SCOTUS Rules Against Trump Administration IEEPA Tariffs

[Reagan]

 

 

[TheMissingBand]

9 hours ago, OlDawg said:

12 hours ago, OlDawg said:

 

The Feds maintaining a higher interest rate than needed are also affecting the slower pace of disinflation. The Fed is slowing down the drop on purpose. They want to ease into 2%. Not crash.

 

When the Feds kept raising rates, and the extra money people received ran out, they had to pull back some. That helped cool inflation as well.

Where’ve you been, sir? Excellent analysis. I think the higher interest rates are keeping inflation lower, the two point reduction in the fed rate that trump is demanding with add multiple points to the inflation rate, in my estimation.  
 

It’s all relevant. Two point drop in mortgages and the housing market will take off like we haven’t seen in years. Demand will far exceed supply and prices will soar, etc… he wants the lower interest rates so that our debt payments will decrease and continuing to borrow at the federal level won’t sting so badly. But it’ll be a really rough time for those of us already struggling with high prices.  
 

I’m not a tinfoil hat kind of person, but I’m starting to wonder if these poor fiscal policies aren’t merely mismanagement, but instead pushing us towards an alternative to the dollar that his family keeps pushing. 

[OlDawg]

Good summary article on the current state of personal finances. The actual numbers may surprise many.

(Hint: Personal debt to income is at its lowest level since the 90’s.)

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Well done to those who are finally becoming more financially responsible. This is the real key to personal freedom.
 

[TheMissingBand]

55 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

Good summary article on the current state of personal finances. The actual numbers may surprise many.

(Hint: Personal debt to income is at its lowest level since the 90’s.)

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Well done to those who are finally becoming more financially responsible. This is the real key to personal freedom.
 

I have a friend that’s in management at one of the largest local credit unions. I asked her what they’d do if Trump’s plan to limit interest rates to 10% was to actually be implemented. She said that they’d still extend credit, but only to customers who deserved a 10% interest rate, dramatically limiting the credit extended to risky borrowers… typically the ones who rely upon credit the most.  
 

To your point, the proposed cap on credit card interest rates could also push the debt to income rate to even lower lows, lol. 
 

I think that it can be seen from other perspectives, too. Higher mortgage rates are keeping a lot of people in their current homes/mortgages because the cost to finance a new property is keeping them in their old home. If you’re in a 200k mortgage financed at 2.75, but the next logical upgrade is to a 350k mortgage, but at 6.00, you’re probably not going to upgrade.  You could have afforded that $350k mortgage at 2.75, but not at 6.0-so they stay put. Trump’s demand to scrub 2 points off of the fed rate (and assuming there’d be a corresponding drop in mortgage rates) would move a lot of people to upgrade, but with resulting inflation that would drive prices up further.  The uncomfortable truth is that low mortgage rates (too low, probably) caused problems in the system that were just now beginning to understand.

Same story with vehicle debt. Tariffs cause higher prices, and high interest rates discourage purchases… end result is a lower DTI.  It’s a win, I guess.  The fact that mortgage delinquencies and auto loan defaults are rising is a much better indication of where we stand financially. 

[Big girl]

On 2/20/2026 at 3:19 PM, baddog said:

Hypocrites…..

Google search:

 

President Biden maintained most of the trade tariffs on Chinese goods initiated during the Trump administration, even increasing duties on items like electric vehicles and semiconductors

. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi previously advocated for using tariffs to counter China's market influence, despite criticizing specific, broader tariff implementations. 

