• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

In order for lawsuits related to tariffs to be successful, the businesses will have to show that they, and not their customers, bore the economic impact. If they simply passed on the costs to the consumer through price increases, but suffered no losses overall, their suits may not fly.
 
Haggis said:
In order for lawsuits related to tariffs to be successful, the businesses will have to show that they, and not their customers, bore the economic impact. If they simply passed on the costs to the consumer through price increases, but suffered no losses overall, their suits may not fly.
Click to expand...
Correct. Many have absorbed the costs.

I’m just watching Trump ramble on TV.

He’s gone waaay off the deep end.
 
Cloud Cover said:
Correct. Many have absorbed the costs.

I’m just watching Trump ramble on TV.

He’s gone waaay off the deep end.
Click to expand...
I'm watching him as well. Its hard to watch him. I try to be neutral listening to him and its just plan impossible as an educated person. He is all over the map, rambling, incoherent from time to time. If this was a family member talking at a family gathering, I would honestly have them checked out by a medical professional.
 
Brad Sallows said:
I can't imagine wanting to read a transcript of his remarks, let alone spend even more time watching them unfold verbally.
Click to expand...
It is hard to watch. It's like driving down the highway at 5km/hr going by a horrific car accident, you just cant stop yourself from staring at it.
 
MilEME09 said:
So more illegal tariffs? Doubling down is a bold move
Click to expand...
These are under some other ruling from the early 1960's that cover the other tariffs that were not covered by this ruling.

So if I'm Japan or Australia or the UK which already negotiated trade agreements all of a sudden have a 10% tariff against them. Australia, which has a rare trade deficit with the US just went from 10% to 20% in tariffs.

He has burned down the goodwill and trust of the US around the world.
 
Czech_pivo said:
These are under some other ruling from the early 1960's that cover the other tariffs that were not covered by this ruling.

So if I'm Japan or Australia or the UK which already negotiated trade agreements all of a sudden have a 10% tariff against them. Australia, which has a rare trade deficit with the US just went from 10% to 20% in tariffs.

He has burned down the goodwill and trust of the US around the world.
Click to expand...

TD released something today that included a brief breakdown of the avenues he might have. The just announced 10% that may or may not happen (or might not survive 150 days if struck down in court) are being used under section 122.

Section 122 also requires that extension or renewal after the 150 days needs to be done via congress.

In a mid-term year.

economics.td.com

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Broad-Based Country Specific Tariffs Under IEEPA

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Broad-Based Country Specific Tariffs Under IEEPA
economics.td.com economics.td.com

  • Section 122 tariffs, which allow for tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days to address large and persistent balance of payment deficits and/or defend the value of the dollar.
Click to expand...

In any case, so much for any trade deals certain countries made in the last year with the US.
 
Remius said:
He just finished.

That was…something.
Click to expand...
I don’t know how anyone who witnessed that could not come to a conclusion the man is as maniacal as some of the darkest figures in history, and probably more unstable. You can literally see two or three personalities spitting out of his mouth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top