Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

771–780 of 843 posts

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#771

Post by watwut »

nothrabannosir wrote: post #768
watwut wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law applying to powerful high level people is a good thing. The state where law binds only weak people and can be safely broken by rich and powerful is the bad one. As of now, the law applies to me. I am on that "other side". It officially does not apply to Trump at all. And billionaires and administration can safely ignore it, although there is at least pretension of the law technically maybe applying to them.

Which actual law should send them to jail? The law is constantly applied to Trump and his administration. The judicial branch keeps reining him in: National guard, ice, tariffs—-literally TFA for Pete’s sake. Parent post isn’t about any specific law, it’s about wanting to see a result and working backwards from there: my political opponents should go to jail. Guess what will happen? The administration after that will…

1.) Supreme court literally decided that Trump can not commit crime while in the office. Full stop.

2.) Trump was convinced of felony. That does not apply to him, because he is a president.

3.) This administration ignores the courts.

> If you genuinely want Trump to go to jail , get Congress to create actual laws that he’d be breaking,

They actually did made those laws. Supreme court decided to either rewrite those law or that they simply dont matter.

> The judicial branch is the only one left doing its job. The law applies.

Not the supreme court.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#772

Post by watwut »

braincat31415 wrote: post #770
watwut wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who voted for Trump were pretty clear about what their issues were. They wanted to bully trans and they wanted to stick it to the libs. They were looking forward to liberals suffering. Some of them would never vote for a woman or black person. They liked masculinity Trump projects - aggressive insulting fraudster. There is no mystery about that.

That's exactly the kind of simplistic thinking that I was talking about. People had legitimate concerns about cost of living, food inflation (look at the charts of food prices 2020-2024), ballooning national debt, military adventures, crime, fraud, expensive housing and rent. I could go on. Trump's government is unlikely to offer any solutions to the above, but that's a different story. Voting because they wanted lib…

Frankly, that is just lying to yourself.

None of that favored Trump. National debt, military adventures, crime, fraud - all of those are consistently better under democratic administrations. They are consistently worst under republican administrations. Trump himself committed crimes and it was very clear he will be more corrupt then anyone before him. Trump himself talked like someone who will be aggressive ... and here we are with Venezuela, Iran clusterfuck.

> expensive housing and rent

People who genuinely cared about those did not voted for Trump. However, some used these as excuse.

> Voting because they wanted libs to suffer... sheesh.

Yes. I say so because I was actually listening to what conservatives said and did. Yes, if you do not read what they actually say, there was a lot of sane-washing going on. But, you have to ignore what Trump voters were actually saying in conservative places.

> Most people are not that dumb and have objective reasons to vote a certain way.

Their priorities are not what you say they are. It is simple as that.

> Any party that wants to stay in power longer will have to address these issues. Do you really think an average family is more concerned about trans issues than their inability to afford a house?

Frankly, yes, MANY conservative people were radicalized by that prospect. That is why Trump team made created culture war about it prior election and why they do it now too.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#773

Post by bdangubic »

nothrabannosir wrote: post #768
watwut wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law applying to powerful high level people is a good thing. The state where law binds only weak people and can be safely broken by rich and powerful is the bad one. As of now, the law applies to me. I am on that "other side". It officially does not apply to Trump at all. And billionaires and administration can safely ignore it, although there is at least pretension of the law technically maybe applying to them.

Which actual law should send them to jail? The law is constantly applied to Trump and his administration. The judicial branch keeps reining him in: National guard, ice, tariffs—-literally TFA for Pete’s sake. Parent post isn’t about any specific law, it’s about wanting to see a result and working backwards from there: my political opponents should go to jail. Guess what will happen? The administration after that will…

> If you genuinely want Trump to go to jail , get Congress to create actual laws that he’d be breaking, with actual clear unmistakable language about its consequences. Trammel up the votes in the midterms. SCOTUS will enforce it: they have done so, every time, when Congress is clear and decisive. They have indicated as much! The judicial branch is the only one left doing its job. The law applies. You don’t like how it looks, and you’re not alone, but it applies.

So much good will here but oh so misguided. First of all, the judicial branch is not doing its job and hasn't done so in quite some time. The SCOTUS in particular is just an extension of a political party now and not judicial branch in any way. You give me a case and 99% of Americans will tell you exactly how each judge on SCOTUS will rule, 99% of the time. This is not "judicial branch is the only one left doing its job" - they are currently (not a recent thing though but now it has become comical) just an extension of a political party, nothing more and are absolutely not doing any job at all other then rubber-stamping shit based on their political dogma.

The "get Congress to create actual laws he'd be breaking" is even more comical. You think they can write laws that clearly state where the power of the Presidency stops in some sense and then legal ramifications of going over that power? C'mon mate...

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#774

Post by Saline9515 »

epolanski wrote: post #767
Saline9515 wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France has arguably the most presidential regime of the OECD, while it's not without faults it's not horrible either. Parliamentary regimes optimize for coalition stability which weakens them and forces to always take the path of least resistance, which isn't usually the best one.

> Parliamentary regimes optimize for coalition stability which weakens them and forces to always take the path of least resistance, which isn't usually the best one. This is good: we live in objectively good times and safe/wealthy countries where problems are relatively minor and we should focus on debating and compromising, not having know-it-all unbounded captains. Our first focus is risk management: not having sys…

Well it depends : you can easily slip into a "tyranny of the majority" setup where the parties in power don't need to accommodate the needs of the minority. Also if your regime is optimized for solving minor issues, it will have a hard time when there are important ones.

In general, there is no silver bullet, and as Solon (creator of the first constitution in the Antiquity) put it, each country will need a custom regime to fit its specific culture and society.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#775

Post by Saline9515 »

stefan_ wrote: post #703
Saline9515 wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France has arguably the most presidential regime of the OECD, while it's not without faults it's not horrible either. Parliamentary regimes optimize for coalition stability which weakens them and forces to always take the path of least resistance, which isn't usually the best one.

I don't know about that, somehow Macron is still around. Who knows what he will come up with to extend his time while having zero support.

Macron is still around because France is a presidential regime and he can't be removed.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#776

Post by loeg »

mejutoco wrote: post #723
loeg wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SOFR is only around 3.7%. And it's, you know, an annualized rate. The earliest liberation day tariffs are only around 11 months old at this point.

My source was: ``` The government has collected perhaps $180bn in IEEPA tariffs. Over the past year 1,800 companies—including Goodyear, a tyre-maker, and Costco, a retailer—have filed lawsuits to protect their right to a refund should the Supreme Court overturn them. They are now owed this money, equivalent to roughly 5% of the profits companies generated in America last year, or 0.6% of GDP—plus interest, compounded…

Interesting! Seems generous.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#777

Post by nebula8804 »

Herring wrote: post #339
nebula8804 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we fix this should be the question asked. Is it even possible at this point? I guess there is no free lunch, each person who realizes the importance of education has to start taking it seriously right now and spend their lives getting their community to start taking it seriously and maybe hopefully the next generation can emerge much better off. We let this mess fester for decades and now we are paying for it…

Education is a public good, therefore good education is socialist, and Americans are very hyper-individualist (aka antisocial). History suggests that Americans generally only move toward communal support systems during extreme crises, like the shift during the Great Depression. Even Covid wasn't enough to get people asking for universal healthcare, it has to be much worse. Overcoming 'American Exceptionalism' to adop…

I'd argue from the founding of the country all the way up to Nixon/Reagan the country took education seriously. It wasn't due to economic crisis as there were many since the founding. There was this sense of societal responsibility that has disappeared.

Re: Judge orders government to begin refunding more than $130B in tariffs

#780

Post by kakacik »

braincat31415 wrote: post #770
watwut wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who voted for Trump were pretty clear about what their issues were. They wanted to bully trans and they wanted to stick it to the libs. They were looking forward to liberals suffering. Some of them would never vote for a woman or black person. They liked masculinity Trump projects - aggressive insulting fraudster. There is no mystery about that.

That's exactly the kind of simplistic thinking that I was talking about. People had legitimate concerns about cost of living, food inflation (look at the charts of food prices 2020-2024), ballooning national debt, military adventures, crime, fraud, expensive housing and rent. I could go on. Trump's government is unlikely to offer any solutions to the above, but that's a different story. Voting because they wanted lib…

Unfortunately you are pretty much out of touch with reality. What parent wrote is true for large swaths of voters (sticking it to libs - any regular US forum I ever opened was full of 'libtards' and other worse insults even on completely unrelated topics... or just go to bible south, even completely ignoring racism and bigotry topic).

Sure, thats not all, then there are folks believing that a criminal, notorious liar, populist and suspected pedophile is going to do magic unheard of in reality. Very smart, what could go wrong...

Solution of the issues you write would move US to highly regulated country maybe like France, which is unpassable in US and would cause massive issues down the line. Also, the issues you list are valid for basically whole world, has many reasons and US republicans are the very last group of people in a long line of people who would tackle specifically those effectively, they usually go into opposite direction.

Post reply on HN