Are the Bush Tax Cuts Still Beneficial to the Economy?

[Al68]

We are a representative democracy with a constitution that grants the power to create laws to the Congress.

Congress does not have general lawmaking power according to the constitution. It has specific enumerated powers delegated to it.

A charter has not figured into since the articles of confederation, which was the lack of any federal government, or at least not one that does anything.

The constitution is the federal government's charter.

 

[airborne18]

Congress does not have general lawmaking power according to the constitution. It has specific enumerated powers delegated to it.The constitution is the federal government's charter.

Yes Congress does. There are specific duties that lie with Congress and no other branch, and there are specific power prohibited. But they have wide powers to pass pretty much any law. Whether the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional is another matter.

If the president and congress agree, it is pretty much a done deal. Unless the court throws it out.

 

[airborne18]

Congress does not have general lawmaking power according to the constitution. It has specific enumerated powers delegated to it.The constitution is the federal government's charter.

The US Constitution is not a charter. There is a major difference, and that is why the US Consititution is unique

 

[airborne18]

Also, while we are at it. You have to take the Constitution in its totality and not piecework. Each amendment is binding. So once congress and the states agree on an amendment, it is a done deal. Even the Supreme court has no say in it at that point.

 

[Al68]

Yes Congress does. There are specific duties that lie with Congress and no other branch, and there are specific power prohibited. But they have wide powers to pass pretty much any law. Whether the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional is another matter.

No, it's the same matter. Congress does not have the legitimate power to pass unconstitutional laws to begin with. That's why the Supreme Court would throw it out. Congress has the powers listed in the constitution, no more, no less.

And every congressman takes an oath of office not to violate the constitution. And every Senator. And the President. The Supreme Court isn't alone in its obligation to prevent unconstitutional laws from passing.

The US Constitution is not a charter. There is a major difference, and that is why the US Consititution is unique

Try looking up the word charter in the dictionary. "Constitution" is even listed as a synonym. The purpose of the U.S. constitution is to serve as the federal government's charter.

More importantly is the concept that the constitution is the source of the legitimate power of the federal government. And its legitimate power is limited in scope.

 

[Al68]

Also, while we are at it. You have to take the Constitution in its totality and not piecework. Each amendment is binding. So once congress and the states agree on an amendment, it is a done deal. Even the Supreme court has no say in it at that point.

So the tenth amendment which says that all powers not delegated to the federal government by the constitution are reserved to the respective states or to the people is a "done deal"? I agree! That's exactly what I've been saying.

 

[airborne18]

No, it's the same matter. Congress does not have the legitimate power to pass unconstitutional laws to begin with. That's why the Supreme Court would throw it out. Congress has the powers listed in the constitution, no more, no less.

And every congressman takes an oath of office not to violate the constitution. And every Senator. And the President. The Supreme Court isn't alone in its obligation to prevent unconstitutional laws from passing.Try looking up the word charter in the dictionary. "Constitution" is even listed as a synonym. The purpose of the U.S. constitution is to serve as the federal government's charter.

More importantly is the concept that the constitution is the source of the legitimate power of the federal government. And its legitimate power is limited in scope.

Congress can pass any law they like.

The supreme court's job is to deem laws unconstitutional.

And if congress amends the constitution, they can grant themselves more power than originally stated.

I know the oath rather well. I took it.

And amending the constitution is part of their job as well.

See you really cannot surgically pick out the parts you like and don't like.

And the US Constitution is not a charter. Typically when you talk about corporate constitutions the term charter is relevant, but not specifically with the US Constitution. Now the Articles of Confederation is more of a charter ( and treaty ).

The Constitutional Congress had a charter. All of the Colonial Congresses were formed by charter. But the US Constitution is not a charter, and it is specifically not a charter.

It is why the debates about the Federalist papers are meaningless, and the intent of the framers of the Constitution. Because they specifically designed it to be a fluid framework.

All that matters is what we have today, after taking all the amendments in their totality.

 

[airborne18]

So the tenth amendment which says that all powers not delegated to the federal government by the constitution are reserved to the respective states or to the people is a "done deal"? I agree! That's exactly what I've been saying.

Well it is the point of the most drama, that is for sure. But the issue still remains that any amendment can expand the powers of the federal government, and deny specific state's rights. Plus the never ending fight over states rights vs federal laws.

