[bravesfan007]

Originally Posted by Jfool

Is there a limit to how much money Mr. Obama and the left can sign me up for?

They're gonna spend even MORE. When can we just say STOP?

Seriously, is there a limit?

?

Not as far as I know. As long as they have enough votes to pass the legislation anything goes. Now, keep in mind that at a point I would hope people would write and call their representatives and tell them that if they pass any more then they are not going to be voting for them again. I think that's the only way of changing what gets done. It's all about votes.

Of course, my folks can vote for this past bill, people disagree, and still get re-elected.

[Jfool]

Originally Posted by Jfool

The "stimulus" got signed today. And over the weekend, the news was already giving us bits about "further stimulus"...

So rather than start another thread, I was wondering. Is there a limit to how much money Mr. Obama and the left can sign me up for? I mean, I am a conservative, and no conservatives voted for it. And we are not exactly sure how we'll pay all this money back so far...

They're gonna spend even MORE. When can we just say STOP?

Seriously, is there a limit?

?

I just heard a news bite saying the Chinese and Japanese, who have been the major lenders financing our national debt, may not be so willing to invest in the US anymore.

So basically, Americans will need to get to the point where we've sucked all the money from the rest of the world, and there's none left. THEN we will be done?

I'm ranting, but I am still incredulous that so many of us think the answer is to kick our consumption into overdrive.

Yea, I know I quoted myself.

[tlj009]

Not as far as I know. As long as they have enough votes to pass the legislation anything goes. Now, keep in mind that at a point I would hope people would write and call their representatives and tell them that if they pass any more then they are not going to be voting for them again. I think that's the only way of changing what gets done. It's all about votes.

Of course, my folks can vote for this past bill, people disagree, and still get re-elected.

At some point the states need to take back their rights from the federal government. The problem is that the there is nothing that I know of to keep the federal government from spending tax money on pretty much whatever it wants. That is the reason that they can tax the people and fund schools with the requirement that the schools must do whatever the feds want even though schools are specifically a state responsibility. They take power through money. What needs to happen is that a law be passed specifying that the federal government can only tax to fund its specific responsibilities as outlined by the constitution. I say this because I know of nothing that gives the federal government responsibility specifically over the economy of the nation. I think that the feds are overstepping their bounds by pumping tax money into private companies to try to keep us out of a depression.

[bravesfan007]

Originally Posted by tlj009

I say this because I know of nothing that gives the federal government responsibility specifically over the economy of the nation. I think that the feds are overstepping their bounds by pumping tax money into private companies to try to keep us out of a depression.

I also know of nothing other than not putting people into office who are going to do those types of things. The one way to do that though is by voting, and we all know how that goes.

[Jfool]

A court challenge to the "Stimulus"... ??

I'd be interested in hearing about past court challenges to the Fed over stepping... I know its happened but I'm not aware of specifics. I know that "activism" or "liberalness" of judges plays a part.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jfool

The "stimulus" got signed today. And over the weekend, the news was already giving us bits about "further stimulus"...

Why the quotes? Do you think that hiring people won't improve unemployment and spending?

So rather than start another thread, I was wondering. Is there a limit to how much money Mr. Obama and the left can sign me up for?

Absolutely. He's limited to what congress passes.

Is there a limit for congress? No. Not a legal one.

I mean, I am a conservative, and no conservatives voted for it. And we are not exactly sure how we'll pay all this money back so far...

I suspect your definition of "conservative" makes your claim tautological.

That said, there are several things to remember.
Obama inherits a $10,000,000,000,000 debt that was not of his making (Mostly Bush Jr and Reagan).
The "stimulus plan", that is to say "new spending" is much smaller than it looks (in fact, interest on the existing debt this year will exceed the $380-billion in new spending by quite a bit)

They're gonna spend even MORE. When can we just say STOP?

Were you asking this 8 years ago?

I just heard a news bite saying the Chinese and Japanese, who have been the major lenders financing our national debt, may not be so willing to invest in the US anymore.

Don't believe everything you hear. The same has been said many times in the past. China and Japan are pushing their own stimulus bills. They will remain invested in the US as long as it serves their interest (and there's noting yet to change that it does)

So basically, Americans will need to get to the point where we've sucked all the money from the rest of the world, and there's none left. THEN we will be done?

Money doesn't really work the way that sentence implies. It's just a place-holder for goods and services.

A court challenge to the "Stimulus"... ??

Legislating from the bench?

I'd be interested in hearing about past court challenges to the Fed over stepping... I know its happened but I'm not aware of specifics. I know that "activism" or "liberalness" of judges plays a part.

Now you are just tossing around labels. I've never seen a statistic that would support your "liberal judges" vs "non-liberal judges" in terms of attempted intercession... only in what they intercede on.

The short answer is "the Judiciary is powerless against the executive". For some modern examples, look at the illegal wiretapping and the administrations claim of "executive privilege". In fact, just google that term.

Not that it's new. SCOTUS declared the removal of Native Americans from the black hills of Georgia unconstitutional (in violation of a legal treaty), and the president scoffed saying "I'd like to see them enforce it".

Nixon's statement "If the president does it, it's not illegal" was quite telling of a position that was not just his, but that of those he kept around him. Kissinger, Rumsfield, Cheney. Expansion of the executive branch's power was a publicly stated position of Cheney's

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by normajean777

I don't want to advocate for inheritance tax or anything because I don't like them, but couldn't the system just be set up to defer? As in the amount of taxes to be paid is set, but can be paid off later, either from business income, or later if the business is sold. Sort of like a lien or something.

That too would seem problematic. What if the new owner dies before paying off the debt? It's a good thought though.

[Folk_guy]

Originally Posted by TunerSteve

I thought Inheritance tax didn't kick in until you exceeded $600,000. I haven't checked it out, but that was my understanding.

Well Steve I'm still trying to sort it all out, which is why I think they should make it simpler!!! It appears some inherited money is not taxed, but some is (ie: Money that was inherited that came from a retirement fund, is taxable if it isn't rolled over), even the stuff that isn't taxed you have to fill out paperwork explaining why it shouldn't be taxed. You fill out one form, and it sends you to some other form, etc. I'm to the point now that I think I'm going to have to hire someone to do it for me (hoefully they'll get it right, but there is no sure bet there either).

[Jfool]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Why the quotes? Do you think that hiring people won't improve unemployment and spending?

In the long run, or the short for that matter, no. I have begun to use quotes when referring to this piece of record setting pork, because I believe it is the opposite of stimulus. Thanks for noticing.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Absolutely. He's limited to what congress passes.

And congress at the moment will pass what he wants.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I suspect your definition of "conservative" makes your claim tautological.

That said, there are several things to remember.
Obama inherits a $10,000,000,000,000 debt that was not of his making (Mostly Bush Jr and Reagan).
The "stimulus plan", that is to say "new spending" is much smaller than it looks (in fact, interest on the existing debt this year will exceed the $380-billion in new spending by quite a bit)

Were you asking this 8 years ago?

I had to look up that word. Are you trying to convince me of something by reminding me of how much we cannot already afford to spend more, or just trying to make me feel better?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Money doesn't really work the way that sentence implies. It's just a place-holder for goods and services.

Right now it is a place holder for the hopes that people can afford these things in the future. We should be realizing by now that our "hopes" got way beyond us.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The short answer is "the Judiciary is powerless against the executive". For some modern examples, look at the illegal wiretapping and the administrations claim of "executive privilege". In fact, just google that term.

Not that it's new. SCOTUS declared the removal of Native Americans from the black hills of Georgia unconstitutional (in violation of a legal treaty), and the president scoffed saying "I'd like to see them enforce it".

Nixon's statement "If the president does it, it's not illegal" was quite telling of a position that was not just his, but that of those he kept around him. Kissinger, Rumsfield, Cheney. Expansion of the executive branch's power was a publicly stated position of Cheney's

Which frightens me big time, considering who is in the office today.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Were you asking this 8 years ago?

does it matter?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Bryan

does it matter?

What is the criteria by which I can tell things that matter from things that don't?