Your Government Owes You a Job

[georgephillip]

It means we disallowing using the tax code to implement "social engineering".

Is the following an acceptable definition of "social engineering"?

"Social engineering is a discipline in social science that refers to efforts to influence popular attitudes and social behaviors on a large scale, whether by governments, media, or private groups."

Social engineering (political science) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good as any, I suppose. But you're missing the point as well. I'm not disputing social engineering - its definition, or its value. I'm condemning the practice of implementing it surreptitiously through the tax code. We're using it to dictate behavior in ways that wouldn't pass Constitutional muster if they were attempted via honest legislation.

The ACA provides the perfect case in point. I'm pretty sure that even the Roberts Court would have struck down a federal punitive law that fined people who refused to buy insurance. But they allow it when framed as a 'tax incentive'. Likewise if we started fining people for refusing to have children or maintain a home mortgage, the shit would hit the fan. But that's exactly what we're doing, all the while pretending it's ok because it's couched away in obscure tax rules.

All this has been done by ambitious legislators that want to rule people outside the confines of Constitutional limits, and the Court has let them get away with it.

How do we fund government equitably without dictating behavior if not through the carrot and stick of taxation? The ACA is an example of what you get when a corporate vice-president writes legislation, but it would seem like government would have good reason to encourage home ownership, for example.

 

[dblack]

Is the following an acceptable definition of "social engineering"?

"Social engineering is a discipline in social science that refers to efforts to influence popular attitudes and social behaviors on a large scale, whether by governments, media, or private groups."

Social engineering (political science) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good as any, I suppose. But you're missing the point as well. I'm not disputing social engineering - its definition, or its value. I'm condemning the practice of implementing it surreptitiously through the tax code. We're using it to dictate behavior in ways that wouldn't pass Constitutional muster if they were attempted via honest legislation.

The ACA provides the perfect case in point. I'm pretty sure that even the Roberts Court would have struck down a federal punitive law that fined people who refused to buy insurance. But they allow it when framed as a 'tax incentive'. Likewise if we started fining people for refusing to have children or maintain a home mortgage, the shit would hit the fan. But that's exactly what we're doing, all the while pretending it's ok because it's couched away in obscure tax rules.

All this has been done by ambitious legislators that want to rule people outside the confines of Constitutional limits, and the Court has let them get away with it.

How do we fund government equitably without dictating behavior if not through the carrot and stick of taxation?

I'm not sure what this sentence means. Are you saying we can't levee taxes without indulging in "carrot and stick" manipulation? If you're just pointing out that taxes will always impact different people differently, that's true. But the question is whether we try to minimize those differences, or cynically amplify them to manipulate people.

The ACA is an example of what you get when a corporate vice-president writes legislation,

We're blaming Biden now? Did Obama toss out Truman's "the buck stops here" plaque? Seriously, the president signed it, he owns it.

but it would seem like government would have good reason to encourage home ownership, for example.

Congress might have "good reason" to tell me how to live in a variety of ways. I might have good reason to tell them get fucked. The question is whether the Constitution affords them the power to do so. It doesn't.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Is the following an acceptable definition of "social engineering"?

"Social engineering is a discipline in social science that refers to efforts to influence popular attitudes and social behaviors on a large scale, whether by governments, media, or private groups."

Social engineering (political science) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good as any, I suppose. But you're missing the point as well. I'm not disputing social engineering - its definition, or its value. I'm condemning the practice of implementing it surreptitiously through the tax code. We're using it to dictate behavior in ways that wouldn't pass Constitutional muster if they were attempted via honest legislation.

The ACA provides the perfect case in point. I'm pretty sure that even the Roberts Court would have struck down a federal punitive law that fined people who refused to buy insurance. But they allow it when framed as a 'tax incentive'. Likewise if we started fining people for refusing to have children or maintain a home mortgage, the shit would hit the fan. But that's exactly what we're doing, all the while pretending it's ok because it's couched away in obscure tax rules.

All this has been done by ambitious legislators that want to rule people outside the confines of Constitutional limits, and the Court has let them get away with it.

How do we fund government equitably without dictating behavior if not through the carrot and stick of taxation? The ACA is an example of what you get when a corporate vice-president writes legislation, but it would seem like government would have good reason to encourage home ownership, for example.

The real estate market bubble and subsequent burst was an example of government encouraging home ownership. This is an example of what NOT to do.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Promote the general welfare....

Lol. The leftist parasites believe this entitles them to endless govt support from cradle to grave....

Amusingly pathetic eh ?

What would make you think that?

It means Congress does what is best for the country. Difficult concept to accept isn't it?

No it means the government is busily coming up with methods of transfer payments.
Taking from the producers and giving to the non producers.
This is not what is best for the country, making poverty comfortable.
No, the way to prosperity is to encourage more people to become producers. Government does this by getting the hell out of the way of the private sector.
Economic liberty translates to prosperity 100% of the time.

 

[georgephillip]

Good as any, I suppose. But you're missing the point as well. I'm not disputing social engineering - its definition, or its value. I'm condemning the practice of implementing it surreptitiously through the tax code. We're using it to dictate behavior in ways that wouldn't pass Constitutional muster if they were attempted via honest legislation.

The ACA provides the perfect case in point. I'm pretty sure that even the Roberts Court would have struck down a federal punitive law that fined people who refused to buy insurance. But they allow it when framed as a 'tax incentive'. Likewise if we started fining people for refusing to have children or maintain a home mortgage, the shit would hit the fan. But that's exactly what we're doing, all the while pretending it's ok because it's couched away in obscure tax rules.

All this has been done by ambitious legislators that want to rule people outside the confines of Constitutional limits, and the Court has let them get away with it.

How do we fund government equitably without dictating behavior if not through the carrot and stick of taxation?

I'm not sure what this sentence means. Are you saying we can't levee taxes without indulging in "carrot and stick" manipulation? If you're just pointing out that taxes will always impact different people differently, that's true. But the question is whether we try to minimize those differences, or cynically amplify them to manipulate people.

The ACA is an example of what you get when a corporate vice-president writes legislation,

We're blaming Biden now? Did Obama toss out Truman's "the buck stops here" plaque? Seriously, the president signed it, he owns it.

but it would seem like government would have good reason to encourage home ownership, for example.

Congress might have "good reason" to tell me how to live in a variety of ways. I might have good reason to tell them get fucked. The question is whether the Constitution affords them the power to do so. It doesn't.

I was referring to Liz Fowler, not Biden:

"I (Max Baucus) wish to single out one person, and that one person is sitting next to me.

"Her name is Liz Fowler.

"Liz Fowler is my chief health counsel.

"Liz Fowler has put my health care team together.

"Liz Fowler worked for me many years ago, left for the private sector, and then came back when she realized she could be there at the creation of health care reform because she wanted that to be, in a certain sense, her profession lifetime goal.

"She put together the White Paper last November–2008–the 87-page document which became the basis, the foundation, the blueprint from which almost all health care measures in all bills on both sides of the aisle came.

"She is an amazing person. She is a lawyer; she is a Ph.D. She is just so decent. She is always smiling, she is always working, always available to help any Senator, any staff. I thank Liz from the bottom of my heart. In many ways, she typifies, she represents all of the people who have worked so hard to make this bill such a great accomplishment."

Baucus Thanks Wellpoint VP Liz Fowler for Writing Health Care Bill | FDL Action

My belief is that representatives of private (corporate) power, like Fowler, are standing outside any Constitutional protections, and it's their undemocratic influence on Congress that's ******* 90% of Americans.

 

[georgephillip]

Good as any, I suppose. But you're missing the point as well. I'm not disputing social engineering - its definition, or its value. I'm condemning the practice of implementing it surreptitiously through the tax code. We're using it to dictate behavior in ways that wouldn't pass Constitutional muster if they were attempted via honest legislation.

The ACA provides the perfect case in point. I'm pretty sure that even the Roberts Court would have struck down a federal punitive law that fined people who refused to buy insurance. But they allow it when framed as a 'tax incentive'. Likewise if we started fining people for refusing to have children or maintain a home mortgage, the shit would hit the fan. But that's exactly what we're doing, all the while pretending it's ok because it's couched away in obscure tax rules.

All this has been done by ambitious legislators that want to rule people outside the confines of Constitutional limits, and the Court has let them get away with it.

How do we fund government equitably without dictating behavior if not through the carrot and stick of taxation? The ACA is an example of what you get when a corporate vice-president writes legislation, but it would seem like government would have good reason to encourage home ownership, for example.

The real estate market bubble and subsequent burst was an example of government encouraging home ownership. This is an example of what NOT to do.

Government acting in the best interests of the US investor class which was busy getting rich from a epidemic of mortgage fraud.

 

[dblack]

How do we fund government equitably without dictating behavior if not through the carrot and stick of taxation?

I'm not sure what this sentence means. Are you saying we can't levee taxes without indulging in "carrot and stick" manipulation? If you're just pointing out that taxes will always impact different people differently, that's true. But the question is whether we try to minimize those differences, or cynically amplify them to manipulate people.

We're blaming Biden now? Did Obama toss out Truman's "the buck stops here" plaque? Seriously, the president signed it, he owns it.

but it would seem like government would have good reason to encourage home ownership, for example.

Congress might have "good reason" to tell me how to live in a variety of ways. I might have good reason to tell them get fucked. The question is whether the Constitution affords them the power to do so. It doesn't.

I was referring to Liz Fowler, not Biden:

Ahh.. of course. I'm well aware of Liz Fowler's "contributions". My mistake.

What about the rest of it? I guess discriminatory taxation is somewhat off-topic, but it really is an insidious expansion of state power, and most people don't even recognize it as such.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How do we fund government equitably without dictating behavior if not through the carrot and stick of taxation? The ACA is an example of what you get when a corporate vice-president writes legislation, but it would seem like government would have good reason to encourage home ownership, for example.

The real estate market bubble and subsequent burst was an example of government encouraging home ownership. This is an example of what NOT to do.

Government acting in the best interests of the US investor class which was busy getting rich from a epidemic of mortgage fraud.

Yes. YOUR beloved government created the conditions. It made the rules.
The federal government has NO BUSINESS interfering in the housing market.
You can't have it both ways.
Certain people like to use Canada's situation regarding it's housing market.
Notice how there has been no 'burst' of any bubble. Simple reason is Canada does not use legislation to manipulate the marketplace. Canadians accept the fact that there are those who cannot afford to buy a home or lack the proper credit standing to be granted a mortgage. Those people rent. Period.
That's the way it should be here.
Sure, government programs for home buying such as FHA loans are good products because they do not lower credit status requirements.
My first loan was an FHA loan. We still had to have our credit in good standing.

 

[georgephillip]

I'm not sure what this sentence means. Are you saying we can't levee taxes without indulging in "carrot and stick" manipulation? If you're just pointing out that taxes will always impact different people differently, that's true. But the question is whether we try to minimize those differences, or cynically amplify them to manipulate people.

We're blaming Biden now? Did Obama toss out Truman's "the buck stops here" plaque? Seriously, the president signed it, he owns it.



Congress might have "good reason" to tell me how to live in a variety of ways. I might have good reason to tell them get fucked. The question is whether the Constitution affords them the power to do so. It doesn't.

I was referring to Liz Fowler, not Biden:

Ahh.. of course. I'm well aware of Liz Fowler's "contributions". My mistake.

What about the rest of it? I guess discriminatory taxation is somewhat off-topic, but it really is an insidious expansion of state power, and most people don't even recognize it as such.

I'm not sure discriminatory taxation is off-topic in the sense FDR financed his New Deal, in part, by taxing the richest individuals and corporations of the time. Do you think such a policy would pass Constitutional muster today?

 

[georgephillip]

The real estate market bubble and subsequent burst was an example of government encouraging home ownership. This is an example of what NOT to do.

Government acting in the best interests of the US investor class which was busy getting rich from a epidemic of mortgage fraud.

Yes. YOUR beloved government created the conditions. It made the rules.
The federal government has NO BUSINESS interfering in the housing market.
You can't have it both ways.
Certain people like to use Canada's situation regarding it's housing market.
Notice how there has been no 'burst' of any bubble. Simple reason is Canada does not use legislation to manipulate the marketplace. Canadians accept the fact that there are those who cannot afford to buy a home or lack the proper credit standing to be granted a mortgage. Those people rent. Period.
That's the way it should be here.
Sure, government programs for home buying such as FHA loans are good products because they do not lower credit status requirements.
My first loan was an FHA loan. We still had to have our credit in good standing.

I hope we agree government has BUSINESS policing the housing market?
From 2004:

"In the 1980s, many Savings and Loans failed because of poor management, risky loans and investments, and in some cases, fraud. Taxpayers were left with a $132 billion tab to cover federal guarantees to S&L customers.

"The FBI has dispatched undercover teams across the country in an urgent investigation into dealings by suspect mortgage brokers, appraisers, short-term investors, and loan officers, Swecker, flanked by FBI executives and Justice Department prosecutors, revealed.

"In one operation, six individuals were arrested Thursday in Charlotte, charged with bank fraud for their roles in a multimillion-dollar mortgage fraud, officials said. The two-year investigation found fraudulent loans that exposed financial institutions and mortgage companies to $130 million in potential losses, they said.

"Also Thursday, federal agents in Jacksonville arrested two people and executed seven search warrants in connection with an alleged scheme designed to defraud banks of $22 million, officials said.

"The number of open FBI mortgage fraud investigations has increased more than five-fold in the past three years, from 102 probes in 2001 to 533 as of June 30 this year, the FBI said. The potential losses are staggering, and many financial institutions are cooperating with investigators.

"Officials noted mortgage industry sources have reported more than 12,000 cases of suspicious activity in the past nine months, three times the number reported in all of 2001."

CNN.com - FBI warns of mortgage fraud 'epidemic' - Sep 17, 2004

Politicians serve the investor class by lowering lending standards, for example.
The same politicians bail out the architects of the control accounting frauds that crashed the economy in 2008.
My solution is to insulate government from the effects of private wealth on public policies; more democracy NOT government.

What's yours?

 

[dblack]

I was referring to Liz Fowler, not Biden:

Ahh.. of course. I'm well aware of Liz Fowler's "contributions". My mistake.

What about the rest of it? I guess discriminatory taxation is somewhat off-topic, but it really is an insidious expansion of state power, and most people don't even recognize it as such.

I'm not sure discriminatory taxation is off-topic in the sense FDR financed his New Deal, in part, by taxing the richest individuals and corporations of the time. Do you think such a policy would pass Constitutional muster today?

It's gone much further. Roberts has essentially sealed our fate. Short of revolution, I don't think we'll regain our nation.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Government acting in the best interests of the US investor class which was busy getting rich from a epidemic of mortgage fraud.

Yes. YOUR beloved government created the conditions. It made the rules.
The federal government has NO BUSINESS interfering in the housing market.
You can't have it both ways.
Certain people like to use Canada's situation regarding it's housing market.
Notice how there has been no 'burst' of any bubble. Simple reason is Canada does not use legislation to manipulate the marketplace. Canadians accept the fact that there are those who cannot afford to buy a home or lack the proper credit standing to be granted a mortgage. Those people rent. Period.
That's the way it should be here.
Sure, government programs for home buying such as FHA loans are good products because they do not lower credit status requirements.
My first loan was an FHA loan. We still had to have our credit in good standing.

I hope we agree government has BUSINESS policing the housing market?
From 2004:

"In the 1980s, many Savings and Loans failed because of poor management, risky loans and investments, and in some cases, fraud. Taxpayers were left with a $132 billion tab to cover federal guarantees to S&L customers.

"The FBI has dispatched undercover teams across the country in an urgent investigation into dealings by suspect mortgage brokers, appraisers, short-term investors, and loan officers, Swecker, flanked by FBI executives and Justice Department prosecutors, revealed.

