The Briefing Room
General Category => Economy/Business => Topic started by: ABX on August 06, 2018, 03:21:09 pm
-
Officially, the Trump administration's position is that tariffs on aluminum and steel are a national security issue.
Unofficially, President Donald Trump has trotted out just about every imaginable justification for new taxes on imports, claiming that the tariffs are needed to create leverage for renegotiating trade deals, that they are meant to punish China for stealing American companies' intellectual property, even that they're a retaliation for Canada's decision to charge high import duties on American milk—as if that were something that would justify a potentially destructive trade war.
In a weekend tweetstorm, Trump raised the bar yet again in his race to offer the most ludicrous justification for his tariffs. Now he says they'll help the United States pay off the $21 trillion national debt......
https://reason.com/blog/2018/08/06/no-we-arent-going-to-pay-off-the-nationa
-
The idea to 'pay off the national debt' by taxing the living crap out of Americans is beyond stupid.
But it sounds great to the emoting herds that adore Trump who have been easily led to hate and want punishment visited upon whomever or whatever Trump targets.
-
The idea to 'pay off the national debt' by taxing the living crap out of Americans is beyond stupid.
But it sounds great to the emoting herds that adore Trump who have been easily led to hate and want punishment visited upon whomever or whatever Trump targets.
Of course, it is all offset by having to bail out those the tariffs hurt.
The joys of big brother central planning.
-
Of course, it is all offset by having to bail out those the tariffs hurt.
Ahhh yes.... They must assume the American people are going to keep buying exorbitant tax-levied imported goods to the tune of 40 Trillion dollars to pay off the national debt AND bailout every farmer and industry hurt by them.
Hey, we have to try! Right?
-
I LOVE headlines like this one. Every time the 'hair on fire' Liberals declare that Trump cannot do something, every time they declare that something he does 'will never work', it always turns out to be a resounding success. Based on Trumps accomplishments so far, the more the Liberals, Socialists, and NeverTrumps complain, the more confident it makes me that Trump is on to something.
Trump is a winner who wins. Crybabies are losers who lose.
-
I LOVE headlines like this one. Every time the 'hair on fire' Liberals declare that Trump cannot do something, every time they declare that something he does 'will never work', it always turns out to be a resounding success. Based on Trumps accomplishments so far, the more the Liberals, Socialists, and NeverTrumps complain, the more confident it makes me that Trump is on to something.
Trump is a winner who wins. Crybabies are losers who lose.
Until you feel the pain in your own wallet, then we either blame someone else for the pain or whine like crybabies about it.
-
I LOVE headlines like this one. Every time the 'hair on fire' Liberals declare that Trump cannot do something, every time they declare that something he does 'will never work', it always turns out to be a resounding success. Based on Trumps accomplishments so far, the more the Liberals, Socialists, and NeverTrumps complain, the more confident it makes me that Trump is on to something.
Trump is a winner who wins. Crybabies are losers who lose.
Interesting. A far right publication that has always advocated for extremely limited government, calling out an actual mathematical flaw (1+1 still equals 2) in an unconstitutional move by the federal government's executive branch (article 1, section 8, clause one, taxes and tariffs must originate in Congress, they haven't approved them) is somehow 'liberal'.
Maybe only in the classical liberal sense instead of progressive sense.
-
Interesting. A far right publication that has always advocated for extremely limited government, calling out an actual mathematical flaw (1+1 still equals 2) in an unconstitutional move by the federal government's executive branch (article 1, section 8, clause one, taxes and tariffs must originate in Congress, they haven't approved them) is somehow 'liberal'.
Maybe only in the classical liberal sense instead of progressive sense.
Congress has become a 'shadow' organization. They are just placeholders, and that is just how they like it. Depending on Congress to do something/anything is futile. They refuse to act on anything. They refuse to do their jobs. Congress as it has been is gone. Today they are all just weasels and money grubbing cretins who don't give a damn about anything. They are circling the drain of history. The very idea of Congress acting on tariffs is ridiculous.
Congress loves it when the President acts in their stead. Not only do they never do anything about it, on the contrary, they welcome it. Because it means that they do not have to do anything. It frees them from any responsibility. This is exactly why Obama was able to get away with anything and everything he wanted to do, no matter how illegal and unconstitutional his actions were. Because Congress simply doesn't care, and most Judges are Leftist shills, there was no one around to stop him.
