Why not Rush's plan?

[Pastor Larry]

Whats wrong with Obams plan:

Please start another thread to talk about that.

 

[billwald]

Thread illustrates the stupidity of American elections.

Bottom line, Democrats should have democrat tax collectors & Democrat welfare programs and Republicans, republicans?

Our owners are the smartest dictators in history. They let us vote for our tax collectors, keep our guns, go to church, do whatever we want as long as assets keep flowing from our workers to their Swiss banks. We don't even know whom our owners are.

 

[billwald]

Thread illustrates the stupidity of American elections.

Bottom line, Democrats should have democrat tax collectors & Democrat welfare programs and Republicans, republicans?

Our owners are the smartest dictators in history. They let us vote for our tax collectors, keep our guns, go to church, do whatever we want as long as assets keep flowing from our workers to their Swiss banks. We don't even know whom our owners are.

 

[just-want-peace]

Of course not, but that's not the issue. You, like MP, are talking about process for some reason. No single individual, including Obama, has the right. But this is a different subject.

Why not talk about the plan?

Bolded mine

Biggest reason? The party has not formulated "talking points" for this topic yet, ergo the leftists do not know what they "think"!

Sad, but true!:tear:

 

[Pastor Larry]

Again, completely off topic ... and twice on top of that. Can you folks read? Please stay on topic.

 

[Salty]

Pastor Larry said:

Whats wrong with Obams plan: Please start another thread to talk about that

I dont care if its Obams or Rushs plan, my thoughts are still the same.

The Feds are spending way too many $. We should cut the federal budget by at least 40 - 60%.

 

[OldRegular]

No, I ignored nothing. I answered the opening question...why not? I know it matters not. I addressed the fact that Rush...or ANYONE unelected can't determine tax cuts. THAT is the flaw in the plan...not that it is Rush's idea. That it is unconstitutional. Did you miss that or ignore it?

Edited to add: Even if it were you, me, or Joe the Plumber, it isn't legal, nor does a private individual get to make such determinations about the public funds. In a republican form of government, we elect people to do that for us.

Rush has the same right to express his opinion as you or I do!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[targus]

I think that the plan is a true bipartisan compromise.

The Democrats want spending - they get what they want.

The Republicans want tax cuts for taxpayers. IE - people or companies who pay INCOME TAXES.

Obviously the Congress would decide what form the spending and INCOME TAX cuts would take.

 

[chuck2336]

I cant see to much wrong with the plan as stated. But leave it to the folks in DC to mess it up

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Rush has the same right to express his opinion as you or I do!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Of course he does. I don't disagree. My opinion of the plan is that it is flawed, since it is unconstitutional. Other than that, why would ANY private citizen get to appropriate any tax cuts? They can't. Nor can President Obama spend the money. Again unconstitutional. This is a ridiculous proposal, prima fascie.

 

[Revmitchell]

since it is unconstitutional.

Really? And why do you see it as such?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Really? And why do you see it as such?

Read the thread, or better yet, the Constitution of the United States. Especially Section 9, where it reads in part:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

 

[JustChristian]

I guess the only problem with the plan is who came up with it. Nobody can argue one point. Typical.

I'll answer it. Supply side economics failed under Reagan and every other Republican administration that tried to sell it to the American people. It sounds good, hey I'll take a tax cut, but it's a dismal failure.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

JFK was a supply-sider. And by that, I mean he favored those who supply. You can blame the problem on supply side economics, but the truth is, Bush did not practice that. This problem comes from supplying loans to those who could not pay, free health care for illegal aliens, and a Bush-Clinton-Bush nation building foreign policy.

What was so supply side about Bush ? At 35-42%, we have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. I'd like to know what is so "supply-side" about that.

 

[LeBuick]

His plan would sharpen Obama's comparison to Lincoln as he works to bring the nation back together. Rush's plan will encourage division instead of bipartisan corporation. He is only saying that because the Dems are in power. When the GOP had the wheel he told the Liberals to deal with it.

 

[Revmitchell]

His plan would sharpen Obama's comparison to Lincoln as he works to bring the nation back together. Rush's plan will encourage division instead of bipartisan corporation. He is only saying that because the Dems are in power. When the GOP had the wheel he told the Liberals to deal with it.

This statement begs the question, do you ever actually listen to him? Couldn't be any farther from the truth.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I am convinced Limbaugh's loudest critics are lieing when they say they listen to him.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Supply side economics failed under Reagan and every other Republican administration that tried to sell it to the American people.

Under Reagan we had huge increases in revenue to the Treasury. We simply didn't have spending control. Supply side is really the only thing that works.

 

[Pastor Larry]

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Isn't this bill going to be an appropriation made by law and therefore constitutional?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Isn't this bill going to be an appropriation made by law and therefore constitutional?

That would likely be a Supreme Court decision if given your hypothetical, the Congress voted to give proxy authority and abdicate their responsibility. There are valid arguments either way. But we all know it won't happen, so the exercise is a bit silly. Besides, it wouldn't be an appropriation of money by Congress, but an assignment of their Constitutional duty to a proxy. Big difference.