Congress does more than just write laws that go to the executive's desk (in theory).
They are the most constitutionally powerful branch of government, but we've ceded more and more power to the executive and judicial branches over time.
Congress can't stop Trump from issuing tariffs without passing a bill and overriding his veto, that's just the facts of the situation right now, and in the best case Democrats will not have enough seats in the senate to override a veto.
The question will be what the appetite is for the GOP senators to appease Trump after seeing the results tonight. If it looks like his hold on the party/voters are waning then they might be more willing to buck against him.
The tariffs are just a tool for manipulating the markets & profiting off the whipsaw reactions. It doesn't matter whether they stay in place or are even ever enforced - the inside trading will make Trump & his cronies billions. That's the goal.
The SC ruled that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. There are other tariffs still in place under different statutes, some of which are currently being challenged in the Court of International Trade. These are statutes that let the president or USTR impose tariffs without congressional approval. This administration has demonstrated that they would come up with any excuses and dig up historical statutory authorities to impose taxes on imports. For example, the latest round of tariffs on Canadian goods were based on Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, a century-old, depression-era statute that had never been used for tariffs until now.
I don't get it. If there is anything that maybe some GOP in office might agree with the dems on is how disastrous his use of tariffs has been. Then again their party is now just led by a demented cult leader.
Clearly for whatever reason they don't give a crap. If they did they could have repealed those statutes with bipartisan support in 2024 after they knew Trump would be president in 2 months.
To be fair, there are a lot of things that repubs haven't had the votes to get done, meaning there are people that would vote against the president on a number of things if it was brought to a vote. Part of the reason that they've all been in lock step is that republicans never allow a vote on anything that they won't win.
So there is a chance that you could pick a couple votes off for a few important things. Probably fiscal policy like tariffs, maybe some of the epstine investigation stuff, and probably limiting war powers. Other than that, I wouldn't expect much, but there are still vulnerable seats out there that just weren't up this cycle, and if they want to keep their seat, they may be more afraid of high gas prices than trump.
He probably doesn't have this authority, but it takes time for questions like this to work through the courts.
Unless the Democrats pass legislation barring the president from implementing tariffs, he'd still be able to do this under their control and we'd still be waiting for the courts to strike them down.
Well..the courts inevitably do at some point. Too slowly but c'est la vie. I'd have to imagine Trump's base begins to disintegrate, and Republicans back walk being pro-tariff over the next two years in an attempt to save face. Desantis already has in some ways, not directly on tariffs though. The Iran war has already caused them to break rank and file.
>Economists Alec Phillips and Abhay Duggirala reasoned that “Democrats have indicated they would seek to reverse some of President Trump’s tariffs, but we expect this to have a limited effect since the reversals would likely be focused on a few countries (e.g., Canada) or products.”
>“We expect President Trump to announce new tariff increases after the election that would more than offset those reductions, likely resulting in a rise in the US effective tariff rate of a little under 2pp.”
I don't really get this assumption that democrats will focus their efforts only on specific countries.
You see, there's an obscure 19th century maritime law that nobody has thought about for 180 years that mentions the word "duty" which obviously gives trump unfettered tariff power while the supremely stupid court takes a year to read one document that negates that power.
The question is, how big will democrats win today, and how many republicans will agree to go along with them when he’s impeached for very obvious reasons?
Congress rules there's no tarrif. There are loyalist everywhere in the organisation. They'll coerce people to implement the tarrifs. Congress have no mean to force the executive to do anything. It's all based on the respect of the rule of law. Fascist don't care about the rule of law.
Obama took a lot of heat for the deal Bush signed to bail out the banks. IIRC it was not signed until Obama came into office but the details were basically fleshed out and known so there was no point in creating more uncertainty
You still see people even here in the economics subreddit blaming Obama for the bailouts passed under Bush and purposely split so that half of it would fall under the next administration when they took office. It was a strategy to make Bush's final year deficit numbers look better and the next person's to look worse and it worked. He played all sorts of financial bullshit games like that to produce deceptive numbers, for instance he kept the cost of his wars off of the deficit book keeping, which Obama changed and put them on the books when he took office.
Obama voted for it because it was good for the country, but in no way was splitting the bailouts so that half of it would happen when the next administration took office wasnt Bush and Republicans playing financial bullshit rat fucking to make Bush's final year deficit numbers look better and make the next person look worse.
