- 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 7:33 am to 2 Jugs
Posted on 11/6/25 at 7:33 am to 2 Jugs
quote:
June of 2012
It's been explained to you multiple times.
You're at the "I'm just going to defend me making up shite" phase of your argument. I imagine it's only a few posts until you contemplate ad homs.
0
Posted on 11/6/25 at 7:33 am to SDVTiger
quote:
You got us into 40tril in debt
When did you start caring about the debt?
Posted on 11/6/25 at 7:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:So in your estimation, which seems to stand in stark contrast with previous court findings, the broad ability of the EB to regulate foreign exchange and transactions does not include the potential use of tariffs?
No mention of tariffs.
In fact, as the components of regulation are not specifically delineated in the IEEPA, it would follow in your reasoning that no actual ability of the EB to regulate foreign exchange and transactions was conferred at all.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 7:34 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
it does not need to. It grants the president broad authority to regulate commerce and transactions with foreign countries during a declared national emergency.
The whole purpose of the IEEPA was to limit POTUS' power during peace time. It was a response to Nixon's broad use of power under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Reading the IEEPA as providing unlimited power is directly opposite of the Congressional intent.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 7:35 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
People have been telling you there are major issues with this tariff plan for a long arse time
Exactly… this is a textbook example of Dereliction of duty by Trump…
Willful or negligent failure
Violation of orders or regulations
Culpable inefficiency
Posted on 11/6/25 at 7:36 am to lepdagod
quote:
They just can’t grasp this little caveat
No one is disputing that. The OP is pointing out that Roberts twisted himself into a pretzel to justify the ACA as a tax.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 7:36 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
So in your estimation, which seems to stand in stark contrast with previous court findings
Update: it's not
quote:
the broad ability of the EB to regulate foreign exchange and transactions does not include the potential use of tariffs?
They are bound to the legislative authority granted by Congress to act in that manner.
There are statutes that authorize tariffs. That is not in dispute. So within THOSE SPECIFIC statutes, the answer to your question is No.
We can bring up near infinite examples of legislations that do not permit the use of tariffs. Let's just bring the thread full circle and bring up the ACA. Does the ACA permit this? No.
quote:
as the components of regulation are not specifically delineated in the IEEPA, it would follow in your reasoning that no actual ability of the EB to regulate foreign exchange and transactions was conferred at all.
This is silly.
Also you keep ignoreing Biden and the HEROES Act. Why?
Posted on 11/6/25 at 7:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
When did you start caring about the debt?
I dont. But Rogetthedumbarse cries about it daily as a staunch conservative
Yet conservatives have let the debt go to 40tril
So why would anyone listen to what they have to say
Posted on 11/6/25 at 7:37 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Everyone should do the oposite of what you "conservatives say"
You already do, which is why youre in desperate straits and need your Orange populist to save you.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 7:37 am to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
The OP is pointing out that Roberts twisted himself into a pretzel to justify the ACA as a tax.
And we're logically pointing out that's completely irrelevant to any discussion bout the IEEPA and Trump's tariffs.
It's a completely stupid and illogical argument. That's all that is being pointed out.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 7:38 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
You already do, which is why youre in desperate straits and need your Orange populist to save you.
Its just getting worse each day with you
Posted on 11/6/25 at 7:38 am to dgnx6
quote:
Prove me wrong or shut the frick up.
O.k.
Did anyone sue a previous administration for the tariffs they imposed without Congress?
The SCOTUS can't review the constitutionality of an action without a case in front of them.
So it doesn't matter how many times this was done before if no one objected and put it in front of the SCOTUS.
And obviously there was an objection this time because the actions were so extreme that they threatened a serious trade war with not just one, but multiple nations.
This isn't about Trump being picked on. This is about Trump pushing the envelope so hard that it caused a reaction.
This post was edited on 11/6/25 at 7:40 am
Posted on 11/6/25 at 7:38 am to dgnx6
quote:
So what tariff level will we go back to? 2024?
Tariffs have caused major issues with our sales this last year. With that said I do believe we needed to raise tariffs of several countries who had been taking advantage of us. I’m kind of in the middle on this issue, but Im going to be interested in this as well. Tariffs went up in the first administration under Trump as well, and Biden left those largely in place. How far back do they want to go, and how do you refund all the companies who have paid these tariffs? There’s no way they can expect the government to repay. It would cost the fed govt. trillions of dollars depending how far back they go.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 7:39 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Seek some treatment for your TDS. Geeez!
An orange boondoggle.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 7:40 am to Demonbengal
quote:Indeed.
Tariffs went up in the first administration under Trump as well, and Biden left those largely in place.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 7:40 am to RollTide4547
quote:
Seek some treatment for your TDS. Geeez!
More cult idiocy.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 7:40 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
This is about Trump pushing the envelope hard and causing a reaction.
Exactly.
It's a major reason why his admin's success in court doesn't track previous admin's either. It's the most aggressive legal-policy strategy since probably FDR and the New Deal.
I covered this yesterday
quote:
His whole schtick is to be max aggro legally and he has a lot of people who aren't as clever as they envision themselves who propose "creative" legal arguments.
His admin fumbled easy shite out of the gate in admin 1. I thought this time would be different but it's been somewhat of the same thing.
I will say some of this though is fighting established precedent. His birthright citizenship move and other actions trying to change the relationship between the Executive branch and the rest of the federal government started as uphill battles b/c he's trying to have the USSC reverse precedent or carve out major exceptions that effectively neuter precedent. You cant' be critical of those Ls until the Supreme Court.
LINK
Posted on 11/6/25 at 7:40 am to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
Are you under the impression Obamacare was imposed by Obama without Congress?
It was sold to the American people by both Obama and Congress as 100% NOT A TAX. However, Roberts unilaterally decided that the only way it can be upheld by his 5th and deciding vote was to be a tax under the Commerce Clause. It was the craziest ruling I've ever seen in my lifetime. A Scotus judge ignoring how it was signed by Obama and essentially saying our first black president gets a grading curve because he really means it's an interstate tax across all 50 states. If that's not a compromised judge then I don't know what it. I remember Clarence Thomas laughing at Roberts and essentially saying he's not worthy of wearing that robe.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 7:41 am to FizzyPop
quote:
It was sold to the American people by both Obama and Congress as 100% NOT A TAX.
Not relevant to the IEEPA case
quote:
Roberts unilaterally decided that the only way it can be upheld by his 5th and deciding vote
You contradict yourself here.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 7:41 am to Demonbengal
quote:
Tariffs have caused major issues with our sales this last year. With that said I do believe we needed to raise tariffs of several countries who had been taking advantage of us.
Given your first sentence, how do you not see that the tariffs that are taking advantage of you are the ones that are causing major issues with your sales?
The ones other countries are imposing are taking advantage of their own citizens, not you.
Page 9 of 29
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News