If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   The Constitution is clear. The states are the repository of police powers. State and local employees should not be supported by federal funds for constitutional as well as fiscal reasons   (townhall.com) divider line 71
    More: Obvious, police powers, federal funds, enumerated powers, constitutions, 10th Amendment, United States, gross domestic products  
•       •       •

1074 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Jun 2012 at 12:22 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-18 10:51:46 AM
Yes, it's right by the prohibition on "Czars" in the Tea Party Constitution.
 
2012-06-18 11:04:08 AM
However, the Constitution doesn't disallow states from receiving funds voluntarily from the Federal Government. And, if those voluntarily accepted funds from the Federal Government comes with stipulations that the states voluntarily agree to, well, then the states are on the hook.
 
2012-06-18 11:10:10 AM
So the endpoint of conservative political philosophy is when the USA is basically Somalia?
 
2012-06-18 11:45:59 AM

RexTalionis: However, the Constitution doesn't disallow states from receiving funds voluntarily from the Federal Government. And, if those voluntarily accepted funds from the Federal Government comes with stipulations that the states voluntarily agree to, well, then the states are on the hook.


That's a mighty elastic definition of "voluntarily". It's okay under the constitution if the state in effect sells its power to the federal government (which isn't supposed to have it)?
 
2012-06-18 11:51:21 AM
Hey Y'all, Let's get rid of the Teachers, Firefighters and Police.

Then America can be more like a festering booger of a country like Somalia -Libertarian paradise!
 
2012-06-18 11:52:40 AM

Gulper Eel: RexTalionis: However, the Constitution doesn't disallow states from receiving funds voluntarily from the Federal Government. And, if those voluntarily accepted funds from the Federal Government comes with stipulations that the states voluntarily agree to, well, then the states are on the hook.

That's a mighty elastic definition of "voluntarily". It's okay under the constitution if the state in effect sells its power to the federal government (which isn't supposed to have it)?


Suppose I give you $3,000 bucks to never drive on Sundays and you accept and you take my money and use it to buy whatever it is that you people buy.

Now, normally, you have a right to drive on whatever day you want and I have no power to force you to take any money. However, the moment you voluntarily agreed to take my money and agree to my conditions, your freedoms are now limited. You didn't have to take my money, and yet, you chose to anyway, knowing full well the limitations placed on you if you decided to take the money. In that case, you're on the hook and you cannot drive on Sundays, as per our agreement.
 
2012-06-18 12:05:39 PM
The states lost this fight a long time ago, but there is something to be said about independence in your finances.

But sure, I say, go ahead and refuse to accept federal funding for anything.

I'll ask you where your revenue will come from in order to do everything your citizens demand you do.
 
2012-06-18 12:17:37 PM
States DO control their own police, fire departments, and states and local school boards control the standards for their teachers.

If States and towns want Federal assistance, then there are standards which they must adhere to. Same with their FD and schools. That's kind of the point of Federal services is to supplement local services. Which is why States get money from the Fed--because their citizens have already paid into the system, so they can expect some services from the Fed, and often to supplement local and State programs, that the States and town governments can't possibly cover. Which is why we have an FDA and a EPA, since States don't have the manpower or the resources to administrate and cover things. The Fed is into education and assisting police and fire departments across the country, by making some standards across the board to give balance, and by funding programs that the States can enter into, and use their own funds elsewhere.

There is a simple way of excising the Federal influence, and that is not accepting those funds.

And watching your local taxes sky rocket in order to make up for those funds lost--or accept a loss of services. Don't accept aid from the Fed then. Just say no. And then make up for those lost funds that your taxpayers already contributed in their Federal taxes towards, and hit them up again for the share of the pie that they'd be entitled to. I'm sure that folks won't mind watching the State and property taxes rise, as well as fees and schedules for local services rise up, knowing that they're contributed to the Federal government's coffers, and knowing that they'd be eligible for services if the local administration would accept goofy things like standards for hiring and the like.

Go on. Do it. Don't just chew on the barrel, f*cking do it you pants head retarded jackanapes...
 
2012-06-18 12:25:56 PM

Gulper Eel: RexTalionis: However, the Constitution doesn't disallow states from receiving funds voluntarily from the Federal Government. And, if those voluntarily accepted funds from the Federal Government comes with stipulations that the states voluntarily agree to, well, then the states are on the hook.

That's a mighty elastic definition of "voluntarily". It's okay under the constitution if the state in effect sells its power to the federal government (which isn't supposed to have it)?


"isn't supposed to have"?

If the COnstitution is , by its very nature a grant of power from the natural soveriegn, the state, to the created soveriegn, the Federal government. Then why exactly can't they grant ti MORE power as they see fit?
 
2012-06-18 12:28:30 PM

Gulper Eel: That's a mighty elastic definition of "voluntarily". It's okay under the constitution if the state in effect sells its power to the federal government (which isn't supposed to have it)?


Sounds a lot like a contract.
 
2012-06-18 12:29:28 PM
In other news: the commentary is...entirely unhinged from reality. I am amazed that some of these folks can get out of bed and manage socks and shoes in the right order...
 
2012-06-18 12:30:57 PM
Then explain this one, why is it the states that are dominantly controlled by asshat Repubtards seem to suck off the most from big evil Federal government? Even good old Texas. If they think their state is so self sufficient in funds from their magical no taxes, then by all means DON'T ACCEPT THE MONEY. Oh wait, didn't we see this B.S. with the stimulus and all those Repubtard hypocrites?

Anyone remember that photo op of Gov Jindal and the big money check from stimulus funds after he had railed against stimulus funds? Townhall, you are morons, and your readers are troglodytes not fit to clean the *$&# out of my toilet.
 
2012-06-18 12:31:16 PM
We know we can always count on state police to do the right thing without any Federal oversight, right?

photos1.blogger.com
 
2012-06-18 12:34:00 PM
Subby has a point guys because as we all know, states are forced to take federal funds. Seriously, they are forced. At gunpoint.
 
2012-06-18 12:37:44 PM
I agree 100%. Let's send the red states back into the stone age where they already wish they were.
 
2012-06-18 12:38:12 PM

hubiestubert: In other news: the commentary is...entirely unhinged from reality. I am amazed that some of these folks can get out of bed and manage socks and shoes in the right order...


Who says they got out of bed?

/Restful Pines - Now with free WiFi!
 
2012-06-18 12:38:25 PM

RexTalionis: However, the Constitution doesn't disallow states from receiving funds voluntarily from the Federal Government. And, if those voluntarily accepted funds from the Federal Government comes with stipulations that the states voluntarily agree to, well, then the states are on the hook.


The Supreme Court has said in earlier rulings that there's a point at which attaching conditions to federal funds is unconstitutional. I'm hoping that at some point they tell us where that is.

Meanwhile, it's a good trick: give me your money. Ok, now if you want some of it back you have to do what I say.
 
2012-06-18 12:38:37 PM

lennavan: Subby has a point guys because as we all know, states are forced to take federal funds. Seriously, they are forced. At gunpoint.


YOU WILL TAKE OUR MONEY YOU LEECHES ON SOCIETY!!!
 
2012-06-18 12:39:17 PM

RexTalionis: Suppose I give you $3,000 bucks to never drive on Sundays and you accept and you take my money and use it to buy whatever it is that you people buy.

Now, normally, you have a right to drive on whatever day you want and I have no power to force you to take any money. However, the moment you voluntarily agreed to take my money and agree to my conditions, your freedoms are now limited. You didn't have to take my money, and yet, you chose to anyway, knowing full well the limitations placed on you if you decided to take the money. In that case, you're on the hook and you cannot drive on Sundays, as per our agreement.


I don't think your example really addresses the imbalance of power between the states and the federal government, or the fact that the federal funds are coming from taxes paid by the local citizens, who should be able to reasonably expect something for their taxes.
 
2012-06-18 12:39:37 PM

jjorsett: Meanwhile, it's a good trick: give me your money. Ok, now if you want some of it back you have to do what I say.


So... taxes are theft?
 
2012-06-18 12:40:04 PM

meat0918: The states lost this fight a long time ago, but there is something to be said about independence in your finances.

But sure, I say, go ahead and refuse to accept federal funding for anything.

I'll ask you where your revenue will come from in order to do everything your citizens demand you do.


Seems relevant
i.imgur.com
 
2012-06-18 12:40:30 PM
You know, I wonder if sometimes these idiots sit back and really think about what the "United" States of America would really be like if each state was pretty much its own sovereign country without any federal input. For argument's sake, let's say that Interstate Commerce (including currency), and the right to make treaty's is still within the federal government's domain, but say that the Department of Education, Department of the Interior, the EPA were all disbanded and left entirely up to the states. What would that actually look like?
 
2012-06-18 12:40:35 PM

NowhereMon: So the endpoint of conservative political philosophy is when the USA is basically Somalia?


As long as they end up being the Warlords and you are the one with the boot on your neck, yes.
 
2012-06-18 12:40:47 PM

jjorsett: The Supreme Court has said in earlier rulings that there's a point at which attaching conditions to federal funds is unconstitutional. I'm hoping that at some point they tell us where that is.


Perhaps those earlier rulings might shed some light on the matter?
 
2012-06-18 12:40:53 PM
How much you want to be that there's a link on that page to an article about how some republican dominated state manages to balance it's budget and the federal government should be forced to do the same?
 
2012-06-18 12:41:54 PM

Because People Spouting Nonsense on Fark are Stupid: Hey Y'all, Let's get rid of the Teachers, Firefighters and Police.

Then America can be more like a festering booger of a country like Somalia -Libertarian paradise!


Yes, that's the dichotomy: fund those functions from the federal government or do without them entirely.
 
2012-06-18 12:42:02 PM

palelizard: I don't think your example really addresses the imbalance of power between the states and the federal government, or the fact that the federal funds are coming from taxes paid by the local citizens, who should be able to reasonably expect something for their taxes.


I don't think your reply addressed federal funds actually being spent on tangible things. It seems you think federal dollars simply disappear into thin air. Further, it seems you think states are powerless to tax the local citizens and spend at a rate that can raise the money they need without outside help. That's silly. You're silly. This is all just silliness.
 
2012-06-18 12:42:29 PM

gulogulo: You know, I wonder if sometimes these idiots sit back and really think about what the "United" States of America would really be like if each state was pretty much its own sovereign country without any federal input. For argument's sake, let's say that Interstate Commerce (including currency), and the right to make treaty's is still within the federal government's domain, but say that the Department of Education, Department of the Interior, the EPA were all disbanded and left entirely up to the states. What would that actually look like?


Well, we'd have a lot more desert in SoCal and Arizona.

Hmm... *I'm okay with this.jpg*

/Not really okay with that.
 
2012-06-18 12:43:18 PM

jjorsett: RexTalionis: However, the Constitution doesn't disallow states from receiving funds voluntarily from the Federal Government. And, if those voluntarily accepted funds from the Federal Government comes with stipulations that the states voluntarily agree to, well, then the states are on the hook.

The Supreme Court has said in earlier rulings that there's a point at which attaching conditions to federal funds is unconstitutional. I'm hoping that at some point they tell us where that is.

Meanwhile, it's a good trick: give me your money. Ok, now if you want some of it back you have to do what I say.


Get used to it. More and more states are cutting their taxes, schools, and public services in increasing amounts. The result of this will be a greater reliance on federal funds to make up the deficit. The side effect of that is the federal government has more say in what that state does.

Don't get mad at me, conservatives voted for this very thing in their states. They wanted it. Now they get to live with it. So much for states rights.
 
2012-06-18 12:45:20 PM

lennavan: jjorsett: Meanwhile, it's a good trick: give me your money. Ok, now if you want some of it back you have to do what I say.

So... taxes are theft?


Compulsory. Unavoidable. Sanctioned by law and enforced by government police power. Take your pick.

That's a pretty weak attempt at deflection, but I suppose when there's no decent argument straws will be grasped at.
 
2012-06-18 12:46:09 PM

Doc Lee: I agree 100%. Let's send the red states back into the stone age where they already wish they were.


Lets do a The Village with the entire south, we'll lock them in a make believe 16th century Colony with phony monsters-suited"Libruls" that will kill them if they go beyond their borders.

It's a win win.
 
2012-06-18 12:47:01 PM

actualhuman: jjorsett: The Supreme Court has said in earlier rulings that there's a point at which attaching conditions to federal funds is unconstitutional. I'm hoping that at some point they tell us where that is.

Perhaps those earlier rulings might shed some light on the matter?


They amount to: "Hey, keep this up and we're going to stop the car." We just don't know yet how much misbehavior it'll take before the breaking point is reached.
 
2012-06-18 12:47:22 PM

palelizard: I don't think your example really addresses the imbalance of power between the states and the federal government, or the fact that the federal funds are coming from taxes paid by the local citizens, who should be able to reasonably expect something for their taxes.


OK, besides military defense, atomic power, the internet, national police forces, the post office, and unified currency; WHAT has the federal government ever done for US?
 
2012-06-18 12:50:10 PM
Why is it that the people who quote the Federalist Papers are also the ones who scream about the Bill of Rights, or at least those amendments that they feel entitle them to be a douche nozzle? See Federalist No. 84
 
2012-06-18 12:51:05 PM

kinglerer: Why is it that the people who quote the Federalist Papers are also the ones who scream about the Bill of Rights, or at least those amendments that they feel entitle them to be a douche nozzle? See Federalist No. 84


Your statement infringes on my 3rd amendment rights! It says so right here in my Von Mieses Institute manual!
 
