Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Supreme Court has long ago ruled that Congress can tax and spend on pretty much whatever the f it wants to, so long as it does so uniformly across the states.
Alright, well, after you find apportionment in Article 1; Section 8 for oddball you can work on finding judicial review in Article III.
Good? We'll be in the neighborhood.
Supreme Court is the final word on these constitutional matters and your little half-baked legal opinions are worth exactly nothing.
Yes, we can't POSSIBLY disagree with the Supreme Court. They say it, therefore the rest of us peons should shut up and accept that OF COURSE it's right and good. How DARE we think we get to have opinions about how our masters and overlords decide things?
1. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857): Hands down the worst Supreme Court decision ever, Dred Scott held that African Americans, whether free men or slaves, could not be considered American citizens. The ruling undid the Missouri Compromise, barred laws that would free slaves, and all but guaranteed that there would be no political solution to slavery. The opinion even included a ridiculous "parade of horribles" that would appear if Scott were recognized as a citizen, unspeakable scenarios like African Americans being able to vacation, hold public meetings, and exercise their free speech rights.
2. Buck v. Bell (1927): "Eugenics? Yes, please!" the Court declared in this terrible decision which still stands as good law. In an 8-1 decision written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Court upheld the forced sterilization of those with intellectual disabilities "for the protection and health of the state." Justice Holmes ruled that "society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind" and ended the opinion by declaring that "three generations of imbeciles are enough."
3. Korematsu v. United States (1944): Here, the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, finding that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the individual rights of American citizens. In a cruel and ironic twist, this was also the first time the Court applied strict scrutiny to racial discrimination by the U.S. government, belying the idea that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact."
4. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): The Court's famous "separate but equal" ruling upheld state segregation laws. In doing so, the Court made sure that the gains of the post-Civil War reconstruction era were quickly replaced by decades of Jim Crow laws.
But hey, "The Supreme Court says so, and they are much smarter than you peasants!!"
Why?..the incentive to buy fuel efficient cars is based on fuel cost, so if a road tax replaces the fuel tax you still pay less with a fuel efficient car. Which is why I think a road tax will somehow be based on your odometer readings, with the fuel tax remaining in place.It's an idea that been around a while..charge those that use the roads most.. pay (tax) for the repairs based on the miles you put on them. It has drawbacks..like poor people who have to drive a lot of miles to work, but that can be adjusted for..like maybe a tax deduction based on the road tax you paid.
Administration Mulls Mileage Tax to Fund $3 Trillion Infrastructure Bill
To pay for the $3 - $4 TRILLION NON-Shovel-Ready Project Fleecing of Tax payers FURTHER, on top of the $1.9 TRILLION 'COVID-19 Relief' Bill (in which $1.7 Trillion had nothing to do with COVID Relief and instead consisted of Democrat Wish-List Pork spending), Biden and his handlers are thinking of every way possible to tax the ever-living shite out the American people to pay for these Democrat Porkulus liberal Extremist assault on America.
So, whose in favor of paying the Biden administration a monetary tax for every single mile you drive your car every single day?
Hey, New Jersey residents who already live in the state with the highest tax rate in the country, on top of paying all those tolls to drive on the parkways, whose in favor of paying an ADDITIONAL financial tax for every mile youdrive on the toll-taxed road you are driving on?
Every time the local govt wants to build a bridge, pave a road, or do some Construction they pass a 'Penny Tax', and usually at the end of the project that 'Penny Tax' never goes away. The idea that I should be have to pay the US govt for every mile I drive my car, that I have to pay taxes on already every year.
This tax, for me, rates right up there with having to pay my local /state govt money for ME to build something on MY property.
The United States is well Over $25 TRILLION in debt...meaning the US govt is not BROKE - NO MONEY - we are $25+ Trillion in DEBT....and Biden and the Democrats want to go all-in on 'drowning the baby', not on tying to save it.
From lying about the Tax Rate ($400k down to $200k) to now considering taxing Americans on every mile we drive our own cars, the Socialists are 'bleeding' the people dry to pay for their radical socialist agenda.....
