More than 50 countries have reached out to the President to begin tariff negotiations

[putnam6]

Another good sign historically for my industry, lots of our clients are in tourism-driven states...with lots of blue collar workers..

[putnam6]

Many Americans and their quality of life are tied to driving...professionally and socially... when it's cheaper to do so, it has it's positive effects 

Rapid Response 47

[Image: https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/191...bigger.jpg]
@RapidResponse47

@PressSec
: "As Americans make their Labor Day weekend travel plans, they will be able to enjoy five-year low gas prices thanks to
@POTUS
fully unleashing American energy dominance." "These savings at the pump are giving everyday American families more room in their budgets..."

[RichardHurt]

So everyone should be happy correct? As an industry that sees clients based on housing lifestyles needs should be good for the others? That seems if not is one sided and is no indication of the actual economy.
Again it's great that some are seeing higher wages and a increase in demand, but that is in no way a representation of the entire economy. 
The real date is in the job creation. That most likely will not see a increase. Likely ever as AI agents continue to take over jobs.
Honestly this deserves its own thread. But as someone that utilizes AI in many aspects to cut costs, I see no reason why most companies or businesses to do so.
So with that said, the stock market and all it's little nuances, are not going to be a representation of the real countries economy.
This is called "late stage capitalism". This is a term all should get used to. You will begin to hear it alot. And it can be good in some ways, worse is much more.

[Harte]

So unemployment hasn't changed? So those that were unemployed can't find jobs. So where did all the job growth go we were promised? That just will not happen as much as some want to believe it will.
Blue collar wages is something I will not argue against. It's good.

4 to 5% unemployment is considered full employment by economists in this context.
Maybe not by you personally.
Unemployment in July was the same as it was in June.
To normal people, that means no change.
Job growth will come. Then eventually growth will be gone with AI.
o, yeah.
Everything I said was factual. You can look it up yourself if you don't use left wing blogs for your sources.
Here's job growth. The rest you can do for yourself.


Harte

[Harte]

The longer people are unemployed the more the tax payer will have to contribute. That number will only climb. All these investments being made into America by tech companies don't really generate a job growth. AI will handle the vast majority of that.
Let that sink in. The Tech companies are the ones driving the crypto and stock market. That is not a true reflection of the state of the economy. That is a reflection of how well off the tech and bobbleheads are.

Ye, the unemployment rate just looks horrible.
Oh. Wait.

Harte

[RichardHurt]

Fantastic that you are aware of the historical low unemployment rate. How that relates to now and the difference between the two due to economic laws and the federal backing does not give a true picture of the current times.
But you do. I gave my warning. Choose to listen or not is your propagative.

[putnam6]

The federal appeals court ruling on August 29, 2025, declared Trump’s tariffs unlawful...

Seems certain the White House will appeal... regardless, they will be in place atleast until October 15th

Seems like both sides are pushing the envelope to see what they can and can not get away with...

https://x.com/ReeveSwainston/status/1961552753496572252
 

Historical context reveals this marks the first judicial strike against a president’s tariff authority since the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, highlighting a rare legal check on executive power in trade policy, as detailed in a recent analysis by the Federal Circuit Court

 

Trump’s Tariffs, which started off with some confusion and ambiguity in the markets, but later proved extremely effective as seen recently with record breaking numbers and manufacturing returning to the US, were just declared unlawful by an appellate court.

• The federal appeals court ruling on August 29, 2025, declared Trump’s tariffs unlawful under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a surprising twist given their unprecedented use for trade rather than traditional sanctions, as noted by legal experts in a 2024 study from the American Economic Review.
  
• Data from the Congressional Budget Office (2025) suggests these tariffs, raising U.S. tariff rates to 18.6% by August 2025, boosted federal revenue to 5% but risked a 4.7% unemployment spike, challenging the narrative of their economic success touted by supporters like Reeve Swainston.
  
• Historical context reveals this marks the first judicial strike against a president’s tariff authority since the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, highlighting a rare legal check on executive power in trade policy, as detailed in a recent analysis by the Federal Circuit Court.
  

[putnam6]

FWIW

• Judicial Appointments: The Reuters article notes that "Democratic presidents appointed six judges in the majority and two judges who dissented, while Republican presidents appointed one judge in the majority and two dissenters." This suggests a mixed panel with a slight lean toward Democratic appointees in the majority. However, without a specific breakdown of individual judges' identities in the ruling, I cannot pinpoint the exact judge who wrote or led the majority opinion.
  
• Key Context: The case originated from a lower court ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade (based in New York), where a three-judge panel, including one Trump-appointed judge, initially ruled against the tariffs on May 28, 2025. The appeal to the Federal Circuit followed, and the appellate court's decision on August 29, 2025, upheld and expanded that ruling.
  

