Democrats Requiring States: No Tax Cuts!

This is not Constitutional but since when did they care about rights or the Constitution? Just POWER!

Take money from the Federal Government and you cannot cut taxes, no matter the will of the people. The socialist assault on our freedoms continue…but hey, as long as their side “wins”…

Opinion: Democrats to States: No New Tax Cuts - WSJ

You mean like Reagan holding back highway funds if states didn’t raise the drinking age? That kind of thing?

1 Like

:rofl: You deflected back to Reagan? Were you even born then? Dude, that was 37 years ago.

And yes, like that. Reagan was not good at adhering to the Constitution.

Try staying on topic.

Giving examples of selective outrage and hypocrisy is not deflecting. The OP is acting like this is a new tactic, I’m just pointing out that its not.

*And yes I was alive then…he was first potus i voted for…I was a naive youth…lol


Sounds good to me. If you accept federal money to pay for things, you shouldn’t cut the state/local taxes which would otherwise pay for them. If you’re doing well enough on the state/local level to cut taxes, you shouldn’t need money from the federal government anyway.

Good old fiscal responsibility. Sure, cry about the amount but at least it tries to prevent double dipping. We’ve had four years of cutting taxes while increasing spending. I’ll take keeping taxes at least the same while increasing spending over that in a heartbeat.


Yes it is. A 37 year-old whataboutism. Come on!


It is a new tactic, requiring state to not lower ANY taxes!

No, it’s not to pay the money back. It’s just to keep taxes high in general, you know, how democrats do. It’s also a power trip.

Its not…It’s the same tactic. Just different sacrifices having to be made by state’s. Then…Want funding? Raise drinking age. Now…Want funding? Don’t lower taxes.

Generally the Fed is allowed to have strings attached to funding they give out. The Trump admin withheld grants to states in which there were sanctuary cities.

1 Like

Give it a rest. How in the he’ll can it be selective outrage and hypocrisy? I don’t know one person who is on this board posting back then supporting it.

If you’re collecting federal money to pay for things you can’t on a state/local level, why would you be cutting taxes? Take money from the federal government and pay less state/local taxes? That’s called federal welfare. Didn’t realize that was a Republican thing now a days.

1 Like

Cheer up, my property tax went up 25%, since democrats decided to punish red states.

1 Like

Sounds like a good idea to me.

But there were plenty of people posting in this board that were okay with Trump withholding money from California over sanctuary cities


Of course there were. Punish them, mercilessly.


The states that want to cut taxes have an easy solution to that problem.

Don’t take the federal funds.

There’s nothing unconstitutional in the slightest in the feds putting limitations on how relief funds they provide might be used.

And btw, the title of the OP is inaccurate.

The provision states the federal relief funds may not be used to offset lost revenues that result from states cutting taxes.

So states can do their voodoo economics and claim the tax cuts actually increased state coffers and still get the funds.

Or it the OPer openly admitting he knows the supply side mantra of “tax cuts pay for themselves” is a myth?


The demorat mayor of nashville raised property taxes 34 percent in the middle of a pandemic.

Lots of folks were out of work at that time but the libs are gonna have “their” tax money regardless. :roll_eyes:

Wild horses couldn’t drag me into that city to live.


They should tie funding to the amount of abortion services available in a state.


Again…this topic is choice because this outrage is an implicit admission that today’s right wing knows it’s a myth that tax cuts grow government revenues.

I love topics that expose the fact that certain people know some of their cherished beliefs are myths.