Joe and the other CCP puppets are trying to increase the amount we owe to China and bankrupt the company for them, or at least help the CCP replace the US dollar as the world's currency.
Administration Mulls Mileage Tax to Fund $3 Trillion Infrastructure Bill
The Biden administration is casting about for ways to fund its gargantuan $3 trillion infrastructure program.pjmedia.com
Of course you know, this would be a disincentive for people to buy expensive-but-fuel-efficient cars, right (assuming the road tax replaces the fuel tax)?
Supreme Court has long ago ruled that Congress can tax and spend on pretty much whatever the f it wants to, so long as it does so uniformly across the states.
Alright, well, after you find apportionment in Article 1; Section 8 for oddball you can work on finding judicial review in Article III.
Good? We'll be in the neighborhood.
Supreme Court is the final word on these constitutional matters and your little half-baked legal opinions are worth exactly nothing.
Yes, we can't POSSIBLY disagree with the Supreme Court. They say it, therefore the rest of us peons should shut up and accept that OF COURSE it's right and good. How DARE we think we get to have opinions about how our masters and overlords decide things?
1. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857): Hands down the worst Supreme Court decision ever, Dred Scott held that African Americans, whether free men or slaves, could not be considered American citizens. The ruling undid the Missouri Compromise, barred laws that would free slaves, and all but guaranteed that there would be no political solution to slavery. The opinion even included a ridiculous "parade of horribles" that would appear if Scott were recognized as a citizen, unspeakable scenarios like African Americans being able to vacation, hold public meetings, and exercise their free speech rights.
2. Buck v. Bell (1927): "Eugenics? Yes, please!" the Court declared in this terrible decision which still stands as good law. In an 8-1 decision written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Court upheld the forced sterilization of those with intellectual disabilities "for the protection and health of the state." Justice Holmes ruled that "society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind" and ended the opinion by declaring that "three generations of imbeciles are enough."
3. Korematsu v. United States (1944): Here, the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, finding that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the individual rights of American citizens. In a cruel and ironic twist, this was also the first time the Court applied strict scrutiny to racial discrimination by the U.S. government, belying the idea that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact."
4. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): The Court's famous "separate but equal" ruling upheld state segregation laws. In doing so, the Court made sure that the gains of the post-Civil War reconstruction era were quickly replaced by decades of Jim Crow laws.
But hey, "The Supreme Court says so, and they are much smarter than you peasants!!"
Yea yea, anyday now the court will turn around and tell the Feds they can't tax and spend, that Medicaid is unconstituional, that SS has to close up, that highways need to be given away to the states and that various taxes need to be thrown out.
You have a lifetime of daydreaming ahead of you hun-bun.
He took a powder after I told him to post the part of Article 1; Section 8 about apportionment....He's yet another in a long line of cafeteria constitutionalists around here.Unconstitutional as fuck.
Did you actually read the Constitution?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
.
Spending Power | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
An annotation about Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States.constitution.congress.gov
General Welfare Clause exists to limit congress.
Do you read it?
Why?..the incentive to buy fuel efficient cars is based on fuel cost, so if a road tax replaces the fuel tax you still pay less with a fuel efficient car. Which is why I think a road tax will somehow be based on your odometer readings, with the fuel tax remaining in place.It's an idea that been around a while..charge those that use the roads most.. pay (tax) for the repairs based on the miles you put on them. It has drawbacks..like poor people who have to drive a lot of miles to work, but that can be adjusted for..like maybe a tax deduction based on the road tax you paid.
Administration Mulls Mileage Tax to Fund $3 Trillion Infrastructure Bill
To pay for the $3 - $4 TRILLION NON-Shovel-Ready Project Fleecing of Tax payers FURTHER, on top of the $1.9 TRILLION 'COVID-19 Relief' Bill (in which $1.7 Trillion had nothing to do with COVID Relief and instead consisted of Democrat Wish-List Pork spending), Biden and his handlers are thinking of every way possible to tax the ever-living shite out the American people to pay for these Democrat Porkulus liberal Extremist assault on America.
So, whose in favor of paying the Biden administration a monetary tax for every single mile you drive your car every single day?
Hey, New Jersey residents who already live in the state with the highest tax rate in the country, on top of paying all those tolls to drive on the parkways, whose in favor of paying an ADDITIONAL financial tax for every mile youdrive on the toll-taxed road you are driving on?
Every time the local govt wants to build a bridge, pave a road, or do some Construction they pass a 'Penny Tax', and usually at the end of the project that 'Penny Tax' never goes away. The idea that I should be have to pay the US govt for every mile I drive my car, that I have to pay taxes on already every year.
This tax, for me, rates right up there with having to pay my local /state govt money for ME to build something on MY property.
The United States is well Over $25 TRILLION in debt...meaning the US govt is not BROKE - NO MONEY - we are $25+ Trillion in DEBT....and Biden and the Democrats want to go all-in on 'drowning the baby', not on tying to save it.
From lying about the Tax Rate ($400k down to $200k) to now considering taxing Americans on every mile we drive our own cars, the Socialists are 'bleeding' the people dry to pay for their radical socialist agenda.....
Joe and the other CCP puppets are trying to increase the amount we owe to China and bankrupt the company for them, or at least help the CCP replace the US dollar as the world's currency.
Administration Mulls Mileage Tax to Fund $3 Trillion Infrastructure Bill
The Biden administration is casting about for ways to fund its gargantuan $3 trillion infrastructure program.
Of course you know, this would be a disincentive for people to buy expensive-but-fuel-efficient cars, right (assuming the road tax replaces the fuel tax)?
The SCOTUS do in fact change their mind. May take awhile but they do sometimes. They 'changed their minds' on the Dredd Scott decision.Supreme Court has long ago ruled that Congress can tax and spend on pretty much whatever the f it wants to, so long as it does so uniformly across the states.
Alright, well, after you find apportionment in Article 1; Section 8 for oddball you can work on finding judicial review in Article III.
Good? We'll be in the neighborhood.
Supreme Court is the final word on these constitutional matters and your little half-baked legal opinions are worth exactly nothing.
Yes, we can't POSSIBLY disagree with the Supreme Court. They say it, therefore the rest of us peons should shut up and accept that OF COURSE it's right and good. How DARE we think we get to have opinions about how our masters and overlords decide things?
1. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857): Hands down the worst Supreme Court decision ever, Dred Scott held that African Americans, whether free men or slaves, could not be considered American citizens. The ruling undid the Missouri Compromise, barred laws that would free slaves, and all but guaranteed that there would be no political solution to slavery. The opinion even included a ridiculous "parade of horribles" that would appear if Scott were recognized as a citizen, unspeakable scenarios like African Americans being able to vacation, hold public meetings, and exercise their free speech rights.
2. Buck v. Bell (1927): "Eugenics? Yes, please!" the Court declared in this terrible decision which still stands as good law. In an 8-1 decision written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Court upheld the forced sterilization of those with intellectual disabilities "for the protection and health of the state." Justice Holmes ruled that "society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind" and ended the opinion by declaring that "three generations of imbeciles are enough."
3. Korematsu v. United States (1944): Here, the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, finding that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the individual rights of American citizens. In a cruel and ironic twist, this was also the first time the Court applied strict scrutiny to racial discrimination by the U.S. government, belying the idea that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact."
4. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): The Court's famous "separate but equal" ruling upheld state segregation laws. In doing so, the Court made sure that the gains of the post-Civil War reconstruction era were quickly replaced by decades of Jim Crow laws.
But hey, "The Supreme Court says so, and they are much smarter than you peasants!!"
Yea yea, anyday now the court will turn around and tell the Feds they can't tax and spend, that Medicaid is unconstituional, that SS has to close up, that highways need to be given away to the states and that various taxes need to be thrown out.
You have a lifetime of daydreaming ahead of you hun-bun.
Yeah, yeah, "The Supreme Court said it, and they'll never change their minds, so just accept that it's good and right and stop thinking your opinion as an American should matter!"
You have a lifetime of ass-licking ahead of you as a Democrat cabana boy. Better get busy.
