|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
I don't think there's any question that presidents politically shape tax legislation, and many other forms of legislation, for that matter. We are at an all time low in this, but the president and congress historically have worked together, as in theory this should happen. I will say that at the moment, such a dynamic is largely absent (for obvious reasons), but normally things work that way. You seem to have a hard-on not to lose face in this thread.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Who sets the rate?
Before you answer...
Sixteenth Amendment
Quote:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
My 'hard-on' as you so moronically put it, is for accuracy. The constitution states who has the power, not me.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
If your hard on is for "accuracy", the 16th amendment simply allowed congress to levy an income tax. It said nothing about how rates would be set.
The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 gave the President the power to submit the annual budget for the entire federal government.
Yes, that budget goes to Congress for review and approval and to tweek a bit, but the President has the first say (which sets the tone for Congress) and he also gets the final say.
For you to believe that Reagan wasn't responsible for the Reagan tax cuts is simply .
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Let's go through it one step at a time...
1. The President makes a proposal.
2. Congress sets the rate.
3. The President either agrees or disagrees with what Congress has done.
4. If the President signs on, the rate Congress set is the rate.
5. If he doesn't sign on, it starts again at step 1.
Did I miss the part where the President magically gains the power to set the rate?
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: If your hard on is for "accuracy", the 16th amendment simply allowed congress to levy an income tax. It said nothing about how rates would be set.
Sure it does.
Quote:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Congress sets the rate.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: Let's go through it one step at a time...
1. The President makes a proposal.
2. Congress sets the rate. determines whether to accept the President's proposal or offer a counter proposal.
3. The President either agrees or disagrees with what Congress has done.
4. If the President signs on, the rate Congress set is the rate close enough to the rate the President initially proposed for him to sign.
5. If he doesn't sign on, it starts again at step 1.
Did I miss the part where the President magically gains the power to set the rate?
I revised your summary above to make it even more accurate.
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
lFalcon91Wolvrn03 said: If your hard on is for "accuracy", the 16th amendment simply allowed congress to levy an income tax. It said nothing about how rates would be set.
Sure it does.
Quote:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Congress sets the rate.
I missed it in your quote above. Does anyone else here see it, or is LDS once again going to defend another losing argument?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: Let's go through it one step at a time...
1. The President makes a proposal.
2. Congress sets the rate. determines whether to accept the President's proposal or offer a counter proposal sets the rate.
3. The President either agrees or disagrees with what Congress has done.
4. If the President signs on, the rate Congress set is the rate close enough to the rate the President initially proposed for him to sign the rate.
5. If he doesn't sign on, it starts again at step 1.
Did I miss the part where the President magically gains the power to set the rate?
I revised your summary above to make it even more accurate.
Your alterations were inaccurate. The President doesn't write the bill. He doesn't get to force a rate. It doesn't become the rate simply because he wishes it be so. A 'proposal' doesn't become an edict simply because the President wishes it to be so.
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
lFalcon91Wolvrn03 said: If your hard on is for "accuracy", the 16th amendment simply allowed congress to levy an income tax. It said nothing about how rates would be set.
Sure it does.
Quote:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Congress sets the rate.
I missed it in your quote above. Does anyone else here see it, or is LDS once again going to defend another losing argument?
I'll put it separately then... "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes"
So seeing as you seem to agree that after Congress is done the President can only agree/sign or disagree/veto, where's part where the President magically gains the power to set the rate?
Appealing to others won't change the accuracy of my statements.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
I think by now everyone here gets it but you. Feel free to keep trying to convince yourself though.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Convince myself that Congress sets the rate? I don't have to convince myself of what is true.
The President 'proposes' a rate. Congress 'sets' a rate.
Propose ≠set.
I get it just fine.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: Saying one President is good for keeping rates low (or high) and that another President is bad for doing the opposite, doesn't wash. Credit, or blame, falls on Congress.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
mycoprog
Modular Heretic



Registered: 01/12/06
Posts: 797
Loc: N. America
|
|
Do you believe that Reagan was responsible for his tax cuts?
--------------------
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
I believe Reagan made a proposal and Congress set the rate. Which is precisely what I've been saying all along.
A President cannot raise, lower or set tax rates.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Really? A poll?

You could have at least been honest about it.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: Really? A poll?
You could have at least been honest about it.
What do you mean? It is a question, not a statement. I even quoted your original statement that started this whole discussion. You're really desperate to save a losing argument.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
No, honest about what you seem to really want to ask.
"Do you guys really, really, really like me and is lds (despite knowing the difference between 'propose' and 'set') just a big, old, mean poopy head?"
Check one: Y___ N___

The President 'proposes'. Congress 'sets'. The President either signs off or vetos. If he signs off, the rate Congress 'set' is the rate. If he vetos it goes back to the beginning. As that's what happens, the argument was won some time ago.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,263
Last seen: 1 day, 2 hours
|
|
Gonna skip this whole tax thing because...Who gives a shit? Taxes get set by a combo of the two. If that is off-topic enough to get edited, then so be it. Let's go back to something from way earlier that I found interesting.
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
Quote:
spock said: Bush started 2 wars and did not raise the money to fight them. War is expensive and did not leave our country with much to work with when Obama took over. Add a do nothing congress and senate and, to me, it looks like Obama did pretty good considering what he was/is working with. GW Bush was a puppet of his vice pres.
Peace Spock
Bush started two wars along with a majority of democrats in congress, a coalition of countries, and the blessing of the UN
Why do leftists always forget who else was involved,
PRESIDENTS CANT DECLARE WAR BY THEMSELVES
FUCK PEACE
No, but presidents, being the commanders in chief, can declare police actions. The US has not officially been in a declared state of war (by congress) since WWII. Of course, that didn't stop us from Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Afghanistan again, Iraq again, and ISIS nowadays. The US hasn't fought a war in over 70 years, but somehow we still have non-geriatric troops overseas dying for I'm no longer sure what (mostly because I really don't care, sorry, vets, pick a better career. Maybe that way you'll actually get benefits).
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
Re: Republicans [Re: Kryptos]
#23502407 - 08/02/16 04:03 PM (7 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Only for so long, then they need an act of congress to continue, that's why Iraq and Afghanistan were both sanctioned by the US congress
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,263
Last seen: 1 day, 2 hours
|
|
Not in cases of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." Based on the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
Re: Republicans [Re: Kryptos]
#23502459 - 08/02/16 04:21 PM (7 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said: Not in cases of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." Based on the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
Okay, so in cases that don't fall under that, then what authority is used?
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,263
Last seen: 1 day, 2 hours
|
|
I don't know, seeing as how every case I listed either fell under that law or preceded it (in the specific case of Korea and Vietnam). It would be interesting if there was a single precedent that was not ruled legal under the above mentioned law.
EDIT: maybe you could argue that the bombing of Kosovo under Clinton was not sanctioned by congress under that law, but on the other hand it didn't last long enough to need congressional confirmation.
SECOND EDIT: I would also like to mention that the US is currently under 29 official state of emergencies. Most of these affect trade exclusively, but not all. Five of them establish the entire world as a target, under the guise of terrorism, cyberterrorism, and protection from weapons of mass destruction. One of the worldwide states of emergency specifies trade, and the Export Administrations Act, and another refers to transnational criminal organizations, which I assume means cartels, but can be extended to encompass any crime that crosses international borders. Sorta like the FBI and state borders. By invoking any of these, the president can drop troops anywhere in the world without congressional oversight or approval indefinitely.
Edited by Kryptos (08/02/16 04:36 PM)
|
|