Bush played all sorts of financial bullshit games like that to produce deceptive numbers, for instance he kept the cost of his wars off of the deficit book keeping, which Obama changed and put them on the books when he took office.
u/wingerrules touched on this a little. I remember there being some transition agreement but I think it was the sort of thing that would have been signed last minute without obamas agreement and possibly he was able to insert some clauses by being agreeable.
Wall Street is worried that after the U.S. midterm elections, Trump could push ahead with more tariffs, take a tougher stance on Iran, and face a potential government shutdown due to political gridlock in Congress. Analysts expect trade tensions to return to the spotlight, with tariffs being used both as an economic tool and a source of government revenue, adding more uncertainty for markets.
Look at his behavior when the walls were closing in on him with Atlantic City and his casinos. Should be a pattern there, just up the volume on it to 11 and apply it to future events.
Democrats and hopefully Republicans would impeach him for his deteriorating mental and physical health. His chronic erratical behavior is instability on steroids. He needs professional health care and America needs to be protect by a competent leader.
There is little or no danger with Iran possessing a nuclear bomb but massive danger in demented Trump in control of thousands of nuclear missiles! SOS-USA!
At this point he's a lame duck, and they could use it as a set up to prop up Vance in 28. Two years as acting president would give him a better shot at winning.
I mean, it can't be great to let Iran have a nuclear bomb. Especially with the war already having just been on.
It's easy to imagine that they're normal people-- perhaps because you've interacted with their diaspora, but they're actually crazy. They really aren't normal people and even if they'd been normal people a couple of years ago, they probably aren't now.
Just look at the Russians. They might have been normal in 2013. But they aren't now.
War makes people crazy. The Gazans and the Israelis probably are too, and look at the accelerating weirdness all these people get up to.
More nuclear weapons in the Middle East is a bad idea. This doesn't mean that it's worth it to actually solve the problem though.
To you who's from the US and in the US. To those in those countries I'm sure they see things differently.
People are people all over the world. People will do what looks to be in their best interest and try to survive. Individuals in the US are also driven by perceived hatred of fellow countrymen and trying to cause harm to others. Or taking away opportunity
I think a December government shutdown is unlikely, I expect they kick the can into February 2027. At that point, reasonable likelihood of a shutdown as they will be unable to reach a compromise.
Yep, likely delayed. Then come next year the President and fellow Republicans can blame the Democrats (presumably controlling the House and maybe the Senate) for the shutdown. Most every negative thing that happens after January will be blamed on the Democrats. Ironically, it could be better for the Democrats if the shutdown happens this year.
Setting the stage for the pendulum to swing back in 2028. Not just due to many voting differently, but many not voting at all like back in 2024. Already see the setup coming. Will come down to what Democrats do in 2027. They will only have effectively a year before 2028 election campaigning ramps up.
Normally I'd 100% agree, no way they shut down for a holiday (let alone Christmas). The only reason I think there's a possibility it happens is, if we see this blue wave, it'll be the Republican's last shot to get anything done. They'll try to force through whatever they can while they can do it, and with everyone trying to get their piece of the pie I could see a world where everything blows up.
Then when t he Dem's take Congress, Trump and the Republicans spin it as "they control Congress, why can't they get a deal with us?"
WE ALL KNOW a certain someone is a VERY VENGEFUL, and is SENSITIVE to people NOT LIKING HIM is gonna cause a huge DUMPSTER FIRE that will go down in HISTORY just like this entire government administration chock FULL OF GREED & Corruption
Among allot of other things..
Something big is definitely already been planned months ago.
Probably gonna get worse before it gets better…
WHAT KIND OF AMERICAN ARE YOU COULD BE IN OUR FUTURE..
So does that mean Wall Street is expecting to lose both the House and the Senate? That would be my call. If the are trying to gauge what Trump might do under excutive order, I'm sure they're bracing.
Today is the day. We cannot afford to get even a slight bit complacent. We all know that Trump and his cronies are going to try everything they can to cheat. VOTE BLUE!
Right now I’m next to certain they’re attempting to deflate the markets rapidly in hopes the central bank will loosen monetary policy. The CRE mortgage maturity wall coming due over the next 18 months starting now is in the neighborhood of a 1.6 trillion dollar refi operation. The issue regional lenders and private credit entities alike have, is they did not anticipate borrowing costs to increase as they did. To avoid a multiple default scenario we’re trying to provoke a situation where the fed loosens lending policies abruptly. As conspiratorial as it sounds, if it comes to it the media and financial arm will fund and stage a black swan event of sorts almost guaranteed. Yet I’m not sure the feds response will be quantitative easing. Very interesting times. Many are talking about Ai bubble, is it a bubble? Did it pop? When really we have a major refi situation to deal with. This is not me trying to politically bolster the president’s actions whatsoever.
One change that is evident now is the central bank isn’t working on behalf of the wealthier financiers benefit, which is extremely odd. They rather have them in a stranglehold.
Aureliusmind | 10 hours ago
How can he implement tarrifs, and keep them implemented, if the Dems control the House and the Senate, and the SC already ruled his tarrifs illegal?
snorkeler247 | 10 hours ago
They won’t have control until January. They have to be sworn in to the new congress.
MosquitoValentine_ | 10 hours ago
They will do everything they can to prevent this from happening.
PoorFilmSchoolAlumn | 10 hours ago
That goes without saying
prime_alki | 10 hours ago
Well yes but not until January
FlyingBishop | 7 hours ago
they won't have any control. Trump can just veto.
Poonchow | 6 hours ago
Congress does more than just write laws that go to the executive's desk (in theory).
They are the most constitutionally powerful branch of government, but we've ceded more and more power to the executive and judicial branches over time.
FlyingBishop | 6 hours ago
Congress can't stop Trump from issuing tariffs without passing a bill and overriding his veto, that's just the facts of the situation right now, and in the best case Democrats will not have enough seats in the senate to override a veto.
Intelligence_Gap | 28 minutes ago
They’re already illegal….
FlyingBishop | 26 minutes ago
and yet...
Intelligence_Gap | 23 minutes ago
We’re being robbed and the consequences to that are on the news rn and will be for years to come
oksono | 4 hours ago
There likely won’t be enough Senate seats to override a filibuster let alone a veto.
bradco | 2 hours ago
The question will be what the appetite is for the GOP senators to appease Trump after seeing the results tonight. If it looks like his hold on the party/voters are waning then they might be more willing to buck against him.
kayGrim | 2 hours ago
If they didn't turn on him after Jan 6th its fair to say literally nothing will cause them to turn on him.
Accidental-Genius | 2 hours ago
You sure about that? It’s looking pretty good.
FlyingBishop | 2 hours ago
They need 67 votes to override a veto.
Inanesysadmin | an hour ago
I think you’ll see many republicans view the calculus differently after tonight. Trump is a lame duck.
klingma | 3 minutes ago
Not really applicable here.
If the president vetos a bill they pass, and they can't overturn the veto via supermajority, then that's it.
Yes, they can confirm or deny appointments but that's not as powerful here either.
They don't have as much power as you're wanting to say they do here.
ActualSpiders | 10 hours ago
The tariffs are just a tool for manipulating the markets & profiting off the whipsaw reactions. It doesn't matter whether they stay in place or are even ever enforced - the inside trading will make Trump & his cronies billions. That's the goal.
sly-3 | 6 hours ago
Also creates a bigger slush fund at the Treasury for Vought and gang to move around as they see fit.
Mbstranche08 | 7 hours ago
I tend to agree. Are the tariffs even in effect at customs??😂😂🤷♂️
Perfect_Earth_8070 | an hour ago
Bro my portfolio has been shit with the Trump admin
ActualSpiders | 16 minutes ago
Obviously you haven't been getting the inside dope on Taco Tuesdays
randomnerd97 | 10 hours ago
The SC ruled that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. There are other tariffs still in place under different statutes, some of which are currently being challenged in the Court of International Trade. These are statutes that let the president or USTR impose tariffs without congressional approval. This administration has demonstrated that they would come up with any excuses and dig up historical statutory authorities to impose taxes on imports. For example, the latest round of tariffs on Canadian goods were based on Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, a century-old, depression-era statute that had never been used for tariffs until now.
MimeGod | 9 hours ago
Congress could repeal the statutes letting presidents impose emergency tariffs, but there's no way they're getting a veto proof majority.
Vast_Telephone_9988 | 4 hours ago
I don't get it. If there is anything that maybe some GOP in office might agree with the dems on is how disastrous his use of tariffs has been. Then again their party is now just led by a demented cult leader.
Thurwell | 3 hours ago
Clearly for whatever reason they don't give a crap. If they did they could have repealed those statutes with bipartisan support in 2024 after they knew Trump would be president in 2 months.
Jethro_Tell | 3 minutes ago
To be fair, there are a lot of things that repubs haven't had the votes to get done, meaning there are people that would vote against the president on a number of things if it was brought to a vote. Part of the reason that they've all been in lock step is that republicans never allow a vote on anything that they won't win.
So there is a chance that you could pick a couple votes off for a few important things. Probably fiscal policy like tariffs, maybe some of the epstine investigation stuff, and probably limiting war powers. Other than that, I wouldn't expect much, but there are still vulnerable seats out there that just weren't up this cycle, and if they want to keep their seat, they may be more afraid of high gas prices than trump.
Whaddduptho | an hour ago
Why does it matter how old the law is?
It doesn't.
If it belong then take it off the books.
Anything else is a trash excuse.
Ok_Principle5942 | 7 hours ago
Because the Supreme Court didn't rule that the president doesn't have the authority to impose tariffs. He does, under certain circumstances.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48435
They ruled he didn't have the authority to impose them via International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.
He's currently claiming he has the authority to impose them via other statutes.
https://taxfoundation.org/research/federal-tax/trump-tariffs-trade-war/
He probably doesn't have this authority, but it takes time for questions like this to work through the courts.
Unless the Democrats pass legislation barring the president from implementing tariffs, he'd still be able to do this under their control and we'd still be waiting for the courts to strike them down.
CautiousOptimism09 | 10 hours ago
Because it only maters if people agree it maters. When has the law ever stopped republicans?
Reznerk | 9 hours ago
Well..the courts inevitably do at some point. Too slowly but c'est la vie. I'd have to imagine Trump's base begins to disintegrate, and Republicans back walk being pro-tariff over the next two years in an attempt to save face. Desantis already has in some ways, not directly on tariffs though. The Iran war has already caused them to break rank and file.
CurrentCostanza | 8 hours ago
>Economists Alec Phillips and Abhay Duggirala reasoned that “Democrats have indicated they would seek to reverse some of President Trump’s tariffs, but we expect this to have a limited effect since the reversals would likely be focused on a few countries (e.g., Canada) or products.”
>“We expect President Trump to announce new tariff increases after the election that would more than offset those reductions, likely resulting in a rise in the US effective tariff rate of a little under 2pp.”
I don't really get this assumption that democrats will focus their efforts only on specific countries.
Lucky_Dragonfruit_88 | 5 hours ago
You see, there's an obscure 19th century maritime law that nobody has thought about for 180 years that mentions the word "duty" which obviously gives trump unfettered tariff power while the supremely stupid court takes a year to read one document that negates that power.
wbruce098 | 3 hours ago
The question is, how big will democrats win today, and how many republicans will agree to go along with them when he’s impeached for very obvious reasons?
Wasuremaru | an hour ago
SCOTUS didn't rule all tariffs are unconstitutional. They ruled that the case before them, about a particular statute, wasn't a constitutional tariff.
So other means are still untested.
klingma | 5 minutes ago
SC ruled the law he used to implement tariffs was Unconstitutional, they don't rule that him implementing tariffs carte blanche were Unconstitutional.
ebfortin | 9 hours ago
Congress rules there's no tarrif. There are loyalist everywhere in the organisation. They'll coerce people to implement the tarrifs. Congress have no mean to force the executive to do anything. It's all based on the respect of the rule of law. Fascist don't care about the rule of law.
pushaper | 4 hours ago
executive orders I imagine.
blankarage | 4 hours ago
wartime tariffs/emergency tariffs. allowed for 60 days or so without congressional approval (i think)
cept the orange clown keeps on inventing new emergencies so it’s always an emergency tariff
Mbstranche08 | 8 hours ago
🤷♂️ according to the media he wont accept the midterm results unless the right sweeps. What does that even entail? 😂
AlanShore60607 | 5 hours ago
So the plan is to do as much damage as possible before Dems get sworn in?
