>>106482097
>The tariffs were meant to offset the cost of trumps big beautiful bill.
I think you misunderstand the Senate rules for reconciliation bills. They must not increase the deficit on a 10-year horizon, within the provisions of the bill itself. The tariffs were not part of that bill, ergo the Senate Parliamentarian did not, and could not, factor in tariff revenue when evaluating if provisions of the OBBBA were permissible under the Byrd Rule.

But were they "meant to" at all?
By the administration's own words, their goal was to revitalize US manufacturing. Doing that plus increasing revenue via tariffs doesn't work long-term. It makes some sense to expect that tariffs could reinvigorate manufacturing (on a 5-to-10-year timeline, with some disruption along the way), by making imported goods more expensive relative to domestic equivalents.
But if that succeeds, then guess what?
The US would imports less.
Meaning less people paying the tariffs.
Meaning less "offsetting" the cost of the OBBBA.
Claiming both "long-term tariff revenue" and "long-term import decline" is obviously silly.

>...meant to be replacing/supplementing income tax with a consumption tax...
See previous. Self-defeating. The US actually doesn't import nearly as much as the public perceives. To actually replace the income tax, or even make a dent in it, would require tariffs so high that people would mostly stop importing entirely, thus mostly stop paying the tariffs, and removes them as a meaningful contribution to the budget.
>...but now that a federal judge ruled them illegal, it's a pretty fucked up situation financially.
The judge didn't rule the tariffs themselves illegal, only the method by which the administration justified implementing them. They can either re-issue them under a different justification, or even better, pass the tariffs as a law, not a weaksauce executive order that the next president can just undo.
Laws, I tell you. Passed by Congress. Article I of the Constitution.

>>514844062
>The tariffs were meant to offset the cost of trumps big beautiful bill.
I think you misunderstand the Senate rules for reconciliation bills. They must not increase the deficit on a 10-year horizon, within the provisions of the bill itself. The tariffs were not part of that bill, ergo the Senate Parliamentarian did not, and could not, factor in tariff revenue when evaluating if provisions of the OBBBA were permissible under the Byrd Rule.

But were they "meant to" at all?
By the administration's own words, their goal was to revitalize US manufacturing. Doing that plus increasing revenue via tariffs doesn't work long-term. It makes some sense to expect that tariffs could reinvigorate manufacturing (on a 5-to-10-year timeline, with some disruption along the way), by making imported goods more expensive relative to domestic equivalents.
But if that succeeds, then guess what?
The US would imports less.
Meaning less people paying the tariffs.
Meaning less "offsetting" the cost of the OBBBA.
Claiming both "long-term tariff revenue" and "long-term import decline" is obviously silly.

>...meant to be replacing/supplementing income tax with a consumption tax...
See previous. Self-defeating. The US actually doesn't import nearly as much as the public perceives. To actually replace the income tax, or even make a dent in it, would require tariffs so high that people would mostly stop importing entirely, thus mostly stop paying the tariffs, and removes them as a meaningful contribution to the budget.
>...but now that a federal judge ruled them illegal, it's a pretty fucked up situation financially.
The judge didn't rule the tariffs themselves illegal, only the method by which the administration justified implementing them. They can either re-issue them under a different justification, or even better, pass the tariffs as a law, not a weaksauce executive order that the next president can just undo.
Laws, I tell you. Passed by Congress. Article I of the Constitution.

>>60596630
flat. i ordered an expensive inflatable seat cushion meant for wheelchairs today. i don't use a wheelchair. i use an Ikea office chair that isn't comfortable anymore. i thought about my late stepfather, who had multiple sclerosis and spent his days in a wheelchair, and remembered that his chair had a fancy seat cushion designed to prevent him from developing sores as he quite literally could not move his ass off that chair without assistance. I did a price comparison of a brand new office chair vs just this seat cushion, found the cost/benefit worked out for the cushion. Ikea chair is fine it's just like sitting on plywood with some cloth draped over it is all.