I completely agree that Howard Lutnick's former employer was acting in a disgusting manner by the simple act of exploring this lawsuit lottery scheme. His brazenness is extreme. Almost as bad as Hunter Biden using his dad's access to get private deals for the family.
I say, "almost," because Hunter's actions should have been a warning. But the more things change, the more things stay the same. But I guess Howard Lugnut could come up with the excuse that he's not doing this to benefit Trump's family. But their dealings are an even worse example than either of those others.
It’s actually worse. The consumer pays the $30 once and the checkout and then pays for the refund to the corp again in the form of taxes. It’s diabolical. You have to wonder if many of these seemingly stupid decisions are not actually intentional.
p.s. To be honest, Trump probably realizes Section 122 is on shaky legal ground too. But he's using it anyway to buy time while his administration completes the lengthier Section 301 investigations into "unfair trade practices" - the one legal path that might actually work. Those investigations take months to complete, but they could provide solid justification for tariffs on countries like China for dumping practices. Meanwhile, the Section 122 litigation will drag on for another year or two, giving Trump political cover to claim he's "fighting for American workers" while lawyers battle it out in court.
Thanks for the great question, Al! Yes, tariffs are legally established as taxes... also, the Supreme Court was explicit about this in Friday's ruling.
On Section 122: Congress passed this law back in 1974, giving presidents authority to impose tariffs up to 15% for 150 days during "balance-of-payments deficits." Trump is now using that 50-year-old authority. But the constitutional issue isn't whether Congress delegated the power (they did), but whether Trump is stretching Section 122 beyond what it was designed for. The law requires specific economic conditions - "large and serious balance-of-payments deficits" - that many people say don't exist right now. That's why 'legal challenges' are already baked in the cake.
Doug, I am here in Johannesburg but what you have inked here is troubling as if I were an American.. My take is that if the US is on the way to hell by way of tariffs, etc, include South Africa as well..
I completely agree that Howard Lutnick's former employer was acting in a disgusting manner by the simple act of exploring this lawsuit lottery scheme. His brazenness is extreme. Almost as bad as Hunter Biden using his dad's access to get private deals for the family.
I say, "almost," because Hunter's actions should have been a warning. But the more things change, the more things stay the same. But I guess Howard Lugnut could come up with the excuse that he's not doing this to benefit Trump's family. But their dealings are an even worse example than either of those others.
The Good The BAD and THE UGLY except can't find anything in this that's good other than telling the truth about it. Thanks for that.
It’s actually worse. The consumer pays the $30 once and the checkout and then pays for the refund to the corp again in the form of taxes. It’s diabolical. You have to wonder if many of these seemingly stupid decisions are not actually intentional.
good article doug, also thanks to the commenter who told that lutnick is amisch.
I'm a little confused. Congress has to approve taxes, and you say tariffs are taxes. I don't know if that's been legally established?
Anyway, hasn't Congress already approved tariffs under the tax act section 122?
p.s. To be honest, Trump probably realizes Section 122 is on shaky legal ground too. But he's using it anyway to buy time while his administration completes the lengthier Section 301 investigations into "unfair trade practices" - the one legal path that might actually work. Those investigations take months to complete, but they could provide solid justification for tariffs on countries like China for dumping practices. Meanwhile, the Section 122 litigation will drag on for another year or two, giving Trump political cover to claim he's "fighting for American workers" while lawyers battle it out in court.
Thanks for the great question, Al! Yes, tariffs are legally established as taxes... also, the Supreme Court was explicit about this in Friday's ruling.
On Section 122: Congress passed this law back in 1974, giving presidents authority to impose tariffs up to 15% for 150 days during "balance-of-payments deficits." Trump is now using that 50-year-old authority. But the constitutional issue isn't whether Congress delegated the power (they did), but whether Trump is stretching Section 122 beyond what it was designed for. The law requires specific economic conditions - "large and serious balance-of-payments deficits" - that many people say don't exist right now. That's why 'legal challenges' are already baked in the cake.
Doug, I am here in Johannesburg but what you have inked here is troubling as if I were an American.. My take is that if the US is on the way to hell by way of tariffs, etc, include South Africa as well..
As I recall, Cantor Fitzgerald also shorted American Airlines stock in the days leading up to 9/11.
And Lutnick is Amish, yes?
I may be detecting a degree of sarcasm, but my sensor is not fully functional...NOT Amish, no