CYCLINGFORUM.COM - Where Cyclists Talk Tech --- Return To Home

 

    Register FAQ'sSearchProfileLog In / Log Out

 

****

cyclingforum.com ****

HOMECLUBS | SPONSORS | FEATURESPHOTO GALLERYTTF DONORS | SHOP FOR GEAR

Return to CyclingForum Home Page CYCLING TECH TALK FORUM
          View posts since last visit

DOJ: US sanctuary cities VS Trump Admin Russia Sanctions
 

Author Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 16643
Location: Portland, OR

1/29/18 11:24 PM

DOJ: US sanctuary cities VS Trump Admin Russia Sanctions

WASHINGTON (AP) ó The Trump administration has decided not to punish anybody for now under new sanctions retaliating for Russia's election-meddling, the State Department said Monday, in a surprising move that fueled further questions about whether President Donald Trump is too soft on Moscow.

-----------------
Someone has to explain this to me. Non enforcement on Russian Sanctions, but going to the hilt on US cities actually in our country that are Sanctuary Cities.

To much personal cost I am betting, got too many ducks in Russian business rows?? Maybe I don't need anyone to explain it to me after all.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4144
Location: Nashua, NH

1/30/18 6:49 AM

Two separate issues

Both should get slapped really hard and I suspect that the Russians will be once Mueller's investigation is complete.

I have no stomach for this "sanctuary city" crap. You don't get to ignore federal law, then put your hand out and say "but you can still give us money". F*** them! Cut their federal funding completely!

 Reply to topic    

April
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 6410
Location: Westchester/NYC

1/30/18 7:09 AM

Whoís money is it?

The federal government doesnít make money. Itís the tax payerís money.

First, itís removal of local tax deduction on federal income tax. Then itís withholding federal money to the local government. Are we still a federation or what?

What does a libertarian has to say about that crap???

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4144
Location: Nashua, NH

1/30/18 8:22 AM

Sure, it's the taxpayer's money

But how many of these cities are being subsidized by other communities who may not agree with their policies. You live in NY, so you must be aware of the constant tension between more conservative "upstate" communities and the money-sucking city. Worse yet, they're being subsidized by money from other states who may have a completely different idea about obeying federal law.

I have no idea what the Libertarian Party's position on this is, but my position is that it's time for daddy to take away the car keys until the kids learn to behave.

If these cities want to become sanctuaries for illegal immigrants, they should challenge the federal law in court before they go passing local policies that are clearly illegal. If they win, they can do whatever they want within the confines of the ruling. If they lose, they know where they stand and they can decide if federal funding is as important as protecting people who have broken the law and are here illegally.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a heartless "deport 'em all" type, I just don't believe that flouting the law is the way to get immigration reform. There are many people who are here illegally that should be allowed to stay and apply for citizenship, but we have to be fair to everyone who came here legally as well. You don't reward people for criminal behavior, so while we may allow them some form of temporary status to enable them to stay, they should go to the back of the line when it comes to getting citizenship. Perhaps some exceptions could be made, such as for people who served in the military, but we shouldn't be making it easy for most of them.

As for the tax deduction issue, that has nothing to do with with the sanctuary issue.

 Reply to topic    

daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3182
Location: Springfield

1/30/18 9:48 AM

What does a libertarian has to say about that crap???
"Let the states decide unless it's something I really care about." (Granted, many aren't hypocrites.)

But how many of these cities are being subsidized by other communities who may not agree with their policies.
If the NYC/NY relationship is like Northern Virginia/Virginia, the densely populated area is supporting the other 90% of the state; but the representation is spread evenly.

As for the tax deduction issue, that has nothing to do with with the sanctuary issue.
The issue is about being taxed twice on the same income; once for local services (maybe immigrant services,) once for federal services. The federal taxes are extracted evenly and distributed along other guidelines. Thus to the locality a de facto fee is applied to some services by underfunding. Further, the distribution guidelines are arbitrary and may be punitive in their scope.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

PLee
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 3604
Location: Brooklyn, NY

1/30/18 10:55 AM

Yes, more money flows out from NYC in tax collections than it gets, by far. At both the state and the federal levels. So NYC residents subsidize a good portion of the rest of the country.

Just like how the blue states generally subsidize the red states. Funny how that works.

 Reply to topic    

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 16643
Location: Portland, OR

1/30/18 11:52 AM

"challenge the federal law in court "

Already happening, no? With state level court stays for legal safety net??

"Two separate issues"

Not comparing the issues as much as pointing out that our POTUS has way too much biz in RUSSIA and WILL compromise 'US' for it. Patriotism at it's best?

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

April
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 6410
Location: Westchester/NYC

1/30/18 10:31 PM


quote:
You live in NY, so you must be aware of the constant tension between more conservative "upstate" communities and the money-sucking city. Worse yet, they're being subsidized by money from other states who may have a completely different idea about obeying federal law.

Brian, what I'm aware of is NYC subsidize other communities. And I'm aware that the coastal "liberal" states are shouldering the lion's share of the tax income of the federal government.

So, daddy is jobless and is supported by his kid. And he wants to take away the car key so his kid can't get to work.

Is that what you're saying?

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4144
Location: Nashua, NH

1/31/18 1:29 PM

No April...

...you've conflated two separate issues to try to make a point that doesn't exist.

Regarding NY, if it wasn't for the waste, corruption and insanely liberal politics of NYC, New Yorkers wouldn't be paying outlandish levels of state income tax, sales tax, property tax and dozens of other taxes and fees. Having the state taking a big chunk out of everybody's paychecks to cover the needs of NYC, then throwing a bone or two to underprivileged communities here and there does not make NYC a donor.