-
Congress has become a 'shadow' organization. They are just placeholders, and that is just how they like it. Depending on Congress to do something/anything is futile. They refuse to act on anything. They refuse to do their jobs. Congress as it has been is gone. Today they are all just weasels and money grubbing cretins who don't give a damn about anything. They are circling the drain of history. The very idea of Congress acting on tariffs is ridiculous.
Congress loves it when the President acts in their stead. Not only do they never do anything about it, on the contrary, they welcome it. Because it means that they do not have to do anything. It frees them from any responsibility. This is exactly why Obama was able to get away with anything and everything he wanted to do, no matter how illegal and unconstitutional his actions were. Because Congress simply doesn't care, and most Judges are Leftist shills, there was no one around to stop him.
It doesn't matter if they refuse or don't refuse to do their job, it is still their role. By not calling it for a vote, they are in essence, not giving it a rubber stamp approval and it is illegal.
You don't go in with the assumption this has to be done by 'any means necessary.' We are a representative republic ruled governed by the Constitution. If you don't like that your Congressman isn't calling this up for a vote, then vote to remove that Congressman. But until Congress acts, these tariffs are in direct violation of the Constitution.
Unless we are back to accepting 'rule' the way Obama did it, with a 'pen and a phone'- limited Constitutional government be damned.
-
We
are were founded as a representative republic ruled governed by the Constitution. I'm not happy about it, but I have come to accept that those days are gone. Congress has abdicated their role in governance. They don't want it, and they refuse to do it.
Maybe a robust active Congress will come back some day, after this current last-century generation dies off. But it will not happen any time soon, that's for sure.
-
We are were founded as a representative republic ruled governed by the Constitution. I'm not happy about it, but I have come to accept that those days are gone. Congress has abdicated their role in governance. They don't want it, and they refuse to do it.
Maybe a robust active Congress will come back some day, after this current last-century generation dies off. But it will not happen any time soon, that's for sure.
While I can fully agree with your sentiment - justifying whatever means to serve ends is the surest way to the complete burial of Constitutional supremacy and rule of law fostering the institution of the very tyranny you are attempting to avoid.
But then Adams himself prophetically warned: "Liberty once lost is never regained. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it."
I think your sentiments above and the approval of justifying means to achieve ends, prove his statement as fulfilled prophecy.
-
Tariffs will generate $21 billion this year—just .01 percent of the national debt. And aren't these tariffs supposed to be about national security?
By Eric Boehm
http://reason.com/blog/2018/08/06/no-we-arent-going-to-pay-off-the-nationa (http://reason.com/blog/2018/08/06/no-we-arent-going-to-pay-off-the-nationa)
Officially, the Trump administration's position is that tariffs on aluminum and steel are a national security issue (https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/23/trump-considering-24-percent-tariff-on-a).
Unofficially, President Donald Trump has trotted out just about every imaginable justification for new taxes on imports, claiming that the tariffs are needed to create leverage (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/donald-trump-keeps-divulging-the-real-reason-for-his-steel-tariffs.html) for renegotiating trade deals, that they are meant to punish China (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/24/the-theft-of-intellectual-property-is-driving-trumps-trade-battle.html) for stealing American companies' intellectual property, even that they're a retaliation (https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/11/in-weekend-tweets-trump-undercuts-his-ow) for Canada's decision to charge high import duties on American milk—as if that were something that would justify a potentially destructive trade war.
In a weekend tweetstorm, Trump raised the bar yet again in his race to offer the most ludicrous justification for his tariffs. Now he says they'll help the United States pay off the $21 trillion national debt . . . It's amazing thing just how many falsehoods Trump manages to pack into roughly 500 characters.
No, the tariffs are not "working big time." If they were, the White House wouldn't be planning to spend $12 billion (https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/24/tariffs-are-so-great-farmers-need-help) bailing out farmers who have been hurt by the trade war. Nor would thousands of companies (https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/30/tariff-waivers-flawed-steel-shortages) be lining up at the Commerce Department to ask for exemptions from those tariffs. Indeed, the fact that Trump keeps flailing around for new arguments to justify his policy is a sign that his protectionist scheme is unraveling, both intellectually (https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/02/trump-case-for-tariffs-collapsing) and diplomatically (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/01/nafta-may-make-progress-as-us-china-trade-divide-widens.html) . . .
