Write about whatever you like in the comments.(And please support the Althouse blog by doing your Amazon shopping going in through the Althouse Amazon link.)
August 29, 2025
Sunrise — 5:47, 6:10, 6:21.
Write about whatever you like in the comments.(And please support the Althouse blog by doing your Amazon shopping going in through the Althouse Amazon link.)
Posts
39 comments:
I see where JD Vance was in WI today.
Our next President.
I think that it's pretty funny that "Republicans Against Trump" has their panties in a knot over Harris's SS protection. Maybe they should just change their name to "Life Long Republicans Against Trump."
Hummingbirds still here today. Three different at least…they were bent out of shape when we sat out on the porch this evening- it was nice enough to do that but we were too close to the feeder apparently. Much defensive displays. My pleas of ‘but I’m THE guy’ were ignored…
Six months after leaving office is the norm. President Autopen gave her extra
Democrats purposely sabotaged Trump's SS protection while he was a candidate.
Any Democrat that complains about Trump doing what every other president in history is done are just evil people.
Beautiful sunrise photos. How would the sunset look from this location?
"Federal Circuit, 7-4, rejects Trump’s tariffs under the IEEPA, affirming the lower court’s decision against Trump."
As expected. Doubtful the Supreme Court will allow the executive branch to enact the largest tax increase in American history without Congressional approval.
If Trump has any sense of economics and politics, he would use this as an opportunity to walk away from his incoherent tariff/trade policies. He could then take credit for the ensuing economic growth.
"If Trump has any sense of economics and politics, he would use this as an opportunity to walk away from a third of a trillion dollars per year in revenue."
Fixed your post for you.
In interesting Arizona news, jaguars are returning to the state from Mexico, with two new sightings just this month. It's thought there are four or five of them now on our side of the border.
Doubtful the Supreme Court will allow the executive branch to enact the largest tax increase in American history without Congressional approval.
You think so? From what I have read, the plain language of the law that was approved by Congress delegates tariff policy to the President, to be set as he sees fit.
"a third of a trillion dollars per year in revenue."
Who pays for tariffs?
As I wrote -- Largest tax increase in American history without Congressional approval.
"Who pays for tariffs?"
Somebody's gotta pay (and, in fact, there is only one source of revenue; us).
I thought you were a big deficit guy. (Actually, I know you're not; you're just a carper.)
Unless you've got big spending cuts you endorse …
"Let me put that another way."
Let me say it again; you're a big deficit hawk.
Right?
Oh, Kaka got spammed. That's too bad.
Just saw Citizen kane in a theater, and last month saw Casablanca in the same place. Kane filled about 1/2 the theater, Casablanca was packed to the rafters. Kane was mostly film nerds and mostly white. Casablanca was much more diverse. With a greater range in age.
Suggeted Reason for difference:
Casablanca - Mass entertainment. Has it all. Music, romance, and humor. Plus action and mystery. Engaging characters. Two great stars. Memorable supporting actors doing their shtcik.
Citizen Kane - More Art film than entertainment. Amazing photography, editing, and direction. Maybe the best ever. Great performance by Welles, and interesting script. Good acting by others. But no emotional "Hook" to engage the masses. Requirement to know background of story and politics to truly appreciate and enjoy.
Citizen Kane is full of incredible scenes of imagination and energy. Scenes one can watch again and again and marvel at the Technique and skill. But emotional impact is low compared to Casablanca. Citizen Kane not really a "story". Its a biopic with his life described by four people, one of whom (Susan Alexander) is somewhat unlikable. No heroes or villians.
Casablanca crowd clapped at end, and went out on a high. Citizen Kane audience? Just filed out, confident they'd seen a masterpiece of filmmaking.
Tough for President Trump to take credit for economic growth in India, China and the Eurozone. But of course, the Neo-liberals are happy to see American blue collar workers return to consuming fentanyl (Made in Mexico, from Chinese ingredients!)
Hassayamper said...
Doubtful the Supreme Court will allow the executive branch to enact the largest tax increase in American history without Congressional approval.
You think so? From what I have read, the plain language of the law that was approved by Congress delegates tariff policy to the President, to be set as he sees fit.
8/29/25, 8:02 PM
———— ———————————-
You are wrong. The IEEPA does not mention the word “tariff” or a synonym such as “duty”.
The majority opinion used the same reasoning it used when it rejected Biden’s student debt forgiveness.
Trump used the phrase “regulate importation”, however, the courts have long held that regulate is different from taxation. The is just like Biden using the phrase “waive or modify” as a justification for waiving student debt.
It’s funny that minority opinion was authored by an Obama appointee, especially since Donald Trump “Juan Peron” Trump ranted against a “highly partisan appeals court”.
It was a great day for the separation of powers and a great day for the economy.
Original Mike said...
"If Trump has any sense of economics and politics, he would use this as an opportunity to walk away from a third of a trillion dollars per year in revenue."
Fixed your post for you.
8/29/25, 7:48 PM
————————————-
This number does not take into account the tax revenues that will be forgone due to a slowing economy that would result from Trump’s retarded tariffs.
"This number does not take into account the tax revenues that will be forgone due to a slowing economy that would result from Trump’s retarded tariffs."
Alleged slowing economy.
I love that Kaka is mute right now.
Been there, buddy.
As I said yesterday- find one issue and make it non negotiable.
Young Republicans of Texas
@YRsOfTexas
As of our most recent board meeting, the Young Republicans of Texas will only endorse national candidates who oppose the H-1B visa program. We call on Congress to take action on this key issue.
We look forward to endorsing strong America First candidates in 2026 and beyond.
AMDG, it seems to me - given that many countries employ tariffs both as protectionist and as revenue source - that there's a sweet spot where tariff revenue, domestic prices, and tax revenue are optimized (none of them maximized). Will we hit it? I don't know. But neither does anyone else, as far as I know.
Yesterday comments all over net about killers mom should be punished for aiding and abetting transition etc.
Today news is killer didn't live with mom, mom tried her best to dissuade killer from transitioning, told him he would regret it. Killer pissed at mom for not believing he was a she.
Net is full of profuse apoligies from people who spit on mom for not talking to hysterical media and for hiring a lawyer to talk for her.
"AMDG, it seems to me - given that many countries employ tariffs both as protectionist and as revenue source "
Yeah, they're allowed to, we're not. We must pursue the cheapest price, period. Meanwhile, our pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, defense procurements, and God knows what else are sourced by our potential enemies.
Great plan.
Libtards just won't accept reality when it doesn't serve them. But you have to have a shitload of chutzpah to spew Democrat Party talking points that were put to bed 6 months ago.
Here's libtard rag Politico in May admitting Trump's tariffs made the USA Billions:
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2025/trump-tariff-income-tracker/
That money is coming from foreign countries who are paying extra just to place their products in the USA because, unlike libtard shithead Democrat Party members, they know that it pays.
Jamie said...
AMDG, it seems to me - given that many countries employ tariffs both as protectionist and as revenue source - that there's a sweet spot where tariff revenue, domestic prices, and tax revenue are optimized (none of them maximized). Will we hit it? I don't know. But neither does anyone else, as far as I know.
8/29/25, 9:13 PM
—————————————
So think that it is within the realm of possibility that brain trust of Donald “Juan Peron” Trump, Peter Retardo, and Howard Nutlick carefully calibrated the tariffs to arrive at this optimization that you refer to?
I have my doubts . . . . . .
Anyway, the idiocy of the tariffs is besides the point. They could cure cancer and simultaneously give Putin, Xi, Kim Jong Un, and Khamenei stage fatal Monkey Pox and they would still be wrong because the President cannot enact taxes. That is the job of Congress.
If tariffs are so great why doesn’t Trump get one of his congressional cultists to put forward legislation to enact them. It would be great issue to base the 2026 campaign on.
Yup it still looks like the magas still dont know who pays for the tax increases on everything .tariffs. "You cant graft a new idea on a closed mind an opening must be made somehow"(blue book)
Original Mike said...
"AMDG, it seems to me - given that many countries employ tariffs both as protectionist and as revenue source "
Yeah, they're allowed to, we're not. We must pursue the cheapest price, period. Meanwhile, our pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, defense procurements, and God knows what else are sourced by our potential enemies.
Great plan.
8/29/25, 9:19 PM
—————————-
The court did not rule on whether tariffs are good or bad. It ruled that the President does not have the power to enact them.
See my 8:5M post for an explanation why.
For those who believe that it is okay for Trump to ignore the separation of powers think about how that plays out going forward.
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts
"For those who believe that it is okay for Trump to ignore the separation of powers think about how that plays out going forward."
I hear you. But the problem is, the democrats won't pass ANYTHING that Trump puts forward. It doesn't matter if it's good, bad, or indifferent; it's a non-starter.
I know where I put the blame for this clusterfuck. YMMV.
Six months after leaving office is the norm. President Autopen gave her extra ... without telling anybody.
That should be the story here. Who and why?
Casablanca and Citizen Kane are two of my favorite movies- top 20 for sure. I actually saw both movies about a week apart for the first time when I was 18 years old and in a theater, too. I have rewatched them several times since but not in a while now- probably more than 15 years for both.
The vile corrupt evil D-LEFT show sympathy for a male shooter who murdered innocent children.
Sick a-holes.
I think it about 50/50 SCOTUS upholds the tariffs. The problem for the anti-tariff people is that the langage of the act Trump invoked seems very broad to me- it isn't unreasonable to argue that regulated trade can include tariffs since sanctions are explicitly also in the act. Congress that passed the act should have been more explicit about what isn't possible under the act. SCOTUS could very well say the tariffs are legal under the act and the emergency declaration and that it really is up the Congress to clarify the matter. This would fit well with John Roberts' philosophy. A better attack on this would be to say that Congress delegated far too much power to the executive in this regard but that would mean starting over.
AMDG @9:30, excellent and measured argument against Trump!
I mean the last part. The rest was crap - and prurient crap, always so welcome on an otherwise pleasant evening. I agree that tariffs ought to be enacted by Congress. I also agree with Original Mike @9:45 that your side has decided that their only policy is "I stand against Trump!" which makes it darn hard to pass a bill. I sincerely hope that the "NYT voter registration crisis for Democrats" and the redistricting wars, in which Republicans have the advantage according to my understanding, have the unorthodox effect of a party in power gaining seats in the midterm so the Republicans in Congress can get something done.
But I understand why Trump is trying to do so much by EO immediately, I think. He knows that the likelihood is he only gets about 18 months of effective action, followed by back-to-back-to-back impeachment bullshit as before. And as we all know, we are headed for a fiscal cliff. To mix my metaphors, the boat is taking on water; bailing with a paper cup isn't ideal, but it's better than pouring more water in, as too many members of Congress seem apt to do.
Furthermore - while he is (or possible was - we'll see) able, Trump could negotiate using tariffs in a way that a bill in Congress almost certainly wouldn't allow. It's a shortcut but one that apparently our vaunted judicial system has a good handle on... wouldn't you agree?
I will have to bookmark this thread, however, since Kakabich has made another hard prediction with no doubt expressed whatsoever. Just based on Kakabich's record one might predict a 9-0 vote upholding the tariffs. However, I think he has a chance of getting a prediction right for the first time ever.
To lighten the mood.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.