at 6:04 am
The original targeted approach to address, countries, industries who were taking advantage of us was a great strategy. Instead we have the Supreme Court and geniuses like the wise latina deciding trade policy.
So now just blanket tariff.
I was listening to the government of Guyana speak on this. They have American companies pumping nearly a million barrels of oil a day and shipping back to their country, the US, and the US wants to tariff them for the trade surplus.
They have around 800K people, unless every man woman and child buys a bag of Cheetos, a box of frosted flakes, and a 2 Liter of coke every day, they are gonna have a trade surplus with the US, and its US companies benefiting.
But hey, its the supreme court, they may not know the difference between a man or woman, but they know OMB.
And with Canada its 50% on some goods or about 20 billion in trade that is supposed to go into effect mid August, I certain that will be challenged as well.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 6:20 am to trinidadtiger
quote:
Instead we have the Supreme Court and geniuses like the wise latina deciding trade policy.
Update: this is not an accurate description
The Supreme Court made no policy decision. They only ruled on what powers were given to the President (by Congress) to make such policy decisions. The law the President relied upon did not grant him the authority to make such policy decisions, and his actions were therefore illegal.
quote:
They have around 800K people, unless every man woman and child buys a bag of Cheetos, a box of frosted flakes, and a 2 Liter of coke every day, they are gonna have a trade surplus with the US, and its US companies benefiting.
Why looking at trade surpluses/deficits is a bad way to view the topic.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 6:24 am to trinidadtiger
Doing tariffs to the extent Trump is without American industrial buildout is inflationary.
Tax incentives to get buildout going with tariffs on backend is way to go but Trumper doesn’t have attention span for as it requires more than a tweet.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 6:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Supreme Court made no policy decision. They only ruled on what powers were given to the President (by Congress) to make such policy decisions. The law the President relied upon did not grant him the authority to make such policy decisions, and his actions were therefore illegal.
I agree the Supreme Court made a policy decision.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 6:40 am to trinidadtiger
quote:
I agree the Supreme Court made a policy decision.
They did not. You can keep being dishonest but it doesn't change reality.
The USSC also did not make policy decisions when they ruled Biden acted illegally with his Student Loan Forgiveness plan or his Vax mandate.
All 3 decisions were correct and all 3 Executive actions were illegal without proper authority. The Executive, in these scenarios, only has what power Congress grants them, and execution of these Congressional laws requires specific citation of the proper law. In all 3 examples, the President/admin acted without legal and/or valid authority. That has nothing to do with an evaluation of the actions/policies attempted illegally by the President/admin.
This post was edited on 7/26/26 at 6:41 am
Posted on 7/26/26 at 6:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
I agree the Supreme Court made a policy decision.
So you agree, so do I.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 6:55 am to trinidadtiger
quote:
So you agree
They did not.
You can continue to be dishonest but you're just doubling down on being a liar, at this point, after it's been explained to you.
Weird chioce
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:05 am to trinidadtiger
Thats rare with him
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:32 am to SDVTiger
quote:
im also glad he agreed with you
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:41 am to SDVTiger
quote:
im also glad he agreed with you
Thats rare with him
Yes it is, but Im thankful.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 9:16 am to trinidadtiger
Do you think that highly of yourself that someone would take the time to read all of that
Posted on 7/26/26 at 9:21 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why looking at trade surpluses/deficits is a bad way to view the topic.
His quote doesn't show why that's a bad way to view the topic at all.
Popular
Back to top
3