-
President Trump Is Staggeringly Ignorant When It Comes to Tariffs and the Trade Deficit
Posted at 10:30 am on August 5, 2018 by Andrea Ruth
Trade is no doubt, a complicated issue. Various countries have their laws, regulations, tax structures and more that have to get reconciled with multiple other nations. It is the reason why there is a World Trade Organization — a body that can resolve disputes between trading partners. But there are basics as well.
Donald Trump cannot even get the basics right. And while he continues to lead us down the destructive path of a trade war, he continues to raise the bar on his level of ignorance about tariffs. It’s stunning that a person with an economics degree from Wharton can think in such bumbling ways and can lead one to ask, “How much did Fred Trump pay for Donald’s degree?â€
If there has been one consistency in Donald Trump’s lifespan, it’s been the notion the United States is continuously getting “ripped off†by other countries. Trump sees everything through a lens of winning and losing. That’s why he get’s so animated about the trade deficit and yells about how much we’re “losing†to other countries. For some reason, Trump cannot fathom the idea of two nations sharing mutual benefits with one coming out ahead more. He sees trade deficits like they’re a utility bill. If our trade deficit with the fictional country Krakatoa is $5 billion, Trump thinks we’re writing a check at the end of the year to the King of Krakatoa for $5 billion.
<..snip..>
https://www.redstate.com/prevaila/2018/08/05/president-trump-staggeringly-ignorant-comes-tariffs-trade-deficit/ (https://www.redstate.com/prevaila/2018/08/05/president-trump-staggeringly-ignorant-comes-tariffs-trade-deficit/)
-
We are were founded as a representative republic ruled governed by the Constitution. I'm not happy about it, but I have come to accept that those days are gone. Congress has abdicated their role in governance. They don't want it, and they refuse to do it.
Maybe a robust active Congress will come back some day, after this current last-century generation dies off. But it will not happen any time soon, that's for sure.
And accepting actions like this is exactly why we were. At that, because our side is the one accepting these actions, we no longer can look to 'them', progressives, as the reason, we need a big old mirror to why we have lost it or are losing it. The choice is do we continue to just accept this as the norm and keep sliding down that path or do we do as William F Buckley said, and yell 'Stop'?
-
President Trump Is Staggeringly Ignorant When It Comes to Tariffs and the Trade Deficit
Posted at 10:30 am on August 5, 2018 by Andrea Ruth
Trade is no doubt, a complicated issue. Various countries have their laws, regulations, tax structures and more that have to get reconciled with multiple other nations. It is the reason why there is a World Trade Organization — a body that can resolve disputes between trading partners. But there are basics as well.
Donald Trump cannot even get the basics right. And while he continues to lead us down the destructive path of a trade war, he continues to raise the bar on his level of ignorance about tariffs. It’s stunning that a person with an economics degree from Wharton can think in such bumbling ways and can lead one to ask, “How much did Fred Trump pay for Donald’s degree?â€
If there has been one consistency in Donald Trump’s lifespan, it’s been the notion the United States is continuously getting “ripped off†by other countries. Trump sees everything through a lens of winning and losing. That’s why he get’s so animated about the trade deficit and yells about how much we’re “losing†to other countries. For some reason, Trump cannot fathom the idea of two nations sharing mutual benefits with one coming out ahead more. He sees trade deficits like they’re a utility bill. If our trade deficit with the fictional country Krakatoa is $5 billion, Trump thinks we’re writing a check at the end of the year to the King of Krakatoa for $5 billion.
<..snip..>
https://www.redstate.com/prevaila/2018/08/05/president-trump-staggeringly-ignorant-comes-tariffs-trade-deficit/ (https://www.redstate.com/prevaila/2018/08/05/president-trump-staggeringly-ignorant-comes-tariffs-trade-deficit/)
I feel Ms. Ruth's pain, but, respectfully, she really doesn't get it. Trump doesn't understand all/most of the details. Never did, never will. He sees an international situation where the US is and has been getting ripped off by unfair trade practices, and he is using methods at his disposal to correct that. I think he may just succeed.
Ms. Ruth, and me up until recently, expect that a reasonable president will have all of this information and minutiae at hand and at a least a high level understanding of what he needs to know. Now, why either one of us would think that after 8 (looooooong) years of the 0bama administration, I don't know. 0bama and crew put in one of the most clueless, amateur, and strictly ideologically driven administrations ever. Trump may prove in hindsight to have done much better in this area that 0bama.
-
I LOVE headlines like this one. Every time the 'hair on fire' Liberals declare that Trump cannot do something, every time they declare that something he does 'will never work', it always turns out to be a resounding success. Based on Trumps accomplishments so far, the more the Liberals, Socialists, and NeverTrumps complain, the more confident it makes me that Trump is on to something.
Trump is a winner who wins. Crybabies are losers who lose.
Yep. the Headline is Journalistic Malpractice. It is not factual and only meant to distort what Trump said, which is factually correct. Tariffs will help to reduce the deficit.
-
Interesting. A far right publication that has always advocated for extremely limited government, calling out an actual mathematical flaw (1+1 still equals 2) in an unconstitutional move by the federal government's executive branch (article 1, section 8, clause one, taxes and tariffs must originate in Congress, they haven't approved them) is somehow 'liberal'.
Maybe only in the classical liberal sense instead of progressive sense.
Maybe in your own mind Congress has not approved them, but in fact there are already laws passed by Congress that allow the Executive broad authority to impose tariffs. Laws such as Trade Act of 1974, Section 122.
Congress can pass laws that rescind some of the laws they previously enacted but they have not done so.
You are seeing unconstitutional behavior where there is none.
-
Tariffs will help to reduce the deficit.
Even if by some suspension of economic law and human nature to make such an impossible miracle happen - the fact we are now bailing out American farmers and soon industries hurt or crushed by this fun little trade war Trump is waging the tune of BILLIONS - erases and negates any pie-in-the-sky hoped for deficit reductions. We're just shifting numbers from deficits to debt.
Americans are now having to pay higher punitive taxes for what they want or need from foreign sources and Americans are going to have to pay higher taxes now to bail out the other Americans who have lost revenue.
-
Yep. the Headline is Journalistic Malpractice. It is not factual and only meant to distort what Trump said, which is factually correct. Tariffs will help to reduce the deficit.
Funny, conservatives have always argued reducing taxes, not increasing them, is what will reduce the deficit. Maybe we need to look back again at tariffs on income if that's how it works.
Although, we have some of the recent tariffs now going back about 6 months (well beyond the 60 days required for the President to submit them to congress for approval- still not done), and the debt is still going up and the rate of debt increasing is continuing to climb.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
-
Maybe in your own mind Congress has not approved them, but in fact there are already laws passed by Congress that allow the Executive broad authority to impose tariffs. Laws such as Trade Act of 1974, Section 122.
Congress can pass laws that rescind some of the laws they previously enacted but they have not done so.
You are seeing unconstitutional behavior where there is none.
Thank you for that reference.
TRADE ACT OF 1974
http://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/TRADE74.PDF (http://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/TRADE74.PDF)
...(3) to cooperate with other countries in correcting an international
balance-of-payments disequilibrium,
the President shall proclaim, for a period not exceeding 150 days
(unless such period is extended by Act of Congress)—
(A) a temporary import surcharge, not to exceed 15
percent ad valorem, in the form of duties (in addition to
those already imposed, if any) on articles imported into the
United States;
(B) temporary limitations through the use of quotas on
the importation of articles into the United States; or
(C) both a temporary import surcharge described in
subparagraph (A) and temporary limitations described in
subparagraph (B)....
-
Maybe in your own mind Congress has not approved them, but in fact there are already laws passed by Congress that allow the Executive broad authority to impose tariffs. Laws such as Trade Act of 1974, Section 122.
Congress can pass laws that rescind some of the laws they previously enacted but they have not done so.
You are seeing unconstitutional behavior where there is none.
Those acts allow for limited emergency action. In the case of the Trade Act of 1974, it limits the action to no more than 15% (Trump violated that), sections 301 & 301 as well as section 123, also still required to the President to return to Congress for approval within a short period of time. It does not take Congress out of the picture, it just gives the President approval for action in times of national emergency- similar to the war powers act for trade.
Example, Section 125 (just one of several that imposes this time limit on various trade actions)-
Within 60 days after the date of any such termination or withdrawal, the President shall transmit to the Congress his recommendations as to the appropriate rates of duty for all articles which were affected by the termination or withdrawal or would have been so affected but for the preceding sentence. (f) Before taking any action pursuant to subsection (b), (c), or (d), the President shall provide for a public hearing during the course of which interested persons shall be given a reasonable opportunity to be present, to produce evidence, and to be heard, unless he determines that such prior hearings will be contrary to the national interest because of the need for expeditious action, in which case he shall provide for a public hearing promptly after such action.
-
Thank you for that reference.
TRADE ACT OF 1974
http://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/TRADE74.PDF (http://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/TRADE74.PDF)
Thanks, and see the note right above this from section 125- he is required to submit them for public congressional hearings within 60 days. So it imposes limited duration and a cut off time they must be submitted.
Again, just like the War Powers Act, but for trade.
-
Those acts allow for limited emergency action. In the case of the Trade Act of 1974, it limits the action to no more than 15% (Trump violated that), sections 301 & 301 as well as section 123, also still required to the President to return to Congress for approval within a short period of time. It does not take Congress out of the picture, it just gives the President approval for action in times of national emergency- similar to the war powers act for trade.
Example, Section 125 (just one of several that imposes this time limit on various trade actions)-
Within 60 days after the date of any such termination or withdrawal, the President shall transmit to the Congress his recommendations as to the appropriate rates of duty for all articles which were affected by the termination or withdrawal or would have been so affected but for the preceding sentence. (f) Before taking any action pursuant to subsection (b), (c), or (d), the President shall provide for a public hearing during the course of which interested persons shall be given a reasonable opportunity to be present, to produce evidence, and to be heard, unless he determines that such prior hearings will be contrary to the national interest because of the need for expeditious action, in which case he shall provide for a public hearing promptly after such action.
While this is all true, it doesn't matter anymore.
Obama was given a green light by the GOP to get away with similar lawlessness.
Lawlessness is now precedent, and being institutionalized as part of the Imperial Presidency.
Why would we expect the GOP to hold their own accountable?
Besides, the Trumsplicans don't give a crap about the rule of law anymore than the Left does. They have told us so boldly in the last few weeks.
-
Interesting. A far right publication that has always advocated for extremely limited government, calling out an actual mathematical flaw (1+1 still equals 2) in an unconstitutional move by the federal government's executive branch (article 1, section 8, clause one, taxes and tariffs must originate in Congress, they haven't approved them) is somehow 'liberal'.
Maybe only in the classical liberal sense instead of progressive sense.
@AbaraXas
The Constitution also grants the Congress the power to "coin money and regulate the value thereof". Doesn't say a damned word about giving them the authority to dump that responsibility off on a group of PRIVATE banks mostly owned by foreigners.
-
@AbaraXas
The Constitution also grants the Congress the power to "coin money and regulate the value thereof". Doesn't say a damned word about giving them the authority to dump that responsibility off on a group of PRIVATE banks mostly owned by foreigners.
True, but not germane in this conversation. If we are willing to just scrap the Constitution because some fail in their duties to it, what's the point of fighting for any part.
Screw the 2nd Amendment, Congress doesn't follow the Constitution on other things so I guess we just have to accept them not following it with this.
You want troops quartered in my home, well hell, go ahead big brother. You don't follow the Constitution any way.
Due process, who needs it?
OR
When you see a violation do you stand up and call it out, even if they are failing in other areas.
I would even argue the right has a double responsibility to do this both because we are in charge (clean our own house first) and also because our side is the one who at least in the past, gave lip service to following it.
If not us then whom?
-
True, but not germane in this conversation. If we are willing to just scrap the Constitution because some fail in their duties to it, what's the point of fighting for any part.
Screw the 2nd Amendment, Congress doesn't follow the Constitution on other things so I guess we just have to accept them not following it with this.
You want troops quartered in my home, well hell, go ahead big brother. You don't follow the Constitution any way.
Due process, who needs it?
OR
When you see a violation do you stand up and call it out, even if they are failing in other areas.
I would even argue the right has a double responsibility to do this both because we are in charge (clean our own house first) and also because our side is the one who at least in the past, gave lip service to following it.
If not us then whom?
"And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering.
Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man.
And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Sam Kercheval about reform of the Virginia Constitution, July 12, 1816; "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson," Definitive Edition, Albert Ellery Bergh, Editor, The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association (1905) Vol. XV, p. 40
Substitute the word "Constitution for the word "principle" in that and see if it makes a difference!
