Anarchy zones in the US

#2
#2
Ok so is the Treasury going to issue refunds to every resident in those areas that paid federal income taxes that were diverted by this action? I mean you can’t take the citizens money and then not live up to the commitments those monies were collected for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clarksvol00, k-town_king and hog88
#3
#3
NorthDallas40 said:
Ok so is the Treasury going to issue refunds to every resident in those areas that paid federal income taxes that were diverted by this action? I mean you can’t take the citizens money and then not live up to the commitments those monies were collected for.
Click to expand...
Why not, the cities did?
 
#11
#11
I don't know if it's defunding the police to withhold grant money unless they are grants already applied for and approved. Certainly it should be within the Federal Governments purview to deny any future grants based on the jurisdictions in question performance for what the grant would be used for. The Feds can set the conditions for said grants.
 
#12
#12
NorthDallas40 said:
I said federal income tax. I’m willing to extend the same statement to local and state taxing authorities also though.
Click to expand...
Well, the federal government doesn't provide police protection to individual citizens, they provide a military, interstate highways, bridges and infrastructure in general. If you want the cities that allow their citizens property to burn down in exchange for their federal income taxes back I'm good with that. Just don't expect anything in return from the rest of the country.
 
#13
#13
RockyTop85 said:
BOT: “Biden said he was open to reducing police funding. This is a radical left agenda. It makes him unfit to hold office.”
Trump: “I’m defunding the police.”
BOT: “About damn time.”

😂🤣
Click to expand...
Serious question. Are these federal police?
 
#14
#14
37L1 said:
I don't know if it's defunding the police to withhold grant money unless they are grants already applied for and approved. Certainly it should be within the Federal Governments purview to deny any future grants based on the jurisdictions in question performance for what the grant would be used for. The Feds can set the conditions for said grants.
Click to expand...
You know if all required taxes to run state and local governments were administered at the state and local level then no city would have to worry about the federal overlords holding grant money over them. Just sayin’

It’s almost like... we should have a minimalist federal government that was only funded to deal with issues common to all 50 states and not propping up the budgets of singular municipalities! 😳
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01, LouderVol, Weezy and 3 others
#16
#16
RockyTop85 said:
“Conservatives:” “wake me up when Trump does something unconstitutional.”
Trump: “I’m usurping the spending power.”
“Conservatives:” “About damn time.”
Click to expand...
Serious question: Is the President bound to spend money Congress has earmarked?

And serious question: Is this the first time federal moneys have gone to localized governments with strings attached?
 
#17
#17
VolStrom said:
Well, the federal government doesn't provide police protection to individual citizens, they provide a military, interstate highways, bridges and infrastructure in general. If you want the cities that allow their citizens property to burn down in exchange for their federal income taxes back I'm good with that. Just don't expect anything in return from the rest of the country.
Click to expand...
Oh I don’t disagree with that. Look at my just previous post. I struggle to see how any of my tax monies collected in Texas should wind up in Seattle or NYC in the first damn place.
 
#18
#18
37L1 said:
I don't know if it's defunding the police to withhold grant money unless they are grants already applied for and approved. Certainly it should be within the Federal Governments purview to deny any future grants based on the jurisdictions in question performance for what the grant would be used for. The Feds can set the conditions for said grants.
Click to expand...

Uh oh. This guy is okay with cutting any police funding. We got a radical leftist over here.
 
#21
#21
This seems somehow pertinent:

As part of its rationale for labeling the cities as such, the Justice Department cited city councils voting to cut police funding, the refusal to prosecute protesters for charges like disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly, the rejection of federal intervention, and law enforcement officials suffering injuries during violent outbursts.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01, NorthDallas40 and VolStrom
#24
#24
RockyTop85 said:
Uh oh. This guy is okay with cutting any police funding. We got a radical leftist over here.
Click to expand...
It's not cutting funds if they haven't been granted yet. I'm not sure if that's what they are talking about when the article referred to "grant money."

You play for the Feds $ and they call the tune, that's the way it has always worked. Don't want to dance to their tune, use your own $. Sounds like the Feds are planning to change the tune and the dance. Not sure it's a good thing but it sounds like the carrot or the stick, in other words, "Do your job or no soup for you."
 
#25
#25
One: "Parents should send their kids to college."
Two: "My boss refused to send my kid to college even though the company has a provision to pay for peoples' college."
One: "Really? That's weird."
Two: "Yah. They want a say so in what the kids studiy, and they want to make sure the kid keeps above a C GPO. I told them to get bent and they refused to pay for my kid's college. Can you believe that?!"
One: "I can actually understand why."
Two: "You said my kid's college should be paid for! You unbelievably horrible hypocrite!"
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top