5 ms·

I don’t think states rights is defined by whether they receive money from the federal government.

• _heimdall 2y ago
  There is a history of federal funding drying up when states don't follow federal guidelines. Louisiana didn't have ant federal funding for roads for years because they were refusing to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21.
  • mbostleman 2y ago
    I don't see how this addresses my point. State rights is the ability of a state to act on their own - not have unfettered access to federal funds.
    • _heimdall 2y ago
      Sure, but the GP you were replying to was focused on the risk of states losing federal funding and how that leverage is making many act differently in response.
    • mindslight 2y ago
      When the federal government takes somewhere between 50% and 100% of the income tax payed by a state's citizens simply to give it back to the state with strings attached, that is a straightforward undermining of the state being able to act on its own. In general, it's amazing how reliably crypto-authoritarian points are prefixed with "I don't see how". It exploits our natural advantage to assume good faith and difficulty understanding, rather than a willful ignoring of coercion.