Could taxation kill our Bill of Rights?

Paschendale · Jul 6, 2012

Fletch said:
No you dont. You have no less thirst for the wealth of the productive than you do for the wealth of their heirs. Your ideology, such as it is, is based entirely upon legalized theft. The left is nothing but a pack of moral and monetary vampires sucking the blood of their betters.

This was the philosophy behind serfdom. A Dark Ages mindset like this has no place either in a democracy, or in the modern era. We must not allow power to concentrate into the hands of the wealthy few. Opposing aristocracy and oligarchy was the entire reason for the United States' existence in the first place. There are few attitudes that are truly un-American. This is one of them.

ttwtt78640 · Jul 6, 2012

TurtleDude said:
150 an hour? that's very low in the circles I deal with. But I agree-we have far too many lawyers causing far too many costs to be imposed on the private sector. good lawyers will always be needed, bad ones are parasites- we need to close about 2/3ds of the law schools or make passing the bar far far tougher.

Why not just simply write ONLY common sense laws and write them in plain English? Lawyers, simply strive to create problems that only other lawyers can then be paid to solve.

TurtleDude · Jul 6, 2012

Paschendale said:
This was the philosophy behind serfdom. A Dark Ages mindset like this has no place either in a democracy, or in the modern era. We must not allow power to concentrate into the hands of the wealthy few. Opposing aristocracy and oligarchy was the entire reason for the United States' existence in the first place. There are few attitudes that are truly un-American. This is one of them.

Maybe its "un-American" to the far left version-the version where dependency is normal and suckling from the public tit is accepted behavior. But to us who want an America that is the best and strongest nation in the world, one where people are free and government is kept in check, no-his attitudes are not un-American-rather yours are

TurtleDude · Jul 6, 2012

ttwtt78640 said:
Why not just simply write ONLY common sense laws and write them in plain English? Lawyers, simply strive to create problems that only other lawyers can then be paid to solve.

I agree-and many politicians are lawyers. its a self advancing circle jerk

UtahBill · Jul 6, 2012

ttwtt78640 said:
Why not just simply write ONLY common sense laws and write them in plain English? Lawyers, simply strive to create problems that only other lawyers can then be paid to solve.

because they are too busy writiing complicated laws that confuse the common person, enabling the better educated to suck dry the public teat in thier own way, like lower taxes for the rich....
leaving the poor no choice but to suck the govt teat....

Lakryte · Jul 6, 2012

Dezaad said:
Still, it irks me that the Conservative justices have suddenly decided the Commerce clause limits the power of government. They certainly don't seem to think it provides much narrowness when it is a conservative law which is under scrutiny. It is the lack of sticking to principles that bothers me the most. Interpret the thing with one set of principles or the other, so that we clearly know when it needs to be changed and when it doesn't. I concede there has been activism on the liberal side, but the conservatives are no better. It is the inconsistency which is the fount of activism, and both sides do it.

You bet conservatives are no better. It all has to do with pleasing the interest groups, in this case private insurance companies and big pharma. I don't want to get into a debate about the commerce clause, but it was never intended to mean the government can control commerce. It was originally intended to prohibit the states from impossing tariffs on other states. Under the Articles of Confederations, you essentially had tariff wars going on between the colonies, and it was meant to correct that problem. Prior to 1900, virtually every case dealing with the commerce clause had to do with limiting state power in interstate commerce, not granting the federal government control over it. On top of that, the notion of the commerce clause is to regulate interstate commerce, not commerce within a state. By refusing to purchase health insurance, you are hardly engaged in interstate commerce.

Fletch · Jul 7, 2012

Paschendale said:
This was the philosophy behind serfdom. A Dark Ages mindset like this has no place either in a democracy, or in the modern era. We must not allow power to concentrate into the hands of the wealthy few. Opposing aristocracy and oligarchy was the entire reason for the United States' existence in the first place. There are few attitudes that are truly un-American. This is one of them.

Not sure what is more ironic: a socialist who lives by the medieval creed of Robin Hood denouncing someone else for holding 'a Dark Ages mindset,' or a left wing despotism fan boy denouncing an individualist as 'un-American.' Hard to say which political philosophy you understand least--yours or mine.

cpwill · Jul 7, 2012

The Power To Tax is the Power To Destroy.

The SCOTUS has just declared there is no effective limit on the power to tax. Ergo, there is no effective limit on the Federal Governments' rightful power to destroy you.

cpwill · Jul 7, 2012

Paschendale said:
This was the philosophy behind serfdom. A Dark Ages mindset like this has no place either in a democracy, or in the modern era. We must not allow power to concentrate into the hands of the wealthy few. Opposing aristocracy and oligarchy was the entire reason for the United States' existence in the first place. There are few attitudes that are truly un-American. This is one of them.

.....says the guy whose political lean declares that he is in favor of concentrating massive power in the hands of the elite few?

haymarket · Jul 7, 2012

TurtleDude said:
I love the left who claims that we who work hard to give our children a better life are somehow hurting them while those dem voters who suck from the public tit are showing their kids how to become proper citizens.

collective greed is the best way to describe those who gain power by addicting so many voters to becoming public tit suckers

Lets talk about your hated enemies marching in the army of Satan on the far left. I know of not one person who is progressive, liberal or on the left who wants their kids to be dependent on government welfare programs. Not a one. Your characterization is to be so wrong that it is the equal of the Flat earth buffoons.

As far as the rich hurting their children - America is a nation where men and women can hope to become all they can be and realize their true potential. The way to do this is through hard work, self discovery, rick taking, cooperation with others, playing fair and building skills and talents. What you fail to realize is that when a rich person endows their children with trusts and inheritance they are in effect denying them the opportunity to become self made men and women. They are handicapping them in a way which will haunt them forever.

The trust fund baby may have dollars and wealth, but when they close that door and look in the mirror they see as pampered and privileged elitist starting back who had it all handed to them on a silver platter. That does not make for strong individuals nor does it make for a good nation to have such fops depleting our precious moral fiber with their personal weakness.

It must be sad to go through life knowing that most of what you have is because Daddy gave it to you. I would much rather look in the mirror and see a self made man or woman who did it their way.

TurtleDude · Jul 7, 2012

haymarket said:
Lets talk about your hated enemies marching in the army of Satan on the far left. I know of not one person who is progressive, liberal or on the left who wants their kids to be dependent on government welfare programs. Not a one. Your characterization is to be so wrong that it is the equal of the Flat earth buffoons.

As far as the rich hurting their children - America is a nation where men and women can hope to become all they can be and realize their true potential. The way to do this is through hard work, self discovery, rick taking, cooperation with others, playing fair and building skills and talents. What you fail to realize is that when a rich person endows their children with trusts and inheritance they are in effect denying them the opportunity to become self made men and women. They are handicapping them in a way which will haunt them forever.

The trust fund baby may have dollars and wealth, but when they close that door and look in the mirror they see as pampered and privileged elitist starting back who had it all handed to them on a silver platter. That does not make for strong individuals nor does it make for a good nation to have such fops depleting our precious moral fiber with their personal weakness.

It must be sad to go through life knowing that most of what you have is because Daddy gave it to you. I would much rather look in the mirror and see a self made man or woman who did it their way.

"I CANNOT BELIEVE NIXON WON, EVERYONE I KNOW VOTED FOR MCGOVERN

What you fail to understand is that many of the tough but underpaid jobs that need to be done are often done by those who can afford to do so. For example, take my late mother who worked 60 hours a week without pay running several organizations as a volunteer. The Headmaster at my old high school worked there 40 years-he donated his salary back to the school to fund scholarships of kids who couldn't afford the place but were excellent students.

Your poisoned view of the wealthy is hilarious. And yes, your party has created a system designed to addict millions to the government teat and it is your party that pays people to have children out of wedlock thus encouraging the teat sucklers to breed like rabbits.

you spew garbage about hard work when your party has done everything possible to denigrate hard work and the benefits that come from it. as in noted, your only consistency is whining about the rich and making up fanciful myths about those whose parents were prosperous and frugal on behalf of their children

If you don't want to leave your children anything that is your right. But we tire of your silly attempts to put down those who do and to pretend you know what is best for our children

haymarket · Jul 7, 2012

TurtleDude said:
"I CANNOT BELIEVE NIXON WON, EVERYONE I KNOW VOTED FOR MCGOVERN

What you fail to understand is that many of the tough but underpaid jobs that need to be done are often done by those who can afford to do so. For example, take my late mother who worked 60 hours a week without pay running several organizations as a volunteer. The Headmaster at my old high school worked there 40 years-he donated his salary back to the school to fund scholarships of kids who couldn't afford the place but were excellent students.

Your poisoned view of the wealthy is hilarious. And yes, your party has created a system designed to addict millions to the government teat and it is your party that pays people to have children out of wedlock thus encouraging the teat sucklers to breed like rabbits.

you spew garbage about hard work when your party has done everything possible to denigrate hard work and the benefits that come from it. as in noted, your only consistency is whining about the rich and making up fanciful myths about those whose parents were prosperous and frugal on behalf of their children

If you don't want to leave your children anything that is your right. But we tire of your silly attempts to put down those who do and to pretend you know what is best for our children

Regarding your mothers work - good for her. That is neat. You should be proud of her.

But that does nothing to negate what I wrote. You have a terrible skewed view of people whom you regard as your political and social enemies. You are so removed from that reality that you may as well be talking about aliens on some other planet because you do not even live in the same America as most others do.

I challenge you to show Democratic Party support for having children out of wedlock. Back up what you say with verifiable evidence from objective sources.

We are NOT talking about helping your kids. We are talking about an American aristocracy which was born on third base and thinks they have hit a home run when they cross the plate and the servants are paid to cheer. They develop a terribly false impression of themselves and the world they live in. They then grow up to write posts like you do totally divorced and separated from the vast vast majority of the American people.

Fletch · Jul 7, 2012

haymarket said:
Lets talk about your hated enemies marching in the army of Satan on the far left. I know of not one person who is progressive, liberal or on the left who wants their kids to be dependent on government welfare programs. Not a one.

There may be some truth to that. Leftists dont want their children living in squalor and addicted to handouts. But they do want such state run programs to exist and to be funded by someone other than themselves. What makes the "enemies marching in the army of Satan on the far left" evil is not their ends, but the means they employ to achieve those ends. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is committing a crime against Peter. You focus on all the supposed 'good' you achieve and ignore the evil means you use to reach those ends. Only in the mind of the criminal do you do evil that good may come.

As far as the rich hurting their children - America is a nation where men and women can hope to become all they can be and realize their true potential. The way to do this is through hard work, self discovery, rick taking, cooperation with others, playing fair and building skills and talents.

Very good. I didnt know you had that in you. I guess there is hope for you yet.

What you fail to realize is that when a rich person endows their children with trusts and inheritance they are in effect denying them the opportunity to become self made men and women. They are handicapping them in a way which will haunt them forever.

That may or may not be true, but whatever the case, it is none of your business how others raise their children or spend their money. Dont be such a busybody.

The trust fund baby may have dollars and wealth, but when they close that door and look in the mirror they see as pampered and privileged elitist starting back who had it all handed to them on a silver platter. That does not make for strong individuals nor does it make for a good nation to have such fops depleting our precious moral fiber with their personal weakness.

Pampered trust fund leftists like the Kennedys are not the cause of our moral decay. Hmmm. Maybe I am wrong about that.

It must be sad to go through life knowing that most of what you have is because Daddy gave it to you. I would much rather look in the mirror and see a self made man or woman who did it their way.

You pretend to admire the earned while supporting a welfare state that confiscates it and spreads it around among those who did nothing. Kind of hard to take you seriously.

Fletch · Jul 7, 2012

haymarket said:
I challenge you to show Democratic Party support for having children out of wedlock.

Have the democrats not set up a system that offers financial support for women who have children out of wedlock? They offer a financial 'reward' for such behavior in the form of handouts given at the expense of her neighbors. They dont support the idea of having children out of wedlock, but they support the activity.

haymarket · Jul 7, 2012

Fletch said:
Have the democrats not set up a system that offers financial support for women who have children out of wedlock? They offer a financial 'reward' for such behavior in the form of handouts given at the expense of her neighbors. They dont support the idea of having children out of wedlock, but they support the activity.

I would be happy to look at the data you would like to present on this issue.

TurtleDude · Jul 7, 2012

haymarket said:
I would be happy to look at the data you would like to present on this issue.

before the great society, black rates of illegitimacy were in the single digits-close to whites
now-its over 70%

haymarket · Jul 7, 2012

TurtleDude said:
before the great society, black rates of illegitimacy were in the single digits-close to whites
now-its over 70%

So what? One could make the same charge that it coincided with the adoption of the designated hitter rule.

That is NOT data which shows that Democrats support illegitimacy. That was the charge. That was the claim. That was the allegation.

Your attempt to link two things without doing the necessary detailed ground work is amusing.

Phoenix · Jul 7, 2012

ttwtt78640 said:
The federal power to tax INCOME (IRS) comes only from the 16th amendment, that simply allows INCOME from all sources to be taxed. IMHO, Roberts has, in fact, become an "activist" judge in allowing HOW INCOME WAS SPENT, rather that simply the income itself, to be subjected to taxation. Two citizens both making EXACTLY $50K in income (from any source) should not be taxed any more, or less, than the other, based on the 14th amendment requiring EQUAL protection under the law.

Not that I disagree with you sentiment but the government has taxed people differently based on citizens participating in their approved activities for decades. If you get married, pay less, buy a home, pay less, Have kids. Pay less.

UtahBill · Jul 7, 2012

TurtleDude said:
before the great society, black rates of illegitimacy were in the single digits-close to whites
now-its over 70%

racial scapegoating....
when we have at least 100 years of true equal rights and equality for all races, then you can try and make such arguments.
Only 40 years ago minorities were openly being denied the same job opportunities and pay that whites were getting with little effort on their part. I went to 3 very good Navy schools between 1965 and 1970, not one black person in them. It wasn't due to inferior intellect either. Once the door finally swung open a bid wider and discrimination was lessened, there were plenty of "other than white" qualified applicants to those Navy schools...
That equality door is still yet to be fully open for all, there is still plenty of discrimination, it is just hidden or disguised better...

ttwtt78640 · Jul 7, 2012

Phoenix said:
Not that I disagree with you sentiment but the government has taxed people differently based on citizens participating in their approved activities for decades. If you get married, pay less, buy a home, pay less, Have kids. Pay less.

I agree that congress WILL DO anything, which is EXACTLY why the founders sought to limit the power of the federal gov't via the constitutional limitation of their power. We have DOEd too, the fastest growing, cabinet level, federal dept., yet there are NO federal schools and NO constitutioanal mention of education as a federal power. That is the MAIN JOB of the SCOTUS, to enforce the ACTUAL words of the constitution. The original writers of the 16th amendment toyed with the idea of imposing a 10% maximum income tax rate limit, yet decided that it may actually ENCOURAGE such a rediculously high taxation rate and left it out.

The idea that the federal gov't NEEDS to consume an ever larger part of our GDP is insane, as its powers have NOT changed, only its appetite for spending and control have. The ONLY protection offered the public, beyond their meager power to select DC morons, to represent them, at the polls, among the pre-selected and super funded candidates of the two major parties (often BOTH funded by the same donors), is the SCOTUS. If they fall to outside pressure, as chief justice Roberts surely has, then the federal gov't is without ANY limits on its power. The federal gov't now spends at over 24% of GDP, yet only dares to tax at 17% of GDP, creating a federal deficit of 40%.

Link: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art...t_spending_and_the_18_of_gdp_myth_99063.htmlV

ttwtt78640 · Jul 7, 2012

TurtleDude said:
before the great society, black rates of illegitimacy were in the single digits-close to whites
now-its over 70%

Yep. It was unintended, or so it is said, but the results are clear, since 1960 the out of wedlock childbirth rate has soared from 5% to 70% and can be directly mapped to the "great society" welfare programs. The war on poverty succeeded only in spending TRILLIONS to move the U.S. poverty rate from 12% to 15%, at an average ANNUAL cost of over well over $7,500 per person.

Link: http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/6-1-11_Robert_Rector_Reg_Affairs_Testimony.pdf

ttwtt78640 · Jul 7, 2012

UtahBill said:
racial scapegoating....
when we have at least 100 years of true equal rights and equality for all races, then you can try and make such arguments.
Only 40 years ago minorities were openly being denied the same job opportunities and pay that whites were getting with little effort on their part. I went to 3 very good Navy schools between 1965 and 1970, not one black person in them. It wasn't due to inferior intellect either. Once the door finally swung open a bid wider and discrimination was lessened, there were plenty of "other than white" qualified applicants to those Navy schools...
That equality door is still yet to be fully open for all, there is still plenty of discrimination, it is just hidden or disguised better...

That is PURE BS. Racial discrimination did not INCREASE after 1960, yet welfare spending certainly did. Are you SERIOUSLY asserting that racial discrimination is responsible for ALL increases in out of wedlock childbirth, SINCE 1960? It has gone UP for ALL racial and ethnic groups in DIRECT proportion to their receipt of welfare. The "coincidence" is simply astounding if that was NOT the cause. Get real!

ttwtt78640 · Jul 7, 2012

haymarket said:
I would be happy to look at the data you would like to present on this issue.

The plight of blacks males, including the very high rate of crime and their over-representation in the prison population, in the U.S. is almost entirely due to the "great society" welfare programs and their DIRECT (yet unintended?) consequences. One need only look at the FACTS. Black out of wedlock childbirth went from about 5% in 1960 to about 70% today. The black male is nearly useless ECONOMICALLY to the black "familiy" of today, he has been replaced by welfare in all of its many forms. A good book on this subject is "Losing Ground", by Charles Murray. The black daddy is now a financial liability, especially if he works, to his own children. Household income is used to assign welfare benefits, the less income there is, the more the gov't benefits there are, so a black, live-in daddy, even working TWO full-time, minimum wage jobs, offers his children LESS than welfare, in all of its many forms, does. Other supporting links follow:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.pdf

http://misunderstoodfinance.blogspot.com/2012/02/racial-and-educational-disparities-of.html

http://www.cato.org/research/pr-nd-st.html

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Upload..._Testimony.pdf

Countries of the World - immigration, geography, economy, government, history, religion, climate, travel, maps, flags

Rainbows International Headquarters

UtahBill · Jul 7, 2012

ttwtt78640 said:
That is PURE BS. Racial discrimination did not INCREASE after 1960, yet welfare spending certainly did. Are you SERIOUSLY asserting that racial discrimination is responsible for ALL increases in out of wedlock childbirth, SINCE 1960? It has gone UP for ALL racial and ethnic groups in DIRECT proportion to their receipt of welfare. The "coincidence" is simply astounding if that was NOT the cause. Get real!

I didn't say it increased, I said it hasn't decreased enough...
if the only way you could get income is to have a baby out of wedlock and go on welfare, you would be flat on your back in a heartbeat.
I used to skip school in northeast Houston, and take the bus down town Houston, and the route went right thru black occupied slums.
Nobody lives like that by CHOICE.....Racism was rampant then, has lessened some since, but it is still there.
Hispanics didn't have it much better...

obvious Child · Jul 7, 2012

TurtleDude said:
tell that to the people who claim that many people shouldn't have to pay income taxes.

Since when was income tax the only tax that funded the government?

Could taxation kill our Bill of Rights?

Where does the power end?

Congress can now pass any law, so long as it's enforced only with taxation. Explain

Congress still has a limit on the laws they can pass. Explain

Uncanny

Sometimes wrong

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

Sometimes wrong

Sometimes wrong

Sometimes wrong

Sometimes wrong

Equal Opportunity Hater