People have been trying their damnedest to undermine the Constitution since before the ink on the signatures was dry and sadly they have been very successful in their efforts!
-
"And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering.
Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man.
And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Sam Kercheval about reform of the Virginia Constitution, July 12, 1816; "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson," Definitive Edition, Albert Ellery Bergh, Editor, The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association (1905) Vol. XV, p. 40
As succinct an indictment of our current state in this country as anything else one could find and a repudiation of the folly of all the arguments levied by the Trump fanatics who lectured us that principles are for losers.
Jefferson obviously didn't know what he was talking about. We've 'progressed' past that and must 'deal' with the reality of going along, to get along and punishing everyone who gets in the way.
-
I voted for him, but he's an economics ignoramus. You'd think he would have learned his lesson after the Bush II steel tariffs failed miserably in the early 2000s.
He doesn't understand tariffs, and he doesn't understand deficits. Trade deficits are not like the national debt. It's a group of individuals in one country conducting business with another group of individuals in another country.
He's becoming a demagogue spouting his "tariffs are great" balderdash to his adoring crowds.
A number of Trumpsters are saying he's only using the threat of tariffs as a bargaining chip. I think he really doesn't understand how tariffs and trade work.
-
Those acts allow for limited emergency action. In the case of the Trade Act of 1974, it limits the action to no more than 15% (Trump violated that), sections 301 & 301 as well as section 123, also still required to the President to return to Congress for approval within a short period of time. It does not take Congress out of the picture, it just gives the President approval for action in times of national emergency- similar to the war powers act for trade.
Example, Section 125 (just one of several that imposes this time limit on various trade actions)-
Within 60 days after the date of any such termination or withdrawal, the President shall transmit to the Congress his recommendations as to the appropriate rates of duty for all articles which were affected by the termination or withdrawal or would have been so affected but for the preceding sentence. (f) Before taking any action pursuant to subsection (b), (c), or (d), the President shall provide for a public hearing during the course of which interested persons shall be given a reasonable opportunity to be present, to produce evidence, and to be heard, unless he determines that such prior hearings will be contrary to the national interest because of the need for expeditious action, in which case he shall provide for a public hearing promptly after such action.
The entire point is I referred to only an example of how a President has authority to enact tariffs. I never said he has unilateral authority as you are wildly exaggerating.
You stated in your post #7 that it is unconstitutional for Executive to enact tariffs, it is Congress's authority. I displayed an example of laws passed by Congress that give the power to Executive to enact tariffs. There are other laws passed by Congress to extend authority to Executive on tariffs, such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, so the claim you made that Executive enacting tariffs is an 'unconstitutional move' is incorrect.
-
Thank you for that reference.
TRADE ACT OF 1974
http://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/TRADE74.PDF (http://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/TRADE74.PDF)
And the point of your post is ...?
This was an example of how Congress gave Presidential authority on tariffs. I was responding to a poster who said it was an 'unconstitutional move' for a President to enact a tariffs.
-
And the point of your post is ...?
This was an example of how Congress gave Presidential authority on tariffs. I was responding to a poster who said it was an 'unconstitutional move' for a President to enact a tariffs.
25% exceeds 15%
60 days after March 23, 2018 was May 22, 2018.
These tariffs are not or no longer in the Presidential authority.
...You are seeing unconstitutional behavior where there is none.
False.
-
Pay it down a little?
-
25% exceeds 15%
60 days after March 23, 2018 was May 22, 2018.
These tariffs are not or no longer in the Presidential authority.
False.
Ok, guess I have to be a bit more specific as previous posts have not been fully rI will slowly repeat what I said before. My posting was in response to this post
Interesting. A far right publication that has always advocated for extremely limited government, calling out an actual mathematical flaw (1+1 still equals 2) in an unconstitutional move by the federal government's executive branch (article 1, section 8, clause one, taxes and tariffs must originate in Congress, they haven't approved them) is somehow 'liberal'.
The poster said that authority on new tariffs resides within the Constitution as being the domain of Congress. That is a false statement. Why? because Congress has previously chosen to extend to the Executive that power to implement tariffs for certain situations (Read https://money.cnn.com/2017/01/23/news/economy/trump-tariff-power/index.html).
So it is not 'Unconstitutional' for Executive to enact new tariffs as the poster claimed.
