Free Republic

NY state taxpayers have historically paid more revenue via income taxes to the federal government than is received back to the state in federal government spending. Federal spending in NY on a per capita basis is on par with the total federal spending per capita (US). NY though, pays federal income taxes at a higher per capita rate than the US average. That means that NY is actually subsidizing other states. This redistributive function of the federal tax system is by design, to subsidize poorer states in the system.

Property and local taxes should be deductible because they reduce net income. If someone has less net income, their federal tax liability is reduced. Some people are ok with and believe it’s good policy to effectively tax a tax. I oppose this perspective because in my mind, it smacks of double-jeopardy.

The idea that NYers are subsidized by the lower tax states because they can write-off a greater number of taxes paid, supports the idea that the larger pool of revenues of the federal government are in fact the property of the federal government. Same thinking goes into the statement made by opponents of tax cuts, who beg the question - how are we going to pay for this tax cut? This perspective is rooted in the belief that tax revenue is actually the government’s money, not the taxpayer’s.

After the last round of tax cuts, government revenues increased. The issue here is not on the revenue side, it’s on the spending side. Spending needs to be reigned in...taxes can and should be cut further.

Generally agree with your comment. Read Ricardo for backup.
Everyone benefits from “free trade” - the sellers and they buyers.
Raising tariffs protects inefficient industries and raises the price of goods. More people in the economy are hurt when tariffs go up than are hurt with low tariffs that can displace some workers in select industries.

The problem is that trade is often not “free” and is not always fair. Dumping occurs when a country sells product for less than it cost to make it. Dumping is a serious problem that disrupts supply chains, domestic industries and displaces workers. Trade deals are supposed to protect domestic economies from dumping practices but need to be aggressively enforced.

Trump is only partly correct in his view on US trade deals. The US has negotiated good trade deals because our tariff structures are comparatively low, and we get more tariff reduction for our exports to other countries than other countries get in tariff reductions for their exports to the US. Historically (up to and including NAFTA) the US has made some good deals, and then aggressively beats countries over the head when they fail to comply. Trump’s criticism of US trade policy may be more valid when focused on the crony capitalism that Obama ascribes to. The scope of TPP, for example, goes beyond “trade” into other areas of the economy, so the value of TPP is suspect. We all know Obama does not favor deals that enhance or strengthen the US position in the world economy. Since Obama is apparently motivated to knock the US down a few notches, Trump’s criticism of current US policy has validity.

Why and how the Right continues to let the Left run the Right’s show is absolutely astonishing.

Wasn't the last true debate in US electoral politics Lincoln-Douglas?

They just don't run the show, the left effectively selects the candidates for the Republicans. Allowing independents and party affiliation gamesmanship into the primary process closes the deal. Makes one wonder.

Maybe not legally, but the betrayal is obvious.
What they (Jarrett/Obama) arguably practice is sedition. Paradoxical because they in fact represent the legal authority (i.e., Constitution) they offend. Not sure the republic has faced this before - maybe in the Roosevelt administration. The Moslem Brotherhood scenario in Egypt draws parallels to abdicating Stalin and partitioning Europe out of the Yalta agreement.

Short-term solutions ride solely with the Congress, possibly SCOTUS. Unfortunately, we have lost the checks and balances the Constitutional system was designed to promote to 100+ years of progressivism and communist subversion.

Cream was an awesome power trio. Really enjoy cranking their music.
RIP Jack Bruce.

Sure, it's the smart thing to do financially.

AND...it's in keeping with the spirit of the law.
Seems the affordable health care act was meant to force people into the hands of the government by design. The idea is to hasten the transition to a single payer system. If the movement toward unbounded socialism comes at the price of religious freedom, all the better in the mind of the committed leftist.

Shipping costs are an important variable in the online purchase calculus. But so is time travelling to a shopping center, fuel for the car, dealing with cashiers who can’t count change; for those averse to shopping, the pain points are multifarious. The value of online shopping vs brick & mortar retail will vary with the friction of distance and the conduciveness of specific product classes to the online purchase experience. Does taxation tip the balance over to the BM retail interests?

In the end, taxes hurt everyone - and as noted, on many purchases the tax is already being collected, so this law does nothing. In New York state for example, if you itemize your state income tax, you have to (~ahem voluntarily) declare online purchases and calculate the tax the state of New York expects.

Per the article, the administration is claiming the legislation will “allow a state to collect sales tax on Internet purchases made by its residents, even if the Internet company has its headquarters in a different state.”
Say what? That’s already happening...so what’s the legislation really about?

Control. Political favor. The “right” thing to do.

The 8% raped number put out there for the intact biological family seems high too. But the likelihood 3 to 4 times greater of being a rape victim because your guardians are homosexual - that is quite alarming.

Our society needs some objective eyes on this. If these numbers are true, and can be otherways substantiated, the practice of allowing homosexuals to raise children needs to end.

Similar to a DWI checkpoint - I encountered a drug specific roadblock driving through a small town in western New York state. This was a dozen years ago or so - the dissolution of liberty vis-a-vis the 4th ammendment has been going on for decades.

The roadblocks are not random though. Since they stop everyone and give everyone the same hairy eyeball, it's ok right? Equality under the of the law? That's the thinking of politicians and law enforcement.

Looks like the work was completed in 2005, between April 13 and May 29. Google Earth has historical imagaery at the coordinates (40.45, 93.74) referenced by Las Vegas Dave.
The April 13 image shows site with trucks and work-in-progress with respect to the resulting pattern. The May 29 image shows site abandonment.

The article says the Catholic agencies have already stepped back from running child placement services because they have been forced into dealing with LGBT couples.

The real kicker in this article is that a reivew of 59 studies was recently published that contradicts the proposed leglislation. The conclusion of the review was that broad statements equating the rearing of children in gay/lesbian households to the rearing of children in straight households cannot be supported. Gillibrand runs counter to the recent research (and centuries of common sense) in favor of an ideology that promotes gay/lesbian activiism.

Gillibrand is Roman Catholic herself, at least per her bio on Wikipedia.

According to her bio on Wiki, she's Roman Catholic herself. Go figure.

Couldn't agree more.
They didn't even read the legislation they signed!

Keeping the government at bay (i.e., fending off government) is the positive change we need.

Your comments about his art being in the arrangement and melody are so true - and largely overlooked by the lyric analysts and critics of his performance and singing style.

Dylan’s tours in the 1990s were marked by excellent musicianship - he surrounded himself with some real talent on stage.

The Rabbi is correct. Atheists benefit from the stability to society that religious organization affords. This is isn’t a Judeo-Christian thing either - ancient Greeks and Romans who were polytheists found the same benefit to organizing their religion. In the the ancient context, individuals would belong to a specific temple, which served as a support network for the other aspects of their lives - business/commerce, art and culture, politics and warfare. I saw the Rabbi makes these comments, and he was citing the fact that human beings appear to be hardwired to seek religious affiliation - it provides basic meaning to the other aspsects of life mentioned above.

My problem with atheists is that they mostly come off as intellectually dishonest. They claim to not believe in God, but deny that this view is a belief system itself. I could care less how this unfolds for individuals on a personal level. However, it is hypocritical of the atheists who try to push organized belief systems out of the societal “marketplace” - for example, those atheists who actively work to remove the nativity scenes from public spaces fail to view their own cause as the promotion of a belief system.

What a lousy decision backing the tyranny of the left.
Justice Kennedy is obtuse to the point of stupidity in his comparison of voluntary membership in a campus group that rejects wanton sexuality with the denigrated (unjustly) efforts of Senator McCarthy to rid the government of communist subversives.

The college rejects the CLS becauase of the morality clause.
Why is the morality clause considered discriminatory?
Isn’t participation in the CLS voluntary?
Participation in the group is certaintly not required for graduation. If a student does not like the moral code of the CLS - that student is free to pass on joining the CLS group. Just having the moral code in place does not make the group hostile to people who reject that code - though if the university could provide evidence that the group’s activities and actions created a hostile atmosphere on the campus, their case against CLS would be stronger. Of course the college would never apply the same standards with respect to pet groups of the left who modus operendi includes harrassment and haranguing anyone who happens to be walking by - especially if they appear to disinterested.

The leftist tyrants have far too much control over socities institutions. I am so sick of the hypocrisy of the left whereby intolerance and insensitivity are used to promulgate the concept of tolerance itself. These efforts have nothing to do with “justice” (as in social justice) but are the exercise of sheer political power of one group over another. Talk about fostering a hostile environment!

The perversion of charitable endeavors into a tool of power and manipulation by the radical left is simply dispicable.

This hypocrisy of the left is unbounded. Claiming to be freeing the dependent class from the grips of the corporate power, they have institutionalized welfare across generations. The left has exploited the entitlement psychology to the extent that the “poor” ironically vote en-masse for platforms that assure their dependcency upon fed-gov. This is called progressive.

He’s a commie-fag-junkie-pervert-hippie-freak.

They changed the rule so they could vote earlier and go home.
Why not delay the voting until after the holiday?
Seriously, what’s the official reason?

This course of action can only be interpreted as wreckless. This isn’t some fly-by-night legislation, like a gratuitous pay raise voted in their own self-interest at 1 in the morning. We are talking about ram-rodding legislation likely to affect 1/7th of the economy on a timeline to meet holiday/vacation obligations?

In the US Senate, they must consider this health-economy legislation a war, for only dire circumstances would warrant such abandonment of process and procedure.
The US Senate as a warring party???