Yeah, the American people are that gullible, based on past experience
stickyfingers_69 | 5 hours ago
Yes, then they blame it on the Dems
Movie_Slug | 4 hours ago
Dems controlled congress at the end of bushes term and they still blamed him for Great Recession. Usually people blame the president not congress.
pushaper | 4 hours ago
Obama took a lot of heat for the deal Bush signed to bail out the banks. IIRC it was not signed until Obama came into office but the details were basically fleshed out and known so there was no point in creating more uncertainty
WingerRules | 3 hours ago
You still see people even here in the economics subreddit blaming Obama for the bailouts passed under Bush and purposely split so that half of it would fall under the next administration when they took office. It was a strategy to make Bush's final year deficit numbers look better and the next person's to look worse and it worked. He played all sorts of financial bullshit games like that to produce deceptive numbers, for instance he kept the cost of his wars off of the deficit book keeping, which Obama changed and put them on the books when he took office.
AlanShore60607 | 3 hours ago
IIRC, Obama had a hand in it so that it would be a deal he was okay with signing.
WingerRules | 2 hours ago
Obama voted for it because it was good for the country, but in no way was splitting the bailouts so that half of it would happen when the next administration took office wasnt Bush and Republicans playing financial bullshit rat fucking to make Bush's final year deficit numbers look better and make the next person look worse.
Bush played all sorts of financial bullshit games like that to produce deceptive numbers, for instance he kept the cost of his wars off of the deficit book keeping, which Obama changed and put them on the books when he took office.
pushaper | 2 hours ago
u/wingerrules touched on this a little. I remember there being some transition agreement but I think it was the sort of thing that would have been signed last minute without obamas agreement and possibly he was able to insert some clauses by being agreeable.
MrSchulindersGuitar | 4 hours ago
Have you seen magas being interviewed?
[OP] DINO_BLU | 10 hours ago
Wall Street is worried that after the U.S. midterm elections, Trump could push ahead with more tariffs, take a tougher stance on Iran, and face a potential government shutdown due to political gridlock in Congress. Analysts expect trade tensions to return to the spotlight, with tariffs being used both as an economic tool and a source of government revenue, adding more uncertainty for markets.
Trumpy_Po_Ta_To | 10 hours ago
In other words, the grift will ratchet up while there’s still time remaining.
Memory_Less | 10 hours ago
Yes, exactly this. Look away from the distraction of the conflicts to where some of the biggest grifting is occurring. Well, except for Russia.
sly-3 | 6 hours ago
Look at his behavior when the walls were closing in on him with Atlantic City and his casinos. Should be a pattern there, just up the volume on it to 11 and apply it to future events.
https://www.phillymag.com/city/2015/08/16/donald-trump-atlantic-city-empire
IvoryTowerResident | 10 hours ago
interesting we are having a great day in the markets compared to the leadup
dominiond66 | 10 hours ago
Democrats and hopefully Republicans would impeach him for his deteriorating mental and physical health. His chronic erratical behavior is instability on steroids. He needs professional health care and America needs to be protect by a competent leader.
There is little or no danger with Iran possessing a nuclear bomb but massive danger in demented Trump in control of thousands of nuclear missiles! SOS-USA!
Gloobbie | 10 hours ago
You’re a fool if you think that will happen. He’s been impeached before, and what happened? Nothing
flyingtiger188 | 9 hours ago
At this point he's a lame duck, and they could use it as a set up to prop up Vance in 28. Two years as acting president would give him a better shot at winning.
Qeltar_ | 9 hours ago
The counterargument is that two years as acting president would give him a worse shot.
The MAGA folks are more likely to try to annoint one of Trump's kids instead (since they are now apparently big fans of monarchism...)
jzsean | 2 hours ago
lame duck donald
slimkay | 9 hours ago
Impeaching is a political process. Conviction will never happen unless Dems have 60 senate seats at the very least.
a_case_of_everything | 9 hours ago
Oh, my sweet summer child
klingma | a minute ago
You're insane for saying Iran poses no threat for possessing a nuclear bomb. That's a crazy statement from you.
impossiblefork | 8 hours ago
I mean, it can't be great to let Iran have a nuclear bomb. Especially with the war already having just been on.
It's easy to imagine that they're normal people-- perhaps because you've interacted with their diaspora, but they're actually crazy. They really aren't normal people and even if they'd been normal people a couple of years ago, they probably aren't now.
Just look at the Russians. They might have been normal in 2013. But they aren't now.
War makes people crazy. The Gazans and the Israelis probably are too, and look at the accelerating weirdness all these people get up to.
More nuclear weapons in the Middle East is a bad idea. This doesn't mean that it's worth it to actually solve the problem though.