Do you happen to know on what basis any of the new tariffs were enacted? I never said it was the specific law you took time to emphasize. I merely said it was an EXAMPLE of a law passed by Congress that gave Executive that authority.
-
The article's headline does not reflect its contents.
Journalistic malpractice.
-
If you want to pay off the debt, the first step is to match revenues to expenses. Cut spending or raise revenue. And tariffs are a perfectly legit means of raising revenue; they were one of the original revenue-raisers contemplated by the Constitution for the federal government, long before there were income taxes.
The effectiveness of a tariff is a function of its design and implementation. The kind most economists object to is retaliatory tariffs, directed to certain countries with respect to certain of their goods. Those kind of tariffs start trade wars. But tariffs can be apolitical, and in a sense when designed that way resemble a sort of VAT applied to the value created by foreign manufacture. A tariff is essentially a tax on consumption, with the advantage (for the consumer) that one can choose to avoid the tax by buying domestic. Does it influence behavior? Of course it does, but so does any tax.
-
If you want to pay off the debt, the first step is to match revenues to expenses. Cut spending or raise revenue. And tariffs are a perfectly legit means of raising revenue; they were one of the original revenue-raisers contemplated by the Constitution for the federal government, long before there were income taxes.
The effectiveness of a tariff is a function of its design and implementation. The kind most economists object to is retaliatory tariffs, directed to certain countries with respect to certain of their goods. Those kind of tariffs start trade wars. But tariffs can be apolitical, and in a sense when designed that way resemble a sort of VAT applied to the value created by foreign manufacture. A tariff is essentially a tax on consumption, with the advantage (for the consumer) that one can choose to avoid the tax by buying domestic. Does it influence behavior? Of course it does, but so does any tax.
Sensible comment.
What is not sensible is the headline which does not reflect the content of the article.
-
Ok, guess I have to be a bit more specific as previous posts have not been fully rI will slowly repeat what I said before. My posting was in response to this postThe poster said that authority on new tariffs resides within the Constitution as being the domain of Congress. That is a false statement. Why? because Congress has previously chosen to extend to the Executive that power to implement tariffs for certain situations (Read https://money.cnn.com/2017/01/23/news/economy/trump-tariff-power/index.html).
So it is not 'Unconstitutional' for Executive to enact new tariffs as the poster claimed.
Do you happen to know on what basis any of the new tariffs were enacted? I never said it was the specific law you took time to emphasize. I merely said it was an EXAMPLE of a law passed by Congress that gave Executive that authority.
@IsailedawayfromFR
With all due respect, I would argue that it actually IS unconstitutional as there is no provision made for allowing the Congress to delegate it's powers to anyone. At least that I have been able to find.
-
@IsailedawayfromFR
With all due respect, I would argue that it actually IS unconstitutional as there is no provision made for allowing the Congress to delegate it's powers to anyone. At least that I have been able to find.
SCOTUS found it, in certain instances...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine#United_States
-
SCOTUS found it, in certain instances...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine#United_States
In the Federal Government of the United States, the nondelegation doctrine is the principle that the Congress of the United States, being vested with "all legislative powers" by Article One, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, cannot delegate that power to anyone else. However, the Supreme Court ruled in J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928)[1] that congressional delegation of legislative authority is an implied power of Congress that is constitutional so long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch: "'In determining what Congress may do in seeking assistance from another branch, the extent and character of that assistance must be fixed according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the government co-ordination.' So long as Congress 'shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power.'"[2]
That figures!
May as well just delegate all of it to the executive branch and go the hell home!
IMHO the founders did not "imply powers"! They specifically listed them or they didn't!
-
That figures!
May as well just delegate all of it to the executive branch and go the hell home!
IMHO the founders did not "imply powers"! They specifically listed them or they didn't!
But that's not the Congress's opinion. If it were, it could simply pass a law abrogating or limiting the delegation. That's why court rulings like this aren't usurpations. If the Congress doesn't agree, the implied delegation can always be withdrawn.
-
What should be obvious is the almost non-existent awareness of both
Economics and History, by some silly know-it-all posters.
The victory of the North, in our Civil War, solidified the power of the
New England Mercantile Class, who were militant protectionists and
the core of Republican power from Lincoln To Hoover.
During that 70ish year span, more than 100 Duties, Excises and Tariffs
were imposed by Republican Congresses for a very simple reason.
They were the sole source of financial support for the government
until full implementation of the 16th Amendment.
Tariffs/Taxes can be used to fulfill any role designated, including
paying off the Debt!!!
-
What should be obvious is the almost non-existent awareness of both
Economics and History, by some silly know-it-all posters.
The victory of the North, in our Civil War, solidified the power of the
New England Mercantile Class, who were militant protectionists and
the core of Republican power from Lincoln To Hoover.
During that 70ish year span, more than 100 Duties, Excises and Tariffs
were imposed by Republican Congresses for a very simple reason.
They were the sole source of financial support for the government
until full implementation of the 16th Amendment.
Tariffs/Taxes can be used to fulfill any role designated, including
paying off the Debt!!!
Yes, and isn't it amazing how the economy didn't really take off until after we moved away from the training wheels of tatiffs...
-
@IsailedawayfromFR
With all due respect, I would argue that it actually IS unconstitutional as there is no provision made for allowing the Congress to delegate it's powers to anyone. At least that I have been able to find.
If one tries that route, there are a lot of activities to date that have been delegated from Congress to Executive. Guess we will have a lot of Scotus decisions on laws that are potentially unconstitutional, as Congress does nothing to regain its power envisioned by the Constitution.
One reason for the difficulty of Congress overturning a previously-enacted law is that to approve a law one needs only a majority, but to overturn without support from Executive requires 2/3 approval to overcome veto.
-
If one tries that route, there are a lot of activities to date that have been delegated from Congress to Executive. Guess we will have a lot of Scotus decisions on laws that are potentially unconstitutional, as Congress does nothing to regain its power envisioned by the Constitution.
One reason for the difficulty of Congress overturning a previously-enacted law is that to approve a law one needs only a majority, but to overturn without support from Executive requires 2/3 approval to overcome veto.
@IsailedawayfromFR
Nope! These days all you need is one federal district court judge anywhere and the deed is done! /s
-
If one tries that route, there are a lot of activities to date that have been delegated from Congress to Executive. Guess we will have a lot of Scotus decisions on laws that are potentially unconstitutional, as Congress does nothing to regain its power envisioned by the Constitution.
One reason for the difficulty of Congress overturning a previously-enacted law is that to approve a law one needs only a majority, but to overturn without support from Executive requires 2/3 approval to overcome veto.
Legislation is tough; hoping for unelected justices to hand you the result you want is both lazy and disrespectful of the separation of powers. There is nothing un-Constitutional or unreasonable with Congress delegating its authority to the Executive - because it can always retrieve that authority.
The proper role of the Court is to construe Congressional delegation narrowly, to make sure the Executive doesn't seize authority it hasn't been granted. But Congress always retains the ability to take back what it gives. That the process is made difficult by today's hyper-partisanship doesn't mean a Court needs to step in and do Congress's dirty work for it.
-
Yes, and isn't it amazing how the economy didn't really take off until after we moved away from the training wheels of tatiffs...
------------------------------------------
Thoughtful comment, implying the answer depends on how one defines, "taking off".
The period 1870-1910, was the era our great Capitalists.
Naming but a few, among them;
* Rockefeller who developed the energy which accelerated our transition
from agrarian/rural to urban/industrial.
* Harriman (among dozens) who created a railroad, arguably the most
powerful unifying force in our young nation/state, merely a 100 years old.
* Carnegie who created the iron and steel that permitted structure to
flourish applying Euclid's Geometry.
Did the Capitalists who followed these trail blazers, surpass then???
Not in my judgement and as such the tariff argument has little bearing
on our economic passage.
-
------------------------------------------
Thoughtful comment, implying the answer depends on how one defines, "taking off".
The period 1870-1910, was the era our great Capitalists.
Naming but a few, among them;
* Rockefeller who developed the energy which accelerated our transition
from agrarian/rural to urban/industrial.
* Harriman (among dozens) who created a railroad, arguably the most
powerful unifying force in our young nation/state, merely a 100 years old.
* Carnegie who created the iron and steel that permitted structure to
flourish applying Euclid's Geometry.
Did the Capitalists who followed these trail blazers, surpass then???
Not in my judgement and as such the tariff argument has little bearing
on our economic passage.
And during that period, per capita GDP growth was pretty flat.
(http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/RealGDPperCapita-650x450.png)