NY governor proposes Internet tax on downloads

There are days when I wonder what planet New York located on?

I love SNL's impression of him.

It's located on planet stupid.

I can't wait until the day that the US (and other capitalist countries) decouple government and commerce.

No one can comment on a "free market" system as we've never had one in this country.

idiots. this is why america will go bust and why were not going to recover from this defecit without the dollar exploding and america suffering from hyperinflation. IDIOCACY during times of national crisis.
if the fed is going to bail out the states....which it has NO obligation to do, it should have some strings. one string is that states cannoy impose commercial taxes or commercial laws upon the transfer of money anymore. NO MORE STATE SALES TAXES ON ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. and all commercial law should be consiolidated and uniform under the federal government.

the federal government approach to letting the state legislate and regulate has failed because the states cannot do anything effectively about commerce anymore.

Velanarris, the "free market" aka The Pirate Bay has plenty of positive feedback. ;)

How exactly would you regulate the marketplace if government plays no role? Simply "Buyer beware?"

He wants the NY people to pay for government incompetence and overspending.

There is no good system when there is bad people governing.

I never see this guy very often because he's safely on his side of the Rockies, but the actor that does him on SNL does have an uncanny resemblance. Much more so than he does to Obama.

Velanarris, the "free market" aka The Pirate Bay has plenty of positive feedback. ;)

How exactly would you regulate the marketplace if government plays no role? Simply "Buyer beware?"

Yep. You can't sell if you have a bad reputation, and conversely, if you have a good reputation you can't lose.

Free market works when it's actually free. The market will regulate itself through best of breed and when faced with no options buyers will save rather than spend. At least this is what behavioral research indicates.

Hey, it could be worse...in Australia, they're taxing flushing the toilet. Whatever, the taxing thing is out of control.

Keter, I live in Australia, and have no idea what you're refering to. Could you elaborate?

Anyway, on the subject of stupid taxes, let's hope the Australian and US governments don't follow through with their idiotic "Emissions Trading Schemes". These taxes have been proven in Europe not to reduce CO2 emissions one bit, but they sure are a nice earner for governments.

Most politicians love to spend money, some borrow and spend, others tax and spend. And why do they love to spend (our) money? Because they think they have a mandate to solve every problem that crops up, and they think they have that mandate because we keep GIVING it to them! We keep voting these monsters into office. That's what they are, monsters. No matter how well intentioned they start out, they become voracious beasts that keep feeding on our wealth, and the more we feed them, the more we ask them to solve all of our problems, the more they consume. Stop feeding them!

For those who think that business and free enterprise is the enemy, just remember this: No company can force you to buy their product (without help from a government, that is) but any government has the "authority" to use force to make you "buy" their product, and that product is CONTROL.

@M_N

Keter is correct and I am in Australia too. If you checked it out you will find a CSIRO report recommending that toilet flushing be taxed.

-

Does anyone remember that George W. Bush wanted to ban free software on the internet, claiming it was anti-competitive and distorted the 'free' market?

Greed is good?

Bluehigh: wow, the CSIRO has fallen a long way since the days it was a premier science and technology organization. Nowadays they spend their time bleating on about AGW and don't actually contribute anything to society.

What will government do when there is nothing else to tax and people have nothing else to pay with?

Everything moving across the Internet is a download at the point of receipt. Why not just say the tax is on bandwidth?

Free market works when it's actually free.

No.

Only when incentives are properly aligned with the common good do free markets produce a desirable result. If you have bad incentives they can be very destructive.

See for instance the ~$60 trillion house of cards that is the Credit Default Swap market. There's no regulation here at all, no reserve requirements(which means you can take infinite levarge if you want), it was all done over the counter(hard to know who's got a deal with who or the exact size of the market) and there was no regulation preventing its use for unproductive gambling(somewhere around 90% is believed to have been gambling instead of insurance; it's equivalent to me taking an insurance policy out on you, even though we aren't family and our finances aren't tied togheter in anyway. I just have a hunch you're going to die, the insurance company has a hunch you don't and we get toghether and bet about whether you'll expire or not.).

Price fixing, monopolies, dumping all examples showing an unregulated free market is not a good thing.

Soylent -
Why stop there with your insurance policy on anyone but me. If the stakes are high enough, whats stoping you from using a bullet to make sure that policy pays out. Never underestimate the power of human greed.

All forms of government and commerce are great and work flawlessly in the absence of a human population.

What will government do when there is nothing else to tax and people have nothing else to pay with?

Sell Soylent Green

Grrr8! Now I have to pay for spam?

There all so fired. Like they need more tax dollars for Wall Street.

And I would not call our system truly a free market.

There have been crooks manipulating the market since the Rothchilds cornered the market in gold in the 1700's. So any negative on free market must take this into account. That there has not been a free market for hundreds of years....

And you have to take fiat money out of the equation.
Thats what gives our system its weakness and unfairness, and allows the bankers to gain advantage.

FREE MARKET: That condition of society in which all economic transactions result from voluntary choice without coercion.

THE STATE: That institution which interferes with the Free Market through the direct exercise of coercion or the granting of privileges (backed by coercion).

TAX: That form of coercion or interference with the Free Market in which the State collects tribute (the tax), allowing it to hire armed forces to practice coercion in defence of privilege, and also to engage in such wars, adventures, experiments, "reforms," etc., as it pleases, not at its own cost, but at the cost of "its" subjects.

PRIVILEGE: From the Latin privi, private, and lege, law. An advantage granted by the State and protected by its powers of coercion. A law for private benefit.

USURY: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State supported group monopolises the coinage and thereby takes tribute (interest), direct or indirect, on all or most economic transactions.

LANDLORDISM: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State-supported group "owns" the land and thereby takes tribute (rent) from those who live, work, or produce on the land.

TARIFF: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which commodities produced outside the State are not allowed to compete equally with those produced inside the State.

CAPITALISM: That organisation of society, incorporating elements of tax, usury, landlordism, and tariff, which thus denies the Free Market while pretending to exemplify it.

CONSERVATISM: That school of capitalist philosophy which claims allegiance to the Free Market while actually supporting usury, landlordism, tariff, and sometimes taxation.

LIBERALISM: That school of capitalist philosophy which attempts to correct the injustices of capitalism by adding new laws to the existing laws. Each time conservatives pass a law creating privilege, liberals pass another law modifying privilege, leading conservatives to pass a more subtle law recreating privilege, etc., until "everything not forbidden is compulsory" and "everything not compulsory is forbidden."

SOCIALISM: The attempted abolition of all privilege by restoring power entirely to the coercive agent behind privilege, the State, thereby converting capitalist oligarchy into Statist monopoly. Whitewashing a wall by painting it black.

ANARCHISM: That organisation of society in which the Free Market operates freely, without taxes, usury, landlordism, tariffs, or other forms of coercion or privilege. RIGHT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily choose to compete more often than to cooperate. LEFT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily choose to cooperate more often than to compete.

I'm not sure that labeling is necessary. Far too left brained in thinking, overall. Balance would help. It's better to simply put effort into realizing when something or someone who is basically evil is in the room. Nevertheless, its a nice list.

You forgot 'fascism', which any corporate/governmental system is by actual definition. The revolving door of the US federal government makes this applicational situation and definition quite clear.

That's all there is to it.

My first visual impression of this man is that he has a disjointed mental state and that he is some sort of mafia/corporate shill.

Am I wrong?

If we want to apply those labels I'd be a right anarchist. Which by technical definition, and personal views, I am.

My quote marks disappeared? This is from the same book.
"Every ideology is a mental murder, a reduction of dynamic living processes to static classifications, and every classification is a Damnation, just as every inclusion is an exclusion. In a busy, buzzing universe where no two snow-flakes are identical, and no two trees are identical, and no two people are identical -and, indeed, the smallest subatomic particle, we are assured, is not even identical with itself from one microsecond to the next- every card-index system is a self-delusion. "Or, to put it more charitably," as Nietzsche says, "we are all better artists than we realize.""

Regards and
Hail Eris

Why can't we just tax Patterson for every breath he takes? I would think he wouldn't talk as much.

Don't we already pay for our internet connections? Isn't that double taxation?

Gods-damned Democrats! All they do is make bigger government and then tax and spend to feed it... Why not cut the State budget rather than tax downloads and everything else under the sun?

I like to download lots of e-books and legitimate software products. So, if I were in New York I would have to pay sales tax and then another download tax in addition to my taxation on my internet connection. Ridiculous!

And as to double-taxation, Democrats don't give a crap about stuff like that. The little guy does not concern them like they pretend for votes. They lie to the public and do it so well that the public elects them in spite of the lies. How soon the public forgets... The American people should vote the Democrats out of existence...

""By taxing it you're legitimizing it," New York Conservative Party Chairman Michael Long told the New York Daily News."

Someone should point out to that ignoramus that New York is ALREADY taxing porn. Sales tax on magazines, dvds, and of course strip clubs.

Ethelred

All they do is make bigger government and then tax and spend to feed it...

Well at least they tax to pay for the spending as opposed to SPEND, SPEND, SPIN Republicans that spend without bothering to tax.

All they do is make bigger government and then tax and spend to feed it...

Well at least they tax to pay for the spending as opposed to SPEND, SPEND, SPIN Republicans that spend without bothering to tax.

If either of you two think the problem lies with one party or the other, you're out of your tree.

Both sides are wrong, and both are culpable. Neither of the current parties in our phenominal "two-party" failure of a system do anything differently.

One is tax and spend with a minor in borrowing from the fed, the other is a borrow and spend with a minor in taxing the public. Neither side wants to reduce government overhead or attempt to fix the system in any way.

If either of you two think the problem lies with one party or the other, you're out of your tree.

If you think I think that way you have started to believe your own propaganda.

Neither of the current parties in our phenominal "two-party" failure of a system do anything differently.

Please remember that Bill Clinton actually lowered the debt and that the Republicans have been engaging in an unbridled orgy of unpaid spending for most of the last 8 years. I simply find it ridiculous for anyone at all to use that bogus 'tax and spend' phrase as if it had any meaning and zero hypocrisy. How can anyone type such bilge and eat with the same fingers?

Ethelred

Please remember that Bill Clinton actually lowered the debt and that the Republicans have been engaging in an unbridled orgy of unpaid spending for most of the last 8 years. I simply find it ridiculous for anyone at all to use that bogus 'tax and spend' phrase as if it had any meaning and zero hypocrisy. How can anyone type such bilge and eat with the same fingers?

One democrat does not the party make. The current congress brought us to the point we're at now, and it's a democrat majority. Both parties are equally guilty, and as I stated above, both parties tax/borrow and spend.

...
Please remember that Bill Clinton actually lowered the debt...

I suggest a little more research. Clinton was the beneficiary of revenues that began coming in during the Reagan and Bush, Sr., administrations.

For the record, however, although I believe that both parties have part in the economic problems of today, I left the Democratic Party because of what I had seen them doing and because I learned of their true historical stance. They have always advocated slavery and they have the idea that the people need big government because they are too stupid to govern themselves. Dependence on government is a form of slavery.

Democrats advocate dependence on government and government controls in many aspects of life. They whittle away at the Constitution by instituting gun-bans and advocate population control by free and uninhibited abortion with little to no restrictions.

There is much more that can be said but really do not feel to do so at present...

The current congress brought us to the point we're at now, and it's a democrat majority. Both parties are equally guilty, and as I stated above,

Both parties are not equally culpable. Whether you stated it or not. Two years of contested control vs. six years of complete control makes your statement very wrong, you distaste for both parties is no excuse for bad math.

I stand by what I said. That phrase is horseshit. If you can't admit that then you have reality issues. I am fully aware that you don't like either party. I am not enamored with them either. That is no excuse for tolerating bullshit like 'tax and spend'.

Ethelred

I suggest a little more research. Clinton was the beneficiary of revenues that began coming in during the Reagan and Bush, Sr., administrations.

I have. Your wrong. He was the beneficiary of the Savings and Loan debacle which is not exactly a good thing. Much of what he had going for him was the internet boom. Much was having to cut spending to fix the Reagan-Bush spendthrift ways. Sure is funny how it took several years of Clinton for 12 years of Reagan-Bush to allegedly produce results.

I left the Democratic Party because of what I had seen them doing

I left the Republican Party because of Reagan and especially his Secretary of the Interior. There was no way such a gross incompetent could stay in charge of conservation for so long if Reagan didn't want things to be done that way.

They have always advocated slavery

Really? Always? Even now? You must have strange ideas of what constitutes slavery. True, the Republican Party got started with the anti-slavery movement. Unfortunately after the Civil war it changed a lot. A lack of effective opposition can do that.

Dependence on government is a form of slavery.

Its a big world out there. We are dependent on the government for many things. Defense is only one of them. There are things that private commerce can not do. There is no way for the individual to protect themselves from uncontrolled companies. We need regulation, the question is how much. The idea that suing companies will somehow fix things AFTER they screw up is not an adequate replacement for regulation to stop them from screwing up in the first place. Greed is NOT good.

They whittle away at the Constitution by instituting gun-bans and advocate population control by free and uninhibited abortion with little to no restrictions.

Do I see an unstated agenda? How is regulating guns damaging the Constitution but regulating people themselves not? If its none of the governments business what kind of weapons you have then surely it can't be its business to control women's bodies. Perhaps both are reasonable when done in moderation.

Oh by the way. That Governor is an idiot. No matter what party he is polluting. If nothing else he is advocating that HIS state gets to tax interstate trade which is just a tad illegal.

Ethelred

There is no way for the individual to protect themselves from uncontrolled companies.

How about not buying from them? Tough to do anything if you have no cash flow.

It amazes me that people still think companies have some sort of magic power that they can self generate. The only power a company has is that power given willingly by it's patrons.

And BTW taxing interstate trade is not illegal.

How about not buying from them? Tough to do anything if you have no cash flow

Tough to buy from anyone else when there is a monopoly because there is no regulation. Which is EXACTLY what was going on prior to Teddy Roosevelt. If you wanted oil it had to be Rockefeller's for instance.

It amazes me that a few people still there is some magic power that will stop people from doing whatever they can get away with. There is no magic that makes people behave just because they are not in government.

And BTW taxing interstate trade is not illegal.

No, its unconstitutional.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Note that 'among the several states' part. Tax is part of commerce.

Now if we were still under the Articles of Confederation you would be right. But that is one of the reasons the Articles were such a dismal failure. States were screwing up interstate trade. Just as this idea would.

It's why states can't tax a transaction on the net unless at least one end of the transaction took place that state OR the company has resources in the state. At present they can't enforce the taxation in many cases even when the buyer is in the state in question. But that is an enforcement issue rather than a legal limit.

Ethelred

Ethel,

Does your state have sales tax? That's interstate commerce taxation. The constitution prevents states from levying "unapportioned taxes" that's it. What type of plates do trailer trucks have? You know, the commercial ones... oh yeah, right, apportioned.

Does your state have sales tax?

Yes.

That's interstate commerce taxation.

No. Its intrastate. The taxation is on the buyer and not the manufacturer from another state.

The constitution prevents states from levying "unapportioned taxes" that's it.

No. It only stops states from taxing trade across the state lines.

You know, the commercial ones... oh yeah, right, apportioned.

That's a road use tax(yes, I did have to look this up, I only think I know everything). Technically not a tax on interstate trade as they are not paying for the stuff in the truck just for the truck itself. If they charged more than the road costs could justify I suspect the trucking industry could win a court case.

Try again. You may find an example I can't weasel on(technicalities count in law). I will be impressed.

Ethelred

Great, any sales tax paid over the internet is interstate, not intrastate.

I think you're referring to "tariff taxes" which are completely illegal interstatewise, like tobacco and gasoline taxes.

However, if I drive to NH from MA and buy a refridgerator in NH, I'm expected to pay sales tax on the item when I return to MA, even though MA has no legal right to tax a sale that was not made within it's borders.

This is actually a pretty hot issue in the Northeast currently as the Gov of MA is trying to enforce taxes on MA customers of NH businesses paid in NH.

Great, any sales tax paid over the internet is interstate, not intrastate.

Ah, if only that were true. Then there wouldn't be any worry that the Governor might get somewhere. The catch is its the buyer that is paying in their own state.

I thought about this today and have come to the conclusion that a tax on USERS bandwidth might be managed legally, indeed don't see anything to stop it, except irate voters. Taxing just downloads would be difficult as encryption could disguise just what is going on.

However, if I drive to NH from MA and buy a refridgerator in NH, I'm expected to pay sales tax on the item when I return to MA, even though MA has no legal right to tax a sale that was not made within it's borders.

Well if MA can con people into paying. I don't think it has leg to stand on. While I am clearly not a lawyer I do recall a particularly infamous decision that has never been overturned. The Dread Scott Decision. True it wasn't about taxes and the point became moot but it was about states interfering with interstate trade.

Get a new governor. One that believes in the US Constitution as much he believes in revenue. Yes I know that is not easy.

I could be full of crap on this. You could be right. But I am pretty good at reading carefully. Training from the involved instructions in Avalon Hill Games and other board games plus writing some of my own for D&D back when the original rules was all there was. Not law of course but the idea of carefully chosen words and careful interpretation of them became part of me.

My understanding on this is that only Feds can tax interstate trade. However the states can tax pretty much anything they can get away with WITHIN the state. At least one Supreme Court Justice actually thinks its legal for states to do things that are would be against parts of the Bill of Rights for the Feds(Clarence Thomas - he hasn't convinced anyone else though -it was at one time apparently true).

Ethelred

By constitutional law, the only rights that the federal government has are collecting income tax, maintaining an army, and expanding and defending the rights of citizens, that's it. There are no magic federal regulations pertaining to state taxes or interstate taxes in the constitution due to Jeffersonian principles. If you're interested read up on HCR6 which NH is trying to pass reaffirming states rights, as they've been horridly trampled on as of the past 2 decades. There are several other states passing the same or a similar resolution.

By constitutional law, the only rights that the federal government has are collecting income tax, maintaining an army, and expanding and defending the rights of citizens, that's it.

You really need to read the Constitution. Even that small bit I posted disagreed with that. Since you seemed to evaded noticing what it said I put here as well:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

So even that little bit shows you have been smoking the Libertarian delusion weed. Even if you aren't actually literally a Libertarian.

There are no magic federal regulations pertaining to state taxes or interstate taxes in the constitution due to Jeffersonian principles.

Jefferson had nothing to do with the Constitution. He was in France at the time. Franklyn was the most influential member of the Founding Fathers there besides Washington. Nor are Jefferson's ideas some sort of magic pixie dust that overturns laws. Well, he did ignore HIS principles when he bought Louisiana but that was against his ideals after all. So even he disagreed with you when it came to practicality.

If you're interested read up on HCR6 which NH is trying to pass reaffirming states rights, as they've been horridly trampled on as of the past 2 decades.

Nearly every single time State Rights has been brought up in US history it has been to deny Human Rights. The very first time was the only significant occasion when it was to support Human Rights. That was over the Alien and Sedition Acts that Adams was responsible for. Since then it has mostly been to support slavery and hatred.

I think you should notice the US is a nation and NOT a collection of the several states. It has been a long time since a majority of Americans have thought of themselves as a citizen of their state first and the US second.

I have never met a states rights nut (Yes I said and meant nut) that had could read the Constitution without misrepresenting it. You sure just did that. The whole concept of a sovereign state, that states rights is based on, is bogus. Only ONE SINGLE state was ever sovereign. That was Texas. The original thirteen colonies were COLONIES and in no way sovereign. When the revolution was over they became MEMBER states in the Confederation and that was a hopeless botch. I have yet to see a states rights wackjob that didn't seem to think that the perfect federal government was something even more worthless then that dismal failure.

Here have another taste of Constitutional reality.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

That is just to remind you that you didn't even get the income tax only part right. You really need to calm down and think before you rant. Check what you write before hitting submit. It will save you making self-evident errors like that income tax comment. I will give you one on that though. At least you admitted the Feds could have an income tax. Amazing how many people claim it can't even though there is an amendment specifically giving the Feds the power to do so. My favorite is when they claim that the amendment is Unconstitutional.

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

See bankruptcies are a federal prerogative.

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

That covers more than is obvious. The Feds can force the Metric system on us. What a wonderful world that would be. Even if the Metric System is French.

[b]To establish post offices and post roads;[/b]

All roads are intrinsically post roads these days so that sure does give a lot of leverage to law.

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Oh just go read the Constitution. I keep a copy in my PC. And not just to annoy Libertarians.

Only this time read what it says not the fantasy version that you have in your mind. And do try to remember that you are an American and not a citizen of some hick state in a time shortly before the Civil War.

This too. I think every bloody states righter needs to read and write this till they get it.

Government by the PEOPLE.

Not the bloody states. Those are the entities that caused the death of 500,000 Americans in the Civil War just so that the few could own other Americans.

Can you tell I have a low tolerance for the state rights rubbish? I hate the Electoral College too. It needs to go as the President represents the People and not the states.

Oh, I did check my rant. I try not to be too much of a hypocrite.

Ethelred
Ready to defend the People against the State.

[b]This is a test.[/b] [i]This is only a test.[/i]

[b][i]A test to see how I can increase clarity.[/b][/i]

[b][i]Ethelred

Well that doesn't work. I will leave it if any else want to see it didn't. Does anyone know if any other psuedo html works besides the Q /Q.

[/b][/i]

Jefferson had nothing to do with the Constitution. He was in France at the time. Franklyn was the most influential member of the Founding Fathers there besides Washington.

I think you have, at least, this piece backwards. Franklin was the man who spent the majority of his time in France. Jefferson did a stint in 1784 but I'm fairly sure that was just a few years.

From the constitution, and since you have a copy, Article 1 Sect. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

That's the only limitation put upon the states.

As for bankruptcy laws those are in regard to the states themselves, not the private businesses held within.

In regards to post roads, find me one road that the Government actually fully funds. You'll find even on the interstate system, the government fails to fully fund the roadways.

The rest of your statement I don't disagree with, except for calling states' rights proponents nuts.

The federal government does not control currency at this time, nor do they mint their own coinage. They borrow money from the federal reserve who in turn has complete control over it's valuation by incrementally adjusting the rate of interest due on loans made to the government.

So where exactly is the constitutional ability to control interstate commerce?

I think you have, at least, this piece backwards. Franklin was the man who spent the majority of his time in France. Jefferson did a stint in 1784 but I'm fairly sure that was just a few years.

Perhaps that is correct, but a few years could have done the trick.1784 3 = 1787. Which it did:

From:
http://www.sparkn...n2.rhtml

In 1787, delegates from twelve of the thirteen states (minus Rhode Island) met at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Most of the attendees were not die-hard revolutionaries (Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry were all absent)

Now I understand why I never about John Adams in conjunction with the Constitution. Franklin was VERY old by then and it might have limited his influence to some extent.

And from:
http://www.loc.go...fed.html

Although Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as United States minister when the Federal Constitution was written in 1787, he was able to influence the development of the federal government through his correspondence.

That's the only limitation put upon the states.

You may be having difficulty with this clause. Many do and I am not finding it easy as pie either.

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Interstate trade is clearly covered there. Lots of things are included in interstate trade, including taxes.

However there are at least some taxes that are called interstate. However I notice that they are still based on a out of state company doing business in that state rather than simply crossing the taxing states border. I can also see where the Federal Government could choose to take an interest if the situation got out of hand since it would affect the General Welfare AND interstate commerce. While I can't find anything prohibiting state A from taxing businesses from state B when they do business in state A I can't see anything stopping Congress from deciding that is Bad For Interstate Commerce and stopping it altogether. In other words New York can tax another states business when that business takes place at least partly within New York, which I said yesterday in a somewhat different way. However that could change if Congress should so desire based on the Elastic Clause and and the Interstate Commerce clause. This power can be seen in the Internet Tax Freedom Act and Public Law 86-272 - I found it on page 21 of umpteen at

http://www.allbus...6-1.html

That's the only limitation put upon the states.

Which is more than you imagine. Plus there more than you posted.

From:
http://en.wikiped...e_States

States may not exercise some powers reserved for the federal government; they may not enter into treaties, alliances or confederations, grant letters of marque or reprisal, coin money or issue bills of credit (such as currency). Furthermore, no state may make anything (such as Federal Reserve Notes) but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. The states may not pass bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, impair the obligation of contracts or grant titles of nobility.

Because of the Elastic Clause those powers reserved to the Feds are elastic as well. For instance here in California we have passed limits on pollution of vehicles that are more stringent then the Federal standards. The only reason we can do so is because we have explicit permission from the Feds to do so. Otherwise the Federal laws would take precedence. Something you learn living in California.

As for bankruptcy laws those are in regard to the states themselves, not the private businesses held within.

You have that one completely wrong. At one time states did set their own bankruptcy laws, and they may still have some on the books, but that was because the Feds hadn't done anything. From the same Wiki as above:

State legislation on the issue of bankruptcy and debtor relief has not been much of an issue since the adoption of a comprehensive federal bankruptcy law in 1898.

In regards to post roads, find me one road that the Government actually fully funds.

Find me a requirement that the Feds fully fund them to have an affect. Or to pay at all. A post road is road that is used by the US Postal Service. That is nearly all roads, as I said before.

except for calling states' rights proponents nuts.

You know somehow I figured that. But I did some of my growing up when the NUTS were using States Rights to refuse education and voting rights to blacks and beating or murdering people that tried to change things. So I have little respect for the concept.

The federal government does not control currency at this time, nor do they mint their own coinage.

So who do think is making that stuff that jingles in my back pocket?

http://en.wikiped...ver_Mint

So where exactly is the constitutional ability to control interstate commerce?

In that clause I have posted three times.

You do know that the Federal Reserve is headed by men appointed by the Feds don't you? That its exists under the control of Federal Laws?

The Federal Reserve seems to be a massive boogyman to a lot people. Some of the way it works is for the purpose of stability. Some is because conservatives had a fit over the idea of a Federal owned bank(although it has been done before). Some may be greed by banks that convinced the conservatives to give them a cut. Congress, should it ever grow the cajones, can change the way the Federal Reserve works. Now is about as likely as a time as any for that to happen with so many Americans ticked off at private banking. However general ignorance about even the basics of banking could make that unlikely.

So here is a little story about the Federal Reserve. Based on reality but not necessarily completely correct, at least in many peoples opinion, but I think it gets the high points reasonably well.

Once upon time France was the richest nation in Europe. The Netherlands kicked the British Navy's ass and the English were very poor. Then England imported a new King from the Netherlands to replace the one they kicked out, they eventually put Newton in charge of the Mint AND The Bank Of England was created by some very clever men by using the concept of borrowing on their land and then loaning out every Pound multiple times. In fairly short order England ruled the waves, France was teetering on bankruptcy and Holland, France and the Moguls lost India to the Brits. Largely funded by the leverage of banking and the power of the Bank of England. Plus some people with big cajones.

That is why the Federal Reserve came into existence. Well that and it was supposed to help stop Panics. So the first time it had the chance to act and stop or at least mitigate one it calmly stuffed its thumb up its ass and did zip because a bunch of conservatives were afraid of interfering with the economy. Thus extending the 1929 debacle into the Great Depression.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

In case you are wondering what is going on, here is some of my thinking on internet discussions. As opposed to flames wars which I find entertaining in any case.

I cannot lose an argument. Yes, really, and I can prove it to your satisfaction, if you keep an open mind. You are free to apply this methodology yourself. It can only better my chances of winning.

IF I don't lose my temper THEN the worst that can happen is that I learn something. That is good thing and therefor I haven't lost. Otherwise I win anyway. The only way I lose is by losing my temper. Well I sure do lose a lot time so I better had learn something. So start doing better research. I can't learn from the ignorant and getting things even partly right by accident doesn't help anyone in the long run.

Life is not a Zero Sum Game.

Ethelred

In regard to internet flame wars, I always attempt to keep an open mind and prefer to not fall into the standad trap of "nu-uh, uh-huh arguments, thanks for doing the same.

I completely understand your position on calling sttes rights supporters, nuts, however, in the cases you're referring to, the states had zero right to enforce inequality as the constitution forbids it. It always did. The problem in those cases were, the states rights proponents at that time were nuts. Unequivocally nuts, so I think we have an understanding there.

In regard to your story on France and the Bank of England I have another for you.

When the colonies first started they maintained a barter system. No one was poor, no one was jobless.

The english saw this and enforced coinage and the bank of england. Almost immediately people went out of work, there were poor in the streets, it was chaos. The bank of england had enforced a fait currency on the colonists and this resulted in the ability to tax. The economy of the states failed and effectively the colonies faced their first depression.

In regards to the federal reserve. The federal reserve is a private company, yes the feds select their board members but the owners and operators are outside of federal regulation.

What stops the federal reserve from running off a few billion more US dollars (they'd all be electronic of course as only about 1% of US currency is physical) and loaning them off to a foreign country? Nothing.

I completely understand your position on calling sttes rights supporters, nuts, however, in the cases you're referring to, the states had zero right to enforce inequality as the constitution forbids it.

Oddly enough it would have been OK to enforce inequality on religious grounds, at least in the past. Up to a point.

When the colonies first started they maintained a barter system. No one was poor, no one was jobless.

Very early. Many of the colonies were founded by religious groups. Many still ignore the first successful colony, Jamestown which may have used a barter system to begin with but sure didn't later.

The english saw this and enforced coinage and the bank of england.

The English had lousy coinage prior to Newton. So even the Brits had to use barter AND promissory notes, the predecessor of banknotes. And your wrong about the colonies mainly using barter in any case prior to the enforcement of British Coinage. Although I sure can understand why you thought that. I only ran across Colonial Script in the last year or so. I think I must have been arguing economics somewhere. Betanews is likely.

From
http://en.wikiped...l_Script

Colonial scrip was paper fiat money as opposed to specie issued by the colonies in the pre-revolution era, up until 1775.

The currency was born when a lack of gold and silver in the Colonies made trade hard to conduct, and a barter system prevailed. One by one, the Colonies began to issue their own paper money to serve as a medium of exchange to make trade vibrant. The Governments could then retire excess notes out of circulation by taxing the people, helping some colonies generally avoid inflation. Each colony had its own currency and some were better managed than others. It was banned by English Parliament in the Currency Act after Benjamin Franklin had explained the benefits of this currency to the British Board of Trade. Outlawing the circulating medium caused a depression in the colonies, and Franklin and many others believed it to be the true cause of the American Revolution.

I have checked this on other sites as well since Wikipedia is not always a reliable source. It looks like a very clever system that might even be viable in modern times. Especially in countries were the lack of specie is one of the causes of a crippled economy. AND it would bug the World Monetary Fund. BONUS.

The federal reserve is a private company, yes the feds select their board members but the owners and operators are outside of federal regulation.

Yes, but not inherently so. That was political decision based on the usual fear of Big Government and of course someone saw a way to profit. It can be changed.

I am somewhat ambivalent on this. If I was an economist I would probably have a stronger opinion one way or another. At present however, based on what I have understood or misunderstood, I think it might be good to have more federal involvement. Not because I am certain its needed for stability but because the way it is apparently set up the Feds(that's we the people in theory) bear the burden of any losses and the private sector (some of the people) get the profits. Seems a bit unfair to me. Profit, free from risk, and risk, free of profit. Feels like a scam in that area.

What stops the federal reserve from running off a few billion more US dollars (they'd all be electronic of course as only about 1% of US currency is physical) and loaning them off to a foreign country? Nothing.

Usually the Federal Reserve is against high inflation. Other than that, no nothing I am aware of stops that. But then I am not about to read all the regulations governing this stuff. I know there are some guiding ideas but that's all I have. I have skimmed the Wiki on it but as its controversial and it is therefor an unreliable Wiki.

http://en.wikiped..._Reserve

Ethelred

Ethel, you're certainly a cut above most I've spoken with on this topic, and I'd say you're better informed than I.

Seems a bit unfair to me. Profit, free from risk, and risk, free of profit. Feels like a scam in that area.

I agree. This is why the bailouts and other chicanery occuring now is so far from a correctionary measure that it's apalling.

It seems I've not made a good judgement,here.

This is all new stuff to me.

If Patterson wants to unravel the draconian skull and bones drug running Rockefeller financial enabling laws..then...he's 1000000% OK in my book.

If he's after the internet..... there is real and serious reason for it. It must be to chase down the "INTERNET 2" that the corporations are trying to bring into existence.

They want to kill all public discourse on "Internet 1" (cries of outrageous terrorporn! terrorporn! Shut down the internet!!!!) and bring back the 'Big 3 Network" derived one sided pure human programming mode of yesteryear.

If the message (of what Patterson said - and what he means) is being delivered by 'Big Media'-then distrust it-completely. It is GOING to be a twisted lie-at best.

This is why the bailouts and other chicanery occuring now is so far from a correctionary measure that it's apalling.

Its definitely not a correction. Scary for sure. The Federal banking insurance system has always done things that look to strange to people that only deal with their own personal finance. The key is that it has worked in the past. Now similar methods are being used, BUT they can't just break up AIG and force the parts on others like is often done when a bank fails. No one but left wingers like the idea of nationalization but it may be that only a government has the resources to hold that disaster together long enough to stop the financial bleeding. I sure don't want the US to have to cover all those loses but if simply standing back and watching was the right answer New Orleans for instance wouldn't have lost out so bad(I know its a stretch but its all I could come up with at the moment).

If AIG fails we are told it will make things even worse. The thing is that it HAS failed and only massive money injections has kept the machine functioning at all. I know a lot of conservatives are saying just let the companies fail. However after the 1929 stock crash where the companies did fail the devastation of the US economy was so bad it nearly took down the US and not just as a government either.

I sure an mot the one with the answers. Even if I was no one with any sense would listen to a guy selling software at Fry's.

Ethelred