• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

What impact would bypassing Congress and implementing Cap&Tax/Amnesty have on the US?

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
There has been discussion that the executive branch would have the EPA bypass Congress and implement Cap & Trade.

Today the Washington Times is reporting that the executive branch might try a similar method with amnesty for illegal aliens.

With Congress gridlocked on an immigration bill, the Obama administration is considering using a back door to stop deporting many illegal immigrants - what a draft government memo said could be "a non-legislative version of amnesty."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/29/memo-outlines-backdoor-amnesty-plan-for-obama/

My question is no so much about the action of the executive branch in terms of immigration rather the impact on government and the result of of congress making itself irrelevant.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,118
3,656
126
What impact would bypassing Congress and implementing Cap&Tax/Amnesty have on the US?
I think it'd cause many Democrats here to soil themselves when the next Republican arrives at the Presidency with those new found dictatorial powers.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,957
1,376
126
We did try that already, the big amnesty in 1986. Look how things (ILLEGAL immigration) turn out now.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
We did try that already, the big amnesty in 1986. Look how things (ILLEGAL immigration) turn out now.
Again, amnesty isn't the issue rather implementing it not through law but through the executive branch.
 

DesiPower

Lifer
Nov 22, 2008
15,366
740
126
If he starts now, he might be able to add 11 mil new voters just in time for the next election. Its a good move, might guarantee him another 4 years. He might need one more bill to introduce a new rule that allows them to vote. As for as "US" is concerned? who the eff cares??? Let china sweat over it...
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,957
1,376
126
Again, amnesty isn't the issue rather implementing it not through law but through the executive branch.
If BO pull a stunt like that, I and millions of LEGAL immigrants/citizens will be sure that he will be a one term President.

Polls after polls after polls show the majority of Americans (except the ILLEGALS and their lovers) are against ILLEGAL immigrants. So far, not one, zero, nada, zip, of any polls show otherwise.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
There has been discussion that the executive branch would have the EPA bypass Congress and implement Cap & Trade.

Today the Washington Times is reporting that the executive branch might try a similar method with amnesty for illegal aliens.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/29/memo-outlines-backdoor-amnesty-plan-for-obama/

My question is no so much about the action of the executive branch in terms of immigration rather the impact on government and the result of of congress making itself irrelevant.
What is this talk of the EPA implementing cap and trade? So far as I know, the EPA has no power to impose taxation on anyone. They can impose environment regulations, but not taxes.

- wolf
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
71
What is this talk of the EPA implementing cap and trade? So far as I know, the EPA has no power to impose taxation on anyone. They can impose environment regulations, but not taxes.

- wolf

Wouldn't cap and trade be a regulation, and not a tax? It has a cost, but in most implementations the government wouldn't be collecting tax money.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
If BO pull a stunt like that, I and millions of LEGAL immigrants/citizens will be sure that he will be a one term President.

Polls after polls after polls show the majority of Americans (except the ILLEGALS and their lovers) are against ILLEGAL immigrants. So far, not one, zero, nada, zip, of any polls show otherwise.
Yep and when we get rid of the illegals you guys will be next.
 

RedCOMET

Platinum Member
Jul 8, 2002
2,837
0
0
If BO pull a stunt like that, I and millions of LEGAL immigrants/citizens will be sure that he will be a one term President.

Polls after polls after polls show the majority of Americans (except the ILLEGALS and their lovers) are against ILLEGAL immigrants. So far, not one, zero, nada, zip, of any polls show otherwise.
The thing is... we don't want the president using polling "data" to make decisions.... if we did that well, shit that could be bad.

On the other hand.. most of the news stations are showing protesters of the bill in AZ.. not supporters of the bill. And news station presenters say silly shit like "well look at all the people that support the federal govt.. gee not a lot of people here showing their support for AZ and their fight against illegal immigration."
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,957
1,376
126
Yep and when we get rid of the illegals you guys will be next.
Maybe the green card holders, but not me.

<<----is a U.S. citizen and has a certificate with pretty picture and a Federal Judge signature to prove it. :D
 
Last edited:

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,957
1,376
126
The thing is... we don't want the president using polling "data" to make decisions.... if we did that well, shit that could be bad.

On the other hand.. most of the news stations are showing protesters of the bill in AZ.. not supporters of the bill. And news station presenters say silly shit like "well look at all the people that support the federal govt.. gee not a lot of people here showing their support for AZ and their fight against illegal immigration."
We are not asking BO to do anything that "popular" or sound good. We are asking him, as the leader of the U.S., elected by us, the people, to uphold existing Federal Laws and protect the sovereign of the U.S.

I don't believe that is too much to ask, i.e. let the Federal government do their darn jobs that they were elect to do. Period.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
Maybe the green card holders, but not me.