El_Cato_Crande | 7 hours ago
Americans are normal people?
impossiblefork | 7 hours ago
I think so. Many at least.
El_Cato_Crande | 7 hours ago
I disagree. Otherwise we won't be dealing with the present shenanigans
impossiblefork | 7 hours ago
I suppose, but there's a difference between that and what they've got in Iran or Russia.
You may have particular individuals driven by hatred of perceived enemies, but in the US that isn't normal and most people aren't.
eternal_peril | 4 hours ago
You elected a rapist to your highest office because he was on TV
impossiblefork | 4 hours ago
I am not American, so no, we didn't.
El_Cato_Crande | 6 hours ago
To you who's from the US and in the US. To those in those countries I'm sure they see things differently.
People are people all over the world. People will do what looks to be in their best interest and try to survive. Individuals in the US are also driven by perceived hatred of fellow countrymen and trying to cause harm to others. Or taking away opportunity
impossiblefork | 6 hours ago
I'm a Swede, actually.
But it's true that there are unsound Americans.
Low_Trust2412 | 10 hours ago
I think a December government shutdown is unlikely, I expect they kick the can into February 2027. At that point, reasonable likelihood of a shutdown as they will be unable to reach a compromise.
ronreadingpa | 8 hours ago
Yep, likely delayed. Then come next year the President and fellow Republicans can blame the Democrats (presumably controlling the House and maybe the Senate) for the shutdown. Most every negative thing that happens after January will be blamed on the Democrats. Ironically, it could be better for the Democrats if the shutdown happens this year.
Setting the stage for the pendulum to swing back in 2028. Not just due to many voting differently, but many not voting at all like back in 2024. Already see the setup coming. Will come down to what Democrats do in 2027. They will only have effectively a year before 2028 election campaigning ramps up.
The_Brian | 4 hours ago
Normally I'd 100% agree, no way they shut down for a holiday (let alone Christmas). The only reason I think there's a possibility it happens is, if we see this blue wave, it'll be the Republican's last shot to get anything done. They'll try to force through whatever they can while they can do it, and with everyone trying to get their piece of the pie I could see a world where everything blows up.
Then when t he Dem's take Congress, Trump and the Republicans spin it as "they control Congress, why can't they get a deal with us?"
302-SWEETMAN | 5 hours ago
WE ALL KNOW a certain someone is a VERY VENGEFUL, and is SENSITIVE to people NOT LIKING HIM is gonna cause a huge DUMPSTER FIRE that will go down in HISTORY just like this entire government administration chock FULL OF GREED & Corruption
Among allot of other things..
Something big is definitely already been planned months ago.
Probably gonna get worse before it gets better…
WHAT KIND OF AMERICAN ARE YOU COULD BE IN OUR FUTURE..
CommieMartyr | 9 hours ago
So does that mean Wall Street is expecting to lose both the House and the Senate? That would be my call. If the are trying to gauge what Trump might do under excutive order, I'm sure they're bracing.
DonnyMox | 9 hours ago
Today is the day. We cannot afford to get even a slight bit complacent. We all know that Trump and his cronies are going to try everything they can to cheat. VOTE BLUE!
Mbstranche08 | 9 hours ago
Right now I’m next to certain they’re attempting to deflate the markets rapidly in hopes the central bank will loosen monetary policy. The CRE mortgage maturity wall coming due over the next 18 months starting now is in the neighborhood of a 1.6 trillion dollar refi operation. The issue regional lenders and private credit entities alike have, is they did not anticipate borrowing costs to increase as they did. To avoid a multiple default scenario we’re trying to provoke a situation where the fed loosens lending policies abruptly. As conspiratorial as it sounds, if it comes to it the media and financial arm will fund and stage a black swan event of sorts almost guaranteed. Yet I’m not sure the feds response will be quantitative easing. Very interesting times. Many are talking about Ai bubble, is it a bubble? Did it pop? When really we have a major refi situation to deal with. This is not me trying to politically bolster the president’s actions whatsoever.
One change that is evident now is the central bank isn’t working on behalf of the wealthier financiers benefit, which is extremely odd. They rather have them in a stranglehold.
diogenesRetriever | 2 hours ago
“the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises—and to regulate foreign commerce—belongs exclusively to Congress.”
Current tariffs were always dependent on a compliant legislature. I don’t know why they’d bet on more.