Scrubbing toilets at Amazon Lake Union doesn’t make you a trade expert, Spaz.
Trade War!!!
- Thread starter HuskyBuck
- Start date
Did you read anything in this thread, or Trump's reason for the Tariffs? Equal application both ways
But go ahead and scream and writhe in your little hovel while you click away on your crusty keyboard without understanding anything
When the CEO we elected as President and his advisors see it as fair, I’ll believe them. Unlike the America Last Democrats, whose entire platform now is Not Trump, even if opposing him harms US citizens.
HHusky
New Fish
Your quarrel is with Bob_C. He thinks the tariffs are leading somewhere. You think they are an end in of themselves, apparently.
Dems allege a great concern about how tariffs (a tax on imports) will affect the working man and that the dems are the ones that care. Then take a look at the dems who almost universally want to increase US and state taxes and regulations and don't give a phuck about the increase in prices on consumer goods to the American consumer. Tariff taxes bad, income, property, sales, carbon and excise taxes good. It's almost like they never took an economic course that wasn't taught by a commie. New York not only going to tax in state gas companies but also try to impose liability on out of state and foreign producers. When a dem says they are concerned about consumer prices, they lie.https://nypost.com/2025/03/02/us-news/ny-gov-kathy-hochul-sued-over-75b-climate-law/
A coalition of business and trade groups is suing the Hochul administration over a law that will force oil, natural gas and coal companies to pay $75 billion for spewing carbon emissions.
Gov. Kathy Hochul’s administration claimed the law was necessary to combat the companies contributing to climate change for decades — but critics said the extra costs will be passed along to consumers through prices at the pump and heating bills.
“This law is not only illegal and misguided, but it will likely increase the cost of energy, placing an unnecessary burden on New Yorkers and consumers nationwide — especially during a time of already high prices,” Marty Durbin, president of the US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute and plaintiff in the case, told The Post.
A coalition of business and trade groups are suing the Hochul administration over a law charging companies for carbon emissions.
The lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court claims Hochul and the state legislature exceeded their authority by approving the New York Climate Change Superfund Act last year, and asked that it be tossed out as unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs also include the New York State Business Council, the American Petroleum Institute and the National Mining Association.
“We’ve always argued that this is bad policy for New York, and we intend to seek reversal through all available avenues,” said Ken Pokalsky, vice president of the NYS Business Council.
The law aims to essentially charge fossil fuel companies for their purported shares of “global, lawful greenhouse gas emissions based on completely unsubstantiated ‘attribution science,'” the plaintiffs claim.
Federal law prohibits New York from imposing liability on fossil fuel energy producers for harms allegedly caused in the Empire State by greenhouse gases emitted outside the state, the lawsuit said.
The plaintiffs said there’s no way that an estimated 38 energy firms could pay back those costs without raising prices to customers, and some critics wondered whether it could even be collected from foreign-owned companies.
“New York seeks to reach back decades in time and impose significant monetary penalties on those producers (operating almost completely outside the State), potentially subjecting other States and consumers to increased energy costs, while reaping the financial benefits to pay for ‘climate change adaptive infrastructure,'” the suit claimed.
It’s the second lawsuit filed against the law. Twenty two states, led by West Virginia, also filed a challenge last month.
An analysis conducted for the bill’s sponsors state Sen. Liz Krueger (D-Manhattan) and Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz (D-Bronx) last year showed foreign-owned and American companies together would pay about $3 billion a year over 25 years.
The oil giant Saudi Aramco of Saudi Arabia could be slapped with the largest annual assessment of any company — $640 million a year — for emitting 31,269 million tons of greenhouse gases from 2000 to 2020.
Aramco — formally known as the Saudi Arabian Oil Co. — is owned by the Saudi Royal family.
The state-owned Mexican oil firm Petróleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, emitted 9,512 tons of CO2 and could face an $193 million assessment for generating 9,512 million tons of greenhouse gases.
Russia’s Lukoil could be assessed with a $100 million yearly fee for spewing 4,912 millions of CO2.
The 38 companies identified as carbon polluters include American petro giants Exxon and Chevron as well as Shell and BP in the UK, Total Energies IES in France, Petrobras in Brazil, BHP in Australia, Glencore in Switzerland, Equinor in Norway and ENI in Italy.
A coalition of business and trade groups is suing the Hochul administration over a law that will force oil, natural gas and coal companies to pay $75 billion for spewing carbon emissions.
Gov. Kathy Hochul’s administration claimed the law was necessary to combat the companies contributing to climate change for decades — but critics said the extra costs will be passed along to consumers through prices at the pump and heating bills.
“This law is not only illegal and misguided, but it will likely increase the cost of energy, placing an unnecessary burden on New Yorkers and consumers nationwide — especially during a time of already high prices,” Marty Durbin, president of the US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute and plaintiff in the case, told The Post.
A coalition of business and trade groups are suing the Hochul administration over a law charging companies for carbon emissions.
The lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court claims Hochul and the state legislature exceeded their authority by approving the New York Climate Change Superfund Act last year, and asked that it be tossed out as unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs also include the New York State Business Council, the American Petroleum Institute and the National Mining Association.
“We’ve always argued that this is bad policy for New York, and we intend to seek reversal through all available avenues,” said Ken Pokalsky, vice president of the NYS Business Council.
The law aims to essentially charge fossil fuel companies for their purported shares of “global, lawful greenhouse gas emissions based on completely unsubstantiated ‘attribution science,'” the plaintiffs claim.
Federal law prohibits New York from imposing liability on fossil fuel energy producers for harms allegedly caused in the Empire State by greenhouse gases emitted outside the state, the lawsuit said.
The plaintiffs said there’s no way that an estimated 38 energy firms could pay back those costs without raising prices to customers, and some critics wondered whether it could even be collected from foreign-owned companies.
“New York seeks to reach back decades in time and impose significant monetary penalties on those producers (operating almost completely outside the State), potentially subjecting other States and consumers to increased energy costs, while reaping the financial benefits to pay for ‘climate change adaptive infrastructure,'” the suit claimed.
It’s the second lawsuit filed against the law. Twenty two states, led by West Virginia, also filed a challenge last month.
An analysis conducted for the bill’s sponsors state Sen. Liz Krueger (D-Manhattan) and Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz (D-Bronx) last year showed foreign-owned and American companies together would pay about $3 billion a year over 25 years.
The oil giant Saudi Aramco of Saudi Arabia could be slapped with the largest annual assessment of any company — $640 million a year — for emitting 31,269 million tons of greenhouse gases from 2000 to 2020.
Aramco — formally known as the Saudi Arabian Oil Co. — is owned by the Saudi Royal family.
The state-owned Mexican oil firm Petróleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, emitted 9,512 tons of CO2 and could face an $193 million assessment for generating 9,512 million tons of greenhouse gases.
Russia’s Lukoil could be assessed with a $100 million yearly fee for spewing 4,912 millions of CO2.
The 38 companies identified as carbon polluters include American petro giants Exxon and Chevron as well as Shell and BP in the UK, Total Energies IES in France, Petrobras in Brazil, BHP in Australia, Glencore in Switzerland, Equinor in Norway and ENI in Italy.
He's right. You're full of shit
Democrats bleed the working man dry t
No, tariffs hurt the American consumer as those cheaper prices you are used to paying are no longer cheaper goods. Free trade benefits the consumers…you.
Like I said, it’s fine with me. I’ve just witnessed a year and a half of bitching on prices so let’s just say I’m confused about your stance on this. EverettChris is dumb so I understand why he’s confused….but not sure why the rest of you are.
Last edited:
I don't overpay for anything. Because I don't have to
You're not concerned about the American consumer. Tariffs are the least of their problems
You defended Biden inflation for 4 years so maybe take a seat champ
You're not concerned about the American consumer. Tariffs are the least of their problems
You defended Biden inflation for 4 years so maybe take a seat champ
I think I made it clear. I’m cheering for these tariffs to get implemented.
I’m gonna laugh my ass off to see a solution put into place to solve a problem no one can define other than “let’s make Canada play fair”. None of you even know what that means.
I’m willing to bet none of you knew this “problem” existed until 6 weeks ago, that’s how painful Canada has been for you guys.
Last edited:
Tariff tax increases bad. Business income tax good. Just don't expect any intellectual consistency or honesty.
HHusky
New Fish
They’re responding to our tariffs, dumbass.
The Chinese Tariifs were so damaging, inflationary, and unpopular that Biden kept them.
HHusky
New Fish
The Chinese tariffs were on a rival, and potential adversary. You could at least make an argument for retaining them on that basis. We’re now picking fights with our friends.
With friends like these.
Canada is a Chinese client state.
Mexico makes money on selling smuggling lanes into our economy.
Both tax and tariff US companies out of competition in their markets.
Neither contributes and both actively degrade our security.
Time for them to learn their place in the world and be grateful for our generosity instead of resentful of our success.
