Trump 2025

While I can certainly join you in wishing to make things better in the USA I simply don't see how tariffs help the poor as you claim.

You say they'll eliminate taxes for low-income persons: but imported goods will cost these low-income folk an additional amount equal to the tariff, correct?

Surely you don't think vendors will themselves absorb and "eat" the increased costs as Trump demands they do: that isn't how capitalism works in a free market.

A lot of stuff we buy is imported and subject to tariff, and there currently are no comparable American made items to substitute for many if not most items subject to tariff..

Tariffs in fact are a high, additional tax imposed upon the American consumer: we eat it, not China, not anybody else.

They're regressive in nature as low and moderate income folk pay a higher percentage of income on goods subject to tariffs than do those with lots of money.

Besides, tariffs should be the purview of Congress, not the president, or at least that seems to be the winning argument, i.e. Trump exceeded his power in trying to implement them per recent court rulings.

Of course the wild card is the USSC: will they stand up to him or kow-tow?

Quote: missedhervee

Of course the wild card is the USSC: will they stand up to him or kow-tow?

The justices considered liberal will vote politically. The others will vote based on law not politics.

Quote: AZDuffman

The justices considered liberal will vote politically. The others will vote based on law not politics.

Just like they did when his appointees voted in lock step to overturn the established precedent of Roe v. Wade?

Dream on: it will be a political dog fight, with wavering Roberts casting the decisive vote: he must be a disappointment for the MAGA faithful, voting the way he has been of late.

Sooner or later the republicans need to come to their senses and extricate themselves from Trump's tentacles: a return to normalcy would be most welcomed.

Quote: missedhervee

Just like they did when his appointees voted in lock step to overturn the established precedent of Roe v. Wade?

Yes. Didn't your matchbook law school explain that SCOTUS can overturn bad previous decisions? Or do you think we should still have segregation because the established precedent of Plessy v Ferguson should not have been overturned?

A modified version of the original story:

--------------------

TWO BOATS AND HELICOPTER STORY (PARABLE OF THE DROWNING MAN)
.
.
.
You remind me of the man that lived by the river. He heard a radio report that the river was going to rush up and flood the town, and that the all the residents should evacuate their homes.

But the man said, “I’m religious. I pray. God loves me. God will save me.”

The waters rose up. A guy in a rowboat came along and he shouted, “Hey, hey you, you in there. The town is flooding. Let me take you to safety.”

But the man shouted back, “I’m religious. I pray. God loves me. God will save me.”

A helicopter was hovering overhead and a guy with a megaphone shouted, “Hey you, you down there. The town is flooding. Let me drop this ladder and I’ll take you to safety.”

But the man shouted back that he was religious, that he prayed, that God loved him and that God will take him to safety.

Well . . . the man drowned. And standing at the gates of St. Peter he demanded an audience with God.

“Lord,” he said, “I’m a religious man, I pray, I thought you loved me. Why did this happen?”

God said, “I sent you a radio report, a helicopter and a guy in a rowboat. What the hell are you doing here?”
.
.
.
https://jareddees.com/twoboats-helicopter-story/

---------------------


Trump is the one in the helicopter. ^^^


Most folks can't see the forest through the trees.

One that does business with bankers is trying to remove them out of the affairs of the country.

Similar to Andrew Jackson.



Jackson quote. ^^^

Quote: AZDuffman

The justices considered liberal will vote politically. The others will vote based on law not politics.

Can we quote you on that when the current non-liberals actually express their opinions? Will you then claim that those non-libby SC judges have somehow changed into liberals?

Quote: OnceDear

he'll play dirty to get the tariff ruling overturned. He needs to lose it in the SC. Only fly in the ointment wit this ruling is that the markets and economy will rally and the cult will claim some sort of victory. Still, nice to know he'll be apoplectic.

.

As anticipated :
"A federal appeals court is temporarily delaying Wednesday's court order blocking President Donald Trump’s tariffs, reinstating them at least for the time being."

Just what the markets need: More uncertainty.

This reminds me of 'the Muslim ban' of his first term. drumph can get his tariffs to hold if he just changes the justification he's used so far. If they stand as currently implemented, then he truly is your king and he wipes his ass on your constitution.

Trump working hard to stack the deck.

Quote:

The Justice Department won’t allow the American Bar Association to vet President Donald Trump’s picks for judicial appointments.

The Office of Legal Policy, which prepares judicial nominees, will no longer “direct nominees to provide waivers allowing the ABA access to non-public information, including bar records,” according to a Thursday letter from Attorney General Pam Bondi to the association’s president, William Bay.

Nominees also won’t respond to ABA questionnaires or sit for interviews with its standing committee on the judiciary.

“Unfortunately, the ABA no longer functions as a fair arbiter of nominees’ qualifications, and its ratings invariably and demonstrably favor nominees put forth by Democratic administrations,” Bondi said.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/bondi-eliminates-abas-role-in-vetting-trump-judicial-nominees

Quote: AZDuffman

Yes. Didn't your matchbook law school explain that SCOTUS can overturn bad previous decisions? Or do you think we should still have segregation because the established precedent of Plessy v Ferguson should not have been overturned?

What "bad decision" is this of which you speak?

I thought Roe v. Wade was long overdue, emblematic of our emerging from the swamp of stupidity into the glow of enlightenment.

Oh well, one step forward then two steps back.

This idiocy Trump is pushing will fade as soon as he is gone, which frankly cannot happen soon enough.

Quote: AZDuffman

Yes. Didn't your matchbook law school explain that SCOTUS can overturn bad previous decisions? Or do you think we should still have segregation because the established precedent of Plessy v Ferguson should not have been overturned?

That's hilarious I'd forgotten that fly by night law schools used to advertise on matchbook covers except his would have been in Spanish. That's how creepy that profession was and still is.