A Lefty Mob Trespassed on Their Property

[actaeon277]

Kim Gardner lost her appeal to try the case.

 

[maxwelhse]

Kim Gardner lost her appeal to try the case.

Good. This case should already be dismissed.

 

[Jaybird1980]

How in the world did Gardner get reelected. This is dark times

 

[BigRed]

How in the world did Gardner get reelected. This is dark times

Ever been to St. L?

 

[Jaybird1980]

Ever been to St. L?

I went through once, took the long cut on the way back. Honestly can't see why anyone would be there.

Still when you see people do this s**t, you have to know they could easydo the same to you. Then again people not actually paying attention seems to be really popular right now.

 

[maxwelhse]

I went through once, to the long cut on the way back. Honestly can't see why anyone would be there.

Speaking in generalities...

I feel the same any time I'm in any city bigger than about 200k. The funny part is that those people treat us as flyover country they want nothing to do with, yet seem to want to legislate their desires on us all the same. To a degree, we do the same thing to them. This seems like the perfect case for a separate peace, which I thought was the entire purpose of states, but we don't seem to want to manage things that way any more.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Speaking in generalities...

I feel the same any time I'm in any city bigger than about 200k. The funny part is that those people treat us as flyover country they want nothing to do with, yet seem to want to legislate their desires on us all the same. To a degree, we do the same thing to them. This seems like the perfect case for a separate peace, which I thought was the entire purpose of states, but we don't seem to want to manage things that way any more.

I don't see it as working both ways. The Constitution applies equally everywhere. It is not negotiable. Our insistence on following it is not comparable with those jackasses wanting to micromanage our lives and in particular not only deny constitutional rights to their own denizens but also deny them to us

 

[foszoe]

I don't see it as working both ways. The Constitution applies equally everywhere. It is not negotiable. Our insistence on following it is not comparable with those jackasses wanting to micromanage our lives and in particular not only deny constitutional rights to their own denizens but also deny them to us

Not everything is a constitutional issue though. For example the way state tax deductions are treated now that definitely favored red-state instead of blue States regardless of how one may feel about politics

 

[KLB]

Not everything is a constitutional issue though. For example the way state tax deductions are treated now that definitely favored red-state instead of blue States regardless of how one may feel about politics

Are you referring to the limit on deducting other taxes?

 

[Ingomike]

Not everything is a constitutional issue though. For example the way state tax deductions are treated now that definitely favored red-state instead of blue States regardless of how one may feel about politics

They do not "favor" red states, that would require a benefit red states get the blue do not. What was done was roll back the amount one could deduct to a level equal for most states. In other words blue states no longer are screwing the rest of us.

But I get that you see it the way you typed it out, you think that way...

 

[IndyDave1776]

Not everything is a constitutional issue though. For example the way state tax deductions are treated now that definitely favored red-state instead of blue States regardless of how one may feel about politics

I took it for granted that in a thread on use of the 2A for defense of one's home and person from a mob that my comment would be understood in that context.

 

[foszoe]

They do not "favor" red states, that would require a benefit red states get the blue do not. What was done was roll back the amount one could deduct to a level equal for most states. In other words blue states no longer are screwing the rest of us.

But I get that you see it the way you typed it out, you think that way...

From my perspective it favors the red states because it should enhance their tax base as higher wage earners move into the red states from the blue states.

If that perspective still means we disagree so be it as its a nitpick argument that I am not interested in having.

 

[foszoe]

Are you referring to the limit on deducting other taxes?

yes

 

[KLB]

From my perspective it favors the red states because it should enhance their tax base as higher wage earners move into the red states from the blue states.

If that perspective still means we disagree so be it as its a nitpick argument that I am not interested in having.

See, that doesn't "favor" Red States. It doesn't incentivize local governments to increase taxes knowing there will be an offset in federal taxes. What they should have done was eliminated all deductions for local taxes, not capped it like they did.

As for higher wage earners moving into red states, I doubt this tax break has any bearing on that. It is the same underlying problem of high taxes all around that is enticing those people to move. I see it up in NWI with people leaving Chicago. Many of the people I work with in Chicago are seriously thinking about it.

 

[maxwelhse]

I took it for granted that in a thread on use of the 2A for defense of one's home and person from a mob that my comment would be understood in that context.

Well, yes and no.

Ex. Apparently for almost 100 years the NFA has been constitutional even though you and I would likely disagree about that. If CA wants it, they can have it, but I don't need it in IN. That's sort of the stuff I was thinking of, among many other things.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well, yes and no.

Ex. Apparently for almost 100 years the NFA has been constitutional even though you and I would likely disagree about that. If CA wants it, they can have it, but I don't need it in IN. That's sort of the stuff I was thinking of, among many other things.

I do not accept the validity of its being constitutional. The only reasons it floated are that FDR had packed the court and when it was challenged in court, the defendant won, and on appeal by the .gov, the Supreme Court granted a default judgment in favor of the government when the defendant in the original case failed to appear because he was dead.

 

[maxwelhse]

I do not accept the validity of its being constitutional. The only reasons it floated are that FDR had packed the court and when it was challenged in court, the defendant won, and on appeal by the .gov, the Supreme Court granted a default judgment in favor of the government when the defendant in the original case failed to appear because he was dead.

I may have praised it poorly, but I agree with your assessment. So... You pretty much just agreed with me. I think?

If this was left to be a state's rights issue, then the citizens of each state can have what they want. It's pretty clear that CA, NY, NJ, etc don't respect the constitution. Meanwhile we're paying for their idiocy. It would be just fine with me if only they paid for their idiocy. That's all I was saying.

 

[chipbennett]

From my perspective it favors the red states because it should enhance their tax base as higher wage earners move into the red states from the blue states.

If that perspective still means we disagree so be it as its a nitpick argument that I am not interested in having.

You are conflating blue-state vs red-state, state-level tax policies with federal tax policies. The federal tax policies may result in a disadvantage to blue states, due to state-level tax policies of the blue states; but the federal tax policies are inherently agnostic to red vs blue states.

That different states implement different policies that cause citizens of those states to opt to move to different states that have different policies is a feature, not a bug, of a constitutional republic of sovereign states.

To stay experimentation in things social and economic is a grave responsibility. Denial of the right to experiment may be fraught with serious consequences to the nation. It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.

- Louis Brandeis, New State Ice Co. vs Liebmann, SCOTUS (1932)

New York, New Jersey, California, and other blue states opted to serve as laboratories of tax policy. Neither the federal government nor the several states bear any responsibility to bolster or subsidize those policy experiments.

 

[foszoe]

You are conflating blue-state vs red-state, state-level tax policies with federal tax policies. The federal tax policies may result in a disadvantage to blue states, due to state-level tax policies of the blue states; but the federal tax policies are inherently agnostic to red vs blue states.

That different states implement different policies that cause citizens of those states to opt to move to different states that have different policies is a feature, not a bug, of a constitutional republic of sovereign states.


New York, New Jersey, California, and other blue states opted to serve as laboratories of tax policy. Neither the federal government nor the several states bear any responsibility to bolster or subsidize those policy experiments.

When I make $10000 and taxes take $5000, I don't care who is doing the taking

 

[chipbennett]

When I make $10000 and taxes take $5000, I don't care who is doing the taking

Just as I don't care that you have $5,000 in taxes taken out of $10,000 merely because you choose to live in a state with a 50% tax bracket, nor do I bear the burden of subsidizing that taking merely because I choose to live in a state without such a tax bracket.