Since the Federal Circuit's judges are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate, the majority likely included judges appointed by Democratic presidents (e.g., Barack Obama or Joe Biden), with at least one Republican appointee (possibly from George W. Bush or Donald Trump’s first term) joining them. Notable Federal Circuit judges appointed by Democrats include Sharon Prost (Obama, 2001), and more recent appointees like Tiffany Cunningham (Biden, 2021). Republican appointees might include Kara Farnandez Stoll (Obama, but with a GOP-leaning record) or others from earlier administrations.
For a precise answer on the lead judge and their appointer, the official court opinion (not yet fully detailed in the provided web results) would be required. However, based on the 7-4 split and appointment data:

• The majority likely included judges appointed by Barack Obama or Joe Biden, with at least one Republican-appointed judge (possibly from George W. Bush or Donald Trump).
  
• The dissenting judges included at least two appointed by Republican presidents.
  

I recommend checking the official Federal Circuit docket or a legal news update from August 29, 2025, for the exact judge names and their appointing presidents, as this information may have been released post-ruling. As of 07:52 PM EDT today, the data available to me does not specify the lead judge's identity.

[CriticalStinker]

The federal appeals court ruling on August 29, 2025, declared Trump’s tariffs unlawful...

Seems certain the White House will appeal... regardless, they will be in place atleast until October 15th

Seems like both sides are pushing the envelope to see what they can and can not get away with...

https://x.com/ReeveSwainston/status/1961552753496572252
 



 

I don’t think there is any ambiguity here. The constitution is clear about which branch has the power of the purse, including taxation and tariffs. It’s pretty clear that’s congress.

The aspect that gives executive wiggle room is emergencies. We could parse what constitutes an emergency, and I’ll be the first to say we’ve had economic problems for a long time, so I could appreciate that people would say that’s an emergency, and give him the power to do blanket tariffs. The problem is there are emergencies every couple of years, so we still don’t want presidents to have absolute power, because if one person gets it wrong (we’re all human) then everyone is screwed. The reason some things have to go through congress is a lot of people have to agree, which is harder. So it’s harder to do something horribly wrong (in an ideal world, though they’ve proven to do that many times).

On paper, this is an easy decision. He doesn’t have the power, and we shouldn’t set the precedence for presidents to circumvent checks and balances.

The problem is two fold. First, we gambled that this would offset the revenue reduction of the BBB. the other is if we scrap the tariffs, the door will open for entities who paid them to recoup their losses if the tariffs were illegal in the first place.

Trump is right that we will be screwed if they get scrapped now.

Personally, I’m fine with tariffs, I just think these were sloppy, and not targeted as they should be. I always highlighted that the lack of constitutional grounds, and disingenuous language like reciprocal would lead to problems like this. But here we are.

Unfortunately SCOTUS will have to decide on constitutionality, or dealing a huge blow to economic trust in the country (which will be a decision that gives executive more power).

Whether or not people trust Trump, he will not be around forever. Giving executive more power means future presidents could deal more damage.

The tariffs should have just been passed through congress. But we’re at where we’re at.

[putnam6]

I don’t think there is any ambiguity here. The constitution is clear about which branch has the power of the purse, including taxation and tariffs. It’s pretty clear that’s congress.

The aspect that gives executive wiggle room is emergencies. We could parse what constitutes an emergency, and I’ll be the first to say we’ve had economic problems for a long time, so I could appreciate that people would say that’s an emergency, and give him the power to do blanket tariffs. The problem is there are emergencies every couple of years, so we still don’t want presidents to have absolute power, because if one person gets it wrong (we’re all human) then everyone is screwed. The reason some things have to go through congress is a lot of people have to agree, which is harder. So it’s harder to do something horribly wrong (in an ideal world, though they’ve proven to do that many times).

On paper, this is an easy decision. He doesn’t have the power, and we shouldn’t set the precedence for presidents to circumvent checks and balances.

The problem is two fold. First, we gambled that this would offset the revenue reduction of the BBB. the other is if we scrap the tariffs, the door will open for entities who paid them to recoup their losses if the tariffs were illegal in the first place.

Trump is right that we will be screwed if they get scrapped now.

Personally, I’m fine with tariffs, I just think these were sloppy, and not targeted as they should be. I always highlighted that the lack of constitutional grounds, and disingenuous language like reciprocal would lead to problems like this. But here we are.

Unfortunately SCOTUS will have to decide on constitutionality, or dealing a huge blow to economic trust in the country (which will be a decision that gives executive more power).

Whether or not people trust Trump, he will not be around forever. Giving executive more power means future presidents could deal more damage.

The tariffs should have just been passed through congress. But we’re at where we’re at.

You mean the same Congress that sat on numerous lousy trade deals, FOR YEARS? for what?

So it doesn't upset the apple cart? FTN,

At least OMB is trying to change the status quo, which may ultimately benefit Americans' bottom line. We can always go back to the crappy deals we had before IF and when the Democrats regain power. 

Im still waiting for the predicted immediate economic collapse...