I'm dragging a post from PDF here about obamacare

The Dude wrote:

Campaign reform is fine... but unlikely in any meaningful way. If I could make the rules... I would simply hold the politicians accountable. They may have NO contact with monied interests. To be followed soon after by hangings in the public square.

I agree.

Its a good thing the public has no say so over the Gov...

wait a minute....

Chrissy* wrote:

Eric wrote:

It would be nice if we could fix the tax code then enact a law where lobbyists are incarcerated with no possibility of parole.  (I was going to say shot on sight, but I'm not that brutal.)

That might eliminate what is wrong with Washington.  

A lobbyist is nothing more than a person trying to get their product or service on a good standing. What we need is more integrity as well as a penalty for government BRIBES. And if we are going to address gov bribes I suppose we need to campaign reform.

And I thought about the ebay thing. When a person first buys whatever they are selling on ebay, don't they pay taxes? I know when I bought something on toys r us, I paid taxes. However, I rarely shop online. Im still living in the dark ages.

In Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a business must have a physical presence in a state for that state to require it to collect sales taxes.   However, the court explicitly stated that Congress can overrule the decision through legislation.  By physical presence, they must have a store, a warehouse, an office, etc.  They sometimes call it a "brick-and-mortar" presence in a state.

ToysRus has stores in Florida, therefore, if you order something online from ToysRus, you will be charged taxes.

Amazon has built two "fulfillment centers" in Florida... warehouses... and when they are operational, Florida residents will be charged a sales tax on all Amazon purchases.

Eric wrote:

Chrissy* wrote:

Eric wrote:

It would be nice if we could fix the tax code then enact a law where lobbyists are incarcerated with no possibility of parole.  (I was going to say shot on sight, but I'm not that brutal.)

That might eliminate what is wrong with Washington.  

A lobbyist is nothing more than a person trying to get their product or service on a good standing. What we need is more integrity as well as a penalty for government BRIBES. And if we are going to address gov bribes I suppose we need to campaign reform.

And I thought about the ebay thing. When a person first buys whatever they are selling on ebay, don't they pay taxes? I know when I bought something on toys r us, I paid taxes. However, I rarely shop online. Im still living in the dark ages.

In Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a business must have a physical presence in a state for that state to require it to collect sales taxes.   However, the court explicitly stated that Congress can overrule the decision through legislation.  By physical presence, they must have a store, a warehouse, an office, etc.  They sometimes call it a "brick-and-mortar" presence in a state.

ToysRus has stores in Florida, therefore, if you order something online from ToysRus, you will be charged taxes.

Amazon has built two "fulfillment centers" in Florida... warehouses... and when they are operational, Florida residents will be charged a sales tax on all Amazon purchases.

ok makes sense.

I disagree with it, but it makes sense. I don't see the logic in why they made it that way. I guess they did it that way to keep businesses from having to pay the gov sales tax in states they were not in. But they were selling products in those states and honestly, they should have to pay it. But who am I.

Chrissy* wrote:

ok makes sense.

I disagree with it, but it makes sense. I don't see the logic in why they made it that way. I guess they did it that way to keep businesses from having to pay the gov sales tax in states they were not in. But they were selling products in those states and honestly, they should have to pay it. But who am I.

I dunno. Who iz yew?

Eric wrote:

Chrissy* wrote:

ok makes sense.

I disagree with it, but it makes sense. I don't see the logic in why they made it that way. I guess they did it that way to keep businesses from having to pay the gov sales tax in states they were not in. But they were selling products in those states and honestly, they should have to pay it. But who am I.

I dunno.  Who iz yew?

Just an American gal.

Thght that youtube was going to be an american girl by tom petty... lol. One of my favorites.

Dang it! That would have been a Better choice. Forgot all about that song. Shoot ..

American girls and American guys...

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSOyBGGsUk8

We lost even freaking caring what was good for our country when patriotism was killed.

What?

polecat wrote:

We lost even freaking caring what was good for our country when patriotism was killed.

What?

If I have to explain that, its too late.

must be to late

A lobbyist is nothing more than a person trying to get their product or service on a good standing

Now that is funny girl!

Yeah ISIS is the "lobbyists" for the MIC...

polecat wrote:

A lobbyist is nothing more than a person trying to get their product or service on a good standing

Now that is funny girl!

Thats what they are.

They are just trying to persuade politicians to pass laws that benefit thier product, service, or what ever they are involved in.

Its not that complicated, why must you make it complicated?

If there were real desire to change the statist quo... laws would limit the politicians. That would be perfectly constitutional as they are public service positions. Instead the controls seek to limit we the people... that thinking is fundamentally and constitutionally flawed. I think the message is intentionally muddied so that the average voter can't/won't see it for what it is and what a real solution would be... politicians and monied interests don't want that.

The Dude wrote:

If there were real desire to change the statist quo... laws would limit the politicians. That would be perfectly constitutional as they are public service positions. Instead the controls seek to limit we the people... that thinking is fundamentally and constitutionally flawed. I think the message is intentionally muddied so that the average voter can't/won't see it for what it is and what a real solution would be... politicians and monied interests don't want that.

I agree. Thats most likely the reason laws have become so complicated long and indeciferable and even to a point that even they cant properly impliment them. because they all have too much to hide in these laws.

I think it is good that people on Obamacare subsidies might have to give up some of their refund to pay the government back. That means they made more money this year and that's good for the economy and for them.
I've been watching the Roosevelt series on PBS this week. Everybody fusses about government help but nobody gives back their social security or signs out of Medicare.It seems like it's always about the other guy using up taxpayer money and never about your own self. Everybody benefits from government spending even if it's just that the feds insure our bank deposits. That's one of the things that got us out of the Great Depression. People forget that stuff and think they are all pioneers out there doing it all on their own. That's not true and probably never was true.

If Obamacare wasn't a heaping pile of worthless sh=t I might agree....naw I wouldn't .....

Eric wrote:

Bingo!

You got to find them first. They all went home to convince people they're worth something.

Eddard wrote:

You got to find them first. They all went home to convince people they're worth something.

... and play a few rounds of golf on the nickel of the oligarchs that pull their strings...

Eddard wrote:

I think it is good that people on Obamacare subsidies might have to give up some of their refund to pay the government back. That means they made more money this year and that's  good for the economy and for them.
I've been watching the Roosevelt series on PBS this week. Everybody fusses about government help but nobody gives back their social security or signs out of Medicare.It seems like it's always about the other guy using up taxpayer money and never about your own self. Everybody benefits from government spending even if it's just that the feds insure our bank deposits. That's one of the things that got us out of the Great Depression. People forget that stuff and think they are all pioneers out there doing it all on their own.  That's not true and probably never was true.

You may be making a HUGE ASSUMPTION about why people may have to pay back money for obamacare plans. People LIE about their income all the time in order to get freebie. You can bet there is a lot of that going on with those plans. Proof? 10's of thousands of them got kicked off for no even being a citizen and more to come.

as far as FDR. He ruined so many things in this country. BTW. at least people pay into social security and medicare and MILLIONS of those people don't even live to receive a penny of it, so that money is just gone. And btw, the GOV has already raided that fund to death. both SS and medicare are broke and people want more of broke LOL

Good ole fdr... he expanded the size and scope of govt (through any means necessary) more than any person or president in history. He also inadvertently tied healthcare to employment as a benefit when he fixed wages nationally. He pretty much set the mold of using any crisis to implement govt controls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet_agencies

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/capitalism/landmark_schechter.html

Schechter v. U.S. (1935)

In the midst of the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt worked with the Democratic Congress to enact several sweeping economic reform bills, known as the New Deal. In 1935, in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a central piece of this New Deal legislation. In reviewing the conviction of a poultry company for breaking the Live Poultry Code, the Court held that the code violated the Constitution's separation of powers because it was written by agents of the president with no genuine congressional direction. The Court also held that much of the code exceeded the powers of Congress because the activities it policed were beyond what Congress could constitutionally regulate.

The Live Poultry Code, written and promulgated by the Roosevelt administration in 1934, was a part of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), a law passed by Congress to regulate companies as a means to combat the Great Depression. Section 3 of NIRA gave the president authority to approve such "codes of unfair competition." Roosevelt's poultry code fixed the maximum number of hours a poultry employee could work, imposed a minimum wage for poultry employees, and banned certain methods of "unfair competition."

Schechter Poultry Corporation, the defendant in the case, purchased live poultry from commissioners in New York City and Philadelphia and sold slaughtered poultry to retailers and butchers in Brooklyn. Schechter was charged by the U.S. government with violating the poultry code by selling "unfit chickens," illegally selling chickens on an individual basis, avoiding inspections by local poultry regulators, falsifying records of poultry sold, and selling poultry to nonlicensed purchasers. Schechter was convicted in a federal district court, lost an appeal to the circuit court, and appealed to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1935.

The Supreme Court held that the Live Poultry Code was unconstitutional and that the conviction of Schechter must be overturned. First, the Court found that the president lacked the power to write the code, citing the U.S. Constitution, Article I, which states that all legislative power is to be vested in the Congress. Article I is thus violated if Congress grants its exclusive legislative power to the president. The NIRA allowed the president to write new codes, such as the poultry code, so long as they regulated "unfair competition." The Court found the phrase "unfair competition" too ambiguous to constitute an "intelligible principle" necessary to limit the president's actions in enforcing the NIRA. Lacking such a principle, the NIRA effectively allowed the president "unfettered discretion" to create "new laws" without congressional approval.

Second, the Court held that the poultry code violated the Constitution's Commerce Clause. The Constitution limits the activities over which Congress may legislate, reserving all other activities for the states to govern. While the Constitution allows Congress to regulate "interstate commerce" under the clause, the Court found Schechter's activities had nothing to do with interstate commerce. Schechter bought poultry from out of state, but its offending conduct was confined to New York State. The activities of Schechter thus fell outside congressional power because they constituted intrastate (in-state) commerce. Additionally, some provisions of the poultry code were found unconstitutional on their face. The effect of a butcher's hours and wage practices on interstate commerce, for example, was found far too "indirect" to be within the congressional powers to regulate under the Commerce Clause.

Schechter Poultry's sweeping interpretations of legislative power had devastating effects on President Roosevelt's New Deal programs in the 1930s. The centerpiece of the New Deal legislation, the NIRA, was essentially declared unconstitutional. Ultimately, President Roosevelt responded by proposing a "court packing" scheme in 1937, allowing a new Supreme Court justice to be appointed for every current sitting justice over the age of 70. The scheme was designed to help tip the Court's ideological balance to Roosevelt's side. It failed in Congress and never became law. By the late 1930s, however, the Supreme Court began reading Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause more broadly. Indeed, by the 1960s, the Court held that congressional statutes outlawing racial segregation in local businesses were constitutional under the Commerce Clause.