Representative Nancy Pelosi | (.gov) +3

Key Details on Tariff Policies

• Biden Administration: President Biden left many of the 2018-2019 China tariffs in place to protect U.S. industries and address unfair trade practices. His administration further increased duties on, among other things, solar cells, aluminum, steel, and, most notably, quadrupled tariffs on electric vehicles.
• Nancy Pelosi: While Pelosi criticized the Trump administration's "chaotic" approach to tariffs as a "self-inflicted disaster" that harmed consumers, she previously supported targeted, "smart" tariffs to address unfair trade practices, particularly regarding China.
• Contextual Shift: Critics and observers noted that some Democrats, including Pelosi, historically advocated for reciprocal trade measures against China, which mirrors the protectionist rhetoric later heavily utilized by the Trump administration. 
  Facebook +6

While Biden and Pelosi often criticized the methods of the previous administration's trade policy, they did not remove the majority of the protective trade barriers

Tarriffs were always in place. Trump attempted to increase the percentage that other countries paid.

[OlDawg]

1 hour ago, TheMissingBand said:

I have a friend that’s in management at one of the largest local credit unions. I asked her what they’d do if Trump’s plan to limit interest rates to 10% was to actually be implemented. She said that they’d still extend credit, but only to customers who deserved a 10% interest rate, dramatically limiting the credit extended to risky borrowers… typically the ones who rely upon credit the most.  
 

To your point, the proposed cap on credit card interest rates could also push the debt to income rate to even lower lows, lol. 
 

I think that it can be seen from other perspectives, too. Higher mortgage rates are keeping a lot of people in their current homes/mortgages because the cost to finance a new property is keeping them in their old home. If you’re in a 200k mortgage financed at 2.75, but the next logical upgrade is to a 350k mortgage, but at 6.00, you’re probably not going to upgrade.  You could have afforded that $350k mortgage at 2.75, but not at 6.0-so they stay put. Trump’s demand to scrub 2 points off of the fed rate (and assuming there’d be a corresponding drop in mortgage rates) would move a lot of people to upgrade, but with resulting inflation that would drive prices up further.  The uncomfortable truth is that low mortgage rates (too low, probably) caused problems in the system that were just now beginning to understand.

Same story with vehicle debt. Tariffs cause higher prices, and high interest rates discourage purchases… end result is a lower DTI.  It’s a win, I guess.  The fact that mortgage delinquencies and auto loan defaults are rising is a much better indication of where we stand financially. 

I don't like government interference in private lending markets. Protecting against predatory lending practices? Sure. Setting rates? No.

This Administration has already interfered way too much in the free enterprise markets in my book. This is not what I expected from a supposedly conservative, free market Administration.

We've got free trade manipulation, government purchasing majority stakes in private corporations and basically nationalizing them, and desires to limit the credit lender's ability to minimize risk in their own practices.

While I don't think limiting some people's access to 'easy credit' is a bad thing, it's not government's job.

The only thing government manipulation has ever done is interfere with the free market, and they have a horrible track record of picking winners and losers.

[TheMissingBand]

15 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

I don't like government interference in private lending markets. Protecting against predatory lending practices? Sure. Setting rates? No.

This Administration has already interfered way too much in the free enterprise markets in my book. This is not what I expected from a supposedly conservative, free market Administration.

We've got free trade manipulation, government purchasing majority stakes in private corporations and basically nationalizing them, and desires to limit the credit lender's ability to minimize risk in their own practices.

While I don't think limiting some people's access to 'easy credit' is a bad thing, it's not government's job.

The only thing government manipulation has ever done is interfere with the free market, and they have a horrible track record of picking winners and losers.

I’m just surprised at all of the supposed “free market, conservative” people who don’t a problem with all of the things you just described. 

[OlDawg]

1 minute ago, TheMissingBand said:

I’m just surprised at all of the supposed “free market, conservative” people who don’t a problem with all of the things you just described. 

I'm a fiscally conservative libertarian. There's actually a pretty big difference in that and typical conservatism. Typical conservatives still believe in some market manipulation to help achieve their social goals. Liberals and Progressives are at the total opposite end of the spectrum from me from a fiscal and personal liberty stance.

[TheMissingBand]

3 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

I'm a fiscally conservative libertarian. There's actually a pretty big difference in that and typical conservatism. Typical conservatives still believe in some market manipulation to help achieve their social goals. Liberals and Progressives are at the total opposite end of the spectrum from me from a fiscal and personal liberty stance.

