Tariffs Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter BubbaOtis
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 150K
  • Politics 
UNCatTech said:
I feel bad for them also, it's a demanding job with little gratitude or reward, but if any group should have had an idea how bad the tariffs are, this group should have.
Click to expand...
Don't feel that bad. Most farmers aren't really being hurt. I couldn't find a good survey but these two data points allow for quite a bit of extrapolation when you look at production share and such. I'm expecting that bottom 74% are fairly unscathed and the top 6% already deep in the public trough.

• The 105,384 farms with sales of $1 million or more were 6% of U.S. farms and 31% of farmland; they sold more than three-fourths of all agricultural products. The 1.4 million farms with sales of $50,000 or less accounted for 74% of farms, 25% of farmland and 2% of sales.
 
superrific said:
1. It will not be hard to bail them out with or without tariffs.
2. I would expect all of the counter tariffs to be paused during any pause of American tariffs. Well, all that matter. The Chinese ones don't matter that much because tariffs don't drive the structure of China's import policies.
3. I don't think it's cool to screw over farmers like this. Yes, I enjoy FAFO to some degree, but here the FO seems disproportionate. It's not "oh, you voted for deportations but don't like the fact that your neighbor got deported." It's more like, "your guy used you as cannon fodder, like he said he would" and up until this point I'm okay with chortling, but what you're suggesting is like adding, "and he's still sending the cannon fodder into the barbed wire after the war is over"
4. The tariffs are not dead yet, not until the Supreme Court has its say.
Click to expand...


By it won't be hard to bail them out, do you mean just add to the deficit?

Its not cool to screw our farmers. I agree with that. But it could get interesting to see Trump having to explain what he's done to farmers. That could be cool.
 
superrific said:
Hey Rand, I don't care that all much what you've always said.

I do care that what you do, and what you've done is largely rubber stamp the unilateral power Trump now claims. Let's see what you have to say about the anti-contempt provisions of the House bill.
Click to expand...
Does the House bill set the minimum amount of the undertaking in order to enforce through contempt? If not, courts could set the undertaking at $1 under FRCP 65(c).
 
I feel quite confident that Supreme Court is going to stay these rulings. I don't mean confident in a good way, it's just that I think they are going to stay any judgment that implicates executive presidential power at all.
 
Calheel said:
Does the House bill set the minimum amount of the undertaking in order to enforce through contempt? If not, courts could set the undertaking at $1 under FRCP 65(c).
Click to expand...
$1 is OK, per my understanding. But the thing is, the bond has to have been paid at the beginning of the case. If the bond wasn't paid at the outset, then there is no jurisdiction.

The primary purpose of that provision, in my view, isn't to strip courts of their contempt powers in any meaningful way. It's to insulate Trump and the administration from the PIs already entered in the present cases.
 
superrific said:
I feel quite confident that Supreme Court is going to stay these rulings. I don't mean confident in a good way, it's just that I think they are going to stay any judgment that implicates executive presidential power at all.
Click to expand...
Then they may as well put the Constitution in the supreme court toilets for wiping purposes.
 
uncgriff said:
Then they may as well put the Constitution in the supreme court toilets for wiping purposes.
Click to expand...
Well, they are just staying the orders until the Supreme Court has a chance to review. It really comes down to what the Court thinks should happen as they wait to address it on the merits.

So far, the Court has decided that most of the lower court judgments should be stayed, because apparently the injury to the government of not being able to enforce rules that we lived without for hundreds of years and were put in place in this calendar year is irreparable, whereas "merely" "financial" injuries are not because you can get a money judgment. Assuming your business is still around, a detail the Court doesn't mention.

The exception has been the Court's recognition that being sent to a torture prison is an irreparable injury for the prisoners. They've not stayed orders that implicate habeus. Otherwise, they are letting Trump get away with everything while they decide.

That's not exactly wiping one's butt with the constitution. Maybe it's more like using the constitution to wipe one's brow when nervous. Still bad. It could get worse if the court reaches the wrong conclusion on many of these issues.
 
finesse said:
Don't feel that bad. Most farmers aren't really being hurt. I couldn't find a good survey but these two data points allow for quite a bit of extrapolation when you look at production share and such. I'm expecting that bottom 74% are fairly unscathed and the top 6% already deep in the public trough.

• The 105,384 farms with sales of $1 million or more were 6% of U.S. farms and 31% of farmland; they sold more than three-fourths of all agricultural products. The 1.4 million farms with sales of $50,000 or less accounted for 74% of farms, 25% of farmland and 2% of sales.
Click to expand...

I don't feel bad for anyone that voted for that clown.
 
superrific said:
$1 is OK, per my understanding. But the thing is, the bond has to have been paid at the beginning of the case. If the bond wasn't paid at the outset, then there is no jurisdiction.

The primary purpose of that provision, in my view, isn't to strip courts of their contempt powers in any meaningful way. It's to insulate Trump and the administration from the PIs already entered in the present cases.
Click to expand...
I just read the bill. Bond has to be paid at time injunction is issued. The retroactive application of that law would probably be struck down on Article III grounds. Shoot, the prospective application of that law would probably be struck down on Article III grounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top