Fair enough. Let me know when John Thune threatens her and says she'll pay a price and he goes completely unchecked by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSBSC, NYT, WaPo, AP, etc. I'm sure Fox will flood the airways with congress critters boliviating that we need to expand the SC and impeach ACB immediately to save the planet.

Nobody says ACB is a threat to democracy. Just that she seems to contradict herself from opinion to opinion from an idealogical standpoint. Which in principle isn't a bad thing even if I personally often disagree with her more liberal interpretations.

HTownAg98 said:

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Trump was partially right, he did reduce the trade deficit. He managed to reduce it from $903.6 billion to $901.5 billion, or a 0.2% reduction. That's basically a rounding error. And people paid more for goods, and businesses have even more uncertainty. So much winning.

---

There are other variables. Without Trump's tariffs and trade policies, the trade deficit would have been minimum $1.1 T. That's the real comparison.

---

People would have been paying less for goods than they are today, and businesses would have more certainty. With tariffs, we got a rounding error in the trade deficit, and an economy that grew at a meh 2.2% in 2025.
How does that make us better off?

---

You failed to mention the national security benefits, which are the main and most important aspects of the tariffs. As a secondary benefit, we have had the tariff income to the country and about an 18% reduction in the trade deficit from what it would have been without the tariffs.

They only ever pick up on the negative aspects of anything Trump does and flat out refuse to even entertain the notion of other benefits and positives. There's a term going around to describe it.

Garrelli 5000 said:

---

Fair enough. Let me know when John Thune threatens her and says she'll pay a price and he goes completely unchecked by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSBSC, NYT, WaPo, AP, etc. I'm sure Fox will flood the airways with congress critters boliviating that we need to expand the SC and impeach ACB immediately to save the planet.

Nobody says ACB is a threat to democracy. Just that she seems to contradict herself from opinion to opinion from an idealogical standpoint. Which in principle isn't a bad thing even if I personally often disagree with her more liberal interpretations.

---

I don't know about you, but I want a justice that doesn't bend to ideology at all. I want one that looks to the constitution and interprets the law without worrying about ideology.

I'd be interested to hear from the anti-tariff crowd their hot takes on how reverse the hollowing out of the middle class and our industrial manufacturing capacity when up against a communist nation state directly infusing their own state-owned industries in a targeted effort to wipe out competition globally . . . without imposing domestic trade protections.

Trump tariffs live: Trump raises global tariff to 15% day after Supreme Court ruling

hahahah.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Wow. Lutnick family making bank off betting SCOTUS would rescind the tariffs.

https://www.rawstory.com/howard-lutnick-2675289149/

---

They're not the only ones. The market for these was huge. We helped some clients file the protective claims just so they could sell them. Some of the execs we worked with saw it as free money but by selling the rights they could easily say "we didn't get any refunds" when their customers started wanting their tariff surcharges back.

---

You guys are selling tariff refund claims? I think lottery tickets are a better value. Will these claims be printed on soft 2-ply paper so one day they can at least have some value?

Selling tariff refund claims and they were overdue dental office collections sounds scheisty as hell. Advising companies this is a good idea is even worse.

infinity_ag may be on to something when he lambasts the greediness and lack of ethics at large companies.

---

Not sure why I have to explain this to someone who I thought had an IQ greater than room temp. "We" did not sell anything. "We" helped quantify the amounts and helped them make protective claims. Those claims were then sold at discounts to others who thought they were worth something. Maybe this is news to you, but there are buyers and sellers on either side of a transaction. Buyers believe they are getting value (a future cash flow at a discount) for the amount they paid and sellers are getting value (reduced risk, reduced administrative costs, ability to reduce current costs to customers) for giving up that future cash flow. If you think they're a better value than lottery tickets, I can see why you're not involved in anything resembling finance or assessing risk.

The same thing happens with investment and production tax credits. The creator sells them at a discount in exchange for the ability to get cash now instead of waiting a few years to have tax to offset. They get to avoid audit risk and increase current cash flow. Pretty simple.

Hope that helps.

infinity ag said:

---

Trump tariffs live: Trump raises global tariff to 15% day after Supreme Court ruling

hahahah.

---

WOO THANK YOU DEAR LEADER

Fitch said:

---

I'd be interested to hear from the anti-tariff crowd their hot takes on how reverse the hollowing out of the middle class and our industrial manufacturing capacity when up against a communist nation state directly infusing their own state-owned industries in a targeted effort to wipe out competition globally . . . without imposing domestic trade protections.

---

They have none. They WANT to get rich at any expense, and that means even if the US dies when the middle class is hollowed out. "Free Market" is just a lie to fool people and beat them into submission. It is just money and these grifters are all part of it.

You have protections because you have something to protect.

MORE TARIFFS.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Wow. Lutnick family making bank off betting SCOTUS would rescind the tariffs.

https://www.rawstory.com/howard-lutnick-2675289149/

---

They're not the only ones. The market for these was huge. We helped some clients file the protective claims just so they could sell them. Some of the execs we worked with saw it as free money but by selling the rights they could easily say "we didn't get any refunds" when their customers started wanting their tariff surcharges back.

---

You guys are selling tariff refund claims? I think lottery tickets are a better value. Will these claims be printed on soft 2-ply paper so one day they can at least have some value?

Selling tariff refund claims and they were overdue dental office collections sounds scheisty as hell. Advising companies this is a good idea is even worse.

infinity_ag may be on to something when he lambasts the greediness and lack of ethics at large companies.

---

Of course I am.
Good to see you seeing the light like many others here have. I've been in industry over 25 years and was a naive moron myself. I have suffered a lot from all this corporate nonsense.

I see situations where older Boomers are either naive like I was (I am Gen X) or they are idealistic and stupid (like I was) or just too clever and manipulative (like I was not). They are all working together to destroy America through corporations and CEOs (the 2 c-words). The people who attack me here are the ones who make money at the cost of America. Plain and simple. They don't care about our kids and grandkids.

You don't have to believe everything I say. Please do not do so. I just request you to OBSERVE and THINK for yourself, not just swallow whatever some free-market charlatan or CEO or some radio talk show host (they are all paid propagandists) tells you.
You have a degree from Texas A&M University, so you are capable of thinking and analyzing.

Pinochet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Wow. Lutnick family making bank off betting SCOTUS would rescind the tariffs.

https://www.rawstory.com/howard-lutnick-2675289149/

---

They're not the only ones. The market for these was huge. We helped some clients file the protective claims just so they could sell them. Some of the execs we worked with saw it as free money but by selling the rights they could easily say "we didn't get any refunds" when their customers started wanting their tariff surcharges back.

---

You guys are selling tariff refund claims? I think lottery tickets are a better value. Will these claims be printed on soft 2-ply paper so one day they can at least have some value?

Selling tariff refund claims and they were overdue dental office collections sounds scheisty as hell. Advising companies this is a good idea is even worse.

infinity_ag may be on to something when he lambasts the greediness and lack of ethics at large companies.

---

Not sure why I have to explain this to someone who I thought had an IQ greater than room temp. "We" did not sell anything. "We" helped quantify the amounts and helped them make protective claims. Those claims were then sold at discounts to others who thought they were worth something. Maybe this is news to you, but there are buyers and sellers on either side of a transaction. Buyers believe they are getting value (a future cash flow at a discount) for the amount they paid and sellers are getting value (reduced risk, reduced administrative costs, ability to reduce current costs to customers) for giving up that future cash flow. If you think they're a better value than lottery tickets, I can see why you're not involved in anything resembling finance or assessing risk.

The same thing happens with investment and production tax credits. The creator sells them at a discount in exchange for the ability to get cash now instead of waiting a few years to have tax to offset. They get to avoid audit risk and increase current cash flow. Pretty simple.

Hope that helps.

---

Thanks for the ad homs. I understand the concept hence why I put in about selling bad debts to collectors. One of the most scheisty businesses out there. And here, I think the there is likely some poor research and misrepresentation of the future collectibility of these claims hence the lottery ticket comment.

Not sure how you arrived at me being financial and risk illiterate. I think if you knew me in real life you would see how laughably foolish and misplaced those comments are, but this remains a web discussion forum so cheapshots and poor takes are just par for the course.

Disclaimer: I would advise against purchasing "future tariff refund payments" at a discount from sellers and their advisers who are looking to fleece overzealous and poorly informed business clients.

ETFan said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Trump tariffs live: Trump raises global tariff to 15% day after Supreme Court ruling

hahahah.

---

WOO THANK YOU DEAR LEADER

---

You realize Dear Leader sounds like nonsense at this point. Especially when your gal Susan Rice is already talking about locking up political opponents should they ever get back in power (a decade out at least at this point).

infinity ag said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Wow. Lutnick family making bank off betting SCOTUS would rescind the tariffs.

https://www.rawstory.com/howard-lutnick-2675289149/

---

They're not the only ones. The market for these was huge. We helped some clients file the protective claims just so they could sell them. Some of the execs we worked with saw it as free money but by selling the rights they could easily say "we didn't get any refunds" when their customers started wanting their tariff surcharges back.

---

You guys are selling tariff refund claims? I think lottery tickets are a better value. Will these claims be printed on soft 2-ply paper so one day they can at least have some value?

Selling tariff refund claims and they were overdue dental office collections sounds scheisty as hell. Advising companies this is a good idea is even worse.

infinity_ag may be on to something when he lambasts the greediness and lack of ethics at large companies.

---

Of course I am.
Good to see you seeing the light like many others here have. I've been in industry over 25 years and was a naive moron myself. I have suffered a lot from all this corporate nonsense.

I see situations where older Boomers are either naive like I was (I am Gen X) or they are idealistic and stupid (like I was) or just too clever and manipulative (like I was not). They are all working together to destroy America through corporations and CEOs (the 2 c-words). The people who attack me here are the ones who make money at the cost of America. Plain and simple. They don't care about our kids and grandkids.

You don't have to believe everything I say. Please do not do so. I just request you to OBSERVE and THINK for yourself, not just swallow whatever some free-market charlatan or CEO or some radio talk show host (they are all paid propagandists) tells you.
You have a degree from Texas A&M University, so you are capable of thinking and analyzing.

---

I have two degrees from our school, and I go against the grain quite a bit around here. But having worked in corporate world and for myself, I will say that while you make some decent observations, you take the hate of corp America and c-suite to a level that ultimately sounds borderline obsessive / insane. Trust me, I can do that same on certain topics.

I would caution that you do not seem to be as "enlightened" as you perceive yourself. The concept of a boogie man lurking in every shadow and evil corporate overlords running every large company is a bit overdone, in my opinion of course.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Wow. Lutnick family making bank off betting SCOTUS would rescind the tariffs.

https://www.rawstory.com/howard-lutnick-2675289149/

---

They're not the only ones. The market for these was huge. We helped some clients file the protective claims just so they could sell them. Some of the execs we worked with saw it as free money but by selling the rights they could easily say "we didn't get any refunds" when their customers started wanting their tariff surcharges back.

---

You guys are selling tariff refund claims? I think lottery tickets are a better value. Will these claims be printed on soft 2-ply paper so one day they can at least have some value?

Selling tariff refund claims and they were overdue dental office collections sounds scheisty as hell. Advising companies this is a good idea is even worse.

infinity_ag may be on to something when he lambasts the greediness and lack of ethics at large companies.

---

Not sure why I have to explain this to someone who I thought had an IQ greater than room temp. "We" did not sell anything. "We" helped quantify the amounts and helped them make protective claims. Those claims were then sold at discounts to others who thought they were worth something. Maybe this is news to you, but there are buyers and sellers on either side of a transaction. Buyers believe they are getting value (a future cash flow at a discount) for the amount they paid and sellers are getting value (reduced risk, reduced administrative costs, ability to reduce current costs to customers) for giving up that future cash flow. If you think they're a better value than lottery tickets, I can see why you're not involved in anything resembling finance or assessing risk.

The same thing happens with investment and production tax credits. The creator sells them at a discount in exchange for the ability to get cash now instead of waiting a few years to have tax to offset. They get to avoid audit risk and increase current cash flow. Pretty simple.

Hope that helps.

---

Thanks for the ad homs. I understand the concept hence why I put in about selling bad debts to collectors. One of the most scheisty businesses out there. And here, I think the there is likely some poor research and misrepresentation of the future collectibility of these claims hence the lottery ticket comment.

Not sure how you arrived at me being financial and risk illiterate. I think if you knew me in real life you would see how laughably foolish and misplaced those comments are, but this remains a web discussion forum so cheapshots and poor takes are just par for the course.

Disclaimer: I would advise against purchasing "future tariff refund payments" at a discount from sellers and their advisers who are looking to fleece overzealous and poorly informed business clients.

---

So all those PE firms and other financial instrument traders who made a ton of money on the decision are dumber than you. Right. Keep telling yourself that. You're as bad as the infinity guy who hates all CEOs just because of their job title.

They gambled and made a buck, and I am supposed to admire their financial prowess?

Lil buddy, I have worked with and now partner / invest with those corp CEOs you have only seen at your company picnic, if you were invited. So tone down the rhetoric on this.

People made a ton of money selling beanie babies, pet rocks, Pokmon cards and carbon credits. This falls somewhere along that line.

Make your buck on "advising" and then I would put that money somewhere other than buying refund claims that depend on payments that will never happen,

flown-the-coop said:

---

ETFan said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Trump tariffs live: Trump raises global tariff to 15% day after Supreme Court ruling

hahahah.

---

WOO THANK YOU DEAR LEADER

---

You realize Dear Leader sounds like nonsense at this point. Especially when your gal Susan Rice is already talking about locking up political opponents should they ever get back in power (a decade out at least at this point).

---

I realize it's nonsense while Trump does dear leader things? The SCOTUS ruled and he immediately went on TV to call them compromised, a disgrace to their families and that he was going to find another way. Then did. Added a 10% tax. Slept on it, woke up mad and increased it to 15%


Have you said thanks today?

Did him saying these things and taking actions he is legally allowed to take in response to a SCOTUS decision he (along with 1/3 of the court) did not agree with? And that reeks of "dictator" to you?

Again, it's a really weak insult that frankly doesn't make a lot of sense. Seems lazy.

Fitch said:

---

I'd be interested to hear from the anti-tariff crowd their hot takes on how reverse the hollowing out of the middle class and our industrial manufacturing capacity when up against a communist nation state directly infusing their own state-owned industries in a targeted effort to wipe out competition globally . . . without imposing domestic trade protections.

---

if you have ever played the game Civilization you should know that going backwards in the development of your civilization (the industrial age) is never the way to prosperity.

flown-the-coop said:

---

They gambled and made a buck, and I am supposed to admire their financial prowess?

Lil buddy, I have worked with and now partner / invest with those corp CEOs you have only seen at your company picnic, if you were invited. So tone down the rhetoric on this.

People made a ton of money selling beanie babies, pet rocks, Pokmon cards and carbon credits. This falls somewhere along that line.

Make your buck on "advising" and then I would put that money somewhere other than buying refund claims that depend on payments that will never happen,

---

You post on TexAgs too much to have a real job.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Did him saying these things and taking actions he is legally allowed to take in response to a SCOTUS decision he (along with 1/3 of the court) did not agree with? And that reeks of "dictator" to you?

Again, it's a really weak insult that frankly doesn't make a lot of sense. Seems lazy.

---

He didn't actually find a way, I was being generous. This 10/15 thing will be litigated as well. Then it'll re-up before midterms. Good luck.

Have you said thanks today?

So what happens to other trade / tariff agreements with this new 15%?

You tell us. You seem to be the expert on legalities of tariffs and what Dear Leader is doing with the 15%.

Sure. I am also a CPA (retired / inactive). Some of us are capable of incredibly high throughput in the personal and professional lives.

flown-the-coop said:

---

You tell us. You seem to be the expert on legalities of tariffs and what Dear Leader is doing with the 15%.

---

How can I know when he's not following any of the rules?

That's literally the point of calling him dear leader.

J H C.

shiftyandquick said:

---

Fitch said:

---

I'd be interested to hear from the anti-tariff crowd their hot takes on how reverse the hollowing out of the middle class and our industrial manufacturing capacity when up against a communist nation state directly infusing their own state-owned industries in a targeted effort to wipe out competition globally . . . without imposing domestic trade protections.

---

if you have ever played the game Civilization you should know that going backwards in the development of your civilization (the industrial age) is never the way to prosperity.

---

Yeah, we should just keep progressing to full communism because progression is always good, right comrade?

Just because one thing proceeds another thing on the timeline doesn't inherently make it better. You should actually open a damn history book sometime. It would completely blow your mind.

ETFan said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

You tell us. You seem to be the expert on legalities of tariffs and what Dear Leader is doing with the 15%.

---

How can I know when he's not following any of the rules?

That's literally the point of calling him dear leader.

J H C.

---

How do you know he is not following the rules?

ETFan said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

You tell us. You seem to be the expert on legalities of tariffs and what Dear Leader is doing with the 15%.

---

How can I know when he's not following any of the rules?

That's literally the point of calling him dear leader.

J H C.

---

He's not following any rules? Really? You really think that?

Strange how tariffs have been used by many presidents over history and only Trump's are evil.

Key Presidents and Tariff Usage:
George Washington (1789): Signed the first major tariff Act to generate federal revenue and protect nascent manufacturing.
William McKinley/Benjamin Harrison (1890): The McKinley Tariff raised duties to nearly 50%.
Herbert Hoover (1930): Signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, raising duties on over 20,000 goods.
Richard Nixon (1971): Imposed a 10% tariff on all imports to protect the dollar.
Ronald Reagan (1980s): Applied tariffs on Japanese motorcycles and electronic goods, and restricted steel imports.
George W. Bush (2002): Imposed tariffs on imported steel to protect the domestic industry.
Barack Obama (2009, 2013): Placed tariffs on Chinese tires and washing machines.
Donald Trump (20172021, 2025-): Used tariffs broadly on steel, aluminum, and a wide array of Chinese goods, and threatened tariffs on Mexico and Canada.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

ETFan said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

You tell us. You seem to be the expert on legalities of tariffs and what Dear Leader is doing with the 15%.

---

How can I know when he's not following any of the rules?

That's literally the point of calling him dear leader.

J H C.

---

He's not following any rules? Really? You really think that?

---

They do not know what rules Trump is breaking nor how but by golly Orange Man spoke so whatever he said was surely dictatorial and unlawful.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Did him saying these things and taking actions he is legally allowed to take in response to a SCOTUS decision he (along with 1/3 of the court) did not agree with? And that reeks of "dictator" to you?

Again, it's a really weak insult that frankly doesn't make a lot of sense. Seems lazy.

---

Whether or not these actions are legal is yet to be seen. Trump has a history of ignoring laws and just breaking them, willy-nilly.

You know that Trump's legal advisors told him the IEEPA tariffs were illegal, but he simply argued with them until he found one that said 'maybe', and ran with it.

Of course, Trump has to destroy the USA in order to protect us from ourselves. We should be thankful.

flown-the-coop said:

---

ETFan said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

You tell us. You seem to be the expert on legalities of tariffs and what Dear Leader is doing with the 15%.

---

How can I know when he's not following any of the rules?

That's literally the point of calling him dear leader.

J H C.

---

How do you know he is not following the rules?

---

This is how it goes, nitpick until you can say "youre not a lawyer so invalid" So why even discuss?

Consider section 122 has never been invoked and was involved after the ruling, after his public tantrum, and requires "large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits." to invoke, I'm going with; dubious at best.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

ETFan said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

You tell us. You seem to be the expert on legalities of tariffs and what Dear Leader is doing with the 15%.

---

How can I know when he's not following any of the rules?

That's literally the point of calling him dear leader.

J H C.

---

He's not following any rules? Really? You really think that?

---

They do not know what rules Trump is breaking nor how but by golly Orange Man spoke so whatever he said was surely dictatorial and unlawful.

---

I doubt anyone can understand Trump any more. He is resorting to babbling, now.

Tariffs are within the law even they are poor economic policy tactics. Trump using emergency powers to establish tariffs without Congressional approval and oversight is not Constitutional.

If you believe in the rule of law and the separation of powers then this ruling is proper.

tysker said:

---

Tariffs are within the law even they are poor economic policy tactics. Trump using emergency powers to establish tariffs without Congressional approval and oversight is not Constitutional.

If you believe in the rule of law and the separation of powers then this ruling is proper.

---

I still don't get how three justices disagreed. When he obviously broke the law.

Watermelon Man said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Did him saying these things and taking actions he is legally allowed to take in response to a SCOTUS decision he (along with 1/3 of the court) did not agree with? And that reeks of "dictator" to you?

Again, it's a really weak insult that frankly doesn't make a lot of sense. Seems lazy.

---

Whether or not these actions are legal is yet to be seen. Trump has a history of ignoring laws and just breaking them, willy-nilly.

You know that Trump's legal advisors told him the IEEPA tariffs were illegal, but he simply argued with them until he found one that said 'maybe', and ran with it.

Of course, Trump has to destroy the USA in order to protect us from ourselves. We should be thankful.

---

Says the guy who votes for full blown marxism.