Bush Era Tax Cuts

[Potvin63]

Just because it comes from conservatives... doesn't automatically make it wrong.

Read it, and then tell me what you think about it.

True enough. I did read each of the 10 points (but not all the information associated with it). It also doesn't make mention of some of the other tax cuts later in the Bush presidency. I will read it in more detail and respond properly at a later date.

2 things:

First, there was no tax break prior to the Great Recession. The tax break you are referring to were passed nearly a decade earlier.

I'm not even sure what argument you are trying to make here. Giving people more money to spend destroys the economy?

My point here is that giving tax breaks to the people has not worked in the past to stimulate the economy because when the economy is in bad shape people tend to save rather than reinvest or spend money.

Secondly, one war is based upon established fact, and unquestioned logic.

Afghanistan had more fact and more logic but contained some huge red flags. The Taliban were operating Afghanistan but it isn't like most of the hijackers on 9/11 were from Afghanistan. Plus that country has endured so much turmoil and war that who knows what would qualify as victory? That country will likely always be unstable and only recently have more troops and money been sent to try and stabilize the situation.

The other is based upon false facts, and horrible logic.

Agreed.

Both of these are established knowns. Leaving Iraq capable of handling it's own security concerns at least begins to put right the wrong we have done by invading Iraq.

I think it would take another 20 years before Iraq is capable of handling its own security concerns. It's extremely difficult to teach a nation democracy and to get warring factions to compromise and agree after so many years of a dictatorship in addition to a host of other problems.

Afghanistan is a war that is justified and should be won in order to prevent a repeat of 9/11.

I'm not as certain that winning the war in Afghanistan will prevent a repeat of 9/11. For the most part the damage that has been inflicted on Al-Qaeda operatives and operations have occurred elsewhere in the world as they operate in a handful of regions.

This statement shows how little you've thought this through.

Where do you suppose that the Federal Government gets the money that it spends? From the citizens of the states. It takes the money FROM the states, and then refuses to give it back unless the states do what the Federal Government wants them to. That's an obvious abuse of power.

It is an obvious abuse of power and that's the way things have run for a long time. However, the federal government needs a chunk of that money to pay for federal programs that directly benefit the people of the states (admittedly different population segments see more benefits than others). Perhaps if the states banded together or were on surer financial footing could they refuse certain demands made by the federal government. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Wrong. Their enumerated powers have nothing to do with 1/100 of what they actually do. Have you read through the list of enumerated powers for Congress? It's disturbingly short.

I have read through the enumerated powers and Congress justifies a lot of what they do from their enumerated powers although many arguments they make (like the commerce clause) are stretched beyond comprehension. The Supreme Court though rarely overturns a law if Congress can draw some line to justify their actions. To say 1% (or 1/100) of what they actually do has nothing to do with their enumerated powers is incorrect and oversimplification.

What they do is from a misuse of their ability to spend money.

Agreed. Specifically when it comes to federal highway money because they force states to have a drinking age of 21 years old to get this money. In my book, if you can enlist and die at 18 you should be able to drink.

Are you referring to amending the constitution in order to restore balance between the Federal Government and States? If so, you are correct. Are you referring to amending the Constitution in general? If so, I see no reason to believe this. There have been no amendments with enough popular support to actually pass, but that doesn't make it "too hard". I think it is designed to be prohibitively difficult to get an amendment through. This prevents us from amending the constitution for stupid reasons like preventing burning the flag...

I do think an Amendment should be passed to at least clarify the powers of the state instead of the blanket 10th Amendment stating the powers not given to the federal government are "reserved to the states". If all elections (save for the presidency) are won by a simple majority to require 2/3 or 3/4 majorities is next to impossible in the current political climate. It should be difficult but not impossible to amend if an important current issue arises that needs to be addressed.

Actually, that's not true. If Congress were to pass a law that required states to have an 8 hour school day, this law would be unconstitutional, and would NOT supercede state law. The Federal government is severely limited in what laws it CAN pass.

Your specific example is correct because states are in charge of education but for the most part the federal government passes whatever they want. The Supreme Court also makes crazy decisions like overturning a law capping corporate political donations by comparing corporations to citizens and saying that restricting their spending is unconstitutional.

This is an idiotic viewpoint. Do you even know why that as put in there? Do you even know how that compromise was reached? An education on the past and our history would do you a great deal of good.[/QUOTE]

Yes I know why that provision was put in there. I don't think my statement merits being called idiotic. It might do you some good to not resort to name calling when commenting on a statement I made.

Clearly I can see you are disenchanted with government, are in favor of renewing the tax cuts and are unhappy with how much power the federal government has over the states but we can have a civil discussion on this.

