I’m sure by now, everybody is familiar with President Trump threatening the state of Michigan because he thought the Secretary of State, Joycelyn Benson, sent out ballots for the next election.
she was actually sending out applications for mail in ballots.
But the president threatened to withhold funding from the state if they sent out ballots which they didn’t do.
so do you think that’s OK? I’m pretty sure withholding federal funds for a political favor is illegal, but is it OK?
we know it’s not legal if one country does it to another, which is why Trump was impeached. But is it legal for a president to do that to a state?
so whether or not it’s legal, do you guys believe it should be OK?
Elections are run by state and local governments, and it's unclear what legal means the president would have to withhold funds from the states.
www.npr.org
They do it all the time. For decades the Federal government has threatened states with withholding federal funds, unless they states do as they say.
The Obama administration has worked for years to lure states into accepting Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion under the false promise of “flexibility.” The latest fight with Florida over Low Income Pool (LIP) funding should disabuse any state leaders of that false notion.
www.forbes.com
Obama did this.
So I have to basic problems. One: that left-wingers right now would not have any problem with the President threatening states, if it was your guy. So as much as you say "this should be illegal", you don't believe that. If it was your guy in office, you would have no problem with this at all, because your guys have been doing this for decades, and no one cared.
Trump does it, and he's not your guy, so suddenly it should be illegal. And the next time you get a left-winger in place, you won't have a single problem with it again.
This is just like believe all women.... When Bill Clinton, a left-winger, was getting accused, it was women are sluts and whores. Then when someone blames Bret Kavanough, a Trump appointee that you hate, it was "believe all women". Then when Biden was accused... we're back to can't trust those women.
The second thing is..... I agree with you, but on a completely different basis.
The problem with your position is that you have a problem with people who are handing out the money, making the rules.
Well.... that's life. If you ask me to pay your bills, I might agree, but I'll have rules you have to follow.
If my broke brother in law, wants me to cover his mortgage, I'm going to demand he make a budget, take finance classes, work a second job, and change how he lives, so he can get back to being self sufficient again.
That's how life works. If you want my money, I make the rules.
Same with employment. You want me to pay you? Then you do what I need you to do. If you don't, you're fired, and you don't get my money anymore.
That's how all of the life on this planet works. It's the same in Venezuela, and France, and German, and the Congo, and everywhere else. The people who are giving out the money, make the rules.
Now where I agree with you, is that I don't think the Federal Government should be making rules on states.
So how do I reconcile the two seemingly contradictory positions?
The Federal Government has no business giving out money. Period. There should be no money going from the Federal Government to the states. None.
As long as the Federal Government is giving money to states, then the Feds can dictate the rules to the states.
Solution? No money. No more handing out money to the states.
