It’s not a tax, it’s a schmax. Totally different.
-
I expect this will be yet another case of reality interfering with histrionic narratives about the supreme court being in Trump's pocket.
@Horace said in It’s not a tax, it’s a schmax. Totally different.:
I expect this will be yet another case of reality interfering with histrionic narratives about the supreme court being in Trump's pocket.
Based on Jon's prediction, only 3 of them are.
I was only joking
-
To be clear that’s a quote. Not my prediction. Though I’ve seen enough of the transcript to comfortably bet that they’ll lose.
The administration seems to be expecting a loss also and has some plans to keep some tariffs just using different justifications. Or try to at least.
-
@Horace said in It’s not a tax, it’s a schmax. Totally different.:
I expect this will be yet another case of reality interfering with histrionic narratives about the supreme court being in Trump's pocket.
Based on Jon's prediction, only 3 of them are.
@Doctor-Phibes said in It’s not a tax, it’s a schmax. Totally different.:
@Horace said in It’s not a tax, it’s a schmax. Totally different.:
I expect this will be yet another case of reality interfering with histrionic narratives about the supreme court being in Trump's pocket.
Based on Jon's prediction, only 3 of them are.
That prediction is less about affinity for a political tribe, and more about affinity for certain legal principles. If it were based on purported tribalism, Gorsuch would replace Kavanaugh in the tribal set. Regardless of how you slice it, the notion that SCOTSU is in the pocket of Trump remains absurd.
-
Assumes facts not in evidence. Don't think we'd have to pay anything back. It may even be ambiguous whether the current tariffs would have to be repealed.
Education is extremely important.
-
Assumes facts not in evidence. Don't think we'd have to pay anything back. It may even be ambiguous whether the current tariffs would have to be repealed.
@Horace said in It’s not a tax, it’s a schmax. Totally different.:
Assumes facts not in evidence.
I believe those are now called 'alternative facts'. When Donald Trump says something, it becomes true simply because he said it.
It's a bit like the anthropic principle, except applied to bullshit. If we hear it, it becomes true.
-
Assumes facts not in evidence. Don't think we'd have to pay anything back. It may even be ambiguous whether the current tariffs would have to be repealed.
@Horace said in It’s not a tax, it’s a schmax. Totally different.:
Assumes facts not in evidence. Don't think we'd have to pay anything back. It may even be ambiguous whether the current tariffs would have to be repealed.
I read somewhere that we would have to pay them back, even if some of them could be reissued using a different (but also fragile) legal justification. We’ve only taken in about 200B in tariffs as of 9/30. I think when he talks trillions he’s thinking of the phantom non existent trillions that these countries have ‘promised’ to invest. Any tiny subset of that investment that actually materialized would not have to be paid back.
-
Assumes facts not in evidence. Don't think we'd have to pay anything back. It may even be ambiguous whether the current tariffs would have to be repealed.
@Horace said in It’s not a tax, it’s a schmax. Totally different.:
Assumes facts not in evidence. Don't think we'd have to pay anything back.
In past when the US has lost arbitration suits over countervailing tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber imports, the US government had to issue refunds to the affected importers. I believe, although not certain, the same occurred in 2019/20 over national security tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminium into the US.
