No taxation without something something
this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2025
900 points (99.6% liked)
politics
24574 readers
2886 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They need to stop being such little bitches and just do it.
I have no idea if this would even do anything.
The federal government prints money. If the states don't pay the federal government it doesn't actually mean the government will run out of money.
What will happen is the money supply will balloon, because federal payments are one of the ways the government controls the money supply. If those payments don't go back to the feds, the delayed payments will stay in circulation.
That might create inflation? Will it do anything else? Again, no idea.
Actually, no. What would happen is that the federal government would just intervene, contact the banks, and seize the funds.
But even in a situation where there's a fight over the money, that's not what would happen.
The Federal government is going to draw up and execute its budget as if they had the funds anyway. If any of the earmarked money is spent, it would just be added to the national debt until the federal government actually collects the state funds, through force if necessary. Then the seized funds would be applied accordingly.
In the meantime, the seized funds would just be frozen by court order in state bank accounts until the whole case is settled. And by "Settled", I mean that the SC would just rule that the states have to pay and order the banks to release the funds to the federal government.
This is what would happen regardless of who is President, regardless of who's on the SC bench. States don't have to like policies enacted by the federal government. There are deep red states like Florida and Tennessee that also give more federal funds than they receive, and they would not be allowed to withhold federal funding just because they don't like Democrat policies, either.
The courts aren't going to allow that, nor should they. Both red and blue states have multiple states that pay out more in federal funds than they receive. Allowing states to do this would only lead to a situation where blue states refuse to pay out whenever there's a Republican president and red states refusing to pay out when a Democrat is in charge.
The Federal government is going to draw up and execute its budget as if they had the funds anyway.
That's what I was getting at when I pointed out the fact that the feds print their own money. The federal government would be fine.
I was just running the thought experiment of "would this even do anything" under the assumption that it was successful. And it's a fantasy on its face, even in the best case scenario it accomplishes nothing.
And the best case isn't what would happen, because ultimately you're right and this won't be allowed. There are a lot of mechanisms the federal government has to compell the states to pay their dues.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yeah keep attacking CA, NY, MA, shithead.
Without their money you're literally fucked.
Trump will be fine.
The US government will be fucked.
There is, a difference.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I don't understand why there needs to be laws here. Couldn't the Governor just unilaterally paused payments to the federal government? What's the point of needing a bill when they already have that ability
Good on them. Remind the federal government they get their power from the states and not the other way around. There is no point in paying for things like FEMA if FEMA is not going to pay out because of one idiot's stupid, greedy decisions.
Is it really doable? Federal income taxes go directly to the fed without state intervention
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yes, yes, please this. He's a rogue. He is not entitled to payments.
I love it. We just had a Supreme Court ruling that further anointed Trump as a king that can do what he wants, and yet the first thing everybody goes to in one of these articles is that the states can just take it to the courts and this time, THIS TIME the courts will stop him! It's not fair! What Trump is doing is illegal and unconstitutional!
No fucking shit it's unconstitutional. But guess what? The Constitution is dead. The Supreme Court has already hand-waved away half of the amendments, and the people in charge of enforcing the rest have already repeatedly said they weren't going to. They have repeatedly said that Trump can basically do whatever he wants, and Congress has given him their blessing. So what the fuck do you think the courts are going to be able to do to stop this? And what the fuck makes you think the Supreme Court would even allow it?
If states started seriously threatening to withhold federal payments, Trump would just send in the National guard. Or the military. And before the "But that would trigger civil war!!!!!", it ain't triggering shit. Trump just rolled his troops into downtown LA and started yanking citizens off the streets while Stephen Miller literally went on Twitter and told Newsom "You have no say in this, we are in control, and federal law will be enforced". And Newsom stood there and took it like a cuck. There was no violent rebellion, no resistance to the military takeover of LA. They're still there.
The courts are not going to save us. They've just been stripped of whatever ability they had to even try. I mean, should the states at least try to go through the courts? Yeah. Not that it'll matter much because the Supreme Court will just overturn any lower court decision anyway and either order the states to pay or allow Trump to seize the funds. But in the long run, it'll be a symbolic gesture of resistance as they either bend the knee and make the payments or have the payments taken from them.
Until violent rebellion happens, this is the way it is now. Trump has closed off all other viable avenues. And good luck organizing any kind of rebellion without having your group be infiltrated and everyone shipped off to some 3rd world country on treason charges long before it hits critical mass or manages to accomplish anything.
Is it not simply a matter of contract anyway? The states agree to pay the federal government in exchange for the security and cooperation that the federation brings. If the federal government is no longer holding up it's end of that agreement no matter the reason, why should the States be obligated to remain in that agreement?
Well legally, because that agreement simply declared the new situation. There's no exit clause, it's just how things are now.
Morally, nothing. Fuck the federal government. We technically deleted the first, the articles of confederation, we can delete this one.
I also see it as an honest matter of balance ... what they're budgettary short on from not receiving anymore from the government they must fill from own means that will be deducted from outgoing federal contributions.
For example Fema is to be dismantled and states need to make their own local disaster funds, meaning less budget to go to the federal government...
Ofcourse this will be a sour pill for the maga government and they'll use the SC to thwart it and enforce full payments to the federal government if they can get away with it.
and legal experts said they would face obstacles.
Do they? Those at the top of government aren't following the rules anymore. Why should states still be bound to do so?
Bc that's the difference between these groups. One believes in the law and what it means. The other doesnt
So while yes, it would be great to see the Dems play hardball they can't without failing to uphold what they believe is right
Is it naive? Yeah probably. Will it be enough? Probably not
But going against the fed in a way that is considered "illegal" could be seen as declaring civil war. And while the fed can't live without it's taxes it can bomb you to hell if provoked
I don't know about you but I'm sick of being on the team that follows the rules and loses to the criminals that completely ignore the rules.
But going against the fed in a way that is considered “illegal” could be seen as declaring civil war. And while the fed can’t live without it’s taxes it can bomb you to hell if provoked
Not making a payment is seen as civil war? If its already at that point we're already done.
However, realistically not making a payment won't earn you bombs. It might earn guns though. What would that look like if a state withheld payment? Would a fed law enforcer with a gun go into an office, up to some state employee sitting an a cube responsible for making money transfers as part of their work, and have the gun in their face or threatening arrest if they don't make the payment to the fed? Would it instead be indictments of state government officials, and perhaps jailing them? Who would they jail? The Governor that signed the bill into law? The state legislature for putting the measure forward?
When high level state officials or low level state office workers start getting arrested, that moves the game to a different level. That escalation may have knock on effects on the citizenry. This would be especially true if the reason the state would be withholding the payment from the fed would be for cutting of services from the fed.
load more comments
(12 replies)
could be seen as declaring civil war.
To anyone paying attention, we've been in a cold civil war since at least 2016, if not before that.
“We ought to be really encouraged by what happened yesterday, and in spite of all of the injustice — which of course friends and audience of this show, of our friend Steve, know — we are going to prevail,” Mr. Roberts said, alluding to Mr. Bannon’s imprisonment.
He went on to say that “the radical left” was “apoplectic” because “our side is winning” and said, “And so I come full circle in this response and just want to encourage you with some substance that we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”
This is Kevin D. Roberts of the Heritage Foundation. Point one is that he promotes the idea that the second American Revolution will be "bloodless" only if the left allows it to be, and point two is he describes it as something that is in the process of happening. That means it has already started and has been in motion.
We didn't fire the first shot of the war here and I'm sick and fucking tired of the people acting like us pushing back is "declaring civil war." No the fuck it isn't they declared war on us decades ago now. What a fucking joke. This is classic DARVO, Deny Attack Reverse Victim and Offender. It turns the victims of a cold civil war into the aggressors when the actual aggressors literally passing bills that will fucking cause institutional social murder at a grand scale. It's abuser tactics, plain and simple, at a national level.
Please don't play into this false narrative, the civil war is on, us fighting back isn't declaring it. Please stop letting liars and abusers dictate the rules of reality and what we accept as truth. You're letting their lies set the bounds for how we operate and it's that kind of bullshit that got us here in the first place. Stop giving them deference and treating their falsehoods as truths.
EDIT: Trump literally just suggested if Zohran Mamdani becomes mayor of New York City that he will withhold federal funds. We didn't start this war. Any suggestion otherwise is bullshit.
Point one is that he promotes the idea that the second American Revolution will be "bloodless" only if the left allows it to be
Fuck this asshole. "It won't hurt if you don't resist" isn't a civil war, it's a hostile coup led by jackboot-supported fascists.
It's literally also how abusers speak to their abused spouses. "Look what you made me do to you."
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Please do this.
Trump notoriously doesn't pay his bills after all.