Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama: Not Legitimate for Future Presidents to Lower Taxes via Executive Action
breitbart ^ | Nov. 23, 2014 | Tony Lee

Posted on 11/23/2014 5:45:34 PM PST by PROCON

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last
Of course not!

Lowering taxes would help the American people, can't have that.

1 posted on 11/23/2014 5:45:35 PM PST by PROCON
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PROCON
When asked on ABC's This Week if his successor could unilaterally act to lower taxes if Congress does not, Obama replied, "absolutely not."

"He could raise them. But not lower them. Although he could use executive discretion to decline to prosecute certain races or classes of individuals."

2 posted on 11/23/2014 5:48:52 PM PST by FredZarguna (Jean à de longues moustaches. Je répète: Jean à de longues moustaches.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

This is rich.

You just can’t make this stuff up.

On another note, I hope I get to ridicule 0bama to his face some day.


3 posted on 11/23/2014 5:50:25 PM PST by Principled (Obama: Unblemished by success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON
After unilaterally granting temporary amnesty and work permits to millions of illegal immigrants last week

Really? I wonder if Breitbart has a reference for that?

I've not seen an EO, and the memos from Friday don't do any of that.

/johnny

4 posted on 11/23/2014 5:50:35 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

A President could, via Executive Order, eliminate withholding. Once that’s done, and people realized just how much they pay, tax cuts would follow. A whole lot of cuts.


5 posted on 11/23/2014 5:51:31 PM PST by abb ("News reporting is too important to be left to the journalists." Walter Abbott (1950 -))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

Why the hell not?


6 posted on 11/23/2014 5:52:46 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

Like waiving penalties for obamacare?


7 posted on 11/23/2014 5:54:59 PM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON
Obama: Not Legitimate for Future Presidents to Lower Taxes via Executive Action

And according to the 1986 immigration law it is also not legitimate to make changes without approval of Congress....

Immigration Reform Control Act of 1986 "NOTICE TO CONGRESS BEFORE IMPLEMENTING CHANGES" (Required)

Government Printing Office ^ | 1986 | US Congress

Posted on 11/22/2014, 4:03:19 PM by xzins

"(3) NOTICE TO CONGRESS BEFORE IMPLEMENTING CHANGES.—

"(A) IN GENERAL.—The President may not implement any change under paragraph (1) unless at least—

"(i) 60 days,

"(ii) one year, in the case of a major change described in subparagraph (D)(iii), or

"(iii) two years, in the case of a major change described in clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (D), before the date of implementation of the change, the President has prepared and transmitted to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a written report setting forth the proposed change.

If the President proposes to make any change regarding social security account number cards, the President shall transmit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Finance of the Senate a written report setting forth the proposed change.

The President promptly shall cause to have printed in the Federal Register the substance of any major change (described in subparagraph (D)) proposed and reported to Congress.

"(B) CONTENTS OF REPORT.—In any report under subparagraph (A) the President shall include recommendations for the establishment of civil and criminal sanctions for unauthorized use or disclosure of the information or identifiers contained in such system.

"(C) CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF MAJOR CHANGES.—

"(i) HEARINGS AND REVIEW.—The Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and of the Senate shall cause to have printed in the Congressional Record the substance of any major change described in subparagraph (D), shall hold hearings respecting the feasibility and desirability of implementing such a change, and, within the two year period before implementation, shall report to their respective Houses findings on whether or not such a change should be implemented.

"(ii) CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.—No major change may be implemented unless the Congress specifically provides, in an appropriations or other Act, for funds for implementation of the change.

"(D) MAJOR CHANGES REQUIRING TWO YEARS NOTICE AND CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW.—As used in this paragraph, the term 'major change' means a change which would—

"(i) require an individual to present a new card or other document (designed specifically for use for this purpose) at the time of hiring, recruitment, or referral,

"(ii) provide for a telephone verification system under which an employer, recruiter, or referrer must transmit to a Federal official information concerning the immigration status of prospective employees and the official transmits to the person, and the person must record, a verification code, or

"(iii) require any change in any card used for accounting purposes under the Social Security Act, 42 USC 301 note. including any change requiring that the only social security account number cards which may be presented in order to comply with subsection (bXlXCXi) are such cards as are in a counterfeit-resistant form consistent with the second sentence of section 205(cX2XD) of the Social ecurity Act. 42 use 405.

,; "(E) GENERAL REVENUE FUNDING OF SOCIAL SECURITY CARD CHANGES.—Any costs incurred in developing and implementing any change described in subparagraph (D) (iii)for purposes of this subsection shall not be paid for out of any trust fund established under established under the Social Security Act

Thank you President Reagan.....from all of nus...

8 posted on 11/23/2014 5:55:59 PM PST by spokeshave (He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON
There is a link to the transcript at the Breitbart story. Mr. "I was, uh, a, uh, constitutional law professor" didn't answer the question. Not that he could in any way that makes sense. He's a spoiled brat who, when playing the board game with the rest of the family, flips the board over and ruins the game for everyone when he realized he's losing.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How do you respond to the argument, a future president comes in, wants lower taxes. Doesn’t happen. Congress won’t do it – he says I’m not going to prosecute those who don’t pay capital gains tax.

OBAMA: Well, the truth of the matter is, George, that the reason that we have to do prosecutorial discretion in immigration is that we know we are not even close to being able to deal with the folks who have been here a long time. The vast majority of folks understand that they need to pay taxes, and when we conduct an audit, for example, we are selecting those folks who are most likely to be cheating. We’re not going after millions and millions of people who everybody knows are here and were taking advantage of low wages as they’re mowing lawns or cleaning out bedpans, and looking the other way – but then you got politicians suddenly going out there saying, suggesting somehow that we should be deporting all of them. Everybody knows, including Republicans, that we’re not going to deport 11 million people.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you don’t think it’d be legitimate for a future president to make that argument?

OBAMA: With respect to taxes? Absolutely not.
9 posted on 11/23/2014 5:56:17 PM PST by LostInBayport (When there are more people riding in the cart than there are pulling it, the cart stops moving...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
Really? I wonder if Breitbart has a reference for that?

What? Why, do you hate Asian authors? Racist! </liberal logic>

10 posted on 11/23/2014 5:58:05 PM PST by PROCON (Always give 100%...unless you're donating blood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PROCON
"Only I am the One"

Your own words condemn you.

11 posted on 11/23/2014 5:58:10 PM PST by Ray76 (When Obama speaks he speaks as the leader of a foreign invasion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LostInBayport

He was a part-time lecturer. The commie coven called University of Chicago has created this monster.


12 posted on 11/23/2014 5:59:40 PM PST by Ray76 (When Obama speaks he speaks as the leader of a foreign invasion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

sure they can especially if Dems don’t do what a Republican President wants. That Republican can order the IRS to not collect taxes. Thats what Obama did by ordering DHS to not enforce immigration laws.

Please dear Lord ,give us a Conservative Republican president willing to play head games with the Dems using their own words quoting them by name...it would be so fun to watch:)))


13 posted on 11/23/2014 6:00:29 PM PST by RginTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

Not upholding tax laws is “different” than not upholding immigration laws?

Really?

Just how is this any different than Reagan’s foiled pursuit of the line item veto?

SCOTUS ruled that unconstitutional. But his adding to and amending pieces of Laws is Legal?

I guess you have to be Liberal to really understand the logic.


14 posted on 11/23/2014 6:00:30 PM PST by R0CK3T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

Wrong question. The right one would have been, “can a future president instruct the IRS not to enforce tax law in particular instances?”


15 posted on 11/23/2014 6:07:59 PM PST by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON
"President Barack Obama said it would not be legitimate for a future president to unilaterally lower tax rates."

He's suggesting that, in contrast to his own presidency, the next president will be legitimate.
16 posted on 11/23/2014 6:09:25 PM PST by clearcarbon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

Wait a minute. The Treasury is in the Executive Branch, as well as the IRS, so Executive Orders . . . oh, never mind.


17 posted on 11/23/2014 6:22:15 PM PST by Zuben Elgenubi (NOPe to GOPe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

This is awful.


18 posted on 11/23/2014 6:27:13 PM PST by Lazamataz (Proudly Deciding Female Criminal Guilt By How Hot They Are Since 1999 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

amnesty, yes, taxes, no.

well at least now we know. not like our founders wrote some instructions down on how they thought government ought to work. /sarc


19 posted on 11/23/2014 6:31:52 PM PST by Secret Agent Man ( Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb

he could actually order the irs to return all withholding. irs is an executive agency.

he could order ssa to return all fica.


20 posted on 11/23/2014 6:33:55 PM PST by Secret Agent Man ( Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson