Running over the Fiscal Cliff

[Jiro]

Could you show us about legal definition of "rich"?

I just told you. they were arguing over it. before, it was $250,000... now $400,000... (and $450,000 for a couple)

 

[Jiro]

interesting. this fiscal cliff law was signed by autopen.

Rise of the machines: Autopen puts bill into law, and touches off debate – The 1600 Report - CNN.com Blogs

Despite what we learned in school, the president doesn’t actually have to sign a bill before it becomes a law. An automatic pen perhaps can do it for him.

That’s what happened Thursday evening when it came time to put President Obama’s John Hancock on the extension of the Patriot Act, a controversial set of anti-terrorism and law enforcement measures passed in the wake of 9/11 that was set to expire Friday.

With Obama an ocean away in Europe and time marching toward the stroke of midnight, the White House determined it was easiest to have his autopen get the job done - a tool that exactly mimics the president’s signature and is more commonly used to sign Christmas cards and letters to schoolchildren. Indeed, this is the first time the Obama administration has ever used the unique device for such weighty purposes as putting laws on the books.

But what about the Constitution’s pesky clause in Article I, Section 7, providing that a bill must be presented to the president and “f he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it”? (emphasis added)

It was a matter the Justice Department considered in 2005, determining then that the word “sign” does not necessarily mean an active signature by the president himself. Rather, the Justice Department stated, “a person may sign a document by directing that his signature be affixed to it by another.”

“So long as the president retains this decision-making function, his instruction to a subordinate to affix the President’s signature to a document does not amount to a delegation of presidential authority in any meaningful or legally significant sense,” the department concluded in a 29-page memo.

But at least one congressman disagrees. Georgia Republican Tom Graves sent a letter to Obama Friday, stating he believes the use of an autopen in this context sets a “dangerous precedent.”

“Any number of circumstances could arise in the future where the public could question whether or not the president authorized the use of an autopen,” Graves said. “For example, if the president is hospitalized and not fully alert, can a group of aggressive Cabinet members interpret a wink or a squeeze of the hand as approval of an autopen signing?”

Graves is also requesting the president provide “a detailed explanation of his authority to delegate this responsibility to a surrogate, whether it is human, machine, or otherwise.”

Perhaps the issue does require more legal interpretation. After all, could the framers of the constitution have possibly anticipated such newfangled technology as a pen that automatically signs a name?

Actually, the device traces back to the early 1800’s and was reportedly used by Thomas Jefferson, though not necessarily to sign bills. It’s also been widely employed by senators and congressmen for decades on the Hill so staffers can easily lend their bosses name to several documents daily.

And, the fundamental technology isn't that advanced: the person's signature is merely engraved, allowing a machine-powered pen to follow the lines of the engraving to replicate the signature.

Still, Thursday may just mark a new frontier in the two-century life of the autopen.

 

[AdamFencepost]

At that late hour press conference following the House vote, the president said he would sign the legislation.

He left almost immediately to rejoin his family in Hawaii.

It was reported on whatever network that I was watching this that he would have to sign the bill with an autopen since it could not be prepared for his signature quickly.

 

[Foxrac]

I just told you. they were arguing over it. before, it was $250,000... now $400,000... (and $450,000 for a couple)

Oh really, I don't think that "rich" is used on tax bill.

 

[Jiro]

Oh really, I don't think that "rich" is used on tax bill.

I don't follow.

 

[Foxrac]

I don't follow.

I don't understand about what are you saying.

 

[CrazyPaul]

I just told you. they were arguing over it. before, it was $250,000... now $400,000... (and $450,000 for a couple)

I prefer that we make that decision, not them. In the first place, Obama said he wanted more taxes for rich people who make $250k/yr and now the Senate said $400k because those Senators make $250k. That's cheating. We, the people should vote it.

 

[Foxrac]

I prefer that we make that decision, not them. In the first place, Obama said he wanted more taxes for rich people who make $250k/yr and now the Senate said $400k because those Senators make $250k. That's cheating. We, the people should vote it.

I don't think that making over $250,000 per year will be taxed at 39.6% but more likely 36%.

 

[Jiro]

I prefer that we make that decision, not them.

you already are making that decision... by voting for politicians to fight for your rights. by not participating in such process, you are making a decision to do nothing.

In the first place, Obama said he wanted more taxes for rich people who make $250k/yr and now the Senate said $400k because those Senators make $250k. That's cheating. We, the people should vote it.

do you really believe people making $250k/year is "rich" people? to me - it's a paltry amount especially for a family.

 

[Foxrac]

I don't follow.

When senate created a tax bill so did they use word - "rich" on tax bill (formal, law bill)?

We don't find any formal definition about how much money are you making to be considered as rich.

 

[Jiro]

When senate created a tax bill so did they use word - "rich" on tax bill (formal, law bill)?

We don't find any formal definition about how much money are you making to be considered as rich.

there is a legal classification for those in poverty, right? same thing. there's a tax bracket.

they're claiming that $250,000+ is considered wealthy. I disagree.

 

[Foxrac]

there is a legal classification for those in poverty, right? same thing. there's a tax bracket.

they're claiming that $250,000+ is considered wealthy. I disagree.

Yes, usually for meet the criteria before they can receive a welfare or government program. The poverty is defined about earn below the federal poverty. I don't know if poor or rich are used for tax bracket, but they do have 10% as low to 39.6% at maximum, so poor people and middle class are hardly to hit 39.6%.

Consider $250,000+ as rich or not is opinion matter?

 

[diehardbiker]

For your hometown, I can understand that. But for those who lives in Montana and earns $250K a year, not rich? LOL!

there is a legal classification for those in poverty, right? same thing. there's a tax bracket.

they're claiming that $250,000+ is considered wealthy. I disagree.

 

[CrazyPaul]

do you really believe people making $250k/year is "rich" people? to me - it's a paltry amount especially for a family.

Those who make that much can easily buy three BMWs and 1 million dollars home.

 

[Jiro]

For your hometown, I can understand that. But for those who lives in Montana and earns $250K a year, not rich? LOL!

most of people making $250k+ live in metropolitan areas. and it's not easy to make $250k a year and if you think all they do is sit on comfortable chair and work few hours a day... you're gravely mistaken

I have a bunch of friends making over $250k a year and they own restaurants. I don't envy them because they do not get weekends off and they work harder than a dog. their work begins early in the morning till late. not for me!

 

[Jiro]

Those who make that much can easily buy three BMWs and 1 million dollars home.

I doubt it.

remember? facts over assumptions. I live in dozens of towns full of families making $200k/year range and I don't see anything that matches up with your assumption. heck... I have tons of friends making that much and they certainly do not have 3 BMWs and 1 million dollars homes.

compared to other states, NY and NJ pay the most to federal taxes.

 

[diehardbiker]

Sadly, you got tunnel vision.

Those who makes more than 250 a year and if they live in high cost of living, they will be able to write off taxes.

Remember, $250K a year AFTER all deductions has been made and is STILL a lot money. Say, if you earn 400K a year in 2012 and you had write off taxes of say $250K, which leaves you $150K and subject ONLY $150K to pay taxes not $400K. AKA "Adjusted income".

most of people making $250k+ live in metropolitan areas. and it's not easy to make $250k a year and if you think all they do is sit on comfortable chair and work few hours a day... you're gravely mistaken

I have a bunch of friends making over $250k a year and they own restaurants. I don't envy them because they do not get weekends off and they work harder than a dog. their work begins early in the morning till late. not for me!

 

[Jiro]

Sadly, you got tunnel vision.

I live in where $250k/year is not considered rich and you live in where $250k/year is considered rich.

so let's see... which of us live in an area with the most people making over $250k/year?

 

[diehardbiker]

After all deductions has been made?

There are a lot people across the United States DO make a lot money, not just your hometown!

I live in where $250k/year is not considered rich and you live in where $250k/year is considered rich.

so let's see... which of us live in an area with the most people making over $250k/year?

 

[Foxrac]

I live in where $250k/year is not considered rich and you live in where $250k/year is considered rich.

so let's see... which of us live in an area with the most people making over $250k/year?

The people making over $250,000 per year is 2% of USA population.