To be fair, it's not just NYC; this happens in pretty much every state where there are large cities. Tax and Spend liberalism takes hold and when the city gets big enough, it imposes its will on the rest of the state. Same old story, over and over again.

It's funny how in states like NH, where we don't have any "real" cities and a relatively conservative state government, we get along just fine without any broad-based taxes. Imagine that! Our biggest problem is the influence of refugees from MA, who come up here for a better quality of life, then immediately start trying to recreate the same crap environments they fled.

Getting back to the separate issue of sanctuary cities, I'll explain it in simple terms. "Daddy" is the federal government and the the "kids" are the misbehaving cities who have taken it upon themselves to violate federal law by harboring criminals. Got it?

 Reply to topic    

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 16643
Location: Portland, OR

1/31/18 2:51 PM

"Got it"

I suggest if we can't not end a post thus, consideration for more decorum is in order.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

PLee
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 3604
Location: Brooklyn, NY

1/31/18 3:03 PM

Federal tax revenues (which are levied by the Federal government, not by the state, and not by the city) flowing out of New York City and New York State far outweigh federal funds coming back into the state. Fact.

 Reply to topic    

PLee
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 3604
Location: Brooklyn, NY

1/31/18 3:06 PM

New York State tax revenues (levied by the state, and not by the city) out of New York City residents far outweigh the New York State funds flowing back into New York City. Fact.

 Reply to topic    

April
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 6410
Location: Westchester/NYC

1/31/18 3:15 PM

NH did so "well" because it's piggy-backing on the job opportunities of greater Boston. Take away Boston, I wonder how "well" NH would do. Its two neighbors, VT & ME would be a good example of what they'd be like?

The same analogy is NJ has for the longest time piggy-backing on NYC for income but didn't have to provide the service. New Jersians put up with poor rail services and congested roads.

Is it any surprise that all the "high tax, corrupted, congested" states are the most productive states where innovation happens, such as CA, NY (now with good company of NJ) and MA???

So I stand by my analogy. The "misbehaving kids" are the productive ones. It's daddy that's behind the time!

BTW, those "few bones" our high tax cities/states throwing to are benefiting the next generation of innovators, namely children of poor immigrants. (sadly some of illegal). While in the mean time, those pure-breed from the middle of the country whose "properly behaved" daddy & kids are still sitting on their hands, demanding their "job" back!


Last edited by April on 1/31/18 11:10 PM; edited 3 times in total

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

April
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 6410
Location: Westchester/NYC

1/31/18 3:26 PM

Speaking of decorum, I think it's been demonstrated by our esteem president that's "fake requirement".

When you go to a fight with no rules, it's silly to handicap yourself with self-imposed rules your opponent don't follow.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

KerryIrons
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 2926
Location: Midland, MI

1/31/18 3:50 PM

Fact based


quote:
But how many of these cities are being subsidized by other communities who may not agree with their policies. You live in NY, so you must be aware of the constant tension between more conservative "upstate" communities and the money-sucking city. Worse yet, they're being subsidized by money from other states who may have a completely different idea about obeying federal law.


You really should consider a fact-based argument next time. You have the numbers exactly backward, whether it be your misinformed assumptions about tax flows in and out of cities, or about tax flows in and out of blue states and red states.

Living in a democracy means that our tax dollars are CONSTANTLY being used for things we don't agree with. It is the very nature of what we call civilization.

 Reply to topic    

April
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 6410
Location: Westchester/NYC

1/31/18 5:37 PM

Trump fact

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 16643
Location: Portland, OR

1/31/18 5:46 PM

April, isn't that an oxymoron.

Or as Sylvester Stallone said as "Snaps Provolone", an ox... and a moron! ;)

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

PLee
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 3604
Location: Brooklyn, NY

2/5/18 5:45 PM

Brian - It took me a while, but I found the article from December that I had read:

http://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/wireStory/ap-fact-check-blue-high-tax-states-fund-51687881

This is not the only analysis on this subject that found these conclusions to be true. I haven't found a credible study that has shown otherwise.

 Reply to topic    

daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3182
Location: Springfield

2/6/18 3:34 AM

Klein Bottle of Opinion

A few minutes ago I finished a driver's opinion piece about F1's decision to ban Grid Girls. She was against it for reasons of free choice and removing opportunities. She proposed instead adding males (but didn't suggest how to maintain the alliteration. gents/Ghents #humor)

It made me think of this stub of an argument:
'The will of the majority must be weighed against the need of the minority.'

Then I came to CyclingForum and reopened this thread and I don't know if a Klein bottle is the appropriate analogy, no intersection of the surfaces/arguments. But dang if the argument doesn't turn back in on its self:
'The will of the minority must be weighed against the need of the majority.' (emphasis for contrast)

Maybe the the analogy is two sides of some coins, like obstructionist politics, social reform, bicyclists and cars.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail


Return to CyclingForum Home Page CYCLING TECH TALK FORUM
           View New Threads Since My Last Visit VIEW THREADS SINCE MY LAST VISIT
           Start a New Thread

 Display posts from previous:   


  
Last Thread | Next Thread  >  

  
  

 


If you enjoy this site, please consider pledging your support

cyclingforum.com - where cyclists talk tech
Cycling TTF Rides Throughout The World

Cyclingforum is powered by SYNCRONICITY.NET in Denver, Colorado -

Powered by phpBB: Copyright 2006 phpBB Group | Custom phpCF Template by Syncronicity