If a state decides to prematurely lift rules against the guidance of CDC, should it be eligible to receive federal help if it later needs it as a result of a significant spike in cases? I’d think the party of personal responsibility would say no...

(03-03-2021 10:58 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  If a state decides to prematurely lift rules against the guidance of CDC, should it be eligible to receive federal help if it later needs it as a result of a significant spike in cases? I’d think the party of personal responsibility would say no...

You want to play that game - let’s play.

Well, should a state that’s been fiscally irresponsible and is in bind because of unfunded pension liabilities, etc. receive any federal bailouts........like what’s in the latest “Covid bill” ??

That there was a roundhouse kick to the nuts.

(03-03-2021 10:58 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  If a state decides to prematurely lift rules against the guidance of CDC, should it be eligible to receive federal help if it later needs it as a result of a significant spike in cases? I’d think the party of personal responsibility would say no...

Only the ones that pay taxes and are part of the United States you complete dimwit.

(03-03-2021 11:09 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-03-2021 10:58 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  If a state decides to prematurely lift rules against the guidance of CDC, should it be eligible to receive federal help if it later needs it as a result of a significant spike in cases? I’d think the party of personal responsibility would say no...

You want to play that game - let’s play.

Well, should a state that’s been fiscally irresponsible and is in bind because of unfunded pension liabilities, etc. receive any federal bailouts........like what’s in the latest “Covid bill” ??

Or states that "need bailouts" because commerce has slowed to a crawl due to draconian lockdowns enforced by power drunk politicians?

No one in the CDC is elected. Next?

I mean, this is too easy.

If a state decides to prematurely lift rules against federal law regarding immigration should it be eligible to receive federal help if it later needs it as a result of a significant spike in cases?

If a state decides to prematurely lift rules against federal law regarding marijuana and other drugs, should it be eligible to receive federal help if it later needs it as a result of a significant spike in dependency?

this can go on for days...

(03-03-2021 10:58 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  If a state decides to prematurely lift rules against the guidance of CDC, should it be eligible to receive federal help if it later needs it as a result of a significant spike in cases? I’d think the party of personal responsibility would say no...

If said state does not see a significant spike in cases, will those who criticized it admit publicly that they were wrong?

(03-03-2021 11:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  That there was a roundhouse kick to the nuts.

Absolutely and what a stupid question. If liberals want to go there, they’re in for a very long day.

If a state did not force teachers back to the classroom, allowing the NEA to call the shots, causing the public school students to fall so far behind that now AN EXTRA YEAR OF PUBLIC SCHOOL is now being called for, should it be eligible to receive federal help to cover the additional cost of educating students for an extra year?

I am not joking, this idea is being floated.