- 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: Tariff Portal opened today $160 BILLION DUE BACK
Posted on 4/21/26 at 12:56 pm to DCtiger1
Posted on 4/21/26 at 12:56 pm to DCtiger1
quote:
My point is he did it knowing congress would never act.perhaps he had some kind of initial glimmer of hope that they would codify the EO through legislation, but they've accomplished nothing so farc
What does Congress have to do with what I said?
The admin consistently fricks up authorizing legal EOs. They just act haphazardly and super aggressively and take constant Ls and exist in a constant state of embarrassment.
1
Posted on 4/21/26 at 12:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, ruling that only Congress has the power to set such taxes.
It's like you don't even read what others post. The quote above is part of what I responded to. My main point was Congress has accomplished frickall and the president has zero control over the legislative branch. I'm not defending the presidents use of EOs, I'm just saying knowing how Trump is, that's the only option he thought he had to act quickly and he did it.
Congress could've introduced legislation and put the vote on record, but no one wanted to touch it with a ten foot pole
This post was edited on 4/21/26 at 1:01 pm
Posted on 4/21/26 at 1:02 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
don't know what you're on about. I hold the Supreme Court responsible for shitty decisions all the time.
This wasn’t a shitty decision. The shitty decision was trying to get tariffs done under this clause. There was a better, iron clad way to do it that Trump ignored.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 1:02 pm to DCtiger1
quote:
It's like you don't even read what others post.
Bro this applies to you so hard you don't even realize it.
Picking the IEEPA is EXACTLY an example of what I'm talking about.
Prior Congresses already gave Trump multiple other legal avenues to enact tariffs. Those existed prior to January 17, 2025. No new action was needed.
However, the admin, doing its retarded irrational aggression thing, picked a law that didn't authorize tariffs.
quote:
My main point was Congress has accomplished frickall and the president has zero control over the legislative branch.
That isn't relevant.
Prior Congresses already solved this problem.
The admin was just too retarded to follow those laws and went their own way.
quote:
I'm just saying knowing how Trump is, that's the only option he thought he had to act quickly and he did it.
You're now describing, LITERALLY, this
quote:
The problem with the White House is when they want to do something they just up and do it rather than going through the right process. Not everything can be done by Trump just signing a paper and calling it an executive order - go do it.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 1:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
You're arguing with someone who agrees with you on the EO actions 
Posted on 4/21/26 at 1:27 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
I don't know what you're on about. I hold the Supreme Court responsible for shitty decisions all the time.
Well, the SCOTUS has a bit of a problem.
They are supposed to follow the Constitution.
They can't just say, "frick it," 'cause of they feels on any given day like MAGA .
This post was edited on 4/21/26 at 1:29 pm
Posted on 4/21/26 at 1:30 pm to billjamin
quote:
consumers paid higher prices
So the board is finally admitting this?
Posted on 4/21/26 at 1:34 pm to southofyou
Why doesn't he just implement the tarrifs correctly? Isn't that essentially what the ruling was? That they were done incorrectly but that they could be implemented?
Posted on 4/21/26 at 1:43 pm to southofyou
How do I get my tariff refund check?
Posted on 4/21/26 at 1:51 pm to Nosevens
Companies do not have to prove that they did not pass this on to their companies. I was in the USC& BP portal this morning. I am involved with this for the manufacturing company that I work for. As of now, the portal can only be used by companies that:
1. Have a current ACR account with USC&BP.
2. Have an Importer of Record #.
There is no provision that states you have to prove anything beyond the fact that you have paid these tariffs. It will take 60-90 days for any approved claim to be paid.
1. Have a current ACR account with USC&BP.
2. Have an Importer of Record #.
There is no provision that states you have to prove anything beyond the fact that you have paid these tariffs. It will take 60-90 days for any approved claim to be paid.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:36 pm to nealnan8
quote:
Companies do not have to prove that they did not pass this on to their companies.
I think you meant "consumers."
Why would they have to prove that? So what if they did pass it on?
The tariff law (EO) required them to pay the money, not anyone else. So the money gets returned to the party who was legally required to pay it, regardless of anything else they did or didn't do.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:37 pm to Nosevens
quote:
The so called payment back will be interesting as companies have to show their losses and not passed on forward to customers. If customers were charged higher prices due to tariffs then those compare not able to collect
Where in the world did you read that?
On the back of a cereal box?
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:41 pm to nealnan8
Legislation: Congress is considering the Payback Act, which proposes distributing tariff money directly to consumers
Costco, FedEx and others are looking at possible class action lawsuits over those rebates from consumers. This in itself would be a nightmare for them to fight off, likely costing them more than tariffs rebates.
Newer collections of tariffs are separated from those deemed by SC.
Costco, FedEx and others are looking at possible class action lawsuits over those rebates from consumers. This in itself would be a nightmare for them to fight off, likely costing them more than tariffs rebates.
Newer collections of tariffs are separated from those deemed by SC.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:43 pm to wackatimesthree
Legislation: Congress is considering the Payback Act, which proposes distributing tariff money directly to consumers
Costco, FedEx and others are looking at possible class action lawsuits over those rebates from consumers. This in itself would be a nightmare for them to fight off, likely costing them more than tariffs rebates.
Newer collections of tariffs are separated from those deemed by SC
Costco, FedEx and others are looking at possible class action lawsuits over those rebates from consumers. This in itself would be a nightmare for them to fight off, likely costing them more than tariffs rebates.
Newer collections of tariffs are separated from those deemed by SC
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:47 pm to Nosevens
quote:
Payback Act
That hasn't even made it out of committee and is nothing more than a publicity stunt.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:50 pm to southofyou
So -
Price increases were paid by the consumer (any claim otherwise shows your ignorance, at best).
Businesses will receive the return.
The return is essetially paid for by the taxpayer since the money went into a debt hole.
Are we winning yet? Is this winning?
Dems and pubs, all in together!
Price increases were paid by the consumer (any claim otherwise shows your ignorance, at best).
Businesses will receive the return.
The return is essetially paid for by the taxpayer since the money went into a debt hole.
Are we winning yet? Is this winning?
Dems and pubs, all in together!
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:55 pm to wackatimesthree
And ?
Those that accept back rebates will undoubtedly be facing class action lawsuits from consumers which will be expensive to fight. Lawyers have already aligned themselves against companies in the likelihood
Those that accept back rebates will undoubtedly be facing class action lawsuits from consumers which will be expensive to fight. Lawyers have already aligned themselves against companies in the likelihood
Posted on 4/21/26 at 4:02 pm to Nosevens
quote:
Those that accept back rebates will undoubtedly be facing class action lawsuits from consumers which will be expensive to fight. Lawyers have already aligned themselves against companies in the likelihood
I don't see how they could possibly be looking at anything other than having their cases tossed out.
It's legal for companies to raise their prices any time they want for any reason they want. Upon what legal basis would these class action lawsuits be based? What legal obligation would a company have to pay consumers back for a price increase because they were legally obligated to pay a tariff?
You might as well claim that a company who raised prices to compensate for higher corporate taxes one year and who didn't lower them the next year when Congress lowered corporate taxes would be liable to pay the consumers the difference.
This is asinine. It's not real. It's populist nonsense.
If Congress passed the publicity stunt bill into law (which they won't), it would be struck down because it basically would establish a legal precedent that the government can dictate prices to private businesses based on taxes.
This post was edited on 4/21/26 at 4:10 pm
Posted on 4/21/26 at 4:12 pm to wackatimesthree
As I stated originally this is going to be interesting
As far as consumer rebates go the lawyers Billings will be enormous. Almost better for companies that paid tariffs to leave well enough alone as the headaches will be great, and those who did compass through have that initial recovery
As far as consumer rebates go the lawyers Billings will be enormous. Almost better for companies that paid tariffs to leave well enough alone as the headaches will be great, and those who did compass through have that initial recovery
Posted on 4/21/26 at 4:15 pm to billjamin
quote:
Did I hear on the news right that it’s being paid back with interest?
Mostly to China. Right?
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News