 

[byteware]

My point here is that giving tax breaks to the people has not worked in the past to stimulate the economy because when the economy is in bad shape people tend to save rather than reinvest or spend money.

You should have taken my advice and read the piece that I posted the link for.

If you had, then you would be aware that in the six months leading up to the 2003 tax cuts, GDP only grew 1.7%. You would also know that in the six months following the 2003 tax cuts, GDP grew 4.1%.

That seems to contradict your above statement.

I think it would take another 20 years before Iraq is capable of handling its own security concerns.

Let me get this straight... you think it will take 20 years before Iraq can do what it is currently doing?

It's extremely difficult to teach a nation democracy and to get warring factions to compromise and agree after so many years of a dictatorship in addition to a host of other problems.

The warring factions have already done a great deal of compromising and are working together in the Iraqi government. I'm not sure how to respond to "a host of other problems" since, while the government isn't perfect, it is functional.

I'm not as certain that winning the war in Afghanistan will prevent a repeat of 9/11. For the most part the damage that has been inflicted on Al-Qaeda operatives and operations have occurred elsewhere in the world as they operate in a handful of regions.

Maybe what I should have said was to make a repeat of 9/11 less likely. Winning in Afghanistan will make a repeat of 9/11 less likely. Losing in Afghanistan will make a repeat of 9/11 much more likely.

I have read through the enumerated powers and Congress justifies a lot of what they do from their enumerated powers although many arguments they make (like the commerce clause) are stretched beyond comprehension. The Supreme Court though rarely overturns a law if Congress can draw some line to justify their actions.

Do you not read the news. Every year there are a couple of laws that are ruled unconstitutional.

To say 1% (or 1/100) of what they actually do has nothing to do with their enumerated powers is incorrect and oversimplification.

Really? Leaving out the enumerated powers that have to do with the military, taxes, piracy, coining money and punishing counterfeiters, here are the sum of their enumerated powers.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

1/100 may be an exaggeration, but from the above it is obvious that most of what Congress does is outside their power.

Agreed. Specifically when it comes to federal highway money because they force states to have a drinking age of 21 years old to get this money. In my book, if you can enlist and die at 18 you should be able to drink.

I come across this all the time. It can't just be wrong when you don't agree with them. It must be wrong whenever they do it. Whether it's to do something like force the drinking age to 21, or force changes in the public school system.

I do think an Amendment should be passed to at least clarify the powers of the state instead of the blanket 10th Amendment stating the powers not given to the federal government are "reserved to the states". If all elections (save for the presidency) are won by a simple majority to require 2/3 or 3/4 majorities is next to impossible in the current political climate. It should be difficult but not impossible to amend if an important current issue arises that needs to be addressed.

You don't quite understand the constitution. The Federal government ONLY has the constitutional authority for the power enumerated. EVERYTHING else is left to the states and their citizens. EVERYTHING ELSE.

It's meant that way, because the States were supposed to be the decision makers for almost everything. The Federal Government was only supposed to be the decision maker for those things that REQUIRE a common effort among the states (i.e. National Defense).

Your specific example is correct because states are in charge of education but for the most part the federal government passes whatever they want. The Supreme Court also makes crazy decisions like overturning a law capping corporate political donations by comparing corporations to citizens and saying that restricting their spending is unconstitutional.

Corporations are made up of citizens. It is a group of citizens. Should those citizens not have a voice? Should they not be allowed to voice their political beliefs? It's not crazy. You just don't agree with it.

Yes I know why that provision was put in there. I don't think my statement merits being called idiotic. It might do you some good to not resort to name calling when commenting on a statement I made.

Your view of the founding fathers is quite warped. I apologize if I offended you. The Founding Fathers were quite humble. The Constitution was the result of a great deal of compromise and discussion. They drew on other examples around them and came to the best document that they could. If anything, the Articles of Confederation could be considered the result of them thinking they knew what was best.

The Constitution was more of an act of humility (and great desperation as they would have been executed for treason had they been discovered).

Clearly I can see you are disenchanted with government, are in favor of renewing the tax cuts and are unhappy with how much power the federal government has over the states but we can have a civil discussion on this.

Disenchanted with the government? No. If the government did everything as I thought they should, I would still advocate for limiting their power. Take the power away from the states and it's people, and it's gone. Just because the people who agree with you are in power now, doesn't mean it will always be that way.

For example. I'm in favor of people quitting smoking. I'm NOT in favor of the government trying to force people to quit via higher taxes. Today it's cigarettes, next it's McDonald's because that's too unhealthy.

I'm in favor of renewing the tax cuts for a limited time. Raising taxes during the recovery is about economic suicide. We are struggling to recover from this economy. Raising taxes is NOT going to help.