Reply #15: My personal favorite out of this bunch...

[O-Town Blue]

Are the Sanfords, Jindals, and Perrys out there who cry 10th Amendment because they would be required to temporarily change the eligibility of their state's unemployment benefits as a stipulation of accepting the stimulus money. According to them it would wind up costing them money. You know, even though they can change the eligibility requirements in a couple of years back to what they were prior to accepting the money.

Why haven't I heard these same people piss and moan in the past about federal highway funds that are given to and accepted by them on the stipulation that they keep their minimum drinking age at 21 and not lower it? Seriously. How much revenue do you think is being lost by small businesses such as restaurants, liquor and convenience stores, music venues, and bars that 18, 19, and 20 year-olds would begin patronizing by being able to buy alcohol legally? (Personal feelings on the subject aside as there are just as many studies saying lowering the legal drinking age would have a positive effect or no effect as there are saying it would have a negative effect) But, my point is - Not a peep from anyone. No invocation of the 10th Amendment. No calls for secession. Nothing.

Isn't it, essentially, the same damned thing?