Trump orders troops to “War ravaged” PORTLAND

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 417
  • Views: 10K
  • Politics 

Trump sees this country as us (red states) vs them (blue states).

If blue state Americans can't rely on equal treatment under the law, we are no longer one country, not just in a philosophical sense but in a real administrative sense.

Even in normal periods, most blue states send a lot more money to the federal government than they get in return. If Trump intentionally harms blue states economically, I think that money being sent to the federal government should cease.

I am not going to go out and say it but I think you know where I am going with this. I just hope it can be somewhat amicable.
 
I understand the frustration but personally don't have a problem with this one. I can understand why the judge would recuse in this situation to avoid an appearance of bias. I think the government is still going to lose anyway.
I doubt it. The government won in California at this stage. It wasn't until there was a months-long record that the government lost, and by then, the government was already packing up its bags. And even if the government lost in district court and the Ninth Circuit, the SCOTUS shadow docket would reverse.
 
Trump sees this country as us (red states) vs them (blue states).

If blue state Americans can't rely on equal treatment under the law, we are no longer one country, not just in a philosophical sense but in a real administrative sense.

Even in normal periods, most blue states send a lot more money to the federal government than they get in return. If Trump intentionally harms blue states economically, I think that money being sent to the federal government should cease.

I am not going to go out and say it but I think you know where I am going with this. I just hope it can be somewhat amicable.
Well, someone has an idea of reconstructing the south, letting the southern states stay in or rejoin the union after ratifying a new constitution that protects our rights and better protects against tyranny.
 
Trump sees this country as us (red states) vs them (blue states).

If blue state Americans can't rely on equal treatment under the law, we are no longer one country, not just in a philosophical sense but in a real administrative sense.

Even in normal periods, most blue states send a lot more money to the federal government than they get in return. If Trump intentionally harms blue states economically, I think that money being sent to the federal government should cease.

I am not going to go out and say it but I think you know where I am going with this. I just hope it can be somewhat amicable.
Don't the blue states send the money via everyone's personal income tax? You would have to get people boycotting filing their federal/ employers taking money out etc.
 
Don't the blue states send the money via everyone's personal income tax? You would have to get people boycotting filing their federal/ employers taking money out etc.
Exactly. There is no simple way for California to impound the federal withholdings from California employers. That money is transmitted directly to the feds.
 
Don't the blue states send the money via everyone's personal income tax? You would have to get people boycotting filing their federal/ employers taking money out etc.
Yes and I don't have the actual answers on how this could be done logistically. Maybe pass a state law that employers can't withhold federal payroll taxes.

If you get my last paragraph, you will understand that there are no easy answers.

Maybe the answer is to wait until the administration mows down protesters with machine guns first. I don't know. I just know we are heading down an unsustainable path.
 
Exactly. There is no simple way for California to impound the federal withholdings from California employers. That money is transmitted directly to the feds.
You could conceivably convince the whole state to change their withholding so the tax doesn't get taken put of their paycheck and then not send in the check on April 15th. It won't happen but I suppose its possible.

Thinking about it, you likely could get a campaign going to convince a fair amount of people to change their withholdings and delay payments to the federal government. The net would be the government borrows a bit more but it would be a news story and maybe wake some politicians up.
 
You could conceivably convince the whole state to change their withholding so the tax doesn't get taken put of their paycheck and then not send in the check on April 15th. It won't happen but I suppose its possible.

Thinking about it, you likely could get a campaign going to convince a fair amount of people to change their withholdings and delay payments to the federal government. The net would be the government borrows a bit more but it would be a news story and maybe wake some politicians up.
There is federal law that requires employers to withhold. The employers could not just ignore that law.
 
There is federal law that requires employers to withhold. The employers could not just ignore that law.
I'm well out of my depth but what if the individual claimed umpteen deductions? Is that legal if they claim them but don't end up taking them when the tax return is filed?
 
I'm well out of my depth but what if the individual claimed umpteen deductions? Is that legal if they claim them but don't end up taking them when the tax return is filed?
Have you ever owned a company or been in charge of payroll?

Have you ever received a check processed by someone such as ADP or PayChex and not the company you work for?

Just how does one tell ADP, “You must not send my withholding to the federal government.”

Just how does one tell their employer, “Don’t send my withholding to the federal government.”
 
Back
Top