Donald Trump is running the United States of America just like he ran the six companies that he bankrupted, including casinos. When you have a casino, you have a permit to print money. Only a liar and thief can bankrupt a country and a casino.
The dictator’s obsession with tariffs is weirder than any of his other weird obsessions, and I think it’s because he thinks the money collected from tariffs actually belong to him. It’s his money, not the Treasury’s money or the country’s money. It all belongs to him. I can’t think of any other reason why telling him “No” to his tariffs pisses him off so much and why he just won’t let it go.
If you want to see what Trump is trying to do and be, watch the Netflix mini-series "Death by Lightning." The NY senator who controlled the revenues flowing from the port of NY is a smarter but no less venal, evil version of Trump.
I believe the starting point is Trump's ignorance of trade deficits. He believes that trade balances between trading partners should be equal. If they are not equal "they are ripping us off". I can demostrate the fallacy using Columbia as an example. We buy huge amounts of Columbian coffee every year and pay millions of dollars for that product. By comparison Columbia purchases a much smaller value in American products. There is clearly a trade imbalance as defined by Trump. According to Trump's trade philosophy, Columbia has to reimburse the US in some way to offset the trade imbalance. He slaps tariffs (taxes) on Columbian coffee which Americans pay to offset the gap. I hope you see how senseless this is. It might make more sense to forbid Americans to drink Columbian coffee.
In no way does raising the price of coffee (or anything else) to the American consumer improve the imbalance of trade dollars. The coffee is still more expensive to us than what their consumers buy from us. It doesn't take Econ 101; it's common sense.
I've never had any doubt that the tariffs collected by the importers are diverted into his personal accounts, no doubt at all. US Treasury be damned. And now, it's tax season and we have to continue to pay income tax which will go into his personal accounts. That's why he ran for prez. Couldn't run his businesses, couldn't run a simple casino in the gambling city of the world, he failed on his shitty tv show, but he thought, obviously rightly, that he could bullshit enough people to vote him into office so he could steal our money. His sons said as much on some recent interviews as to why the "family" went into cryptocurrency, turned into investing in the ME, etc etc, because real banks refused to do business with these criminals. His kids tried to cry foul, but it was friggin' obvious what his presidency is really all about: steal from us and make them rich. And now, this massive charlatan thinks he has been "exonerated" from molesting young teenagers. Really? Where the hell did he get that exoneration, from his bimbo in the DOJ? His shit will catch up with him, of that I am sure, and when it does, he will go down in flames.
Right on...and in broad daylight! I'm putting all of my eggs in the Ebstein basket. The recent report that trump assaulted a minor and then hit her will bring about his demise. The woman was interviewed four times by the FBI and all four times are found in the file's index but only one was released! That's all the proof we need that DOP is blatantly covering up to protect this human sack of waste....
" The recent report that trump assaulted a minor and then hit her will bring about his demise."
We keep thinking that (fill in the blank) will be the last straw. Saying that he could shoot someone of 5th Avenue and get away with it should have done it. The J6 sedition should have done it. Allowing the shooting of our citizens in Minneapolis should have done it. The list goes on - and so does he. There must be an end somewhere, but when is enough enough?
You can't make cultists put aside their idol. They are good at closing their eyes and ears, protecting them from the truth. MAGA has become a religion, not a political party.
The Midterm Election may help to slow him down, and if the majority in both houses changes (a dream, at this point) impeachment proceedings might become a reality.
His time is quickly coming to a head. His health is in decline, and his mind is so far off that he can't even speak a single coherent sentence. His doctors must be shooting him up with so many drugs to keep him going. How else could he talk for an hour and forty minutes? Given his known diet, he's a heartbeat away from a stroke, heart attack, or both. Then we'd be stuck with JD Hillbilly and Little Weasel Johnson.
Britain is prosecuting their Epstein's miscreants with divulging state secrets instead of charging them with statutory rape. But why would they do this? Statutory rape carries hefty punishment.
Perhaps the British authorities believe as I do that the whole Epstein episode was a honey trap designed to gain leverage over and extract information from society's leaders. The leverage and information were the payoff, and the sex was just a means to get it.
By charging as they did, they hope to keep this fact front and center, instead of taking the risk that it could be lost in the noise, or even ruled irrelevant, and therefor remain hidden.
Corporations and their apologists have been saying for decades that taxes are passed on to consumers. That is the main argument against taxing them.
If that is true, then the corporations are not entitled to a cent of the refund. When they apply for the refund, they must be forced to prove that it is not true, and that they did indeed pay some part of the tariffs out of profits or executive compensation.
While they might gain some money back from a tariff refund, they will lose their best argument against taxing them.
I will not take responsibility for the stupidity and treasonous actions of others. What I will do is continue to protest, make calls, donate, and yes, DEFY, this regime in any way I can. THAT is my responsibility.
Specific criticism is fine. Attacking is not. Democrats do not control Congress. As AOC pointed out recently, that means Democrats do not have the power to set the agenda of what the House or the Senate will take up. While I agree that Democratic strategy needs to be more effective, I think that we are in an evolving situation and that strategy will need to evolve, and we see it doing so. A number of Democrats in the House and Senate are taking action. We need to acknowledge those people instead of handing the corporate media yet another weapon that suggests there is no alternative to the Republicans.
If you think AOC can’t get her message through any time she wants… I’m not talking about legislative victories, I can count too. I will be happy to take things one by won. To wit if Jeffries and Schumer really are undercutting the push for a War Powers resolution then they should resign. See my comments elsewhere on Spanberger brilliance. Markey should step down. Warren seems clueless these days. Should I go on??
It turns out to be much easier to take the money than to give it back. The tariff were actually paid by the businesses that imported the products in question. In legalese, that gives them “standing” to file for refunds as we’ve seen a few firms do.
After that, things get very messy. Most businesses absorbed at least a little of the extra cost in the interests of not alienating customers before the final tariff landscape got settled. Next comes the consumer-level problem of documenting precisely what you bought, from whom, when, and how much you paid. Unless you go the “helicopter money” route—which is more or less what Governor Pritzker seems to be doing on behalf of the residents of Illinois—establishing a paper trail gets complicated. Bottom line, it’s more likely than not that any refunded tariffs will wind up in the pockets of the businesses that originally paid them rather than with the end purchasers of the taxed products.
All this further reinforces the monumental stupidity of the Trump regime in charging forward with these tariffs before the legal framework was settled.
Since I have made my position very clear on these old codgers who do nothing but collect their salaries and benefits vs. young and fresh people coming up with new ideas, which the Democratic party desperately needs, I am not even going to answer your comment directly anymore.
It turns out to be much easier to take the money than to give it back. The tariff were actually paid by the businesses that imported the products in question. In legalese, that gives them “standing” to file for refunds as we’ve seen a few firms do.
After that, things get very messy. Most businesses absorbed at least a little of the extra cost in the interests of not alienating customers before the final tariff landscape got settled. Next comes the consumer-level problem of documenting precisely what you bought, from whom, when, and how much you paid. Unless you go the “helicopter money” route—which is more or less what Governor Pritzker seems to be doing on behalf of the residents of Illinois—establishing a paper trail gets complicated. Bottom line, it’s more likely than not that any refunded tariffs will wind up in the pockets of the businesses that originally paid them rather than with the end purchasers of the taxed products.
All this further reinforces the monumental stupidity of the Trump regime in charging forward with these tariffs before the legal framework was settled.
I wonder how many of these small business owners voted for Trump. How are you feeling now? Will you finally concede that Trump has been picking your pockets illegally all along?
Many small business owners, farmers and ranchers didn't vote for tRump directly. They really voted for the Republican brand because it has always been probusiness - until tRump distorted it to be pro-billionaires.
I'll give them the benefit of doubt. They believed his lie that he was just supporting the traditional Republican brand and its pro-(small?) business posture. They didn't just vote for tRump. They also voted in State and local elections. Small businesses are everywhere. That's one reason so much of the country is RED at the county level. Democrats need to be more openly helpful for small family-owned businesses. As for large corporations, too much power without effective accountability in too few hands is always a bad idea.
I would love to believe that, but conservatives by their nature have a hard time with any kind of change. Sometimes it takes a new generation to implement change - remember how cooperative teens are?
The root cause of the mess we find ourselves in is that despite a plethora of evidence, a small plurality of voters elected a lifelong criminal - essentially a NY mob boss, to the presidency. And the bitch of it all is that there is no functional mechanism to unseat him. It may just take torches and pitchforks to effect change.
Sophia, let's hope so, but remember that hid "demise" has been predicted so many times before with a litany of scandals... perhaps in an ironic twist Great Britain, with its arrests of the former prince and Mandelson and ongoing investigations, will help us bring down a king.
The report that came out yesterday about a woman's claim that he sexually assaulted her as a minor which I posted about earlier cannot be denied. The survivors who silently suffered for decades have found their voice and will not go away. The DOJ will try to protect him but the unleashing will only swell....
The Brits are charging their Epstein miscreants with divulging state secrets, not with statutory rape. Maybe they believe that the whole Epstein was a honey trap designed to gain leverage over the rich and powerful, and to extract secrets them. By charging as they did, they wish to keep this aspect of it front and center.
It was a honey trap. The girls were the lure but the secrets were the goal.
After all he has said and done, I'm having a hard time imagining what is in the Epstein files that he wouldn't just shrug off. There would be the usual storm of controversy and then it goes away quickly when something else comes up.
He also wastes our money! How much is the government paying to pursue all his frivolous and malicious lawsuits against those he thinks have dis-respected him? How much did it cost to demolish the East Wing? Or tear up the Rose Garden? Or to kidnap Maduro? Or to send those carriers to Iran? How much does it cost to fly him to Mar a Lago for golf and R and R on weekends? Or for security for his adult children and their families? And so on, ad infinitum.
Calling Drumpf a thief is one of the nicer things we can say about him, and it is verifiably true. It would be gratifying to see him end his Presidency where he has found himself so often in the past—in bankruptcy.
I remember being a kid on a playground. Every so often a really mean kid would show up and make everyone miserable. You know the attitude:
What's mine is mine; what you have is mine if you are stupid or weak enough to prevent me from taking it. I got it, now it's mine because you are a loser and I'm a winner!
Thankfully most mean kids eventually learn better behavior, but not all. Some never do.
Making others suffer is part of the personality disorder. Read Mary Trump's books for a clear and thorough treatment.
Oops there are two definitions for "treatment" that might apply. I was referring to the thorough analysis, not the cure. (There is no cure that I am aware of.)
– It’s not bad enough to unleash untrained police with guns, gas and riot batons on our streets, near our schools and places of worship and commerce?
– To arrest children, terrorize neighborhoods, murder American citizens.
– To use our armed forces to attack small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, murdering the occupants without benefit of arrest and trial.
– To threaten members of Congress with capital trials because they stated military law.
– To cut off aid to Ukraine, fighting to preserve its fledgling democracy.
– To trash our European and Canadian alliances, or to threaten to use force to subdue… Greenland?!?
– To extract bribes and a Nobel Prize, or to make Ponzi-style cyber-currency deals.
– To defy court orders or accuse Supreme Court justices of foreign influence.
– To claim “transparency” while redacting evidence required under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
And it’s certainly not bad enough to withhold refunds of illegal tariffs, stealing from American businesses and consumers.
So, when will we finally decide to IMPEACH and REMOVE Trump and his coterie of criminals? Even one of these is justification. How much do we have to endure to please Trump?
It's our members of Congress who need convincing. With (currently) a 39% approval rating, it's clear that many people would be just fine with Trump's removal.
"“FedEx filed a lawsuit on Monday demanding a refund of the U.S. tariffs that the Supreme Court ruled were unlawful last week,” the New York Times reported."
That's all well and fine, but I wish the courts would rule that Trump pay back the money he stole with direct payments of $1185 per household ($160 billion divided by 135 million American households).
He should also have to add accrued interest, taken from his own ill-gotten gains over the past year.
If we had really good courts, they would also add a requirement that Trump ADMIT that his tariffs were illegal taxes that he is refunding to the voters.
The Lyin’ King & his unhinged bottom feeders are having trouble keeping their lies & propaganda straight.
The American government has a duty to protect law all law abiding residents regardless of citizenship status.
Biden’s last year added 8X more jobs than the 1st year of Trump’s “Golden Age”, but the unpatriotic “fools & lapdogs” that he appointed are sending us into bankruptcy?
The “I can do anything” Chosen One would by fiat change the plain language of the law & the constitution.
No Kings... Resist MAGA gangster grifter authoritarianism! Vote Sane. #VoteBlue!
And let us not forget that Congress could very well pass legislation to force the payback of the tariffs, but we all know they won't crosss their fearless leader.
Why does my heart stop every morning when I read the news? Can't the GOP get Gerald Ford back? Do they have to completely and repeatedly stand up and clap at the latest made-up statistic or fantasy? Is their livelihood dependent on constantly proving sycophancy through cheering for a volatile narcissist, philanderer, and fabulist?
Elected R's have, with very few exceptions, failed to rise to the challenge of being bullied by trump.
Fear of death threats, fear of being 'primary-ed' with candidates funded and promoted by billionaires who control media, rubber spine fecklessness, putting self interest over the public good (I'm getting mine'), lickspittle approach to religious nut jobs.
Their sins are many. They have the law making power to fend off many of those threats but they prefer to cower in fear. They are not good people and should never have been in a position requiring some common sense and a backbone.
Trump's tariff tantrums are wildly unconstitutional. As SCOTUS often emphasizes, the starting point of all attempts to faithfully comply with our Constitution must begin with its plain text. Most such efforts also should begin where our Constitution begins, i.e., by acknowledging that the People acted as the supreme legislative body for the United States (and the only legislative body for the United States in 1788).
“We the People of the United States” did in June 1788 (when the 9th state ratified the Constitution) “ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” To protect “ourselves and our Posterity,” the People declared “the supreme Law of the Land” and declared that “the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby” despite “any Thing” anywhere “to the Contrary.” The People also declared that “all executive and judicial Officers" and all legislators "of the United States and of [all] States” are “bound” always “to support this Constitution” in all official conduct.
Article I, Section 9 unambiguously established that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
Contrary to the lies of Justice Thomas about legislative powers, the very first legislative power in Article I, Section 8 is “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
Article I, Section 10 also specifically prohibited related powers or reserved related powers to the states. Note the emphasis on absolute necessity. The president likewise cannot have the power to impose tariffs "without the Consent of the Congress" except when "absolutely necessary." “No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress."
Moreover, Article I includes a crucial and categorical limitation on even the powers of Congress relevant here. The first sentence of Section 7 emphasizes that absolutely “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”
Trump, himself, insisted that tariffs were imposed to raise revenues. Even in his State of the Union Address, he made that very point repeatedly. He expressly said that tariffs might someday replace income taxes. Trump clearly illegally usurped the power to impose the tariffs that he arbitrarily made up. Trump’s current whining about SCOTUS not telling him what to do with all the revenue he raised only further highlights the illegality of what he did.
Vesting the powers to raise revenue exclusively in the House of Representatives always has been one of the most important pillars of the separation of powers between the sovereign people and all our public servants. Throughout American history, no exercise of actual or purported government power has made Americans literally fighting mad more than taking money out of their pockets.
One of the primary purposes of the entire American Revolution was to preclude “taxation without representation.” “No taxation without representation” is, to this day, the most famous rallying cry of the Revolution. To the people of the American Revolution, representation (regarding taxation) meant something specific—representation in Parliament, i.e., the body that had the power to legislate. That principle (and more) was addressed explicitly in our Constitution. To the people who wrote and ratified our Constitution, representation (regarding taxation) meant especially in the House of Representatives (hence the name).
The members of the House of Representatives are the representatives of the people who (from the outset) were most directly and most often subject to the approval or removal directly by the people. The second sentence of Article I emphasized that the people can replace any or even all the members of the House every two years: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.” That is a crucial limitation on the power of the House to initiate laws for which we, the people, will have to pay.
The part of the majority opinion addressing Federalist 58 and the part of the opinion of Justice Gorsuch criticizing Justice Thomas’s opinion are closest to telling the truth (being faithful to our Constitution). The opinions of Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh are worse than worthless.
All the opinions improperly emphasizing the “major questions doctrine” (the duty of Congress to be specific when it intends to delegate major powers) failed to consider the plain text of our Constitution and its plain purpose. The major questions doctrine is irrelevant to this issue. Moreover, it is a dangerous red herring.
James Madison in Federalist No. 58 emphasized the following crucial principles (at which the majority opinion in Learning Resources barely hinted):
"The [People vested in the] House of Representatives [the power to] refuse, [and vested in the House] alone [the power] propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. [The People vested in Congress, alone, the power to] hold the purse [which is a most] powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, [the] representation of the people gradually [attaining the power of] reducing [ ] all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government [i.e., the executive and judicial branches]. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance [against the executive or judicial branch] and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure [including those governing the executive or judicial branches]."
Trump's wild and absurd violations of our Constitution highlight the need to rediscover the method that the people commanded in the Constitution for how to accomplish the purposes stated in the Preamble ("to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity").
The People began Article I by emphasizing that “All legislative Powers” that were “granted” by the People “herein” (in our Constitution) were “vested in a Congress of the United States.” Obviously, the People vested in Congress, alone, the power to raise revenue or to govern international trade by means of any imposts or duties. The People began Article II by emphasizing that the People “vested in a President” only “executive Power.” Then, the People explained to the Congress and the President (and federal judges) the difference between legislative powers and executive powers that are relevant here.
In Article II the People commanded that the President “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” If the president thinks tariffs are necessary and expedient, he must make the case to Congress. If he needs help making his case, “he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices.”
Article I, Section 8 concluded by emphasizing that Congress, alone, has the power “To make all Laws” that are “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution [Congress’s enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof,” i.e., in the executive or judicial branches.
Article I, Section 7 commands the President to either “approve [Every Bill and] sign it” or “return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.” Then, Article II commands, the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
The foregoing provisions show generally how the executive power and the legislative power are required by the People by our Constitution to work together to represent the people and support our Constitution. Powers were separated and woven together into a fabric of government. It also illustrates how ours is “a government of laws, and not of men,” as John Adams put it in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, as Chief Justice John Marshall (writing for SCOTUS) reminded us in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, and as Justice Scalia reminded us in his dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson in 1988.
Donald Trump is running the United States of America just like he ran the six companies that he bankrupted, including casinos. When you have a casino, you have a permit to print money. Only a liar and thief can bankrupt a country and a casino.
The dictator’s obsession with tariffs is weirder than any of his other weird obsessions, and I think it’s because he thinks the money collected from tariffs actually belong to him. It’s his money, not the Treasury’s money or the country’s money. It all belongs to him. I can’t think of any other reason why telling him “No” to his tariffs pisses him off so much and why he just won’t let it go.
If you want to see what Trump is trying to do and be, watch the Netflix mini-series "Death by Lightning." The NY senator who controlled the revenues flowing from the port of NY is a smarter but no less venal, evil version of Trump.
I believe the starting point is Trump's ignorance of trade deficits. He believes that trade balances between trading partners should be equal. If they are not equal "they are ripping us off". I can demostrate the fallacy using Columbia as an example. We buy huge amounts of Columbian coffee every year and pay millions of dollars for that product. By comparison Columbia purchases a much smaller value in American products. There is clearly a trade imbalance as defined by Trump. According to Trump's trade philosophy, Columbia has to reimburse the US in some way to offset the trade imbalance. He slaps tariffs (taxes) on Columbian coffee which Americans pay to offset the gap. I hope you see how senseless this is. It might make more sense to forbid Americans to drink Columbian coffee.
Yeah i get all of that, but at the end if the day what really counts is that he believes the money belongs to him and him alone.
In no way does raising the price of coffee (or anything else) to the American consumer improve the imbalance of trade dollars. The coffee is still more expensive to us than what their consumers buy from us. It doesn't take Econ 101; it's common sense.
I've never had any doubt that the tariffs collected by the importers are diverted into his personal accounts, no doubt at all. US Treasury be damned. And now, it's tax season and we have to continue to pay income tax which will go into his personal accounts. That's why he ran for prez. Couldn't run his businesses, couldn't run a simple casino in the gambling city of the world, he failed on his shitty tv show, but he thought, obviously rightly, that he could bullshit enough people to vote him into office so he could steal our money. His sons said as much on some recent interviews as to why the "family" went into cryptocurrency, turned into investing in the ME, etc etc, because real banks refused to do business with these criminals. His kids tried to cry foul, but it was friggin' obvious what his presidency is really all about: steal from us and make them rich. And now, this massive charlatan thinks he has been "exonerated" from molesting young teenagers. Really? Where the hell did he get that exoneration, from his bimbo in the DOJ? His shit will catch up with him, of that I am sure, and when it does, he will go down in flames.
Right on...and in broad daylight! I'm putting all of my eggs in the Ebstein basket. The recent report that trump assaulted a minor and then hit her will bring about his demise. The woman was interviewed four times by the FBI and all four times are found in the file's index but only one was released! That's all the proof we need that DOP is blatantly covering up to protect this human sack of waste....
" The recent report that trump assaulted a minor and then hit her will bring about his demise."
We keep thinking that (fill in the blank) will be the last straw. Saying that he could shoot someone of 5th Avenue and get away with it should have done it. The J6 sedition should have done it. Allowing the shooting of our citizens in Minneapolis should have done it. The list goes on - and so does he. There must be an end somewhere, but when is enough enough?
You can't make cultists put aside their idol. They are good at closing their eyes and ears, protecting them from the truth. MAGA has become a religion, not a political party.
Even religions can fail when they become too top-heavy and restrictive.
Midterms....
The Midterm Election may help to slow him down, and if the majority in both houses changes (a dream, at this point) impeachment proceedings might become a reality.
Along with prison time...hopefully....
....Which would be highly appropriate.
His time is quickly coming to a head. His health is in decline, and his mind is so far off that he can't even speak a single coherent sentence. His doctors must be shooting him up with so many drugs to keep him going. How else could he talk for an hour and forty minutes? Given his known diet, he's a heartbeat away from a stroke, heart attack, or both. Then we'd be stuck with JD Hillbilly and Little Weasel Johnson.
The way Trump is going at it, it would be hard to believe that even JD would be worse.
The results of the midterm election should put 'Little Weasel' back on the back bench, or better still, out to pasture.
Britain is prosecuting their Epstein's miscreants with divulging state secrets instead of charging them with statutory rape. But why would they do this? Statutory rape carries hefty punishment.
Perhaps the British authorities believe as I do that the whole Epstein episode was a honey trap designed to gain leverage over and extract information from society's leaders. The leverage and information were the payoff, and the sex was just a means to get it.
By charging as they did, they hope to keep this fact front and center, instead of taking the risk that it could be lost in the noise, or even ruled irrelevant, and therefor remain hidden.
Interesting take!
I wish that the UK and EU would dump everything they have on Epstein on the internet all at once.
Mike, that's what the present charges are. I suspect more will follow once investigated further.
UK probably needs British victims to come forward to charge rape .
Our states possibly can extradite him. UK/US extradition treaty: https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/108th-congress/23/document-text
Corporations and their apologists have been saying for decades that taxes are passed on to consumers. That is the main argument against taxing them.
If that is true, then the corporations are not entitled to a cent of the refund. When they apply for the refund, they must be forced to prove that it is not true, and that they did indeed pay some part of the tariffs out of profits or executive compensation.
While they might gain some money back from a tariff refund, they will lose their best argument against taxing them.
Perfect. Exactly right. And let's not mention marriages to immigrants.
You mean badly, bigly! Right?
We must save our country from our mistake - yes we voted him in - of electing him as president.
Who is this "we" of which you speak?
Voters, whether voted for or against Trump, in democracy voters as a whole take responsibility for the result.
I will not take responsibility for the stupidity and treasonous actions of others. What I will do is continue to protest, make calls, donate, and yes, DEFY, this regime in any way I can. THAT is my responsibility.
More appropriately, SOME of us, with the help of the Electoral College seated him.
Yes. We want our money back!! Is a good and true rallying cry. Why are the Dems so slow?
Attacking Democrats achieves nothing.
Wrong.
Specific criticism is fine. Attacking is not. Democrats do not control Congress. As AOC pointed out recently, that means Democrats do not have the power to set the agenda of what the House or the Senate will take up. While I agree that Democratic strategy needs to be more effective, I think that we are in an evolving situation and that strategy will need to evolve, and we see it doing so. A number of Democrats in the House and Senate are taking action. We need to acknowledge those people instead of handing the corporate media yet another weapon that suggests there is no alternative to the Republicans.
If you think AOC can’t get her message through any time she wants… I’m not talking about legislative victories, I can count too. I will be happy to take things one by won. To wit if Jeffries and Schumer really are undercutting the push for a War Powers resolution then they should resign. See my comments elsewhere on Spanberger brilliance. Markey should step down. Warren seems clueless these days. Should I go on??
Because they are slow. And timid.
It turns out to be much easier to take the money than to give it back. The tariff were actually paid by the businesses that imported the products in question. In legalese, that gives them “standing” to file for refunds as we’ve seen a few firms do.
After that, things get very messy. Most businesses absorbed at least a little of the extra cost in the interests of not alienating customers before the final tariff landscape got settled. Next comes the consumer-level problem of documenting precisely what you bought, from whom, when, and how much you paid. Unless you go the “helicopter money” route—which is more or less what Governor Pritzker seems to be doing on behalf of the residents of Illinois—establishing a paper trail gets complicated. Bottom line, it’s more likely than not that any refunded tariffs will wind up in the pockets of the businesses that originally paid them rather than with the end purchasers of the taxed products.
All this further reinforces the monumental stupidity of the Trump regime in charging forward with these tariffs before the legal framework was settled.
which is why it is a perfect rallying cry, dumbkopf.
Very good question! Probably because too many of them are too old, but keep holding on. I hope they all get primaried by younger candidates this year.
Youth is no guarantee of competence, nor is age a guarantee of incompetence. Evaluate each candidate by qualifications not age.
Since I have made my position very clear on these old codgers who do nothing but collect their salaries and benefits vs. young and fresh people coming up with new ideas, which the Democratic party desperately needs, I am not even going to answer your comment directly anymore.
It turns out to be much easier to take the money than to give it back. The tariff were actually paid by the businesses that imported the products in question. In legalese, that gives them “standing” to file for refunds as we’ve seen a few firms do.
After that, things get very messy. Most businesses absorbed at least a little of the extra cost in the interests of not alienating customers before the final tariff landscape got settled. Next comes the consumer-level problem of documenting precisely what you bought, from whom, when, and how much you paid. Unless you go the “helicopter money” route—which is more or less what Governor Pritzker seems to be doing on behalf of the residents of Illinois—establishing a paper trail gets complicated. Bottom line, it’s more likely than not that any refunded tariffs will wind up in the pockets of the businesses that originally paid them rather than with the end purchasers of the taxed products.
All this further reinforces the monumental stupidity of the Trump regime in charging forward with these tariffs before the legal framework was settled.
I wonder how many of these small business owners voted for Trump. How are you feeling now? Will you finally concede that Trump has been picking your pockets illegally all along?
Many small business owners, farmers and ranchers didn't vote for tRump directly. They really voted for the Republican brand because it has always been probusiness - until tRump distorted it to be pro-billionaires.
True as far as it goes - who created the current Republican brand? They did. Come on, they voted for trump.
I'll give them the benefit of doubt. They believed his lie that he was just supporting the traditional Republican brand and its pro-(small?) business posture. They didn't just vote for tRump. They also voted in State and local elections. Small businesses are everywhere. That's one reason so much of the country is RED at the county level. Democrats need to be more openly helpful for small family-owned businesses. As for large corporations, too much power without effective accountability in too few hands is always a bad idea.
Assume they voted for Trump the first time and should have seen the direction that he was going. The saying "Fool me once" comes to mind.
I would love to believe that, but conservatives by their nature have a hard time with any kind of change. Sometimes it takes a new generation to implement change - remember how cooperative teens are?
Resistance to change is the core definition of conservatism.
Why stereotype teens? As with most ages, acceptance to change depends a lot upon what the object or subject of change is.
“Trump stole our money”
Trump stole our COUNTRY! And….”we want it back!”
Spot on, Justin. 👏🏼
The root cause of the mess we find ourselves in is that despite a plethora of evidence, a small plurality of voters elected a lifelong criminal - essentially a NY mob boss, to the presidency. And the bitch of it all is that there is no functional mechanism to unseat him. It may just take torches and pitchforks to effect change.
The Epstein files will bring about his demise...watch!
Sophia, let's hope so, but remember that hid "demise" has been predicted so many times before with a litany of scandals... perhaps in an ironic twist Great Britain, with its arrests of the former prince and Mandelson and ongoing investigations, will help us bring down a king.
The report that came out yesterday about a woman's claim that he sexually assaulted her as a minor which I posted about earlier cannot be denied. The survivors who silently suffered for decades have found their voice and will not go away. The DOJ will try to protect him but the unleashing will only swell....
Agreed. But he's a squirmer and has the assistance of the DOJ and FBI. POTUS = Pedophile Of The United States.
Perfect monicker!
The Brits are charging their Epstein miscreants with divulging state secrets, not with statutory rape. Maybe they believe that the whole Epstein was a honey trap designed to gain leverage over the rich and powerful, and to extract secrets them. By charging as they did, they wish to keep this aspect of it front and center.
It was a honey trap. The girls were the lure but the secrets were the goal.
After all he has said and done, I'm having a hard time imagining what is in the Epstein files that he wouldn't just shrug off. There would be the usual storm of controversy and then it goes away quickly when something else comes up.
From your lips…
He also wastes our money! How much is the government paying to pursue all his frivolous and malicious lawsuits against those he thinks have dis-respected him? How much did it cost to demolish the East Wing? Or tear up the Rose Garden? Or to kidnap Maduro? Or to send those carriers to Iran? How much does it cost to fly him to Mar a Lago for golf and R and R on weekends? Or for security for his adult children and their families? And so on, ad infinitum.
Don't forget his flunkies, like FBI chief Patel flying on our dime to look for criminals in the locker rooms at the Olympics......
Most of the cabinet has their hands in the cookie jar. Don't forget Noem's Big Beautiful Airplane and love shack.
Calling Drumpf a thief is one of the nicer things we can say about him, and it is verifiably true. It would be gratifying to see him end his Presidency where he has found himself so often in the past—in bankruptcy.
The biggest grift in world history 😡. Criminal in Chief.
I remember being a kid on a playground. Every so often a really mean kid would show up and make everyone miserable. You know the attitude:
What's mine is mine; what you have is mine if you are stupid or weak enough to prevent me from taking it. I got it, now it's mine because you are a loser and I'm a winner!
Thankfully most mean kids eventually learn better behavior, but not all. Some never do.
Making others suffer is part of the personality disorder. Read Mary Trump's books for a clear and thorough treatment.
"Read Mary Trump's books for a clear and thorough treatment."
So when is this treatment going to start, and who is going to do it?" We're waiting....
Oops there are two definitions for "treatment" that might apply. I was referring to the thorough analysis, not the cure. (There is no cure that I am aware of.)
It’s not bad enough?
– It’s not bad enough to unleash untrained police with guns, gas and riot batons on our streets, near our schools and places of worship and commerce?
– To arrest children, terrorize neighborhoods, murder American citizens.
– To use our armed forces to attack small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, murdering the occupants without benefit of arrest and trial.
– To threaten members of Congress with capital trials because they stated military law.
– To cut off aid to Ukraine, fighting to preserve its fledgling democracy.
– To trash our European and Canadian alliances, or to threaten to use force to subdue… Greenland?!?
– To extract bribes and a Nobel Prize, or to make Ponzi-style cyber-currency deals.
– To defy court orders or accuse Supreme Court justices of foreign influence.
– To claim “transparency” while redacting evidence required under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
And it’s certainly not bad enough to withhold refunds of illegal tariffs, stealing from American businesses and consumers.
So, when will we finally decide to IMPEACH and REMOVE Trump and his coterie of criminals? Even one of these is justification. How much do we have to endure to please Trump?
It's our members of Congress who need convincing. With (currently) a 39% approval rating, it's clear that many people would be just fine with Trump's removal.
"“FedEx filed a lawsuit on Monday demanding a refund of the U.S. tariffs that the Supreme Court ruled were unlawful last week,” the New York Times reported."
That's all well and fine, but I wish the courts would rule that Trump pay back the money he stole with direct payments of $1185 per household ($160 billion divided by 135 million American households).
He should also have to add accrued interest, taken from his own ill-gotten gains over the past year.
If we had really good courts, they would also add a requirement that Trump ADMIT that his tariffs were illegal taxes that he is refunding to the voters.
How much Trump regime corruption & racism is too much? https://youtube.com/shorts/3AZWEGyvqZ8?si=_UdnUBBmFTM9A8tb
The Lyin’ King & his unhinged bottom feeders are having trouble keeping their lies & propaganda straight.
The American government has a duty to protect law all law abiding residents regardless of citizenship status.
Biden’s last year added 8X more jobs than the 1st year of Trump’s “Golden Age”, but the unpatriotic “fools & lapdogs” that he appointed are sending us into bankruptcy?
The “I can do anything” Chosen One would by fiat change the plain language of the law & the constitution.
No Kings... Resist MAGA gangster grifter authoritarianism! Vote Sane. #VoteBlue!
And let us not forget that Congress could very well pass legislation to force the payback of the tariffs, but we all know they won't crosss their fearless leader.
Why does my heart stop every morning when I read the news? Can't the GOP get Gerald Ford back? Do they have to completely and repeatedly stand up and clap at the latest made-up statistic or fantasy? Is their livelihood dependent on constantly proving sycophancy through cheering for a volatile narcissist, philanderer, and fabulist?
Elected R's have, with very few exceptions, failed to rise to the challenge of being bullied by trump.
Fear of death threats, fear of being 'primary-ed' with candidates funded and promoted by billionaires who control media, rubber spine fecklessness, putting self interest over the public good (I'm getting mine'), lickspittle approach to religious nut jobs.
Their sins are many. They have the law making power to fend off many of those threats but they prefer to cower in fear. They are not good people and should never have been in a position requiring some common sense and a backbone.
everyday, more chaos, more 'news' that churns our collective stomachs. We can only dream of the calm constructive administrations of the past.
Trump's tariff tantrums are wildly unconstitutional. As SCOTUS often emphasizes, the starting point of all attempts to faithfully comply with our Constitution must begin with its plain text. Most such efforts also should begin where our Constitution begins, i.e., by acknowledging that the People acted as the supreme legislative body for the United States (and the only legislative body for the United States in 1788).
“We the People of the United States” did in June 1788 (when the 9th state ratified the Constitution) “ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” To protect “ourselves and our Posterity,” the People declared “the supreme Law of the Land” and declared that “the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby” despite “any Thing” anywhere “to the Contrary.” The People also declared that “all executive and judicial Officers" and all legislators "of the United States and of [all] States” are “bound” always “to support this Constitution” in all official conduct.
Article I, Section 9 unambiguously established that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
Contrary to the lies of Justice Thomas about legislative powers, the very first legislative power in Article I, Section 8 is “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
Article I, Section 10 also specifically prohibited related powers or reserved related powers to the states. Note the emphasis on absolute necessity. The president likewise cannot have the power to impose tariffs "without the Consent of the Congress" except when "absolutely necessary." “No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress."
Moreover, Article I includes a crucial and categorical limitation on even the powers of Congress relevant here. The first sentence of Section 7 emphasizes that absolutely “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”
Trump, himself, insisted that tariffs were imposed to raise revenues. Even in his State of the Union Address, he made that very point repeatedly. He expressly said that tariffs might someday replace income taxes. Trump clearly illegally usurped the power to impose the tariffs that he arbitrarily made up. Trump’s current whining about SCOTUS not telling him what to do with all the revenue he raised only further highlights the illegality of what he did.
Vesting the powers to raise revenue exclusively in the House of Representatives always has been one of the most important pillars of the separation of powers between the sovereign people and all our public servants. Throughout American history, no exercise of actual or purported government power has made Americans literally fighting mad more than taking money out of their pockets.
One of the primary purposes of the entire American Revolution was to preclude “taxation without representation.” “No taxation without representation” is, to this day, the most famous rallying cry of the Revolution. To the people of the American Revolution, representation (regarding taxation) meant something specific—representation in Parliament, i.e., the body that had the power to legislate. That principle (and more) was addressed explicitly in our Constitution. To the people who wrote and ratified our Constitution, representation (regarding taxation) meant especially in the House of Representatives (hence the name).
The members of the House of Representatives are the representatives of the people who (from the outset) were most directly and most often subject to the approval or removal directly by the people. The second sentence of Article I emphasized that the people can replace any or even all the members of the House every two years: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.” That is a crucial limitation on the power of the House to initiate laws for which we, the people, will have to pay.
The part of the majority opinion addressing Federalist 58 and the part of the opinion of Justice Gorsuch criticizing Justice Thomas’s opinion are closest to telling the truth (being faithful to our Constitution). The opinions of Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh are worse than worthless.
All the opinions improperly emphasizing the “major questions doctrine” (the duty of Congress to be specific when it intends to delegate major powers) failed to consider the plain text of our Constitution and its plain purpose. The major questions doctrine is irrelevant to this issue. Moreover, it is a dangerous red herring.
James Madison in Federalist No. 58 emphasized the following crucial principles (at which the majority opinion in Learning Resources barely hinted):
"The [People vested in the] House of Representatives [the power to] refuse, [and vested in the House] alone [the power] propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. [The People vested in Congress, alone, the power to] hold the purse [which is a most] powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, [the] representation of the people gradually [attaining the power of] reducing [ ] all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government [i.e., the executive and judicial branches]. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance [against the executive or judicial branch] and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure [including those governing the executive or judicial branches]."
Trump's wild and absurd violations of our Constitution highlight the need to rediscover the method that the people commanded in the Constitution for how to accomplish the purposes stated in the Preamble ("to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity").
The People began Article I by emphasizing that “All legislative Powers” that were “granted” by the People “herein” (in our Constitution) were “vested in a Congress of the United States.” Obviously, the People vested in Congress, alone, the power to raise revenue or to govern international trade by means of any imposts or duties. The People began Article II by emphasizing that the People “vested in a President” only “executive Power.” Then, the People explained to the Congress and the President (and federal judges) the difference between legislative powers and executive powers that are relevant here.
In Article II the People commanded that the President “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” If the president thinks tariffs are necessary and expedient, he must make the case to Congress. If he needs help making his case, “he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices.”
Article I, Section 8 concluded by emphasizing that Congress, alone, has the power “To make all Laws” that are “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution [Congress’s enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof,” i.e., in the executive or judicial branches.
Article I, Section 7 commands the President to either “approve [Every Bill and] sign it” or “return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.” Then, Article II commands, the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
The foregoing provisions show generally how the executive power and the legislative power are required by the People by our Constitution to work together to represent the people and support our Constitution. Powers were separated and woven together into a fabric of government. It also illustrates how ours is “a government of laws, and not of men,” as John Adams put it in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, as Chief Justice John Marshall (writing for SCOTUS) reminded us in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, and as Justice Scalia reminded us in his dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson in 1988.
We want our money back, AND we want prices to return to pre-tariff levels.