• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

(The Hill) Trump announces 90-day extension for Mexico tariff talks

Chomsky

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
104,705
Reaction score
95,443
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
(The Hill) Trump announces 90-day extension for Mexico tariff talks
--
President Trump said Thursday he would allow another 90 days for trade talks with Mexico, punting a 30 percent tariff that was set to go into effect Friday.
Click to expand...
Trump posted to Truth Social Wednesday that his Aug. 1 deadline “stands strong.”
Click to expand...
--
Looks like the markets were right in predicting more TACO, at least in terms of tariffs on goods imported from Mexico.

Now what remains to be seen, is the other countries' goods tariffs promised for tomorrow.
 
Mr Person said:
2028: "I intend to stay on for a third term so I can negotiate these trade deals!"
Click to expand...

Haha!

I think eventually over time he'll claim "deals" for everyone, which will remain-to-be-seen when they are presented before Congress for ratification.

Unless he somehow skips Congress, which I don't see how he can do it Constitutionally.
 
I saw this article today and I think it does a good job of describing where we currently are regarding tariffs and deals with not only Mexico, but with other countries too.

 
Chomsky said:
Haha!

I think eventually over time he'll claim "deals" for everyone, which will remain-to-be-seen when they are presented before Congress for ratification.

Unless he somehow skips Congress, which I don't see how he can do it Constitutionally.
Click to expand...
He has no intention of going to Congress and they have no intention of forcing him. These aren't trade deals. Substantively, they are only tariffs.
 
Callen said:
He has no intention of going to Congress and they have no intention of forcing him. These aren't trade deals. Substantively, they are only tariffs.
Click to expand...
examples and Types:
A major trade agreement that replaced NAFTA.


The World Trade Organization agreements, including the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), are often implemented through congressional-executive agreements.


Agreements between two or more countries to reduce or eliminate trade barriers.


Agreements made solely on the President's authority, without Congressional involvement.


Significance:
  • Flexibility:
    Executive agreements allow for quicker and more flexible trade negotiations than traditional treaties.
  • Efficiency:
    They can streamline the process of implementing trade agreements by using congressional-executive agreements that only require a simple majority vote in Congress.

  • Balance of Powers:
    While executive agreements can enhance presidential power in trade, Congress retains the power to influence trade policy through legislation and oversight.
 
Callen said:
He has no intention of going to Congress and they have no intention of forcing him. These aren't trade deals. Substantively, they are only tariffs.
Click to expand...

But how can a President do this unilaterally? Without Congress? I'm assuming these are negotiated agreements to be put before Congress. Otherwise, they're essentially nothing. At least nothing binding.
 
Chomsky said:
But how can a President do this unilaterally? Without Congress? I'm assuming these are negotiated agreements to be put before Congress. Otherwise, they're essentially nothing. At least nothing binding.
Click to expand...
He is using a law that allows the President to establish tariffs if he deems a national security issue. Nothing else negotiated so far is part of a written deal. It is all "promises".
 
Chomsky said:
But how can a President do this unilaterally? Without Congress? I'm assuming these are negotiated agreements to be put before Congress. Otherwise, they're essentially nothing. At least nothing binding.
Click to expand...

Nothing is binding for Trump. He never sticks to any of his so called deals. What will happen if all the countries with deals do the same as he does? He has no way to enforce any of these phony deals.
 
Callen said:
He is using a law that allows the President to establish tariffs if he deems a national security issue. Nothing else negotiated so far is part of a written deal. It is all "promises".
Click to expand...

An appeals court is supposedly deciding today whether or not this law really applies. It’s funny to me how Trump can both invoke emergency powers and yet claim that everything is just fine now that he is president at the same time. He always talks out of both sides of his mouth. He wants to claim constant emergency powers and also claim that he has now gotten everything under control. Let’s hope the court puts a stop to this nonsense.
 
Chomsky said:
But how can a President do this unilaterally? Without Congress? I'm assuming these are negotiated agreements to be put before Congress. Otherwise, they're essentially nothing. At least nothing binding.
Click to expand...
Congress delegates WAY too much to the executive branch, due in part because they keep putting themselves into a tribal logjam. IMHO treaties should be put to the senate for ratification.

And the US has transitioned WAY too much to executive level agreements - which run the risk of, as you point out, being 'nothing binding'.

There absolutely has to be a balance between allowing for flexibility and responsiveness, vs. long term binding commitments. But it's also created a schizophrenic foreign policy for the US when we enter into agreements that don't have consensus approval and could NEVER pass through congress, then modify or withdraw from them the next administration.
 
Frankly, the whole tariff thing bores me.
 
Chomsky said:
But how can a President do this unilaterally? Without Congress? I'm assuming these are negotiated agreements to be put before Congress. Otherwise, they're essentially nothing. At least nothing binding.
Click to expand...
As an example, the original "Iran" deal was an "executive agreement" that was never passed in the senate as a treaty. Bob Corker, to his forever shame, sponsored a vote that required 2/3 to reject as opposed to the constitutional requirement of 2/3 to ratify a treaty.

Not sure trade deals are typically considered "treaties".


"
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:


He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
 
dcsports said:
Congress delegates WAY too much to the executive branch, due in part because they keep putting themselves into a tribal logjam. IMHO treaties should be put to the senate for ratification.

And the US has transitioned WAY too much to executive level agreements - which run the risk of, as you point out, being 'nothing binding'.

There absolutely has to be a balance between allowing for flexibility and responsiveness, vs. long term binding commitments. But it's also created a schizophrenic foreign policy for the US when we enter into agreements that don't have consensus approval and could NEVER pass through congress, then modify or withdraw from them the next administration.
Click to expand...

Trump has amplified this trend to a very dangerous extreme. The voters need to elect new people to congress and take it back where it belongs, with the people. This president doesn’t represent the people. He is only out for himslef and is a dupe being used by right wing extremists who don’t give a shit about the will of the people.
 
Bullseye said:
Hardly TACO - he's making progress and concedes a little more time to work with Mexico. The last thing a negotiator wants is to quit negotiating,
Click to expand...

But this was the final deadline. He said so. He is once again is bluffing and backing off. If it clucks like chicken…
 
Bullseye said:
Hardly TACO - he's making progress and concedes a little more time to work with Mexico. The last thing a negotiator wants is to quit negotiating,
Click to expand...
He very clearly said there would no extensions , no exceptions. If he knew they were making progress yesterday that was a dumb thing to say.......par for the course. The last hing Trump is is a negotiator
 
Chomsky said:
Haha!

I think eventually over time he'll claim "deals" for everyone, which will remain-to-be-seen when they are presented before Congress for ratification.

Unless he somehow skips Congress, which I don't see how he can do it Constitutionally.
Click to expand...
Congress yielded their power for trade and tariffs long ago.
That's actually the reason for this turmoil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom