2/3 say ditch individual health care mandate

[Wry Catcher]

Acts of Congress are laws; Regulations are issued by Federal agencies to implement the authority of law. Regulations can be changed at whim; statutory law can't be changed without an Act of Congress.

While that's a popular public perception of regulation, it's not really true. The process of creating and/or amending a regulation is subject to a lot of controls.

Regulations are promulgated by Federal Agencies consistent with the law. I don't understand what you're suggesting? What controls?

 

[dblack]

A perfect example is Wall-Mart; moving into a small town creates ghost town main streets.

That is a perfect example. Wal-Mart lobbies aggressively for preferential treatment from state and local governments. And they get it.

 

[Polk]

Acts of Congress are laws; Regulations are issued by Federal agencies to implement the authority of law. Regulations can be changed at whim; statutory law can't be changed without an Act of Congress.

While that's a popular public perception of regulation, it's not really true. The process of creating and/or amending a regulation is subject to a lot of controls.

Regulations are promulgated by Federal Agencies consistent with the law. I don't understand what you're suggesting? What controls?

I was responding to your comment that changes can be made at whim. Creation and amendment must meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and further analysis pertaining to cost-benefit falls under the purview of OIRA.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK.
The Federal Government lacks the Constitutional authority to lay such a tax. Article I Section 9

The only exception is the income tax, which this is not.
QED. The individual mandate is unconstitutional. Since there was no severability clause in the law the rest of the law will be found unconstitutional as well.
Obamacare is dead.

Polk has left the building.

I'm not here every moment of the day.

To address your statement, there wouldn't need to be an exception, since a poll/head tax is exactly what the Constitution allows.

Where does the Constitution permit a poll tax?

 

[The Rabbi]

Are you kidding? Most industries, in the absence of regulation, are monopolies.

In the absence of laws, maybe. But then there's always the equivocation on the term in these discussions. In reality, unless a business resorts to violence (in which case they're simply criminals and all bets are off) it's pretty tough to maintain a persistent monopoly. Monopolies are almost always built on top of a pervasive 'regulatory' environment where the state performs the thuggery for them.

That's not even remotely necessary. Unless an industry has very low barriers to entry, dominant firms can just undercut all possible competitors until they drive them out of business.

You mean like IBM did with computers?
Oh, wait.

 

[saveliberty]

In the absence of laws, maybe. But then there's always the equivocation on the term in these discussions. In reality, unless a business resorts to violence (in which case they're simply criminals and all bets are off) it's pretty tough to maintain a persistent monopoly. Monopolies are almost always built on top of a pervasive 'regulatory' environment where the state performs the thuggery for them.

That's not even remotely necessary. Unless an industry has very low barriers to entry, dominant firms can just undercut all possible competitors until they drive them out of business.

A perfect example is Wall-Mart; moving into a small town creates ghost town main streets.

That phase can pass though. Specialty shops have sprung up in our town. Customer service is the way to beat Walmart.

 

[Syphon]

That's not even remotely necessary. Unless an industry has very low barriers to entry, dominant firms can just undercut all possible competitors until they drive them out of business.

A perfect example is Wall-Mart; moving into a small town creates ghost town main streets.

That phase can pass though. Specialty shops have sprung up in our town. Customer service is the way to beat Walmart.

only if people are willing pay a 10-20% increase in price. which right now many people still are not.

 

[The Rabbi]

A perfect example is Wall-Mart; moving into a small town creates ghost town main streets.

That phase can pass though. Specialty shops have sprung up in our town. Customer service is the way to beat Walmart.

only if people are willing pay a 10-20% increase in price. which right now many people still are not.

Some are, some aren't. But WalMart is struggling and small shops are thriving. WalMart is not the be all and end all of retailing.

 

[Syphon]

That phase can pass though. Specialty shops have sprung up in our town. Customer service is the way to beat Walmart.

only if people are willing pay a 10-20% increase in price. which right now many people still are not.

Some are, some aren't. But WalMart is struggling and small shops are thriving. WalMart is not the be all and end all of retailing.

if people are thats great. i personaly despise walmart and never shop there.

 

[Polk]

Polk has left the building.

I'm not here every moment of the day.

To address your statement, there wouldn't need to be an exception, since a poll/head tax is exactly what the Constitution allows.

Where does the Constitution permit a poll tax?

Poll tax is the sense used here (aka, a head tax)? Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 states that it is only sort of direct tax that's not forbidden by that restriction.

 

[Polk]

In the absence of laws, maybe. But then there's always the equivocation on the term in these discussions. In reality, unless a business resorts to violence (in which case they're simply criminals and all bets are off) it's pretty tough to maintain a persistent monopoly. Monopolies are almost always built on top of a pervasive 'regulatory' environment where the state performs the thuggery for them.

That's not even remotely necessary. Unless an industry has very low barriers to entry, dominant firms can just undercut all possible competitors until they drive them out of business.

You mean like IBM did with computers?
Oh, wait.

We were talking about a market with no regulation of industry. IBM couldn't attempt it because it is illegal to do that. It was the main mechanism of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm not here every moment of the day.

To address your statement, there wouldn't need to be an exception, since a poll/head tax is exactly what the Constitution allows.

Where does the Constitution permit a poll tax?

Poll tax is the sense used here (aka, a head tax)? Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 states that it is only sort of direct tax that's not forbidden by that restriction.

Geezus.
You're done. Stick a fork in you. If you dont understand the Constitution then there is no discussion.

 

[Polk]

The Constitution specifically states that a head tax is constitutional.

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

 

[The Rabbi]

The Constitution specifically states that a head tax is constitutional.

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

You're compounding your obvious stupidity and ignorance. No wonder you're a Democrat.

 

[Polk]

The Constitution specifically states that a head tax is constitutional.

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

You're compounding your obvious stupidity and ignorance. No wonder you're a Democrat.

If what I said was stupid and ignorant, you'd provide your explanation of what that language means. Instead you jump up and down and start name calling, because you know darn well it means exactly what I said and you'd burn in hell before admitting that.

 

[Syphon]

The Constitution specifically states that a head tax is constitutional.

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

You're compounding your obvious stupidity and ignorance. No wonder you're a Democrat.

If what I said was stupid and ignorant, you'd provide your explanation of what that language means. Instead you jump up and down and start name calling, because you know darn well it means exactly what I said and you'd burn in hell before admitting that.

he's too stupid to know he's wrong

 

[FA_Q2]

A perfect example is Wall-Mart; moving into a small town creates ghost town main streets.

That phase can pass though. Specialty shops have sprung up in our town. Customer service is the way to beat Walmart.

only if people are willing pay a 10-20% increase in price. which right now many people still are not.

That is not really true with Wal-Mart. In many instances, one can actually INCREASE business that it moves into because it consolidates many customers into a single area. The key with Wal-Mart is that smaller shops can no longer survive if they are fleecing their customers, providing a crap product or are unwilling to adapt to the new situation. I find it funny that so many demonize Wal-Mart because of their supposed anti-business nature when they do nothing of the sort in small towns. Everywhere I have been, there have been many small businesses surviving quite well around Wal-Mart. NONE of them sold cheap crap products. As the last poster pointed out, customer service is one way of competing (and handily beating) them is through customer service. Another is through selection as Wal-Mart has tons of cheap, plastic crap but they have very little that is non generic or quality constructed. Another is through specialization. Sure, Wal-Mart has a sporting goods section but few fisherman will go there if there is a tackle and bait next door.


In the end, regulation only serves to drive the mom and pop shops out of business and encourages Wal-Mart to be the only store in town because they can afford the cost of complying with regulations where mom and pop cannot. The idea that regulation helps the small guy compete is nuts. All it does is ensure the big guys have no real competition. In a free market with less regulation, the very nature of a large business and the bureaucracy that goes with it can make smaller businesses far more competitive. Technology certainly lessens this gap but unnecessary regulation only ensures that the only edge the smaller businesses have is moot.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Constitution specifically states that a head tax is constitutional.

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

I might haves missed your explanation of this earlier but what is your contention with this point and how are you applying it to an actual governmental action. I ask because I do not want to mistake what you are actually trying to say.

 

[dblack]

That phase can pass though. Specialty shops have sprung up in our town. Customer service is the way to beat Walmart.

only if people are willing pay a 10-20% increase in price. which right now many people still are not.

That is not really true with Wal-Mart. In many instances, one can actually INCREASE business that it moves into because it consolidates many customers into a single area. The key with Wal-Mart is that smaller shops can no longer survive if they are fleecing their customers, providing a crap product or are unwilling to adapt to the new situation. I find it funny that so many demonize Wal-Mart because of their supposed anti-business nature when they do nothing of the sort in small towns. Everywhere I have been, there have been many small businesses surviving quite well around Wal-Mart. NONE of them sold cheap crap products. As the last poster pointed out, customer service is one way of competing (and handily beating) them is through customer service. Another is through selection as Wal-Mart has tons of cheap, plastic crap but they have very little that is non generic or quality constructed. Another is through specialization. Sure, Wal-Mart has a sporting goods section but few fisherman will go there if there is a tackle and bait next door.


In the end, regulation only serves to drive the mom and pop shops out of business and encourages Wal-Mart to be the only store in town because they can afford the cost of complying with regulations where mom and pop cannot. The idea that regulation helps the small guy compete is nuts. All it does is ensure the big guys have no real competition. In a free market with less regulation, the very nature of a large business and the bureaucracy that goes with it can make smaller businesses far more competitive. Technology certainly lessens this gap but unnecessary regulation only ensures that the only edge the smaller businesses have is moot.

I'd also like to point out, again, that the success of Wal-Mart is evidence against regulation as a means of protecting 'the little guy', not an argument for more of it. The ad-hoc nature of the regulatory state always ends up favoring the interests of those with the most 'focused political influence' (money). Wal-Mart has built it's national dominance in large part on its success at bargaining with local and state governments for subsidies (http://www.livingeconomies.org/sites/default/files/file/wmtstudy.pdf).

Under corporatism, individuals and minorities nearly always lose. And a pervasive regulatory regime is the meat and potatoes of corporatism.

 

[Polk]

The Constitution specifically states that a head tax is constitutional.

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

I might haves missed your explanation of this earlier but what is your contention with this point and how are you applying it to an actual governmental action. I ask because I do not want to mistake what you are actually trying to say.

We were talking about the constitutionality of a head tax, since the mandate structure is, at core, a poorly structured head tax.