• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I say cut off the Federal lifeline to the southern MAGA states who continue to disobey the SCOTUS and other states' sovereignty.

T

thinkingoutloud

Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2023
Messages
874
Reaction score
1,289
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Find a way to let those states be self-sufficient without Federal bail outs and subsidies and catastrophic aid by using just their own taxes and other contributions to Federal revenues and stop the flow of the unbalanced support from the BLUE states. Everyone knows the east and west coast Blues contribute much more to Federal revenues than the red states. The MAGA states do not want to obey our laws, respect our military, or support our democracy.
 
Craig234 said:
It's the wrong solution for a real problem that needs one. Government programs that help the poor are not political weapons, or they shouldn't be.
Click to expand...
However, things like highway funds should be. Also start looking to relocate military bases to states that don't feel compelled to ignore SCOTUS. These weasel states that are all about sucking at the federal teat and then violate the U.S. Constitution with impunity has got to stop.
 
Craig234 said:
It's the wrong solution for a real problem that needs one. Government programs that help the poor are not political weapons, or they shouldn't be.
Click to expand...
When the federal government wanted the minimum drinking age raised to 21, it threatened to cut off federal highway funding to states that didn't comply. I can live with that.
 
those areas contribute more because their cost of living is higher, and their tax collections and wages are as well, with the most population density. It stands to reason.
 
Hypothetical said:
those areas contribute more because their cost of living is higher, and their tax collections and wages are as well, with the most population density. It stands to reason.
Click to expand...
Those areas contribute more because they're far more productive.
 
Loulit01 said:
When the federal government wanted the minimum drinking age raised to 21, it threatened to cut off federal highway funding to states that didn't comply. I can live with that.
Click to expand...
That was a dubious tactic - but this is much worse.
 
Maybe a lot of Southerners would like it if the federal government stopped its subsidies and such a move resulted in the South's having more de facto autonomy.

Then people who feel that their lives were adversely impacted by a loss of federal aid could then leave the South and move north.

Maybe such voluntary internal emigration would assist in the coming national divorce that is predicted sometime in the next century.

It would be a win-win for everyone.

The liberals would have the North.
The conservatives would have the South.
The moderates would have the Midwest.
 
Nonsens
 
Population matters
 
The problem is, when Democrats do things for a good reason, Republicans do them for a bad one. It's like when Democrats impeach Nixon for good reason, Republicans impeach Clinton for a bad one. Having things like military bases become more politicized might not be a good idea, even if Democrats have a good reason. Of course Republicans also tend to do wrong things for a bad reason regardless.
 
There must be a price to be paid. Federal dollars (not mandated by the Constitution) is our only leverage.

Do you remember the 55 MPH 'federal' speed limit back in the 1970s?

There was no federal speed limit. That was simply the federal government incentivizing states to lower their speed limits to reduce fuel consumption during the OPEC oil embargo. How did they do it? They told the states "You don't have to lower your speed limits. However, if you don't we will withhold federal highway funds until you do." Every state complied.

The same thing can be done to encourage states to comply with SCOTUS rulings. When you take the king's coin, you will do the king's bidding.
 
Yes, and it's a dubious measure. If you agree, it seems fine. What happens when a Republican administration uses it to push states to build walls or end sanctuary cities or ban marijuana or restrict abortion?
 
Craig234 said:
Yes, and it's a dubious measure. If you agree, it seems fine. What happens when a Republican administration uses it to push states to build walls or end sanctuary cities or ban marijuana or restrict abortion?
Click to expand...
The limitation is that it has to apply to ALL states equally. The feds can't tell Texas "Build a wall on the southern border or we will withhold funds," unless they tell ALL states they must build walls.

As far as sanctuary cities goes, that is all about federal funding, apples and oranges. The feds want cities to expend their own limited resources locking up illegals and holding them until the feds get around to taking custody and they don't want to reimburse the cities for doing the fed's job. That doesn't fly in court.

Abortion? The court has ruled that if the feds want to allow abortions, it is up to each state. If the feds want to ban abortion, it is no longer "up to the states"? Total BS.
 
Craig234 said:
Yes, and it's a dubious measure. If you agree, it seems fine. What happens when a Republican administration uses it to push states to build walls or end sanctuary cities or ban marijuana or restrict abortion?
Click to expand...
It often seems great at the moment but things can turn quickly. Harry Reid's nuclear option comes to mind. Now look who's on SCOTUS.
(It came up in another thread.)
 
This would make the problem much worse.
 
Hypothetical said:
those areas contribute more because their cost of living is higher, and their tax collections and wages are as well, with the most population density. It stands to reason.
Click to expand...
No, those areas create more revenue because some states refuse to raise their state taxes or cut state benefits. Higher population states have more problems because of their populations. If CA didn't send excess tax revenues to other states, we have issues that we could use our federal tax dollars to support federal initiatives.
 
TheParser said:
Maybe a lot of Southerners would like it if the federal government stopped its subsidies and such a move resulted in the South's having more de facto autonomy.
Click to expand...

They're not doing so hot as it is.

 

^ Confederalism. Rejected.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
Abortion? The court has ruled that if the feds want to allow abortions, it is up to each state. If the feds want to ban abortion, it is no longer "up to the states"? Total BS.
Click to expand...

You're missing both the bigger point about this used for bad policies, and the specific ones. Drinking age and speed limits are 'up to the states' also. That's the whole point here is the federal government pressuring states on policies that are up to them.
 
I don't know why people continue to think of a state as one entity. All this red state bashing is ignorant.
First of all, those 'red' states can have a good number of left leaning voters, and I wouldn't punish the whole state. Second, Vermont is a blue state, but in the 'red' state numbers as far as contributing to Federal revenues. Going to punish them as well?
 
Hypothetical said:
those areas contribute more because their cost of living is higher, and their tax collections and wages are as well, with the most population density. It stands to reason.
Click to expand...


Ok so explain why most of the states who are the most dependent on federal tax dollars are red states? Why can't red states support themselves?

The reason for that is because they have lowered their state taxes too much to the point that they don't have the revenue to support and maintain their states. So they depend on the blue states to support them. They refuse to increase their minimum wage so people can't support themselves and are on public assistance.

They can raise their state taxes to support themselves but they refuse to do so. They are the biggest deadbeats in our nation. They can raise their minimum wage so people can support themselves and be a contributing member of our society instead of a deadbeat leach on the blue states.

Most & Least Federally Dependent States in 2025

Most & Least Federally Dependent States in 2025
wallethub.com

We need a law that prohibits any state from taking more federal dollars than they contribute. If a state needs more money than they contribute, that money is in the form of a loan with very strict conditions for repayment. If a state has to do that more than once, the government should step in to fix the problem. Put the red state on a proper budget with proper tax and wage increases to support themselves and pay back the money they borrowed.

That's called supporting yourself or not being a deadbeat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…