@shipwreckedcrew Silly idea, perhaps. If the state follows certain procedures, then the burden should fall on challengers to prove fraud. However, if you don’t, then the onus should be on the state district to prove accuracy. Have at it.
@shipwreckedcrew You can come up with an infinite number of excuses why it might not be fraud, and it would take years to prove a case - long after the damage is done. When the IRS “flags” you, it’s your burden of proof. There is no presumption of innocence.
@CynicalPublius If you look up previous anniversaries, there were always allegations of it being politicized. I mean if Kamala Harris had won, it wouldn’t have been? LOL. When all is said and done, eventually, it comes does to the principles that you expressed in the original post.
@shipwreckedcrew I am sorry, my gut tells me that any agreement that keeps the current regime in place is a bandage on a wound that will continue to fester.
@EricLDaugh Well I guess that’s the way a state-owned store can succeed. Use and borrow tax money from everyone else, drive private stores out of business as a result of the competition advantages and then eventually monopolize the market. Cue the breadlines.
@ding_guy@wakeupnj To be clear then, you wouldn’t mind if data centers purchased non-farm properties, like those abandoned by other companies, as long as provisions were made for them to pay for the excess utilities required. Correct?
@ding_guy@wakeupnj@grok Fair comment, but what is the alternate - they will be built somewhere. Utilities, are an issue yes and if the Company doesn’t pay for it, you have a point, but that will be a problem in any state. So, construction jobs, and then 50-100 permanent - and then ancillary jobs.