foregoneconclusion

9secondkox2 said: Then when September hits and things have cooled a bit 

Things are definitely going to "cool off" when the obviously unconstitutional use of the IEEPA is ruled unconstitutional. 

lwr32 said: Tax cuts mean more money in our pockets to spend, which in turn means more sales tax we’re paying. Where does the sales tax go? 

Tax cuts are a statistically weak form of stimulus. The CBO has decades of statistics on that. Every dollar that is dedicated to the cut will only result in a percentage of a dollar spent back into the economy due to people saving part of the cut. The percentage that is spent into the economy and not saved gets a lot smaller when the cut goes to people who are wealthy or corporations.

Direct spending programs are statistically much stronger in terms of stimulus. Every dollar dedicated to direct spending WILL be spent into the economy. Things like infrastructure and federal jobs typically return more than one dollar of economic stimulus. People like to talk about China all the time...well, China focused on direct spending and not tax cuts. That's how they built their economy. They constantly plowed money into infrastructure over the last few decades and look where it got them. 

9secondkox2 said: It’s only logical right? Heck, back in 1995, nancy pelosi of all people was saying the exact same stuff trump is saying about the need for tariffs since we are being tariffed to death by everyone else. 

A. Pelosi's comments were entirely specific to China alone. That isn't "the exact same stuff".
B. Trump already tried agricultural tariffs with China in his 1st administration. Result = $28 billion in taxpayer funded bailouts to farmers.
C. Trump backed out of the TPP with China in his 1st administration and negotiated a new trade agreement that he claimed was better.
D. Trump back out of NAFTA with Canada/Mexico in his 1st administration and negotiated a new trade agreement that he claimed was better.
E. Trump claimed that trade agreements he made with China/Mexico/Canada in his 1st term constituted an economic emergency in his 2nd term.
F. The grade that Trump gets for his knowledge of trade/tariffs. 

ilarynx said:

foregoneconclusion said:

The governor of California is going to call Trump’s bluff by ignoring the federal tariff and negotiate directly with other countries on tariffs. Seems like a decent strategy considering that the Trump tariffs are entirely dependent on the claim that the national debt has created a national emergency that gives the president the power to levy tariffs. In other words, the White House is likely violating the law and California is going to respond in kind.

Not an option, according to the Constitution. 

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly says, “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, … but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

I strongly recommend reading the U.S. Constitution. Frequently. You can't preserve, protect, or defend, something you don't know. 

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs

LOL...are you aware of the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act? That was a bill that passed Congress and was signed by Hoover. Notice that it's CONGRESS that is levying the tariffs and not Herbert Hoover. Which means Trump doesn't have the power to levy tariffs under the Constitution either. The current administration is trying to claim that the national debt has created a national emergency that gives him the power to do it himself. But that is obvious b.s. considering Trump wants to make the $2 trillion tax cut from 2017 permanent + add trillions more in new tax cuts. All of that will explode the national debt to new heights. 

Basically CA is saying "if you're going to pretend to have the authority to negotiate tariffs by yourself then we're going to pretend that we can do that as well". 

DAalseth said:

foregoneconclusion said:

The governor of California is going to call Trump’s bluff by ignoring the federal tariff and negotiate directly with other countries on tariffs. Seems like a decent strategy considering that the Trump tariffs are entirely dependent on the claim that the national debt has created a national emergency that gives the president the power to levy tariffs. In other words, the White House is likely violating the law and California is going to respond in kind.

I question that. States Rights are one thing, but international trade, including treaties and tariffs are federal jurisdiction. I question if Cal can just go their own way, refuse to take part and negotiate their own agreements. That would be a Constitutional Law question, but it’s my impression that won’t stand scrutiny. 

That's the point though: CA is going to do exactly what the Trump administration is doing...play fast and loose with Constitutional law. Fight fire with fire. Trump's legal ability to levy tariffs is no less flimsy per the Constitution. If the White House is just going to break laws every day then the states can counter by breaking the law themselves.