Sorry Ms. Raich, the drug war is more important than your life

really??? I like to see any state in the Nation keep their highways even drivable for very long without Federal funding. Nice try but I don't buy it.

Where is it written the Federal Government has to provide paved roads? Or any roads for that matter?
I'm torn on the pot issue but I don't see withholding federal money as extortion or blackmail. The states are not punished if they don't accept federal funds. They may not have pretty roads, but that is a community/state problem, not a federal problem. You are paying federal taxes for federal programs and state taxes for state programs. Roads are state programs.
 
I don't care whether you buy it or not. Its the law.
You are failing to make a very necessary distinction here. Denying the funds is not "the law" it is "within the law". Meaning there is no law that says the federal govt can use allocated funds as bribery or extortion but there are no laws that prevent it. The standing law allows them enough latitude to use funding to punish states that pass laws that interefere with the federal level agenda but it does not specifically permit or endorse it.
 
Where is it written the Federal Government has to provide paved roads? Or any roads for that matter?
I'm torn on the pot issue but I don't see withholding federal money as extortion or blackmail. The states are not punished if they don't accept federal funds. They may not have pretty roads, but that is a community/state problem, not a federal problem. You are paying federal taxes for federal programs and state taxes for state programs. Roads are state programs.

Odd, that, because it seems to me that federal dollars are used for road construction in my state. It even tells at every road construction site on a pretty orange sign how many dollars for the project are from the state and how many are from the federal. The federal government also provides money to state-funded schools, libraries, etc.

I mean, I looked over your statement, to make sure you weren't trying to say how things should be or something....but no, it seems you actually think this is the way things are. And you are dead wrong. The wrongest of the wrong. You could not be wrongerer. Federal dollars are used constantly for programs that you'd think would be state/community matters. Where do these dollars come from? Why, from the citizens of that state, of course (though there is also some redistribution going on, from wealthy/more populous states to more rural).

They're nice enough to take money from the citizens of the state (and thus the state's tax base), and return it in the form of funding for things the state could have covered on their own had the federal government not been taxing their citizens for them (and thus the state would have been able to raise taxes for them). Why are they nice enough to play middleman with my tax money? Why, power of course! Hard to use the threat of withheld funds to force states to do what you want if the states manage to get to the tax dollars first.
 
Odd, that, because it seems to me that federal dollars are used for road construction in my state. It even tells at every road construction site on a pretty orange sign how many dollars for the project are from the state and how many are from the federal. The federal government also provides money to state-funded schools, libraries, etc.

I mean, I looked over your statement, to make sure you weren't trying to say how things should be or something....but no, it seems you actually think this is the way things are. And you are dead wrong. The wrongest of the wrong. You could not be wrongerer. Federal dollars are used constantly for programs that you'd think would be state/community matters. Where do these dollars come from? Why, from the citizens of that state, of course (though there is also some redistribution going on, from wealthy/more populous states to more rural).

They're nice enough to take money from the citizens of the state (and thus the state's tax base), and return it in the form of funding for things the state could have covered on their own had the federal government not been taxing their citizens for them (and thus the state would have been able to raise taxes for them). Why are they nice enough to play middleman with my tax money? Why, power of course! Hard to use the threat of withheld funds to force states to do what you want if the states manage to get to the tax dollars first.


How did I know you would bite. As usual, you didn't read what was written. You read what you wanted me to say. I never said they weren't used. I said they aren't required to be provided. Providing roads, schools, or libraries in your community are not federal issues. States have come to rely on federal funding for those things and federal taxes have increased because of that reliance. How many states do not have a state income tax? Why should they, when they get federal funding to support their communities? I would be all for paying less federal taxes and paying a state income tax that was funding projects in my community.


Edit: That would also increase my tax amount paid since FL does not have an income tax, but I see it as a more equitable solution.
 
A++ on those last to paragraphs Juan.

Blackmail by any other name is still blackmail. With holding funds to get you way is just that blackmail. legal or not.
 
How did I know you would bite. As usual, you didn't read what was written. You read what you wanted me to say.

No, I read what you wrote.

"You are paying federal taxes for federal programs and state taxes for state programs. Roads are state programs."

Note use of the word "are," implying present tense. As it stands (as in, at the present) roads are not state programs. They are shared state/federal programs, and thus you are paying federal taxes for them. I responded to exactly what you said, and if that wasn't what you meant then you need to work on that not complain to me.

I never said they weren't used. I said they aren't required to be provided. Providing roads, schools, or libraries in your community are not federal issues. States have come to rely on federal funding for those things and federal taxes have increased because of that reliance. How many states do not have a state income tax? Why should they, when they get federal funding to support their communities? I would be all for paying less federal taxes and paying a state income tax that was funding projects in my community.

Oh, me too. The problem is that it's a hard thing to undo...because federal taxes are not something that vary from state to state. Montana can't simply refuse federal aid for things like libraries or roads, because whether or not our state takes the federal money our state's taxpayers will be giving it to the feds. It's not like they're just going to give it back.

So unless the feds suddenly decide to get out of the road and library business (which they have no incentive to do, since it would take away this power that they have...you know, the whole "blackmail" thing we're talking about) the states are pretty much stuck doing what the federal government wants in order to get their citizens' money back.
 
No, I read what you wrote.

"You are paying federal taxes for federal programs and state taxes for state programs. Roads are state programs."

Note use of the word "are," implying present tense. As it stands (as in, at the present) roads are not state programs. They are shared state/federal programs, and thus you are paying federal taxes for them. I responded to exactly what you said, and if that wasn't what you meant then you need to work on that not complain to me.

I agree that interstate highways are a federal/state program.
Do you agree that they have a right to fund or not fund a program they control or decide to pull out of a program they are partners in controlling?


Oh, me too. The problem is that it's a hard thing to undo...because federal taxes are not something that vary from state to state. Montana can't simply refuse federal aid for things like libraries or roads, because whether or not our state takes the federal money our state's taxpayers will be giving it to the feds. It's not like they're just going to give it back.

Nobody is forcing them to take the money. Don't take the federal funding and make yourself feel good thinking all of your federal taxes are going for programs like the military or some other program you like.

So unless the feds suddenly decide to get out of the road and library business (which they have no incentive to do, since it would take away this power that they have...you know, the whole "blackmail" thing we're talking about) the states are pretty much stuck doing what the federal government wants in order to get their citizens' money back.

They have no incentive to because those who are into wealth redistribution would have a cardiac that some states aren't getting the same "advantages" as others.

I do agree with you that we have went too far down the road with wealth redistribution and we will never reverse course.
 
Do you agree that they have a right to fund or not fund a program they control or decide to pull out of a program they are partners in controlling?
Actually, I do not agree. The feds should not be able to say "we are building an interstate roadway...but only for the states that behave themselves." The people in the other states paid no less federal taxes than did the ones that were deemed worthy...and in many cases the states that misbehave actually paid more due to higher average incomes.
 
Actually, I do not agree. The feds should not be able to say "we are building an interstate roadway...but only for the states that behave themselves." The people in the other states paid no less federal taxes than did the ones that were deemed worthy...and in many cases the states that misbehave actually paid more due to higher average incomes.


If they decide to fund hot house tomatoes in all 50 states for 30 years, but decide at year 2 it's a money losing waste of funds in 10 states; they should be on the hook for 28 more years because people planned their 30 year budgets on money they haven't received yet?
 
If they decide to fund hot house tomatoes in all 50 states for 30 years, but decide at year 2 it's a money losing waste of funds they should be on the hook for 28 more years because people planned their 30 year budgets on money they haven't received yet?
You completely lost me on that one. What is the logical connection between a failed tomatoe project and witholding necessary funding for infastructure from a states citizens?
 
You completely lost me on that one. What is the logical connection between a failed tomatoe project and witholding necessary funding for infastructure from a states citizens?


The connection is.......................
You said they can't stop funding for programs they feel are money losing wastes.
I took it to the extreme example waste as an illustration of the foolishness of that thought process.
 
As interesting as all of this is (and that's not meant sarcastically in the least), it all comes down to prove the same point--it's all centered around the all-mighty dollar. He who controls the money controls the people.
 
Wouldn't that fall under the right to pursue life, liberty & happiness? I would think so, especially in relation to a medical condition.
Today 02:54 PM

Hmm must be a penumbra or emanation or some such like thing...:D

WildooopstheawordnowwhoseoxisgoredAlaska
 
And with that Rangefinder, let's get back to smokin' dope. The thread is veering off topic. JC PP feel free to pm if you want further discussion.
 
You have lost me and everyone I have asked about that your DonR101395.

The states were supposed to get money for their highways and the fed doesn't give them that money because, god forbid, they have the drinking age at 20. I don't know how you can look at that and not think it is wrong.

If I pay Bob to mow my lawn for $20 per mow and give him $100 for 5 mowings, but Bob then decides he won't mow my lawn because I support Canidate X while he supports Canidate Y. Would I not be within my right to demand my money back? Would Bob not have his butt handed to him in court if he refused?

It would really be nice if the states could sieze the funds that go to the feds and tell them to go screw off, here is your share minus the money we should be getting for roads and stuff. We can do this stuff ourselves, your track record isn't anything to brag about.
 
Ok, one last post.
You do not have a legal right to have paved roads to drive your car from state to state. You have a legal right to travel from state to state, but it's not up to the Feds to figure out how you get to Grandma's house.
Is that in simple enough terms?


I'm out........................we're taking this thread too far from smokin' dope.
 
The states were supposed to get money for their highways and the fed doesn't give them that money because, god forbid, they have the drinking age at 20. I don't know how you can look at that and not think it is wrong.

No no no no. The states have NO entitlement to those funds. They aren't "supposed" to get anything. If the feds choose to offer it to them, thats their prerogative, however there is nothing that says the feds must give the states money for highways.

If I pay Bob to mow my lawn for $20 per mow and give him $100 for 5 mowings, but Bob then decides he won't mow my lawn because I support Canidate X while he supports Canidate Y. Would I not be within my right to demand my money back? Would Bob not have his butt handed to him in court if he refused?

Wrong again. No one is changing the rules mid stream. The proper example is if Bob walked up to you and you said "I'll pay you 100 to mow my lawn for a month but only if you use a craftsman mower". If Bob wants the money then he's gonna have to mow your lawn with a craftsman. If he doesn't want to go to the trouble of getting one he can decline. If he wants the money than he has to find one.

Thats the difference. Bob, or the states will not (and since this has already been decided did not) have their butt handed to them in court.
 
That is unless there is some massive uprising from the populace.

Darnit! I must have missed the massive uprising when we got rid of the stupid 55 mph nationwide speed limit! And I LOVE a good massive uprising!

(Or maybe that was just a law which lacked real popular support, much like the prohibition on medical marijuana).
 
STAGE 2, are you even aware of the reasons for the Interstate Highway System? It was (and nominally still is) a Federal project for the National Security.

The States do have an entitlement to federal monies for the upkeep and maintenence of this system of roads.
 
Back
Top