Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lawmaker wants the rich to be drug tested before receiving high-dollar tax deductions
Yahoo! News ^ | Andrew Bahl

Posted on 06/18/2016 5:40:00 PM PDT by ErikJohnsky

Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., in February. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call) A Congresswoman who is “sick and tired” of drug testing welfare recipients has introduced a bill in Congress that would subject the rich to many of those same requirements.

Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., unveiled Thursday the Top 1% Accountability Act, which would require those claiming itemized deductions of more than $150,000 on their tax returns to submit to drug tests or file for less generous tax deductions.

The proposal is a shot across the bow at Republican governors in states, including Moore’s home state of Wisconsin, that require the recipients of certain welfare benefit programs to be drug tested in order to remain eligible to receive assistance.

(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: New York; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: 2016election; biggovernment; classwarfare; election2016; gwenmoore; money; newyork; paulnehlen; paulryan; scottwalker; trump; welfare; wisconsin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last
To: ErikJohnsky; All
As a side note to this thread, please consider the following.

The rich need to get a grip on the idea that they’re probably paying too much taxes anyway. This is evidenced by the following clarification by a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices.

These justices noted that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

In fact, note that one of the very few powers that the Founding States actually delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution to tax and spend for concerning domestic policy issues is the US Mail Service (1.8.7).

In other words, patriots can bet that most other federal domestic spending programs are unconstitutional and be right most of the time.

Remember in November !

Patriots need to support Trump by also electing a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support Trump’s vision for making America great again for everybody, including putting a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes.

Note that such a Congress will also probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.

21 posted on 06/18/2016 6:07:46 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: microgood
...she is right in that you do not give up your constitutional rights when you accept government assistance.

Well, I tend to sorta, kinda agree with that, except for the unfortunate fact that I know damned well the program is corrupt as hell and a large amount of my (and yours) tax dollars are going to purchase exotic foods that even I, as the taxpayer, cannot afford or to purchase drugs to further the habits of those addicted, or to gain cash for use in gambling casinos or sold to nefarious person for pennies on the dollar, again to gain things that the program was never intended to provide.

Republican governors pushing this rule have complete hatred and disdain of the US Constitution...

Can you show me that portion of the US Constitution where it says that any citizen will be given money, without accountability, taken from my tax dollars, the public funds, and given to anyone simply because they claim they have a need, not to mention the muslim pukes that have invaded and are given money by the fistful by barky, simply because, well...just because, I guess.

Welfare of any type should be tightly controlled and the expenditures of public funds for it should be accounted for...further, those receiving it should be citizens that can prove they have a need and that they are using and expending those funds in a responsible manner, and it should be temporary, not a damned lifestyle.

22 posted on 06/18/2016 6:09:10 PM PDT by OldSmaj (Voting for Hillary because she is a woman is like eating a turd because it looks like a Baby Ruth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cyclotic

I understand your sentiment. But the 4th amendment of the Constitution contradicts that. I guess you are advocating the repeal of the 4th amendment of the US Constitution.


23 posted on 06/18/2016 6:10:56 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ErikJohnsky

So should everyone else receiving public funds from the President on down.


24 posted on 06/18/2016 6:11:02 PM PDT by lewislynn (Ryan is the other half of the reason Romney got creamed by a negro with a Nobel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErikJohnsky

just cut off all welfare...no more problems..


25 posted on 06/18/2016 6:11:54 PM PDT by rolling_stone (1984)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldSmaj
Can you show me that portion of the US Constitution where it says that any citizen will be given money, without accountability, taken from my tax dollars, the public funds, and given to anyone simply because they claim they have a need, not to mention the muslim pukes that have invaded and are given money by the fistful by barky, simply because, well...just because, I guess.

I completely agree that welfare is completely unconstitutional. It is grand larceny. But the problem is that searching someone without probable cause by the government is a violation of the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution. Although I am a big fan of Reagan this whole drug testing regime has diminished freedom and is a stain on his legacy.

I am with you on the welfare but that does not justify removing even more constitutional rights.
26 posted on 06/18/2016 6:17:19 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ErikJohnsky

I want all federal office-holders to be drug tested before they receive their regular paychecks. This is due to the stupid actions and laws they’re creating; they must be high on drugs to act the way they do, and taxpayers need these office-holders off the drugs now!


27 posted on 06/18/2016 6:24:31 PM PDT by roadcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErikJohnsky

When libs talk about “the rich”, they never seem to include entertainers or sports celebrities. And when they talk about polluters and CO2 producers, they only mention American businesses. Can it be that all of these complaints are really just targeting capitalists? And if that’s the case, what are their motives?


28 posted on 06/18/2016 6:37:25 PM PDT by Spok ("What're you going to believe-me or your own eyes?" -Marx (Groucho))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErikJohnsky

This notion can spring ONLY from the premise that all the money earned and subject to taxation by the ‘wealthy’ belongs, in the libtard mind, to the government.

And, THAT, folks, is the foundational delusion, the quicksand, on which liberalism is based.

Proof that liberalism is a mental disease.


29 posted on 06/18/2016 6:39:32 PM PDT by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2017; I pray we make it that long.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErikJohnsky

Politicians should have to pass a blood test before they
are sworn in, and every 60 days in office...that would be
fair.


30 posted on 06/18/2016 6:39:40 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErikJohnsky

I knew she was Black before I looked.


31 posted on 06/18/2016 6:40:52 PM PDT by blam (Jeff Sessions For President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErikJohnsky

Sounds like a good idea maybe that is why so many wealthy people are voting for Hillary.


32 posted on 06/18/2016 6:51:33 PM PDT by amnestynone (We are asked by people who do not tolerate us to tolerate the intolerable in the name of tolerance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErikJohnsky
She's special


33 posted on 06/18/2016 6:57:06 PM PDT by MuttTheHoople (Yes, Liberals, I question your patriotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErikJohnsky

The difference is the rich person is paying for their own drugs and the welfare recipient is not. Also the rich can pay for their own rehab and medical bills.


34 posted on 06/18/2016 6:58:26 PM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chode
"one is keeping more of what you EARNED, vs taking what is UNEARNED... "

Bingo!! How much of the money a person earned that they get to keep, vs a handout for non-productivity.

The rest of the discussion is noise.

35 posted on 06/18/2016 6:58:41 PM PDT by MV=PY (The Magic Question: Who's paying for it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ErikJohnsky
Lets see, we drug test the peons working for peanuts at McWhopper, Home Sanctuary Depot, Chicken licken, etc

I say we immediately start monthly RANDOM drug testing all the "Lawmakers", lawyer politicians, the Senate, Congress and who ever is in the Oval Office.

36 posted on 06/18/2016 6:59:58 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: microgood

It may be a person’s constitutional right to do drugs, but not to have taxpayers pay for them.


37 posted on 06/18/2016 7:00:10 PM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ErikJohnsky

Oh yea let’s do this and let’s drug test EVERYONE that has a government job.... President all the way to dog catcher....


38 posted on 06/18/2016 7:01:50 PM PDT by DAVEY CROCKETT (Cards are being played, you have been Trumped! TRUMP 2016!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MV=PY
100%
39 posted on 06/18/2016 7:03:58 PM PDT by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -w- NO Pity for the LAZY - Luke, 22:36)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604
It may be a person’s constitutional right to do drugs, but not to have taxpayers pay for them.

I do not think a person has a constitutional right to do drugs. But I believe they have a constitutional right to not be searched without probable cause, as the 4th amendment guaranties. Otherwise the police could go door to door and search every citizens houses at their leisure. Our founding fathers had an issue with that.
40 posted on 06/18/2016 7:07:48 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson