The United States is facing what experts describe as a potential financial crisis as the Supreme Court reviews the legality of President Donald Trump's wide-reaching emergency tariffs.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett called this scenario 'a mess', warning that the government could face an administrative crisis of unprecedented scale.

Trade lawyers say the impact could be overwhelming. Many of President Trump's tariffs changed multiple times, and shipments often contained goods subject to different rates. The result is years of tangled customs data

all 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 26 points 11 months ago

Turns out letting the guy who habitually bankrupts businesses run the government "like a business" leads to financial problems. Who could possibly have predicted this? There's also the fact he's a complete moron, and likely is suffering from early onset dementia, and he's a felon and conman just for that extra bit of spice.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    No shit, that's why you dickheads should have done your jobs earlier.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    huh? who are you talking about lol. hopefully not normies, there's nothing currently we can do besides protest. which we are, they just aren't listening or and are also kidnapping and deporting randoms, even citizens. anyways, here's to the collapse of the US 🥂

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago*

    I think they are referring to the conservative justices on the Supreme Court.

    Much of the point of an preliminary injunction is to prevent irreversible harm to parties... but in their selective application of them, they repeatedly value the executive branch's feelings over the Constitution, the rule-of-law, and in this case a US$1T clusterfuck on the people of the United States.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett called this scenario 'a mess', warning that the government could face an administrative crisis of unprecedented scale. Trade lawyers say the impact could be overwhelming. Many of President Trump's tariffs changed multiple times, and shipments often contained goods subject to different rates. The result is years of tangled customs data.

    Despite the fact that it's going to be a shitshow to clean the royal fucking mess you've made, you still have to clean up your royal fucking mess.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago*

    The companies get the bail out instead of us and the prices still don't go down. It's like getting punched in the face and the balls at the same time.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago

    Am I going to get a refund? I paid Trump's constantly shifting import duties for goods I imported directly. Are they going to send me a check?

    Spoiler: they won't send me a check.

  • source
  • [–] [S] 8 points 11 months ago

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett called this scenario ‘a mess’, warning that the government could face an administrative crisis of unprecedented scale.

    Let's hope Barrett and the other 5 Republican justices protect the poor government from that awful "administrative crisis." We wouldn't possibly want anyone in the administration to actually have to deal with the consequences of Trump's administrative theft, would we?

  • source
  • 22 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 67 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Tax payers will owe. Trump buddies will get their refund.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    This article is missing something huge.

    MOST of the refunds wouldn't go back to the businesses that paid them - they'd go to companies like the investment firm Howard Lutnik's son runs that bought up as much of the debt as possible for a fraction of its value.

    Keep the tariffs and continue to fuck everyone over, cancel the tariffs and it's a windfall for the son of the SEC.

    Almost like this was the plan from the start.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    Holy f u c k .

    All of what follows from me here is completely speculative based on the article summary and your very, very insightful, horrifying addition.

    The "Supreme Court" doing a "good thing" in frankly both maga and non-maga groups' eyes would basically be them attempting to placate the masses with a contrived hope for relief and, perhaps, a false sense of governmental integrity.

    Maybe the SEC now maintains a way sharper grip on publicly trading companies for some reason, idk like some weird fasc-on-fasc rank enforcement shit. Or maybe taxes. Probably bribes. Anyway the corps are possibly being "urged" to steady their prices, giving us folks a wee break in this economical trainwreck, as "proof" that "returning" the tariffs helped in some way.

    I mean, with the number of companies bending the goddamn knee in the stupidest ways, you have to wonder if they weren't, ahem, "targeted," in some additional way. I'll bet in some way, the corps ran the numbers and figured they'd stand to lose less money shedding DEI supporters than whatever they've been told they stood, or still stand, to lose.

    Honestly at this point I think all these rich and/or bought mfers in top fed positions are just creating their golden parachutes, like any good CEO would really, before the bottom drops out. Before the country's company's brain, ineffective and tripping on its own chemicals, finally dies, and is quickly liquified, the body already robbed for spare parts. Whatever heart that entity (theoretically) may have had, it shut down a long time ago.

    murica

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 35 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    If this happens, president shitstain will have increased the national deficit by close to $3 trillion in under 1 year. Jfc

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    When has Trump lost anything at the Supreme Court? Aren’t they in his pocket?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    This is the "corporations are people supreme court" vs "guy they all like to think doesn't suck bill clinton's dick"

    The real question is how much do they love corporations. I fully expect them to say something like "Trump can't change the tariffs but the government doesn't have to return anything"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago

    I fully expect them to say something like "Trump can't change the tariffs but the government doesn't have to return anything"

    I think that's where this will end up. I doubt they'll say straight out say that Trump's unconstitutional tariffs have created a ridiculous mess that would be a nightmare to untangle, but that is what will be behind the ruling.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    From the comments during the trial, he may very well lose this one.

    The trouble is that conservatives hate taxes, and the old ones are just smart enough to know that tariffs are just another way of taxing things. If you go back through Project 2025, you'll find two opinions on them. One took the libertarian view that tariffs are bad, period. The other took the protectionism view that some tariffs were necessary in order to beat China. Neither wanted such gigantic, across the board tariffs.

    The old conservatives on the court were making some very skeptical questions of the Administration lawyers, and didn't seem to be buying the answers. We'll see what happens when the ruling comes out, but that sort of thing is a pretty reliable signal of where they're going to land.

    All that said, what's going to happen is that after prices to average people rose due to tariffs, the payback will go to the companies that imported things, and they'll pocket the money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Still a win for the shipping companies. I'm sure DHL's flat $17 "duties processing fee" won't get refunded.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Not correct with tariffs. But making any changes retroative would be hard. Now, if he loses, I am sure the president would not get any kind of punishment...

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    Don't need to worry about debts no one can collect. Nut nice try.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    Trump and the right will rebrand the checks as some kind of graceful income injection, like the COVID checks. And MAGA will fall for it.

  • source