"In one operation, six individuals were arrested Thursday in Charlotte, charged with bank fraud for their roles in a multimillion-dollar mortgage fraud, officials said. The two-year investigation found fraudulent loans that exposed financial institutions and mortgage companies to $130 million in potential losses, they said.

"Also Thursday, federal agents in Jacksonville arrested two people and executed seven search warrants in connection with an alleged scheme designed to defraud banks of $22 million, officials said.

"The number of open FBI mortgage fraud investigations has increased more than five-fold in the past three years, from 102 probes in 2001 to 533 as of June 30 this year, the FBI said. The potential losses are staggering, and many financial institutions are cooperating with investigators.

"Officials noted mortgage industry sources have reported more than 12,000 cases of suspicious activity in the past nine months, three times the number reported in all of 2001."

CNN.com - FBI warns of mortgage fraud 'epidemic' - Sep 17, 2004

Politicians serve the investor class by lowering lending standards, for example.
The same politicians bail out the architects of the control accounting frauds that crashed the economy in 2008.
My solution is to insulate government from the effects of private wealth on public policies; more democracy NOT government.

What's yours?

There is always room for regulation. That much is certain.
However, when the federal government decided that increasing home ownership by mandating banks relax credit standards to record low levels of qualification then as a trade off created rules where loans were to be guaranteed against default, that caused an artificially high demand for housing. Prices rose far more rapidly than anyone predicted. To combat this reverse effect on home ownership, credit standards were lowered even further. The sub prime market was created. Again backed by government. The rules encouraged investment is these guaranteed mortgages. All kinds of creative methods were derived. Mortgages were bought and resold in very short periods of time. Government encouraged the trading of mortgage backed securities.
Creative loans were invented. Interest only loans. Short term loans with initially low payments for a period of time where the buyer paid nothing to principle. When the term was over, the payments were much higher. It all cam crashing down when so many buyers could no longer afford the payments. Values began to fall. People were literally walking away from their homes. The properties were losing value faster than the rise in prices that took place just a few years earlier. Those investments, so popular with quick buck artists in the financial world became almost worthless. Many loans were sold at pennies on the dollar. We all know the rest of the story. It all goes back to the federal government. Had it not been for federal interference of the marketplace, none of this would have happened.
S&L's failed for one main reason. Inaccurate and fraudulent appraisals of value.
Before new federal and state rules governing the real estate appraisal business which mandated each opinion of value be an "arms length" transaction, lenders were sending their own people to inspect properties with a predetermined value in mind. The report came back with the understanding that the appraiser's job was to "make the loan work".. That's what they did. When the market for properties in certain areas of the country began to wane, S&L's were stuck with loans that became virtually worthless, With no protections and the FSLIC becoming insolvent, the S&L's that made these loans came crashing down.
BTW, the Charlotte story....If this is the one I'm thinking about, I was familiar with two of the people involved. One was a real estate attorney that signed off on all the deals. The other one a guy who hung out with us. I never liked him. He was a slick talking individual.
Here's a link to that case.
http://www.fbi.gov/charlotte/press-releases/2009/ce040109.htm
And just last month 5 years after her conviction, the sentence..http://www.fbi.gov/charlotte/press-releases/2009/ce040109.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/charlotte/press-releases/2009/ce040109.htm

 

[georgephillip]

So, how much time did Victoria Sprouse actually serve?
FWIW, my suggestion would be a variation on the "three strikes" guidelines.
"One Strike" would sentence everyone upon their first conviction to 25 years to life with the understanding the perp would serve 25 years before becoming eligible for her first parole hearing. There's no shortage of elected Democrats AND Republicans who should die in prison for their role in creating the Great Recession.

 

[georgephillip]

Ahh.. of course. I'm well aware of Liz Fowler's "contributions". My mistake.

What about the rest of it? I guess discriminatory taxation is somewhat off-topic, but it really is an insidious expansion of state power, and most people don't even recognize it as such.

I'm not sure discriminatory taxation is off-topic in the sense FDR financed his New Deal, in part, by taxing the richest individuals and corporations of the time. Do you think such a policy would pass Constitutional muster today?

It's gone much further. Roberts has essentially sealed our fate. Short of revolution, I don't think we'll regain our nation.

Chris Hedges calls it our post-Constitutional era:

The U.S. Supreme Court decision to refuse to hear our case concerning Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which permits the military to seize U.S. citizens and hold them indefinitely in military detention centers without due process, means that this provision will continue to be law.

"It means the nation has entered a post-constitutional era.

"It means that extraordinary rendition of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil by our government is legal.

"It means that the courts, like the legislative and executive branches of government, exclusively serve corporate power—one of the core definitions of fascism.

"It means that the internal mechanisms of state are so corrupted and subservient to corporate power that there is no hope of reform or protection for citizens under our most basic constitutional rights.

"It means that the consent of the governed—a poll by OpenCongress.com showed that this provision had a 98 percent disapproval rating—is a cruel joke. And it means that if we do not rapidly build militant mass movements to overthrow corporate tyranny, including breaking the back of the two-party duopoly that is the mask of corporate power, we will lose our liberty.

Chris Hedges: The Post-Constitutional Era - Truthdig

Too late???

 

[RKMBrown]

Ahh.. of course. I'm well aware of Liz Fowler's "contributions". My mistake.

What about the rest of it? I guess discriminatory taxation is somewhat off-topic, but it really is an insidious expansion of state power, and most people don't even recognize it as such.

I'm not sure discriminatory taxation is off-topic in the sense FDR financed his New Deal, in part, by taxing the richest individuals and corporations of the time. Do you think such a policy would pass Constitutional muster today?

It's gone much further. Roberts has essentially sealed our fate. Short of revolution, I don't think we'll regain our nation.

BS.. Roberts was right. If we don't like where we are at we need to change who we vote for or change the Constitution. Expecting a partisan court to vote out obama care due to it containing a fine/fee/tax/penalty/mandate or whatever BS was just plain silly. Some of the other Constitution issues with it may hold weight when the court looks it over but the ability of the government to tax our income has been around for quite a while now.

 

[dblack]

I'm not sure discriminatory taxation is off-topic in the sense FDR financed his New Deal, in part, by taxing the richest individuals and corporations of the time. Do you think such a policy would pass Constitutional muster today?

It's gone much further. Roberts has essentially sealed our fate. Short of revolution, I don't think we'll regain our nation.

BS.. Roberts was right. If we don't like where we are at we need to change who we vote for or change the Constitution. Expecting a partisan court to vote out obama care due to it containing a fine/fee/tax/penalty/mandate or whatever BS was just plain silly. Some of the other Constitution issues with it may hold weight when the court looks it over but the ability of the government to tax our income has been around for quite a while now.

It's not a question of the power to tax income. It's a question of using taxation as a tool for backdoor legislation. The only merit for upholding the practice is "we've been doing it for a long time", but that doesn't make it right, or Constitutional.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's gone much further. Roberts has essentially sealed our fate. Short of revolution, I don't think we'll regain our nation.

BS.. Roberts was right. If we don't like where we are at we need to change who we vote for or change the Constitution. Expecting a partisan court to vote out obama care due to it containing a fine/fee/tax/penalty/mandate or whatever BS was just plain silly. Some of the other Constitution issues with it may hold weight when the court looks it over but the ability of the government to tax our income has been around for quite a while now.

It's not a question of the power to tax income. It's a question of using taxation as a tool for backdoor legislation. The only merit for upholding the practice is "we've been doing it for a long time", but that doesn't make it right, or Constitutional.

Backdoor legislation? Huh? WTF are you talking about willis? The court does not rule on merit, it rules on constitutionality. You folks got in a tizzy cause they called the tax a mandate. Mandate is just another word for fine/fee/tax/penalty etc. No different than any other government taxation subsidy, fine, penalty, deduction, etc.

We elected democrats to run both houses and the white house. We did that. They voted to punish us with unaffordable health care taxes, mandates, and fines. We did that. Not the SCOTUS.

 

[dblack]

BS.. Roberts was right. If we don't like where we are at we need to change who we vote for or change the Constitution. Expecting a partisan court to vote out obama care due to it containing a fine/fee/tax/penalty/mandate or whatever BS was just plain silly. Some of the other Constitution issues with it may hold weight when the court looks it over but the ability of the government to tax our income has been around for quite a while now.

It's not a question of the power to tax income. It's a question of using taxation as a tool for backdoor legislation. The only merit for upholding the practice is "we've been doing it for a long time", but that doesn't make it right, or Constitutional.

Backdoor legislation? Huh? WTF are you talking about willis? The court does not rule on merit, it rules on constitutionality. You folks got in a tizzy cause they called the tax a mandate. Mandate is just another word for fine/fee/tax/penalty etc. No different than any other government taxation subsidy, fine, penalty, deduction, etc.

Exactly. They're all doing the same thing - dictating behavior without going through the process of legislating law. It's simply Congress doing an end-run around the limitations of their enumerated powers.

We elected democrats to run both houses and the white house. We did that. They voted to punish us with unaffordable health care taxes, mandates, and fines. We did that. Not the SCOTUS.

Elected officials are bound by the limitations of the Constitution. They can't simply vote to override them whenever they feel like it. If they want to do that, they are required to pass amendments.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So, how much time did Victoria Sprouse actually serve?
FWIW, my suggestion would be a variation on the "three strikes" guidelines.
"One Strike" would sentence everyone upon their first conviction to 25 years to life with the understanding the perp would serve 25 years before becoming eligible for her first parole hearing. There's no shortage of elected Democrats AND Republicans who should die in prison for their role in creating the Great Recession.

She got 6 years. She was facing 20+...
When I knew her she was as straight laced as anyone I'd ever met.
She had a nice practice doing closings for a few production builders.
She lost EVERYTHING. House, cars, license to practice law, friends, etc.
Mortgage fraud greed was rampant during the 2000's.
I was once licensed as a real estate appraiser in NC. I could not find a placed that was willing to hire a trainee.
Anyway, I used to get the NC Appraisal Report quarterly. In it were the details of disciplinary reports issued by the NC Appraisal Board. Typically, there would be a page and a half to two full pages of actions. The last issue I received had NINE full pages.
Many suspensions and revocations.
One was a case where an appraiser instructed a trainee to falsify reports. Fearing loss of her license and possible civil and even criminal sanctions, she reported her boss the Appraisal Board. After an investigation it was found he was involved in a scam flipping houses. His license was revoked.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's not a question of the power to tax income. It's a question of using taxation as a tool for backdoor legislation. The only merit for upholding the practice is "we've been doing it for a long time", but that doesn't make it right, or Constitutional.

Backdoor legislation? Huh? WTF are you talking about willis? The court does not rule on merit, it rules on constitutionality. You folks got in a tizzy cause they called the tax a mandate. Mandate is just another word for fine/fee/tax/penalty etc. No different than any other government taxation subsidy, fine, penalty, deduction, etc.

Exactly. They're all doing the same thing - dictating behavior without going through the process of legislating law. It's simply Congress doing an end-run around the limitations of their enumerated powers.

We elected democrats to run both houses and the white house. We did that. They voted to punish us with unaffordable health care taxes, mandates, and fines. We did that. Not the SCOTUS.

Elected officials are bound by the limitations of the Constitution. They can't simply vote to override them whenever they feel like it. If they want to do that, they are required to pass amendments.

The end run around the limitations placed on the federal government by our consitution as it was originally written is a very old story. For the most part the end-run began at the end of the civil war with the due process clause in the 14th amendment, and then was made somewhat permanent by the 16th amendment, with giving congress the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. You'll note there is no limitation on spending or any purpose applied to the 16th. They can tax us for anything. They can tax us for walking, breathing, spitting, pissing...

Then to make matters worse we let the senate fall to tyranny of majority with the 17th amendment, just like the house and president are elected, thus removing that check on tyranny and perhaps putting the last nail in the coffin for the republic. I see no check on tyranny left other than the majority deciding liberty is more important than authority to screw others. And I don't see us having a majority that believes in liberty any more.