Which if they do go that route (both taxes) they will probably try to sweeten it a little. Like a tax deduction/credit based on how much road tax you paid.Why?..the incentive to buy fuel efficient cars is based on fuel cost, so if a road tax replaces the fuel tax you still pay less with a fuel efficient car. Which is why I think a road tax will somehow be based on your odometer readings, with the fuel tax remaining in place.It's an idea that been around a while..charge those that use the roads most.. pay (tax) for the repairs based on the miles you put on them. It has drawbacks..like poor people who have to drive a lot of miles to work, but that can be adjusted for..like maybe a tax deduction based on the road tax you paid.
Administration Mulls Mileage Tax to Fund $3 Trillion Infrastructure Bill
To pay for the $3 - $4 TRILLION NON-Shovel-Ready Project Fleecing of Tax payers FURTHER, on top of the $1.9 TRILLION 'COVID-19 Relief' Bill (in which $1.7 Trillion had nothing to do with COVID Relief and instead consisted of Democrat Wish-List Pork spending), Biden and his handlers are thinking of every way possible to tax the ever-living shite out the American people to pay for these Democrat Porkulus liberal Extremist assault on America.
So, whose in favor of paying the Biden administration a monetary tax for every single mile you drive your car every single day?
Hey, New Jersey residents who already live in the state with the highest tax rate in the country, on top of paying all those tolls to drive on the parkways, whose in favor of paying an ADDITIONAL financial tax for every mile youdrive on the toll-taxed road you are driving on?
Every time the local govt wants to build a bridge, pave a road, or do some Construction they pass a 'Penny Tax', and usually at the end of the project that 'Penny Tax' never goes away. The idea that I should be have to pay the US govt for every mile I drive my car, that I have to pay taxes on already every year.
This tax, for me, rates right up there with having to pay my local /state govt money for ME to build something on MY property.
The United States is well Over $25 TRILLION in debt...meaning the US govt is not BROKE - NO MONEY - we are $25+ Trillion in DEBT....and Biden and the Democrats want to go all-in on 'drowning the baby', not on tying to save it.
From lying about the Tax Rate ($400k down to $200k) to now considering taxing Americans on every mile we drive our own cars, the Socialists are 'bleeding' the people dry to pay for their radical socialist agenda.....
Joe and the other CCP puppets are trying to increase the amount we owe to China and bankrupt the company for them, or at least help the CCP replace the US dollar as the world's currency.
Administration Mulls Mileage Tax to Fund $3 Trillion Infrastructure Bill
The Biden administration is casting about for ways to fund its gargantuan $3 trillion infrastructure program.
Of course you know, this would be a disincentive for people to buy expensive-but-fuel-efficient cars, right (assuming the road tax replaces the fuel tax)?
The incentive to buy fuel-efficient cars IS based on fuel costs, which would go down if the fuel tax is replaced by a road tax. You already have to drive that car A LOT to save enough to make up for the car's cost (I think one figure I heard was ten years of moderate amounts of driving). And if they try to tax your fuel AND tax your vehicle usage, they're courting disaster.
You want to watch a Dem's brain freeze, ask them how much of OUR money would be enough.
Why would it freeze?..how ever much it takes, that's how much. Our infrastructure maintenance is long over due and is a mess. Repairing it will not be cheap....Democrats Prepare To Push Biden For A $10 Trillion, Decade-Long Green Infrastructure PlanYou want to watch a Dem's brain freeze, ask them how much of OUR money would be enough.
You want to watch a Dem's brain freeze, ask them how much of OUR money would be enough.Why would it freeze?..how ever much it takes, that's how much. Our infrastructure maintenance is long over due and is a mess. Repairing it will not be cheap....Democrats Prepare To Push Biden For A $10 Trillion, Decade-Long Green Infrastructure PlanYou want to watch a Dem's brain freeze, ask them how much of OUR money would be enough.
Supreme Court has long ago ruled that Congress can tax and spend on pretty much whatever the f it wants to, so long as it does so uniformly across the states.
Alright, well, after you find apportionment in Article 1; Section 8 for oddball you can work on finding judicial review in Article III.
Good? We'll be in the neighborhood.
Supreme Court is the final word on these constitutional matters and your little half-baked legal opinions are worth exactly nothing.
