Stalin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2008
- Messages
- 3,954
Anyone expecting anything less than a litany of lies from the hapless frump and his lickspittles is fooling themselves as this
article shows...
"... A central plank of the Trump administration’s economic policy agenda has been the imposition of sweeping tariffs against friend and foe alike, especially after the unveiling of the all-embracing “reciprocal tariffs” on April 2.
According to Trump, his officials and acolytes, the revenue they bring will reduce the US budget deficit, its record debt, fund tax cuts for the corporations and the wealthy, create jobs and lift wages and in general create the conditions for a new “golden age” for American capitalism.
Trump has continually boasted of the hundreds of billions of dollars flowing into the coffers of the US, reversing the previous situation in which it has been “ripped off” by the rest of the world.
But in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, was singing a very different tune. The occasion was the appeal by the Trump regime to the court to have rulings by two lower courts that the reciprocal tariffs, imposed or threatened by Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, are illegal.
Sauer submitted that revenue raising was not the primary purpose of the tariffs.
“These are regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue-raising tariffs. The fact that they raise revenue is only incidental. The tariffs would be most effective so to speak if, if no person ever paid them,” he said.
The reason for the switch was an attempt to get round the legal argument that Trump exceeded his powers to act under the IEEPA because it makes no mention of tariffs or any of the synonyms such as duties, taxes or imposts.
The thrust of Sauer’s argument was that the reciprocal tariffs were not about revenue but were part of the conduct of foreign policy and therefore fell under the president’s authority.
“If the threat of imposing those tariffs gets China and our other trading partners across the world to change their behaviours in a way that addresses this, then that’s the most effective use of this policy,” he said.
The switch of argument by Sauer during hearing—in its initial submission the administration said if it were forced to repay the tariffs it would cause economic devastation—is another example of the capacity of the Trump regime to argue black is white today and the reverse tomorrow.
But there was an element of truth in Sauer’s remarks.
The issue is not the revenue the tariffs produce but the way they can be used to achieve foreign policy objectives, above all in the economic war against China. This involves not only measures aimed directly against Beijing, but also at breaking the economic and trade ties that a multitude of countries have with China, particularly in Southeast Asia.
comrade stalin
moscow
article shows...
"... A central plank of the Trump administration’s economic policy agenda has been the imposition of sweeping tariffs against friend and foe alike, especially after the unveiling of the all-embracing “reciprocal tariffs” on April 2.
According to Trump, his officials and acolytes, the revenue they bring will reduce the US budget deficit, its record debt, fund tax cuts for the corporations and the wealthy, create jobs and lift wages and in general create the conditions for a new “golden age” for American capitalism.
Trump has continually boasted of the hundreds of billions of dollars flowing into the coffers of the US, reversing the previous situation in which it has been “ripped off” by the rest of the world.
But in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, was singing a very different tune. The occasion was the appeal by the Trump regime to the court to have rulings by two lower courts that the reciprocal tariffs, imposed or threatened by Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, are illegal.
Sauer submitted that revenue raising was not the primary purpose of the tariffs.
“These are regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue-raising tariffs. The fact that they raise revenue is only incidental. The tariffs would be most effective so to speak if, if no person ever paid them,” he said.
The reason for the switch was an attempt to get round the legal argument that Trump exceeded his powers to act under the IEEPA because it makes no mention of tariffs or any of the synonyms such as duties, taxes or imposts.
The thrust of Sauer’s argument was that the reciprocal tariffs were not about revenue but were part of the conduct of foreign policy and therefore fell under the president’s authority.
“If the threat of imposing those tariffs gets China and our other trading partners across the world to change their behaviours in a way that addresses this, then that’s the most effective use of this policy,” he said.
The switch of argument by Sauer during hearing—in its initial submission the administration said if it were forced to repay the tariffs it would cause economic devastation—is another example of the capacity of the Trump regime to argue black is white today and the reverse tomorrow.
But there was an element of truth in Sauer’s remarks.
The issue is not the revenue the tariffs produce but the way they can be used to achieve foreign policy objectives, above all in the economic war against China. This involves not only measures aimed directly against Beijing, but also at breaking the economic and trade ties that a multitude of countries have with China, particularly in Southeast Asia.
“Poison pills” extend Trump’s trade war
The Trump administration’s advocate in the Supreme Court revealed the essential role of “reciprocal tariffs.”
www.wsws.org
comrade stalin
moscow
