Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Did you bother looking at the side-bar on the right to see where this information was sourced from, you stupid fuck?

The question was rhetorical and we both already know the answer to that question is no.

So shut your fucking big stupid mouth for once and allow me to enlighten you...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

The government first began gathering detailed information on benefits use by citizenship status in 1994. The data show:

• For each year from 1994 to 2023, the US immigrant population generated more in taxes than they received in benefits from all levels of government.

• Over that period, immigrants created a cumulative fiscal surplus of $14.5 trillion in real 2024 US dollars, including $3.9 trillion in savings on interest on the debt.

• Without immigrants, US government public debt at all levels would be at least 205 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)—nearly twice its 2023 level.

https://www.cato.org/white-paper/immigrants-recent-effects-government-
budgets-1994-2023

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Uh huh...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/who-what-why/

--------------------------------------------------

Be Evil. Be a dick.

---

Ask Google if this is true: “THE UNITED STATES TRADE DEFICIT HAS BEEN REDUCED BY 78% BECAUSE OF THE TARIFFS BEING CHARGED TO OTHER COMPANIES AND COUNTRIES,” Trump wrote in a social media post.

Google's answer:

Based on 2025 data, that statement is false. The U.S. trade deficit for goods and services in 2025 dropped by only about 0.2% ($2.1 billion), not 78%, according to Census Bureau data released on February 19, 2026. The claim likely used a selective, short-term, or volatile monthly figure rather than the total annual reduction.

Key Details:

• The 78% Figure: This likely refers to a volatile monthly, short-term reduction between a peak in March and a low in October 2025, rather than a sustained annual decrease.

• Actual 2025 Data: The total annual trade deficit only decreased by $2.1 billion (0.2%), a "meager decrease" compared to the high percentage claimed.

• Tariff Impact: While tariffs were intended to reduce the deficit, imports of goods actually increased to a record $1.24 trillion, indicating the trade gap did not shrink as claimed.

• Costs: Research indicates that U.S. businesses and consumers, rather than foreign countries, paid for the bulk of these tariffs.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Supreme court ruled, 6 to 3, that the President does not have the authority to impose tariffs. The constitutional structure reserves tariff powers to Congress.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/607/24-1287

Trump told a news conference he’s “absolutely ashamed” of justices who voted to strike down his tariffs. Trump called the majority decision “a disgrace.”

https://fox4kc.com/news/national/ap-the-latest-supreme-court-strikes-d
own-trumps-tariffs-upending-central-plank-of-economic-agenda

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:
Supreme Court says no to Trumps tariffs!!! Oh no, I was right again and again, Jacks is wrong.

T

---

Quote:

---

The Trump tariffs are dead. Long live the Trump tariffs?

This morning, in a 6–3 opinion, the Supreme Court struck down the bulk of the president’s sweeping global tariffs. The majority ruled that the law Donald Trump had used to carry out most of his trade policies does not, in fact, allow the president to impose tariffs at all. This is a major setback for Trump’s trade agenda, but it is far from a fatal one. The president has several alternatives that he can use to reconstruct his tariff regime, and his administration has spent months putting a plan in place to do so. Those efforts, too, may eventually be challenged in court, but fully litigating them would take years. Unless the president suddenly has a change of heart, Trump’s tariff adventure is far from over.

The case before the court centered on a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or IEEPA, which authorizes the president to “regulate” the importation of goods in a national emergency that arises from an “unusual and extraordinary threat.” The Trump administration had interpreted this vague statute, which had never been used to justify tariffs, to mean that the president can issue tariffs of whatever kind he wants, whenever he wants, on any country he wants, so long as he says an emergency exists, all without getting congressional approval. IEEPA was the basis of Trump’s tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China last February, the “reciprocal” tariffs he levied on almost every country in the world on Liberation Day, and most of the one-off tariffs he has issued or threatened to impose on trade partners such as Brazil, India, and, more recently, Europe and Canada. (Industry-specific tariffs on goods like steel and aluminum have been imposed under separate, more legally sound authorities, and are not affected by the ruling.)

Last year, the lower courts ruled that although IEEPA might allow some tariffs, it certainly didn’t allow these tariffs—many of which were set at arbitrary levels, on an arbitrary set of countries, using justifications that could hardly be thought of as a true national emergency (such as the existence of a trade deficit or an imaginary surge of fentanyl shipments from Canada). The Supreme Court went even further. “We hold that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs,” Chief Justice John Roberts declared.

But even as it insisted that the law was on its side, the administration spent much of the past year preparing a backup plan to rebuild Trump’s tariff wall in case the courts ruled against them. Because, as the president observed on Truth Social a few hours after the ruling, “the Supreme Court did not overrule TARIFFS, they merely overruled a particular use of IEEPA TARIFFS.”

According to top Trump-administration officials such as National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the administration’s plan draws on two main authorities. The first is Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That law allows the president to levy tariffs of up to 15 percent on any country for up to 150 days to address “large and serious balance-of-payment deficits,” a term that refers to more money leaving the country than coming into it. After the initial window, the tariff must be reauthorized by Congress. According to estimates by Clark Packard and Stan Vueger, trade experts at the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, respectively, this technique alone would allow Trump to reinstate 70 percent of the tariff revenue struck down by the Supreme Court. This would be a temporary solution, and overbroad use of Section 122 could also be invalidated by the courts. It would most likely be intended only as a stopgap measure to buy time while the administration begins work on the second part of its plan.

Phase two would draw on Section 301 of the same law. Section 301 allows a presidential administration to levy essentially permanent tariffs of any kind on any country in response to “unfair” trade practices. The catch is that the tariffs can only come into effect after the federal government has navigated several layers of bureaucratic process, including launching an official investigation into the unfair practices of the country in question, compiling a report detailing those practices, and offering a public notice-and-comment period. That’s where the 150 days comes in. The administration could use that time to launch investigations into the U.S.’s major trading partners so that once the five months are expired, the paperwork is already in place to switch to indefinite tariffs under Section 301. This authority rests on stronger constitutional grounds. The first Trump administration and the Biden administration both used section 301 to impose or raise tariffs on Chinese goods. Courts have generally been deferential to how presidents use the authority as long as the proper process has been followed.

Trump has already signaled that he plans to use all the legal authorities at his disposal. “Therefore, effective immediately, all National Security TARIFFS, Section 232 and existing Section 301 TARIFFS, remain in place, and in full force and effect,” he wrote in his Truth Social post. “Today I will sign an Order to impose a 10% GLOBAL TARIFF, under Section 122, over and above our normal TARIFFS already being charged, and we are also initiating several Section 301 and other Investigations to protect our Country from unfair Trading practices.”

Most experts I spoke with think that this one-two combination will allow Trump to functionally rebuild most of the current tariff regime in a way that could survive in court. “Nearly 90 percent of U.S. trade comes from our 20 largest trading partners,” Peter Harell, who served as a top trade adviser in the Biden administration, told me before the ruling came down. “I don’t think it would be too difficult to reconstitute tariffs on most of them in 150 days.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

You too, Second.

--------------------------------------------------

Be Evil. Be a dick.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

You too, Second.

--------------------------------------------------

Be Evil. Be a dick.

---

Trump lost the election in 2020, but he said he won and he would stay in the White House, except Congress threw him out of office. Trump lost on tariffs in 2026, but he will keep collecting the money until Congress throws him out of office.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Oh yeah?

How, pray tell, are they going to do that?



--------------------------------------------------

Be Evil. Be a dick.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Trump lost the election in 2020, but he said he won and he would stay in the White House, except Congress threw him out of office. Trump lost on tariffs in 2026, but he will keep collecting the money until Congress throws him out of office.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Oh yeah?

How, pray tell, are they going to do that?



--------------------------------------------------

Be Evil. Be a dick.

---

GM Gilbert was the chief psychologist who interviewed Nazis on trial at Nuremberg. His words are as valid today.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Meanwhile, answer the fucking question, retard. You don't get to say Nazi to avoid having an actual debate over your dumbass, braindead commentary anymore.

Not when everybody knows your game and hates you for it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Meanwhile, answer the fucking question, retard. You don't get to say Nazi to avoid having an actual debate over your dumbass, braindead commentary anymore.

Not when everybody knows your game and hates you for it.

---

After Hitler

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Shut the fuck up.

--------------------------------------------------

Be Evil. Be a dick.

---