Same… I’ve always been conservative fiscally and socially, but feel myself recognizing more from the “other people” these days. 
 

Today “fiscally conservative” means “cut taxes and end regulation, that’ll fix everything” when it’s the not the answer. Even the successes that they point to are more like cautionary tales. 
 

There are some things that I can actually agree on from a liberal/progressive standpoint. Same-sex marriage, for one. If my wife (or I) die suddenly, there are rules for the disposition of our estate that protect the surviving spouse. Same with medical or end of life decisions. It doesn’t matter how long a same-sex couple has been together, until gay marriage was legalized, the significant other had no say in anything… that’s not right, when the only thing that would prohibit such unions were the religious beliefs of others. 
 

I’ve heard it said, but it’s true. We’re not a Christian nation, where a nation where we’re free to be a Christian. Or not. Or a Muslim, Hindu, etc… conservatives today don’t understand that basic fact of our constitution. 

[OlDawg]

11 minutes ago, TheMissingBand said:

Same… I’ve always been conservative fiscally and socially, but feel myself recognizing more from the “other people” these days. 
 

Today “fiscally conservative” means “cut taxes and end regulation, that’ll fix everything” when it’s the not the answer. Even the successes that they point to are more like cautionary tales. 
 

There are some things that I can actually agree on from a liberal/progressive standpoint. Same-sex marriage, for one. If my wife (or I) die suddenly, there are rules for the disposition of our estate that protect the surviving spouse. Same with medical or end of life decisions. It doesn’t matter how long a same-sex couple has been together, until gay marriage was legalized, the significant other had no say in anything… that’s not right, when the only thing that would prohibit such unions were the religious beliefs of others. 
 

I’ve heard it said, but it’s true. We’re not a Christian nation, where a nation where we’re free to be a Christian. Or not. Or a Muslim, Hindu, etc… conservatives today don’t understand that basic fact of our constitution. 

The government shouldn't be involved in the marriage business. The government shouldn't be involved in the abortion or not business. If what someone does in their own home--or daily activities--does no harm to others, it's none of my business.

The government wouldn't be involved if we hadn't invited them in.

[TheMissingBand]

1 minute ago, OlDawg said:

The government shouldn't be involved in the marriage business. The government shouldn't be involved in the abortion or not business.

Up to a point. 
 

I think abortion is wrong, but that’s based on my religious beliefs. Whether or not you have one should be between you and your creator, IMO.  
 

BUT, the problem comes in when a person can’t afford one.  Should we then collectively be responsible to pay for a procedure that we believe to be immoral? That’s where the argument lost me. If the right have one means that the rest of us should foot the bill for anybody else getting one, then I’m out. 
 

And I’d love to hear your opinion on the movement to abolish all property taxes in Texas?

[OlDawg]

15 minutes ago, TheMissingBand said:

Up to a point. 
 

I think abortion is wrong, but that’s based on my religious beliefs. Whether or not you have one should be between you and your creator, IMO.  
 

BUT, the problem comes in when a person can’t afford one.  Should we then collectively be responsible to pay for a procedure that we believe to be immoral? That’s where the argument lost me. If the right have one means that the rest of us should foot the bill for anybody else getting one, then I’m out. 
 

And I’d love to hear your opinion on the movement to abolish all property taxes in Texas?

I may think abortion on demand is wrong. But, it's not my place to interject in someone else's very personal matter. If the government wasn't so deeply involved in healthcare, your moral dilemma wouldn't be an issue. The answer isn't to fight the moral question. The answer is to minimize/eliminate government involvement in healthcare.

Property taxes in Texas is an interesting question. I am more of a flat tax person vs. a consumption tax person. To me, a consumption tax stymies growth more than a flat tax. That being said, I'd prefer a flat tax (Federal) with property taxes. But, I would maintain a maximum level of property tax increase/year--with no loopholes--and have the tax rate of property be set by the insurable value after yearly appraisals. Not the other way around. The value of one's property should only be worth what it can be insured for in case of total loss.