Author Topic: No, We Aren't Going to Pay Off the National Debt With Tariff Revenue  (Read 1350 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 30,248
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: No, We Aren't Going to Pay Off the National Debt With Tariff Revenue
« Reply #25 on: August 07, 2018, 02:21:42 PM »
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!

« Last Edit: August 07, 2018, 02:25:56 PM by Bigun »

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,667
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: No, We Aren't Going to Pay Off the National Debt With Tariff Revenue
« Reply #26 on: August 07, 2018, 02:41:21 PM »
"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.

Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,571
Re: No, We Aren't Going to Pay Off the National Debt With Tariff Revenue
« Reply #27 on: August 07, 2018, 03:22:04 PM »
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.

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,852
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
Re: No, We Aren't Going to Pay Off the National Debt With Tariff Revenue
« Reply #28 on: August 07, 2018, 05:20:14 PM »
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.
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,852
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
Re: No, We Aren't Going to Pay Off the National Debt With Tariff Revenue
« Reply #29 on: August 07, 2018, 05:22:58 PM »
Thank you for that reference.

TRADE ACT OF 1974
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.
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Online thackney

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,350
Re: No, We Aren't Going to Pay Off the National Debt With Tariff Revenue
« Reply #30 on: August 08, 2018, 07:32:46 AM »
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.
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline MajorClay

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 874
Re: No, We Aren't Going to Pay Off the National Debt With Tariff Revenue
« Reply #31 on: August 08, 2018, 11:33:04 AM »
Pay it down a little?

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,852
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
Re: No, We Aren't Going to Pay Off the National Debt With Tariff Revenue
« Reply #32 on: August 08, 2018, 09:26:48 PM »
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
Quote
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.

« Last Edit: August 08, 2018, 09:32:45 PM by IsailedawayfromFR »
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,852
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
Re: No, We Aren't Going to Pay Off the National Debt With Tariff Revenue
« Reply #33 on: August 08, 2018, 09:44:29 PM »
The article's headline does not reflect its contents.

Journalistic malpractice.
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Offline Jazzhead

  • Radicalized
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,112
Re: No, We Aren't Going to Pay Off the National Debt With Tariff Revenue
« Reply #34 on: August 08, 2018, 09:51:17 PM »
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.     
"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,852
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
Re: No, We Aren't Going to Pay Off the National Debt With Tariff Revenue
« Reply #35 on: August 08, 2018, 09:56:58 PM »
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.
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 30,248
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: No, We Aren't Going to Pay Off the National Debt With Tariff Revenue
« Reply #36 on: August 08, 2018, 10:03:45 PM »
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.

Online Suppressed

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,665
    • Avatar
Re: No, We Aren't Going to Pay Off the National Debt With Tariff Revenue
« Reply #37 on: August 08, 2018, 10:45:58 PM »
@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
+++++++++
“In the outside world, I'm a simple geologist. But in here .... I am Falcor, Defender of the Alliance” --Randy Marsh

“The most effectual means of being secure against pain is to retire within ourselves, and to suffice for our own happiness.” -- Thomas Jefferson

“He's so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent.” --Foghorn Leghorn

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 30,248
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: No, We Aren't Going to Pay Off the National Debt With Tariff Revenue
« Reply #38 on: August 08, 2018, 11:06:18 PM »
SCOTUS found it, in certain instances...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine#United_States

Quote
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!
« Last Edit: August 08, 2018, 11:08:08 PM by Bigun »

Offline Jazzhead

  • Radicalized
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,112
Re: No, We Aren't Going to Pay Off the National Debt With Tariff Revenue
« Reply #39 on: August 08, 2018, 11:42:41 PM »
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.     
"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Offline Absalom

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 360
Re: No, We Aren't Going to Pay Off the National Debt With Tariff Revenue
« Reply #40 on: August 08, 2018, 11:55:18 PM »
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!!!

Online Suppressed

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,665
    • Avatar
Re: No, We Aren't Going to Pay Off the National Debt With Tariff Revenue
« Reply #41 on: August 09, 2018, 12:19:38 AM »
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...
+++++++++
“In the outside world, I'm a simple geologist. But in here .... I am Falcor, Defender of the Alliance” --Randy Marsh

“The most effectual means of being secure against pain is to retire within ourselves, and to suffice for our own happiness.” -- Thomas Jefferson

“He's so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent.” --Foghorn Leghorn

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,852
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
Re: No, We Aren't Going to Pay Off the National Debt With Tariff Revenue
« Reply #42 on: August 09, 2018, 07:41:50 AM »
@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.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 09:17:58 AM by IsailedawayfromFR »
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 30,248
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: No, We Aren't Going to Pay Off the National Debt With Tariff Revenue
« Reply #43 on: August 09, 2018, 09:30:09 AM »
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

Offline Jazzhead

  • Radicalized
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,112
Re: No, We Aren't Going to Pay Off the National Debt With Tariff Revenue
« Reply #44 on: August 09, 2018, 10:19:06 AM »
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.   
"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Offline Absalom

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 360
Re: No, We Aren't Going to Pay Off the National Debt With Tariff Revenue
« Reply #45 on: August 10, 2018, 01:04:38 AM »
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.

Offline InHeavenThereIsNoBeer

  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,528
Re: No, We Aren't Going to Pay Off the National Debt With Tariff Revenue
« Reply #46 on: August 10, 2018, 02:20:35 AM »
------------------------------------------
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.



Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf