- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Robert’s insist that tariffs are a tax on the American people, and a tax needs to come
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:05 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:05 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:And they are fees, not assessments on value.
Only by authority granted by Congress, via statute (see above).
0
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:05 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
An orange boondoggle.
Has any other President used tarriffs? Joe Biden didn't remove the tarriffs that Trump used his first term, correct?
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:05 am to Lg
quote:
Has any other President used tarriffs?
Presidents have enacted tariffs using authority granted by Congress via statutes specifically authorizing tariffs.
Have any Presidents used the IEEPA to enact tariffs? No.
Does the IEEPA specifically authorize the authority to enact tariffs? No.
This post was edited on 11/6/25 at 9:06 am
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:You are clearly juggling too many balls here. The text of the law referenced is to student loans.
I provided you with the text of the law.
Which does not include the word "tariff"
But you're correct, the student loan language does not include the word "tariff".
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:08 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
You are clearly juggling too many balls here. The text of the law referenced is to student loans.
But you're correct, the student loan language does not include the word "tariff".
Nice try
quote:
and the text says POTUS may investigate, regulate, or prohibit any transactions in foreign exchange. Tariffs are nothing if not regulation of transactions in foreign exchange.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:08 am to SlowFlowPro
That's quite a reach.
Congress authorizes an agency or a program, but they don't authorize each fee, fee increase or additional fees.
Are you saying Trump's recent $100,000 H1B fee was approved by congress?
Congress authorizes an agency or a program, but they don't authorize each fee, fee increase or additional fees.
Are you saying Trump's recent $100,000 H1B fee was approved by congress?
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:11 am to SlowFlowPro
At the risk of beating a long dead horse:
The IEEPA gives the President the power to "regulate importation and exportation."
The Administration says that the power to "regulate" means the power to tariff.
Now, if a tariff is a tax then the Administration's interpretation of the statute means they have the power to tax importation AND exportation.
The Constitution expressly forbids taxes on exports.
So, the Administration's interpretation leads to the conclusion that Congress gave the President a power that violates the Constitution - namely the power to tax exports.
So either:
A - the IEEPA is unconstitutional; or
B. the power to "regulate" does not include the power to tariff.
The Court will go with B
The IEEPA gives the President the power to "regulate importation and exportation."
The Administration says that the power to "regulate" means the power to tariff.
Now, if a tariff is a tax then the Administration's interpretation of the statute means they have the power to tax importation AND exportation.
The Constitution expressly forbids taxes on exports.
So, the Administration's interpretation leads to the conclusion that Congress gave the President a power that violates the Constitution - namely the power to tax exports.
So either:
A - the IEEPA is unconstitutional; or
B. the power to "regulate" does not include the power to tariff.
The Court will go with B
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:12 am to Padme
quote:
It’s been suggested that the tariffs are responsible for significant reduction in our deficit. I would say that’s raising revenue domestically.”
What a stupid snarky response. Of course it raises revenue for the U.S. That doesn’t mean it’s a direct tax on Americans for the purpose of raising revenue. It’s actually a tax on foreign manufacturers and importers of foreign goods.
Roberts has a point if we imposed tariffs permanently for the purpose of raising revenue revenue. But that’s not the purpose. It’s a negotiating tactic to get more balanced trade deals or to punish nations for certain behavior like trafficking fentanyl to the U.S. When a deal is made or behavior changes, tariffs go away. Some deals agree on small tariffs remaining on certain goods that are vital for our national security if we produce them, or to balance out the trade deficit where the other nation prefers to pay small tariffs to make up the difference.
If Trump said “50% tariffs permanently on everyone to reduce our deficit instead of raising income taxes on Americans” then yes that would require Congress. That is a permanent tax solely for the purpose of raising revenue
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:17 am to deltaland
quote:
Roberts has a point if we imposed tariffs permanently for the purpose of raising revenue revenue.
Trump has always wanted and now has "universal baseline tariffs". Don't kid yourself. They are there to raise revenue.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The law Trump used for these does not specifically authorize tariffs. That's the point. They're trying to say it implies the authority to issue tariffs without the law specifically stating that's possible.
Bottom line,,there are laws(plural) authorizing the President to use tariffs. Multiple. There are multiple examples of Presidents using this power.
It's plain that this is nothing but a brazen partisan anti Trump move by Democrats that should be squashed by SCOTUS. If they do what's right.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:18 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
But in this scenario, the company is a foreign entity, so why do we care?
Because a large percentage of those foreign entities are owned by American citizens and are impacted by these taxes (e.g., the entity “Apple China” is owned by Apple, Americans own stock in BMW or TWSC, etc.).
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:19 am to PurpleCrush
quote:
Name an economist thats says tarrifs are not a tax?
You do realize being an “economist”, whatever that means these days, is not a real job right?
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:22 am to deltaland
quote:
Roberts has a point if we imposed tariffs permanently for the purpose of raising revenue revenue. But that’s not the purpose.
I'm no lawyer but I'd be surprised if that was written into the law. I doubt there are exceptions for intentions, just fences around the actions that can be taken.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:30 am to antibarner
quote:
Bottom line,,there are laws(plural) authorizing the President to use tariffs. Multiple. There are multiple examples of Presidents using this power.
Factually correct statement, but not a relevant one.
What do those laws have to do with a discussion specifically about the IEEPA?
quote:
It's plain that this is nothing but a brazen partisan anti Trump move by Democrats that should be squashed by SCOTUS. I
Tt is not that. Ultimately it may not be successful, but it's a legitimate discussion
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:32 am to deltaland
quote:
Roberts has a point if we imposed tariffs permanently for the purpose of raising revenue revenue. But that’s not the purpose. It’s a negotiating tactic to get more balanced trade deals or to punish nations for certain behavior like trafficking fentanyl to the U.S. When a deal is made or behavior changes, tariffs go away.
You do realize the larger implications of this (beyond tariffs), right?
This isn't a legitimate or sincere policy. We're just doing this illegal behavior for leverage. We promise it will end at some undefined point in the future where we have unilateral decision-making on determining the endpoint
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Tt is not that. Ultimately it may not be successful, but it's a legitimate discussion
It's not, but I do enjoy watching you consistently taking the L for your party.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:34 am to Lg
It’s one thing to “use tariffs.” It’s another thing to use the to setup a $1T revenue stream for the federal government without going to congress for approval
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:34 am to hogcard1964
quote:
It's not,
Nice substantive response
quote:
taking the L for your party.
Oh I forgot, you're one of them.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:36 am to SlowFlowPro
How could you forget that I oppose your party?
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:39 am to CleverUserName
quote:
With decreased revenue, which the democrats want,
Technically they want to tax you into the poorhouse to pay for their dystopia. They just don't want their donor class getting hit with tarrifs.
Page 16 of 29
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News