Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Congress gave the power to levy tariffs to the president. They could take it back, but so far they haven't.
I thought they had enough republicans who would vote to take it back? This is when everyone needs to contact their democratic reps and demand that they stop watching from the sidelines and do something
The Senate has 4 and already voted: Murkowsli, Collins, McConnell and Paul.
The House has 1 who has publicly stated support: Don Bacon.
This measure is DOA even if they do pass it. Trump will veto it.
That's a different bill. The one you're talking about won't stop anything for 60 days.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Congress gave the power to levy tariffs to the president. They could take it back, but so far they haven't.
I thought they had enough republicans who would vote to take it back? This is when everyone needs to contact their democratic reps and demand that they stop watching from the sidelines and do something
The Senate has 4 and already voted: Murkowsli, Collins, McConnell and Paul.
The House has 1 who has publicly stated support: Don Bacon.
This measure is DOA even if they do pass it. Trump will veto it.
And at that point, our economy will be at a point where congress may override the veto.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Congress gave the power to levy tariffs to the president. They could take it back, but so far they haven't.
I thought they had enough republicans who would vote to take it back? This is when everyone needs to contact their democratic reps and demand that they stop watching from the sidelines and do something
The Senate has 4 and already voted: Murkowsli, Collins, McConnell and Paul.
The House has 1 who has publicly stated support: Don Bacon.
This measure is DOA even if they do pass it. Trump will veto it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Congress gave the power to levy tariffs to the president. They could take it back, but so far they haven't.
I thought they had enough republicans who would vote to take it back? This is when everyone needs to contact their democratic reps and demand that they stop watching from the sidelines and do something
The Senate has 4 and already voted: Murkowsli, Collins, McConnell and Paul.
The House has 1 who has publicly stated support: Don Bacon.
This measure is DOA even if they do pass it. Trump will veto it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Congress gave the power to levy tariffs to the president. They could take it back, but so far they haven't.
I thought they had enough republicans who would vote to take it back? This is when everyone needs to contact their democratic reps and demand that they stop watching from the sidelines and do something
The Senate has 4 and already voted: Murkowsli, Collins, McConnell and Paul.
The House has 1 who has publicly stated support: Don Bacon.
This measure is DOA even if they do pass it. Trump will veto it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Congress gave the power to levy tariffs to the president. They could take it back, but so far they haven't.
I thought they had enough republicans who would vote to take it back? This is when everyone needs to contact their democratic reps and demand that they stop watching from the sidelines and do something
The Senate has 4 and already voted: Murkowsli, Collins, McConnell and Paul.
The House has 1 who has publicly stated support: Don Bacon.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:trump used a national emergency designation as a basis
Haven't other presidents done this as well?
No other President has declared that trade deficits - counting only goods and not services - are a “national emergency” and boned the entire global economy as a result.
Interesting that you used the word "boned." I think his thuggish, bullying stance towards the rest of the world makes him look tough to his followers, more manly somehow (magically, they seem not to notice the bronzer and hairspray). MAGA love the imagery that he's "boning" the global economy. I guess it makes them feel more powerful or something.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:trump used a national emergency designation as a basis
Haven't other presidents done this as well?
No other President has declared that trade deficits - counting only goods and not services - are a “national emergency” and boned the entire global economy as a result.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:trump used a national emergency designation as a basis
Haven't other presidents done this as well?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Congress gave the power to levy tariffs to the president. They could take it back, but so far they haven't.
I thought they had enough republicans who would vote to take it back? This is when everyone needs to contact their democratic reps and demand that they stop watching from the sidelines and do something
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is what Grok said:
Trump is primarily using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 to impose tariffs in his second term, declaring national emergencies over issues like fentanyl, illegal immigration, and trade deficits to justify duties such as 25% on Canada and Mexico and 10% on China and all imports. He also leverages Section 232 and Section 301 of existing trade laws, which delegate tariff authority from Congress for national security or unfair trade practices. While IEEPA’s use for tariffs is novel and controversial, potentially overstepping its intent, these actions rest on broad statutory powers, though they face legal challenges for possibly violating Congress’s constitutional tariff authority.
Trump and his cabinet are way too dumb to figure this out. So, who are the evil people who brought this to Trump's attention, project 2025 designers?
Anonymous wrote:This is what Grok said:
Trump is primarily using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 to impose tariffs in his second term, declaring national emergencies over issues like fentanyl, illegal immigration, and trade deficits to justify duties such as 25% on Canada and Mexico and 10% on China and all imports. He also leverages Section 232 and Section 301 of existing trade laws, which delegate tariff authority from Congress for national security or unfair trade practices. While IEEPA’s use for tariffs is novel and controversial, potentially overstepping its intent, these actions rest on broad statutory powers, though they face legal challenges for possibly violating Congress’s constitutional tariff authority.