2012-06-18 12:53:04 PM

Karac: palelizard: I don't think your example really addresses the imbalance of power between the states and the federal government, or the fact that the federal funds are coming from taxes paid by the local citizens, who should be able to reasonably expect something for their taxes.

OK, besides military defense, atomic power, the internet, national police forces, the post office, and unified currency; WHAT has the federal government ever done for US?


The aqueduct?
 
2012-06-18 12:55:30 PM

verbaltoxin: kinglerer: Why is it that the people who quote the Federalist Papers are also the ones who scream about the Bill of Rights, or at least those amendments that they feel entitle them to be a douche nozzle? See Federalist No. 84

Your statement infringes on my 3rd amendment rights! It says so right here in my Von Mieses Institute manual!


I was unaware that you were under threat of soldiers couch surfing and eating all the decent leftovers in the fridge.
 
2012-06-18 12:55:57 PM

actualhuman: gulogulo: You know, I wonder if sometimes these idiots sit back and really think about what the "United" States of America would really be like if each state was pretty much its own sovereign country without any federal input. For argument's sake, let's say that Interstate Commerce (including currency), and the right to make treaty's is still within the federal government's domain, but say that the Department of Education, Department of the Interior, the EPA were all disbanded and left entirely up to the states. What would that actually look like?

Well, we'd have a lot more desert in SoCal and Arizona.

Hmm... *I'm okay with this.jpg*

/Not really okay with that.


Yeah.

So a few things we'd kiss goodbye:

No more public lands (no national parks, national forests, etc).
Reduction in state public lands as states run out of money (see the closing of many Arizona State Parks last year).
Any trust that the water we drink isn't being polluted from a source in another state.
Wildlife Species with large migratory ranges will no longer be protected.
Rare and endemic wildlife species also be at the whims of state financing or will to protect them.
No more public range lands in the west, necessitating the need for larger feed lots.

So the things we'd say hello too:
* Entire state's in economic depression due to the negative feedback of a poorly funded education system, followed by the brain drain of those who do make it fleeing the state. (This of course is already happening, but I see the gulf between the 'have' and 'have not' state's deepening).

* Greater issues with air and water contamination.
* Reduction in biodiversity
* Reduction in our agriculture productivity.

Probably a bunch more I'm not thinking of.
This is the better future they want?
 
2012-06-18 12:56:07 PM

verbaltoxin: jjorsett: RexTalionis: However, the Constitution doesn't disallow states from receiving funds voluntarily from the Federal Government. And, if those voluntarily accepted funds from the Federal Government comes with stipulations that the states voluntarily agree to, well, then the states are on the hook.

The Supreme Court has said in earlier rulings that there's a point at which attaching conditions to federal funds is unconstitutional. I'm hoping that at some point they tell us where that is.

Meanwhile, it's a good trick: give me your money. Ok, now if you want some of it back you have to do what I say.

Get used to it. More and more states are cutting their taxes, schools, and public services in increasing amounts. The result of this will be a greater reliance on federal funds to make up the deficit. The side effect of that is the federal government has more say in what that state does.

Don't get mad at me, conservatives voted for this very thing in their states. They wanted it. Now they get to live with it. So much for states rights.


Sure some so-called conservatives have gone along with the extortion. That doesn't make it right, nor does it make it a permanent fixture of the political landscape. There's now pushback happening, notably in the area of rail projects. Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, and New Jersey have told the feds to shove their funds and their conditions. The affected parties have been wailing nonstop ever since, but the decisions are sticking. Hopefully this is the beginning of a trend where Washington is told to stick its money, since it comes with unconscionable strings.
 
2012-06-18 12:56:21 PM

Flappyhead: meat0918: The states lost this fight a long time ago, but there is something to be said about independence in your finances.

But sure, I say, go ahead and refuse to accept federal funding for anything.

I'll ask you where your revenue will come from in order to do everything your citizens demand you do.

Seems relevant
[i.imgur.com image 640x470]


It was relevant in 2006 or 2007, but the data is now seven years old. I'm pretty sure Michigan is now in the right-hand column, for starters.
 
2012-06-18 12:58:25 PM

HighOnCraic: We know we can always count on state police to do the right thing without any Federal oversight, right?

[photos1.blogger.com image 400x618]


religionblog.dallasnews.com We can always count on the federal police to do the right thing, right?
 
2012-06-18 12:58:58 PM

jjorsett: RexTalionis: However, the Constitution doesn't disallow states from receiving funds voluntarily from the Federal Government. And, if those voluntarily accepted funds from the Federal Government comes with stipulations that the states voluntarily agree to, well, then the states are on the hook.

The Supreme Court has said in earlier rulings that there's a point at which attaching conditions to federal funds is unconstitutional. I'm hoping that at some point they tell us where that is.

Meanwhile, it's a good trick: give me your money. Ok, now if you want some of it back you have to do what I say.


Except that local and state governments do the same thing. My taxes don't just go toward maintaining the roads I use or policing the areas I go, they also go toward the construction of the wastewater plant on the north side of town that I will not benefit from as I'm already in a serviced and built up area that has very little increasing demand on the plant we currently use.

Whether federal, state, or local, you will not get the full benefit of the taxes you pay.
 
2012-06-18 01:01:03 PM

KhanAidan: jjorsett: RexTalionis: However, the Constitution doesn't disallow states from receiving funds voluntarily from the Federal Government. And, if those voluntarily accepted funds from the Federal Government comes with stipulations that the states voluntarily agree to, well, then the states are on the hook.

The Supreme Court has said in earlier rulings that there's a point at which attaching conditions to federal funds is unconstitutional. I'm hoping that at some point they tell us where that is.

Meanwhile, it's a good trick: give me your money. Ok, now if you want some of it back you have to do what I say.

Except that local and state governments do the same thing. My taxes don't just go toward maintaining the roads I use or policing the areas I go, they also go toward the construction of the wastewater plant on the north side of town that I will not benefit from as I'm already in a serviced and built up area that has very little increasing demand on the plant we currently use.

Whether federal, state, or local, you will not get the full benefit of the taxes you pay.


Ssshh, you're keeping him from building up his "all taxes are bad" argument!
 
2012-06-18 01:02:40 PM
I am proud to support Eskimo Poetry with my taxes.
 
2012-06-18 01:03:48 PM

logic523: Karac: palelizard: I don't think your example really addresses the imbalance of power between the states and the federal government, or the fact that the federal funds are coming from taxes paid by the local citizens, who should be able to reasonably expect something for their taxes.

OK, besides military defense, atomic power, the internet, national police forces, the post office, and unified currency; WHAT has the federal government ever done for US?

The aqueduct?


I don't know of any aqueducts, would you settle for instead adding the Tennessee Valley Authority to the list?
 
2012-06-18 01:09:15 PM

MugzyBrown: HighOnCraic: We know we can always count on state police to do the right thing without any Federal oversight, right?

[photos1.blogger.com image 400x618]

[religionblog.dallasnews.com image 393x263] We can always count on the federal police to do the right thing, right?


If you want to compare armed religious separatists with unarmed civil rights workers, sure, go right ahead.
 
2012-06-18 01:14:22 PM

HighOnCraic: If you want to compare armed religious separatists with unarmed civil rights workers, sure, go right ahead.


If you want to compare 20 children to armed religious "separatists", go right ahead
 
2012-06-18 01:18:08 PM

LibertyHiller: Flappyhead: meat0918: The states lost this fight a long time ago, but there is something to be said about independence in your finances.

But sure, I say, go ahead and refuse to accept federal funding for anything.

I'll ask you where your revenue will come from in order to do everything your citizens demand you do.

Seems relevant
[i.imgur.com image 640x470]

It was relevant in 2006 or 2007, but the data is now seven years old. I'm pretty sure Michigan is now in the right-hand column, for starters.


Possibly, but somehow I'm not seeing Mississippi, Alabama or West Virginia moving any time soon.
 
2012-06-18 01:28:03 PM

MugzyBrown: HighOnCraic: If you want to compare armed religious separatists with unarmed civil rights workers, sure, go right ahead.

If you want to compare 20 children to armed religious "separatists", go right ahead


Following the February 28, 1993 raid, the dead included:
ATF fatalities:

1. Special Agent Todd McKeehan
2. Special Agent Conway LeBleu
3. Special Agent Robert Williams
4. Special Agent Steve Willis

Was it the children who shot the ATF agents, or the armed religious separatists?
 
2012-06-18 01:35:50 PM
Following the February 28, 1993 raid, the dead included:
ATF fatalities:

1. Special Agent Todd McKeehan
2. Special Agent Conway LeBleu
3. Special Agent Robert Williams
4. Special Agent Steve Willis

Was it the children who shot the ATF agents, or the armed religious separatists?


So the death of 4 federal officers is reason to cause the death of 20 children?
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report