- 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 9:39 am to IMSA_Fan
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:39 am to IMSA_Fan
quote:
It’s another thing to use the to setup a $1T revenue stream for the federal government without going to congress for approval
You think Congress is concerned about a $1T revenue stream, with the way they spend money? I would argue that if Trump asked Congress for approval, with the notion of having more money to spend, it would be a resounding "yes". Except for Rand and Massie.
1
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:47 am to hogcard1964
quote:
How could you forget that I oppose your party?
You can't name my party
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:49 am to Robcrzy
Not a lawyer and certainly not a constitutional expert...
But this would be one of my arguments... Tariffs have been around so long without previous challenges it amounts to Congress agreeing with the legality of Tariffs in principle...
I would be (genuinely) interested in more informed input on this argument...
But this would be one of my arguments... Tariffs have been around so long without previous challenges it amounts to Congress agreeing with the legality of Tariffs in principle...
I would be (genuinely) interested in more informed input on this argument...
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:51 am to SDVTiger
quote:
So if this gets struck down do they clowns expect the funds to be returned?
There will be lawsuits seeking the return of all tariffs, not just Trump's tariffs. Trillions of dollars we will have to pay out
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:51 am to Lg
quote:
You think Congress is concerned about a $1T revenue stream, with the way they spend money? I would argue that if Trump asked Congress for approval, with the notion of having more money to spend, it would be a resounding "yes". Except for Rand and Massie.
Then why doesn’t he take it to congress?
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:51 am to klrstix
quote:
Tariffs have been around so long without previous challenges it amounts to Congress agreeing with the legality of Tariffs in principle
Those tariffs were enacted under completely separate laws, which specifically authorize tariffs.
quote:
I would be (genuinely) interested in more informed input on this argument...
The admin relied upon the IEEPA.
The IEEPA does not authorize tariffs directly or specifically.
The examples you're using above are from completely different statutes that specifically authorize the Executive to enact tariffs from that authority.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:52 am to stout
quote:
There will be lawsuits seeking the return of all tariffs, not just Trump's tariffs
Any not related to the IEEPA tariffs will be dismissed relatively quickly.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:52 am to stout
quote:
There will be lawsuits seeking the return of all tariffs, not just Trump's tariffs. Trillions of dollars we will have to pay out
I hadn't considered this. That would be wild.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:52 am to klrstix
In the End Trump will win. Even if the court says he can not use this avenue, they have all admitted that he can via other avenues.
Now... What's really interesting is that by slapping this avenue down, it stops leftists from using it on climate change.
Now... What's really interesting is that by slapping this avenue down, it stops leftists from using it on climate change.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Any not related to the IEEPA tariffs will be dismissed relatively quickly.
Wouldn't this ultimately depend on how the decision is worded?
This will be a boom for lawyers either way. Congrats.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:54 am to GRTiger
quote:
Wouldn't this ultimately depend on how the decision is worded?
Yeah but I don't think they'll go outside the scope of the litigation, which is specifically to the IEEPA tariffs.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:55 am to BCreed1
quote:
What's really interesting is that by slapping this avenue down, it stops leftists from using it on climate change.
That was basically already ceded with Biden v. Nebraska
quote:
Even if the court says he can not use this avenue, they have all admitted that he can via other avenues.
It's going to cause an epic clusterfrick in the interim, and if the admin fricks it up again, it's going to create international economic chaos.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:55 am to wackatimesthree
Excuse me deficit creates debt. But you did make my argument for me - as in ultimately the taxpayers (all 53% of them) will be saddled with paying off the debt (created by deficit spending).
IMO President Trump's effort to rely on tariffs was a valiant attempt to create the revenue needed to at least start reducing deficit (debt) spending. Lord knows America has been screwed by nations worldwide for decades with ridiculous unfair trade practices. Not the least of which was your pal China.
Now unless the American people go full lunatic and vote to put these crooked democrats back in power we have a chance save our country. In which case if they (democrats) return to power you can bet they will then raise taxes and turn their attention to confiscating accumulated wealth. And their first target - 401k's, IRA etc. They were attempting to do that before Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America stopped them. Yep, I remember it well - they called those 401k the work of white racist of European origin.
Since the democrats have stolen everything, why wouldn't they move to steal savings instruments? It's in their fricking DNA.
President Trump is right about..........everything.
IMO President Trump's effort to rely on tariffs was a valiant attempt to create the revenue needed to at least start reducing deficit (debt) spending. Lord knows America has been screwed by nations worldwide for decades with ridiculous unfair trade practices. Not the least of which was your pal China.
Now unless the American people go full lunatic and vote to put these crooked democrats back in power we have a chance save our country. In which case if they (democrats) return to power you can bet they will then raise taxes and turn their attention to confiscating accumulated wealth. And their first target - 401k's, IRA etc. They were attempting to do that before Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America stopped them. Yep, I remember it well - they called those 401k the work of white racist of European origin.
Since the democrats have stolen everything, why wouldn't they move to steal savings instruments? It's in their fricking DNA.
President Trump is right about..........everything.
This post was edited on 11/6/25 at 9:59 am
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:57 am to BCreed1
quote:
In the End Trump will win. Even if the court says he can not use this avenue, they have all admitted that he can via other avenues. Now... What's really interesting is that by slapping this avenue down, it stops leftists from using it on climate change.
The question in the next round, if Trump does in fact loose, is whether or not the court system allows the gov to continue to collect tariff revenue while the legal process plays out. I think that was a major mistake in this case.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:58 am to GeorgePaton
quote:
IMO President Trump's effort to rely on tariffs was a valiant attempt to create the revenue needed to at least start reducing deficit (debt) spending.
His Secretary of the Treasury literally took the opposite position yesterday.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if the admin fricks it up again
They did not frick it up the first time.
Any "chaos" will be on SCOTUS.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:59 am to IMSA_Fan
quote:
if Trump does in fact loose, is whether or not the court system allows the gov to continue to collect tariff revenue while the legal process plays out. I think that was a major mistake in this case.
I brought that up yesterday.
Assuming the admin loses, it's possible that the severe consequences of that frickup are so impactful that the next round may receive more judicial scrutiny and potential issues with injunctions, until the admin can prove they're not making the same mistake again.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 10:00 am to RohanGonzales
quote:
They did not frick it up the first time.
You clearly did not read the post to which I replied, which specifically framed that digression with
quote:
Even if the court says he can not use this avenue,
That assumption is baked into any response.
quote:
Any "chaos" will be on SCOTUS.
For upholding the Constitution?
Posted on 11/6/25 at 10:04 am to SlowFlowPro
I trust President Trump. I don't trust democrats. They lost me decades ago.
President Trump is right about..........everything.
President Trump is right about..........everything.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 10:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Assuming the admin loses, it's possible that the severe consequences of that frickup are so impactful that the next round may receive more judicial scrutiny and potential issues with injunctions, until the admin can prove they're not making the same mistake again.
There are definitely going to be inflation impacts if the treasury is forced to print $500B to cover tax refunds, which are they directly dumped into the monetary system.
This post was edited on 11/6/25 at 10:06 am
Page 17 of 29
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News