The state's rights compromise was poorly designed in the first place, and it did not solve the issues of the day. Though it was needed for passage of the Constitution.

 

[CAC1001]

100 years ago it was Okay for our government to let disabled vets starve to death. Luckily we have a system that evolves to correct such things. No matter how inconvenient or distasteful it might be to others who don't feel it is the responsibility of our government to do so.

From what I've seen, only the most hardcore super libertarian types (the kind who want to get rid of pretty much every federal agency in existence) think that.

Even as right-wing (in terms of belief in limited government) a guy as the late great economist Milton Friedman, said that a society has to take care of the people who truly can not take care of themselves, such as the elderly and the mentally and physically disabled.

IMO there's a difference between sound social safety nets and an outright social welfare state.

 

[Al68]

Congress can pass any law they like.

The supreme court's job is to deem laws unconstitutional.

Nonsense. And too obvious to argue about. Have you ever read the constitution?

And if congress amends the constitution, they can grant themselves more power than originally stated.

No, they can't. The most congress can do is recommend amendments to the states. Then the states decide whether to grant congress more power or not.

I know the oath rather well. I took it.

And that's why you think it's just fine for congress to pass any law they like, constitutional or not?

See you really cannot surgically pick out the parts you like and don't like.

I am one of the very few on this forum that considers it important what the constitution says (in its entirety) instead of what I would like it to say.

And the US Constitution is not a charter. Typically when you talk about corporate constitutions the term charter is relevant, but not specifically with the US Constitution. Now the Articles of Confederation is more of a charter ( and treaty ).

The Constitutional Congress had a charter. All of the Colonial Congresses were formed by charter. But the US Constitution is not a charter, and it is specifically not a charter.

Nonsense, I already addressed this. It's a charter by definition and obviously so to anyone who has ever read it and knows what the word charter means.

 

[airborne18]

Nonsense. And too obvious to argue about. Have you ever read the constitution?No, they can't. The most congress can do is recommend amendments to the states. Then the states decide whether to grant congress more power or not.And that's why you think it's just fine for congress to pass any law they like, constitutional or not?I am one of the very few on this forum that considers it important what the constitution says (in its entirety) instead of what I would like it to say.Nonsense, I already addressed this. It's a charter by definition and obviously so to anyone who has ever read it and knows what the word charter means.

I am not arguing. And you already said that you don't believe in the Constitution. So not sure what point you are trying to make.

And no it is not a charter. Simple as that. I know the group that makes that argument because it is the key to their premise. But it is wrong. The US Constitution is not a charter. And that angle has been shot down in court.

Congress has to pass any amendment. Another key point. Which I know does not fit into that same group's agenda. The states simply do not pass amendments. Congress has to originate it, pass it with a that 2/3rds. And then the states have to ratify it. States cannot Amend the Constitution without congress. that is what you imply, and it is wrong.

 

[Al68]

I am not arguing. And you already said that you don't believe in the Constitution.

Absolute lie. You are the one saying that it's fine for congress to pass any law it likes despite the many times the constitution says "congress shall pass no law..." while I am ardently against the constitutional violations you advocate.

And no it is not a charter. Simple as that. I know the group that makes that argument because it is the key to their premise. But it is wrong. The US Constitution is not a charter. And that angle has been shot down in court.

Take it up with Webster. I have no more patience with inane nonsense as this.

Congress has to pass any amendment.

False. Try reading the constitution.

The states simply do not pass amendments. Congress has to originate it, pass it with a that 2/3rds.

False again. Try reading the constitution.

States cannot Amend the Constitution without congress.

False again. Why don't you read the constitution before posting any more idiotic nonsense?

It seems pretty obvious that you will be absolutely shocked by what you would read.

I'll even help: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

 

[airborne18]

Absolute lie. You are the one saying that it's fine for congress to pass any law it likes despite the many times the constitution says "congress shall pass no law..." while I am ardently against the constitutional violations you advocate.Take it up with Webster. I have no more patience with inane nonsense as this.False. Try reading the constitution.False again. Try reading the constitution.False again. Why don't you read the constitution before posting any more idiotic nonsense?

It seems pretty obvious that you will be absolutely shocked by what you would read.

I'll even help: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

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;



And you are the one who said our current government is not "as intended", so you are not a true believer.

You can insult as much as you want. It does not change the fact that congress can pass whatever they want. And it is up to the supreme court to rule it unconstitutional. And Senators and Reprentatives are not traitors to the Constitution by passing any bill they want.

And you are fine contributor to these forums. well done.

 

[mheslep]

But they have wide powers to pass pretty much any law.

What authority grants Congress to "pass pretty much any law."? Say, abolish the state governments? Or, arrest me because Congress doesn't like the way I look? Could you point to that authority in the constitution?

 

[Al68]

And you are the one who said our current government is not "as intended", so you are not a true believer.

I've been defending it against you advocating that it be violated willy-nilly, even to the extreme extent of saying that congress can pass any law it wants. It doesn't get any more anti-constitution than that.

I would even go so far as to say no one else who posts on this forum will agree with you. No one. And no politician would ever speak of such an anti-constitution position even if they did believe it.

You can insult as much as you want. It does not change the fact that congress can pass whatever they want.

So that's why the constitution goes through so much trouble to list what congress can and can't do: because they can do anything they want?

The phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" really means congress can pass any law they want?

Are you seriously this confused? Are you playing some kind of bizarre game with this thread?

And it is up to the supreme court to rule it unconstitutional.

Why would the Supreme Court rule a law unconstitutional if congress had the authority to pass it according to the constitution?

And Senators and Reprentatives are not traitors to the Constitution by passing any bill they want.

If the bill is unconstitutional, they are, obviously. What else would "traitors to the constitution" mean?

 

[Gokul43201]

I think the point being made here is that it is not within Congress' power to determine the Constitutionality of a bill/law; that is entirely the Supreme Court's job. Congress can try to makes its best guess of whether a law is Constitutional, and one hopes, would try to be honest to that guess, but that's about all one can expect. And the SC does routinely rule that laws passed by Congress are unconstitutional.

I think this is coming down to a matter of semantics. Are people allowed to steal? Sure! As long as they are ready to do the time when caught and convicted.

 

[Al68]

I think the point being made here is that it is not within Congress' power to determine the Constitutionality of a bill/law; that is entirely the Supreme Court's job. Congress can try to makes its best guess of whether a law is Constitutional, and one hopes, would try to be honest to that guess, but that's about all one can expect.

It's certainly within congress' power, and their duty, to not pass a bill they determine is unconstitutional. And it's the President's duty to veto any law he determines to be unconstitutional, as even Obama has threatened to do for that very stated reason. (confiscating AIG employee bonuses ex post facto via a "special" tax law).

Of course the Supreme Court might overturn a law passed by congress because they disagree about its constitutionality, but that's a different issue entirely.

I think this is coming down to a matter of semantics. Are people allowed to steal? Sure! As long as they are ready to do the time when caught and convicted.

Now that's a good analogy. Except Congressmen never have to do the time.

 

[mheslep]

I think this is coming down to a matter of semantics. Are people allowed to steal? Sure! As long as they are ready to do the time when caught and convicted.

On a lark, I'll certainly go along with that analogy for the US Congress.

But I'm not willing to tally the matter completely to semantics. I see more and more the view (as per up thread) essentially saying the federal government can do whatever it chooses to do, via some or another rationale like the government evolves the the ability to do so. When I see this view espoused by elected leadership, I find it more crackpot and invidious than anything accredited the Tea Party by its naysayers. Rep Pete Stark, D. California since 1973:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eBz8hyoE#t=2m45s

 

[airborne18]

On a lark, I'll certainly go along with that analogy for the US Congress.

But I'm not willing to tally the matter completely to semantics. I see more and more the view (as per up thread) essentially saying the federal government can do whatever it chooses to do, via some or another rationale like the government evolves the the ability to do so. When I see this view espoused by elected leadership, I find it more crackpot and invidious than anything accredited the Tea Party by its naysayers. Rep Pete Stark, D. California since 1973:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eBz8hyoE#t=2m45s

I agree it is not a matter of semantics and it goes to the heart of the issue. It is like the tea party and people from outside of my state telling us who will represent my state's best interest. It is my Senator and Delaware's Senator and nobody else's business.

And I am personally tired of the traitor term being thrown around. A local Tea party radio host called me a traitor because I asked a simple question about a tea party position.. It is vulgar and I am tired of hearing it. And the irony is that the people throwing it around have done the least to serve the US Constitution.

Yes Congress is independent of the other two branches and has the power to pass pretty much any law they want, and in the few cases it gets shot down, they can push to amend the constitution.

And the Supreme Court has the final say on what is and is not Constitutional.

It is just the like the far left does not thing Congress had the power to pass the Patriot Act, which seems to trample the bill of rights, but Congress did it.

Just because a high paid talk show host, who is profiting from whole thing, comes up with some notion of what powers Congress should be does not make it so. No matter how many tri-cornered hats people buy, our Constitution today has evolved a lot since the 18th century.

I wish we back to when people did not have the specific right to vote for Senators.

 

[drankin]

Does anyone know if this will apply to the 2010 tax season? If so, I haven't budgeted for it. I imagine it will apply to 2011 if it expires but I don't know for sure.

 

[mheslep]

No matter how many tri-cornered hats people buy, our Constitution today has evolved a lot since the 18th century.

No matter how many times people say the constitution has 'evolved' doesn't make it so. There are another dozen or so amendments since the 18th century. If you want to change it further amend it further.

 

[talk2glenn]

Does anyone know if this will apply to the 2010 tax season? If so, I haven't budgeted for it. I imagine it will apply to 2011 if it expires but I don't know for sure.

The expiration will apply to the 2011 tax year. I wouldn't panic; when the new Congress is seated, they will almost certainly retroactively close the loophole for most of us. Whether it's everyone or most depends on the extent of the Republican gains.

And Senators and Reprentatives are not traitors to the Constitution by passing any bill they want.

Google the "oath of office". The language is a little hyperbolic, but technically, Congressmen are bound by oath to "faithfully execute" their powers and to "support and defend" the Constitution. It is not the Supreme Courts job to decide whether or not a law is unconstitutional; the power of judicial review is not found anywhere in the founding document. Technically, a law cannot be unconstitutional - the only valid laws in the United States are those which pass constitutional muster. This is why judicial review is an implied power; the court is deciding ex post facto that Congress erred when it affirmed unconstitutional statutory language, but because it was unconstitutional, it was never law in the first place.

Congress has to pass any amendment.

Someone slept through high school civics. Google "constitutional convention". Technically, though it has never been attempted, the procedure is in place for the States to amend the constitution or even dissolve the federal government, independent from the Congress or any other federal agent. All of this was very carefully and deliberately designed to protect us from an overreaching federal bureaucracy.

 

[mheslep]

Google the "oath of office". The language is a little hyperbolic, but technically, Congressmen are bound by oath to "faithfully execute" their powers and to "support and defend" the Constitution. It is not the Supreme Courts job to decide whether or not a law is unconstitutional;

Great point.

 

[CAC1001]

Google the "oath of office". The language is a little hyperbolic, but technically, Congressmen are bound by oath to "faithfully execute" their powers and to "support and defend" the Constitution. It is not the Supreme Courts job to decide whether or not a law is unconstitutional; the power of judicial review is not found anywhere in the founding document.

Just a bit confused here, but even though the Constitution doesn't specifically mention the SCOTUS, isn't it still the job of the SCOTUS to make sure that laws passed by the government keep in line with the Constitution? My understanding was that this had been the purpose of courts for many years when the Constitution was written, and thus they didn't feel it was necessary to literally mention the SCOTUS in that sense, that it was implied, because without a SCOTUS, what is the purpose of a constitution? There's no check on the government, so the government could just twist the constitution to justify whatever legislation they want. So it was implied that with a constitution, there'd be a supreme court.

 

[Gokul43201]

Rep Pete Stark, D. California since 1973:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eBz8hyoE#t=2m45s

Stark looks (judging only from that clip) like he's going senile. If he's always been this way, that definitely reeks of crackpot. But seeing that he's close to 80 yrs old, I'm going with the senile theory for now.

As for the question raised by the person in that town hall meeting, the exact same question can be raised in the context of the fire service or the national defense. Honestly, I can't say I understand how any of these things are constitutional, but then I'm not very well informed in the law.

 

[Gokul43201]

It is not the Supreme Courts job to decide whether or not a law is unconstitutional; the power of judicial review is not found anywhere in the founding document. Technically, a law cannot be unconstitutional - the only valid laws in the United States are those which pass constitutional muster. This is why judicial review is an implied power; the court is deciding ex post facto that Congress erred when it affirmed unconstitutional statutory language, but because it was unconstitutional, it was never law in the first place.

Making sure I understand. Correct me if I have this wrong.

When it is said that the SC has overturned a law passed by Congress, this is not to be taken literally. The SC does not have a power to actually overturn anything; it only has the job of expressing its opinion on whether something is constitutional or not. It is then up to the Executive and Legislature to respond accordingly, and the traditional response is for them to agree with the SC's decision and make the necessary changes to the law and its execution. But if they colluded to defy the Court nonetheless, there is nothing the SC can do.

Do I have that right? That would be a non-negligible revision of my knowledge - I guess I've pictured the SC as the thing that Hamilton would have liked it to be.

 

[talk2glenn]

Just a bit confused here, but even though the Constitution doesn't specifically mention the SCOTUS, isn't it still the job of the SCOTUS to make sure that laws passed by the government keep in line with the Constitution? My understanding was that this had been the purpose of courts for many years when the Constitution was written, and thus they didn't feel it was necessary to literally mention the SCOTUS in that sense, that it was implied, because without a SCOTUS, what is the purpose of a constitution? There's no check on the government, so the government could just twist the constitution to justify whatever legislation they want. So it was implied that with a constitution, there'd be a supreme court.

The Supreme Court is the only court specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The rest of the Judicial branch is left to the Congress to create and organize (subject to the framework established in the bill of rights - trial by jury, etc), though the lower courts are placed explicitly below the high court in authority, with the high court hearing appeals "as to law and fact". The power of judicial review is inferred from the appeals to law statement, but not explicitly granted.

When it is said that the SC has overturned a law passed by Congress, this is not to be taken literally. The SC does not have a power to actually overturn anything; it only has the job of expressing its opinion on whether something is constitutional or not. It is then up to the Executive and Legislature to respond accordingly, and the traditional response is for them to agree with the SC's decision and make the necessary changes to the law and its execution. But if they colluded to defy the Court nonetheless, there is nothing the SC can do.

Do you mean, could Congress and/or the President simply ignore the direction of the Supreme Court? Technically, yes they could, and it has in fact happened at least once in American history. This is an important check on the power of the court - ultimately Congress controls the purse and the Executive controls the bureacracy.

Without the weight of public opinion, the directives of the Court are pretty hollow. Today, though, it is hard to imagine a case where ignoring a court order would be publicly tolerated.

But yes, in principle the Court just interprets and adjudicates law, it doesn't write it or enforce it, and it cannot force the Executive or Congress to write or enforce differently (there are some modern exceptions, of debtable consequence). In the original judicial review case, Justice Marshall wrote that acts of congress (note the language - he didn't call them laws) that conflicted with the constitution were not law, and the courts were obligated to ignore them when deciding cases.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Anything mandated is a tax.

No, actually. Fees and fines are, by definition, not taxes. Generally, the distinction is that if you get something directly from it, it's a fee not a tax. The price you pay for the right to drive is not a tax.

I don't like FICA, but that doesn't make it a tax either.

The unemployment you can probably say is a mandatory insurance.

I don't know how that works. Are your benefits tied to your payments? Then I'd agree. If not, then it's just a tax.

You can do the comparison, I took a finance course where they did it. But the issue illustrated is that social security is not a defined benefit plan. Even though it was sold that way decades ago, it is not.

I completely agree -- that was the point of my post.

I'd prefer to look at a comparison someone else did. I have no background with finance, and economics is a poor substitute. In a pinch I might, but with something this large and wide-ranging I have to imagine there's something out there already.

 

[Al68]

Just because a high paid talk show host, who is profiting from whole thing, comes up with some notion of what powers Congress should be does not make it so.

I wonder how anyone could come up with the notion that congress has limited, specific powers instead of the power to pass any law it wants? Oh, wait...

Maybe they actually read the constitution, which unambiguously says exactly that: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

 

[SSmills]

FINALLY. The Bush tax cut never provided any boost to the economy at all. Then we got involved in two wars and and incresed spending on all fronts. No wonder the debt is so high. We need to end the cuts because they are not stimulating the economy only sending out spiraling to bankruptcy.