States that cry "SOVEREIGNTY" shouldn't have hands reaching out for Fed Gov't funds.

[Union Yes]

Let them fund their own state if they refuse to play by the Fed govt's rules.

If you think this is a new tactic then start researching how the Federal Govt in the past has threatened to withhold funding from states that refuse to comply with a Federal reg or law. Once a state complies, the threat is lifted.

Sovereign states don't require federal funds, right?

Because they are smarter than the rest of us and aren't running any deficits at all, right? NOT

[abluelady]

1. Please Don't Suggest That

There are many of us in those states who don't vote with the majority. We don't deserve that. We really do try to make things right. Fortunately, there will be more elections and we might have a chance to change things.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. It is ironic that in most cases, the same states that are whining about having to

pay taxes to the Federal Government are the very same states that PAY THE LEAST TO, AND GET THE MOST FROM, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
And to the surprise of no one..they are primarily RED states.

Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/the_red_state_ripoff.html

Over at the Fourth Branch,
http://www.thefourthbranch.com/2010/04/government-spending/
they've got a nice map showing the states that receive more than a dollar back for every dollar they pay in taxes (which they've coded red), and the states that receive less than a dollar back for every dollar they pay in taxes (which they've coded blue). Just to repeat: Red states are getting a good deal, and blue states a bad one. Here's the map:
Federal Taxes Paid vs. Federal Spending Received by State, 1981-2005




Fourth Branch comments:

There is a very strong correlation, then, between a state voting for Republicans and receiving more in federal spending than its residents pay to the federal government in taxes (the rust belt and Texas being notable exceptions). In essence, those in blue states are subsidizing those in red states. Both red and blue states appear to be acting politically in opposition to their economic interests. Blue states are voting for candidates who are likely to continue the policies of red state subsidization while red states are voting for candidates who profess a desire to reduce federal spending (and presumably red state subsidization)

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

[SoCalNative]

3. I think we should just let all of the flyover states

secede. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[notesdev]

4. There is no such thing as federal gov't funds

They are OUR funds, they belong to We the People.

Including the people of each and every State.

>Let them fund their own state if they refuse to play by the Fed govt's rules.

Every state has the ability to do just fine on their own, just as do the individual countries of the EU.

>Sovereign states don't require federal funds, right?

Then they don't submit to federal taxes, either. How many states would take that tradeoff? Quite a few, I'd wager. You really want to pursue this line of attack?

> Because they are smarter than the rest of us and aren't running any deficits at all, right? NOT

If you knew the first thing about state budgets, you would know that the very kind of federal mandates you so arrogantly demand should be imposed upon the states are easily the top reason why many states can't get their budgets in order.


Listen, just a little advice... when you know nothing about a topic and have nothing but churning visceral emotions ungrounded in reality or fact, it might not be the best idea to advertise it to the general public by posting a thread. With regards to the topic, I would highly suggest that you review the 9th and 10th Amendments to more fully understand what is the relationship between the federal government and the states.