Yes, we can't POSSIBLY disagree with the Supreme Court. They say it, therefore the rest of us peons should shut up and accept that OF COURSE it's right and good. How DARE we think we get to have opinions about how our masters and overlords decide things?
1. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857): Hands down the worst Supreme Court decision ever, Dred Scott held that African Americans, whether free men or slaves, could not be considered American citizens. The ruling undid the Missouri Compromise, barred laws that would free slaves, and all but guaranteed that there would be no political solution to slavery. The opinion even included a ridiculous "parade of horribles" that would appear if Scott were recognized as a citizen, unspeakable scenarios like African Americans being able to vacation, hold public meetings, and exercise their free speech rights.
2. Buck v. Bell (1927): "Eugenics? Yes, please!" the Court declared in this terrible decision which still stands as good law. In an 8-1 decision written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Court upheld the forced sterilization of those with intellectual disabilities "for the protection and health of the state." Justice Holmes ruled that "society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind" and ended the opinion by declaring that "three generations of imbeciles are enough."
3. Korematsu v. United States (1944): Here, the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, finding that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the individual rights of American citizens. In a cruel and ironic twist, this was also the first time the Court applied strict scrutiny to racial discrimination by the U.S. government, belying the idea that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact."
4. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): The Court's famous "separate but equal" ruling upheld state segregation laws. In doing so, the Court made sure that the gains of the post-Civil War reconstruction era were quickly replaced by decades of Jim Crow laws.
But hey, "The Supreme Court says so, and they are much smarter than you peasants!!"
Yea yea, anyday now the court will turn around and tell the Feds they can't tax and spend, that Medicaid is unconstituional, that SS has to close up, that highways need to be given away to the states and that various taxes need to be thrown out.
You have a lifetime of daydreaming ahead of you hun-bun.
Yeah, yeah, "The Supreme Court said it, and they'll never change their minds, so just accept that it's good and right and stop thinking your opinion as an American should matter!"
You have a lifetime of ass-licking ahead of you as a Democrat cabana boy. Better get busy.
You want to watch a Dem's brain freeze, ask them how much of OUR money would be enough.Why would it freeze?..how ever much it takes, that's how much. Our infrastructure maintenance is long over due and is a mess. Repairing it will not be cheap....Democrats Prepare To Push Biden For A $10 Trillion, Decade-Long Green Infrastructure PlanYou want to watch a Dem's brain freeze, ask them how much of OUR money would be enough.
I see, then please explain where the over $40 trillion government already spent just in the past 10 years went.
You will have to pose that question to your local county and city reps, they are the ones that pay the most in infrastructure costs. Feds chip in a percentage but how all that money is eventually allocated is up to the locals..A historical look at infrastructure spending in the US, by the numbersYou want to watch a Dem's brain freeze, ask them how much of OUR money would be enough.Why would it freeze?..how ever much it takes, that's how much. Our infrastructure maintenance is long over due and is a mess. Repairing it will not be cheap....Democrats Prepare To Push Biden For A $10 Trillion, Decade-Long Green Infrastructure PlanYou want to watch a Dem's brain freeze, ask them how much of OUR money would be enough.
I see, then please explain where the over $40 trillion government already spent just in the past 10 years went.
Do you really think a Democrat will ever take away one tax?If they do this they have to eliminate all gas taxes or that would be double taxation.
Democrat taxes ALWAYS impact the poor the most. When will they wake upI guess Veggie Joe will raise taxes on the poor and middle class.
What mandates? What automatron?
What mandates? What automatron?
Mandates are the cute little things you neo-communists call "executive orders".
Automaton? That's a stuffed corpse with a solar-powered little tiny electric motor that enables it to sign a "signature" on those mandates. You China-worshipers call it "our president".
You sound silly.
All presidents have issued executive orders and Biden is a person with his own ideas and it's pathetic for you to de-humanize him like that.
Trump mocked you for four years and it didn't bother so you why should it bother Biden's supporters.You sound silly.
All presidents have issued executive orders and Biden is a person with his own ideas and it's pathetic for you to de-humanize him like that.
You'd feel differently if you figured out you've been mocked.
Low risk of that.
