▲ 577 ▼ We have moved on. (lemmy.ca) submitted 2 days ago by Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca to c/ehbuddyhoser@sh.itjust.works 132 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] clanker_victim_555@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (9 children) They aren't going to remove tariffs. permalink fedilink source hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.today 12 points 1 day ago Jeffries won't even allow it to be brought up in the House. We have a conservative infestation in the Dem party. If we can't get rid of the roaches in our own party, how can we get rid of the roaches in the rest of our government? permalink fedilink source parent replies: [+] clanker_victim_555@lemmy.world 1 point 1 day ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] knexcar@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (4 children) I wish we would. I want to be able to buy from ebikes.ca again without crazy shipping fees. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] clanker_victim_555@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (2 children) Wish in one hand, shit in the other. See which one fills up first. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago its both hands theres so much shit permalink fedilink source parent [–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 2 points 22 hours ago I wish I had more shit permalink fedilink source parent [–] NotSteve_@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago Likewise I'd like to be able to buy homelab server stuff from just over the southern border off eBay again without the fees being 10x the price of the item. I saw a $30 HDD backplane with $400 shipping permalink fedilink source parent [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (2 children) There's a strong economic incentive to have a legislative majority rein in the Presidential power to levy tariffs. Democrats won't do it. But they have a powerful incentive to do it. But they won't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago (1 child) There’s a strong economic incentive to have a legislative majority rein in the Presidential power to levy tariffs. The courts have repeatedly ruled that he doesn't even have the power to levy the tariffs he has, and yet people are still having to pay them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago The courts ruled against IEEPA based tariffs specifically. That was just one layer in a thick stack of tariffs imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act 1962 (National Security), 301 of the Trade Act 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices) and 122 (150 day Balance of Payment Deficit rule), the anti dumping rules, and countervailing duties through the Commerce Department (the President has been granted authority under law to retaliate against foreign tariffs without Congressional dispensation). Courts have yet to limit any of these powers. Congress could amend any of them or simply impose new oversight and limitations on presidential power to impose tariffs generally speaking. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.today 12 points 1 day ago Jeffries won't even allow it to be brought up in the House. We have a conservative infestation in the Dem party. If we can't get rid of the roaches in our own party, how can we get rid of the roaches in the rest of our government? permalink fedilink source parent replies: [+] clanker_victim_555@lemmy.world 1 point 1 day ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] knexcar@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (4 children) I wish we would. I want to be able to buy from ebikes.ca again without crazy shipping fees. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] clanker_victim_555@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (2 children) Wish in one hand, shit in the other. See which one fills up first. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago its both hands theres so much shit permalink fedilink source parent [–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 2 points 22 hours ago I wish I had more shit permalink fedilink source parent [–] NotSteve_@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago Likewise I'd like to be able to buy homelab server stuff from just over the southern border off eBay again without the fees being 10x the price of the item. I saw a $30 HDD backplane with $400 shipping permalink fedilink source parent
[–] clanker_victim_555@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (2 children) Wish in one hand, shit in the other. See which one fills up first. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago its both hands theres so much shit permalink fedilink source parent [–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 2 points 22 hours ago I wish I had more shit permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago its both hands theres so much shit permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 2 points 22 hours ago I wish I had more shit permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NotSteve_@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago Likewise I'd like to be able to buy homelab server stuff from just over the southern border off eBay again without the fees being 10x the price of the item. I saw a $30 HDD backplane with $400 shipping permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (2 children) There's a strong economic incentive to have a legislative majority rein in the Presidential power to levy tariffs. Democrats won't do it. But they have a powerful incentive to do it. But they won't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago (1 child) There’s a strong economic incentive to have a legislative majority rein in the Presidential power to levy tariffs. The courts have repeatedly ruled that he doesn't even have the power to levy the tariffs he has, and yet people are still having to pay them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago The courts ruled against IEEPA based tariffs specifically. That was just one layer in a thick stack of tariffs imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act 1962 (National Security), 301 of the Trade Act 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices) and 122 (150 day Balance of Payment Deficit rule), the anti dumping rules, and countervailing duties through the Commerce Department (the President has been granted authority under law to retaliate against foreign tariffs without Congressional dispensation). Courts have yet to limit any of these powers. Congress could amend any of them or simply impose new oversight and limitations on presidential power to impose tariffs generally speaking. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago (1 child) There’s a strong economic incentive to have a legislative majority rein in the Presidential power to levy tariffs. The courts have repeatedly ruled that he doesn't even have the power to levy the tariffs he has, and yet people are still having to pay them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago The courts ruled against IEEPA based tariffs specifically. That was just one layer in a thick stack of tariffs imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act 1962 (National Security), 301 of the Trade Act 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices) and 122 (150 day Balance of Payment Deficit rule), the anti dumping rules, and countervailing duties through the Commerce Department (the President has been granted authority under law to retaliate against foreign tariffs without Congressional dispensation). Courts have yet to limit any of these powers. Congress could amend any of them or simply impose new oversight and limitations on presidential power to impose tariffs generally speaking. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago The courts ruled against IEEPA based tariffs specifically. That was just one layer in a thick stack of tariffs imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act 1962 (National Security), 301 of the Trade Act 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices) and 122 (150 day Balance of Payment Deficit rule), the anti dumping rules, and countervailing duties through the Commerce Department (the President has been granted authority under law to retaliate against foreign tariffs without Congressional dispensation). Courts have yet to limit any of these powers. Congress could amend any of them or simply impose new oversight and limitations on presidential power to impose tariffs generally speaking. permalink fedilink source parent