<<----is a U.S. citizen and has a certificate with pretty picture and a Federal Judge signature to prove it. :D
Just make sure you carry it at all times.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Wouldn't cap and trade be a regulation, and not a tax? It has a cost, but in most implementations the government wouldn't be collecting tax money.
My understanding of it as not being a tax in accordance with yours. However, conservatives refer to it routinely as "cap and tax," and indeed, Patranus did so in this very thread title. If he thinks it is a tax, I don't understand how he believes it can be implemented by the EPA, which has no power to levy taxes on anyone.

- wolf
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Why not just revoke amnesty that was received last time, round them up and send them back. I think I could argue in court that the last amnesty was against the constitution and therefore it was invalid.
 

NoWhereM

Senior member
Oct 15, 2007
543
0
0
My understanding of it as not being a tax in accordance with yours. However, conservatives refer to it routinely as "cap and tax," and indeed, Patranus did so in this very thread title. If he thinks it is a tax, I don't understand how he believes it can be implemented by the EPA, which has no power to levy taxes on anyone.

- wolf
This article is a little out of date, http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20081230165231.aspx, but it appears the EPA is already trying to determine if they can implement Cap and Trade under the authority they already have from the Clean Air Act.
 

irwincur

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2002
1,899
0
0
My understanding of it as not being a tax in accordance with yours. However, conservatives refer to it routinely as "cap and tax," and indeed, Patranus did so in this very thread title. If he thinks it is a tax, I don't understand how he believes it can be implemented by the EPA, which has no power to levy taxes on anyone.

- wolf
Really...

A fee imposed by the government is really just a hidden tax. The same way that when a city is broke they all of the sudden start writing parking tickets for rare infractions.

The EPA cannot tax, but they can charge penalties. In this case, almost no one would meet the requirement and would have to pay the penalty. A defacto tax on business.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Really...

A fee imposed by the government is really just a hidden tax. The same way that when a city is broke they all of the sudden start writing parking tickets for rare infractions.

The EPA cannot tax, but they can charge penalties. In this case, almost no one would meet the requirement and would have to pay the penalty. A defacto tax on business.
How do you know that "no one would meet the requirement" without knowing what the requirement would be? The caps can be set anywhere.

- wolf
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,434
84
91
Why not just revoke amnesty that was received last time, round them up and send them back. I think I could argue in court that the last amnesty was against the constitution and therefore it was invalid.
Unfortunately the border has been unsecured for so long... it would take 1-2 decades to deport all of the people here illegally. Unless they actually went after businesses who employ illegals... then they may leave on their own accord.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
17,522
5,077
136
Reagan pushed this crap off until he was dead. Not his problem lololol
And still the Repugs did nothing about imigration when they had the power 4 years ago. Imagine that!

Now they are having a grand old time demagogging something that they will do nothing about again when they get in power because it would piss off the cheap labor donors!
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
If he starts now, he might be able to add 11 mil new voters just in time for the next election.
Actually, at least for the overwhelming majority of those individuals, this would not be the case. With the possible exception of a few situations where the illegal is already married to a current US citizen, you're definitely looking at an absolutely minimum of 3 years if not more to merely to start the actual citizenship application process. (Any actual hypothetical amnesty would merely make the illegals legal US residents and not automatically citizens.)

This is why the idea that this is actually going to happen in that way is so implausible.
 

RedCOMET

Platinum Member
Jul 8, 2002
2,837
0
0
We are not asking BO to do anything that "popular" or sound good. We are asking him, as the leader of the U.S., elected by us, the people, to uphold existing Federal Laws and protect the sovereign of the U.S.

I don't believe that is too much to ask, i.e. let the Federal government do their darn jobs that they were elect to do. Period.
Yeah. i agree. But If the Fed. Govt is not willing or able to uphold existing Federal Laws, then perhaps they need to be repealed as they are <sarcasm> so obviously outdated or impossible to enforce. We, the citizens, can't be burdening our Govt to enforce silly laws. </end sarcasm>
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
This article is a little out of date, http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20081230165231.aspx, but it appears the EPA is already trying to determine if they can implement Cap and Trade under the authority they already have from the Clean Air Act.
That's really a sad link.

An article about a statement made by the ""...senior director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau..""

That would be Chief Lobbyist.

Supreme Court: EPA must address climate risk
April 3, 2007

and subsequently:

EPA: Carbon Dioxide Is a Danger to Human Health
April 17, 2009

With this proposal, the Administrator is responding to the April 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court decision, in which the court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

The Court held that the Administrator must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision.

I gotta laugh at Anus (as do we all).

'Cap&Tax' as proposed by Congress is actually 'Cap&Give Away'. And now we have the 'Cap&Tax/Amnesty' troll. Nice bumper sticker yah got there. Not to the level of 'Freedom Fries' but a dang fine effort nonetheless.

Too bad we can't Cap/Troll without Amnesty for the Wing Nuts.





--
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY