Comments for GOP governors consider turning down stimulus money »
Posted By Eagle_Eye 9 months, 2 weeks ago in Political NewsBATON ROUGE, La. -A handful of Republican governors are considering turning down some money from the federal stimulus package, a move opponents say puts conservative ideology ahead of the needs of constituents struggling with record foreclosures and soaring unemployment.
Though none has outright rejected the money available for education, health care and infrastructure, the governors of Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alaska, South Carolina and Idaho have all questioned whether the $787 billion bill signed into law this week will even help the economy.
"My concern is there's going to be commitments attached to it that are a mile long," said Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who considered rejecting some of the money but decided Wednesday to accept it. "We need the freedom to pick and choose. And we need the freedom to say 'No thanks.'"
U.S. Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., the No. 3 House Democrat, said the governors — some of whom are said to be eyeing White House bids in 2012 — are putting their own interests first.
"No community or constituent should be denied recovery assistance due to their governor's political ideology or political aspirations," Clyburn said Wednesday.
In fact, governors who reject some of the stimulus aid may find themselves overridden by their own legislatures because of language Clyburn included in the bill that allows lawmakers to accept the federal money even if their governors object
Read Full Story at money.aol.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 68
-
94%
not2needy9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What the hell is wrong with these people?? Party lines before the citizens of their states!! That's amazing, and an excellent way to get themselves voted out come next election.
Reply
EE, i was going to submit this one, glad you found it and submitted it G/F!!-
42%
Hhussk9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I find the comments fairly disingenuous.
Reply
Yesterday, liberals were arguing that Governor Palin was a wh*ore (Will1313) and had no convictions (ybdogsct) because she was going to take the money. Today, it's the other way around. She's a partisan because she'll be putting the conservative beliefs before her position and responsibilities as Governor.
This is the article in question:
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/02/17/palin-ob...
It's tiring to watch you liberals climb over yourself to condemn "Position A over B", and then condemn "Position B over A" days later.
My position is that she probably should take the money, but only because the stimulus already offers it. Since we (Read: You and I) don't know the details of the package yet, the conditions the Federal Government puts on a state entirely dictate whether it would be safe to take the money...or risky.
The worst part of the liberal response is that they continuously want to talk about Palin, McCain, Cheney, et al., but they lack the resolve to debate the Obama Administration and current events affecting our country.-
100%
Will13139 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LIBERAL MY ASS..it's more than OK to quote me.. but don't categorize me.. when you yourself.. have no clue..
Reply
AGAIN I WOULD ASK YOU NAME ME ONE THING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION THAT YOU DEFEND.. TO THE MAX.. DID
THAT WAS CONSERVATIVE...
you sir wouldn't know a conservative if it bit you in the ass...
GOVERNOR PALIN AND ANY OTHER GOVERNOR THAT ACCEPTS THE STIMULUS. PACKAGE AND ANY CONGRESSMEN THAT DID NOT VOTE FOR IT... THAT GO AROUND THEIR STATE PROMOTING HOW MUCH BENEFIT IT WILL BRING..
ARE
WH*RES... NOTHING MORE .. NOTHING LESS.. WH*RES..
I'M SO SORRY THAT YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE A CLUE AS TO THE MEANING OF THE WORD..
HERE'S ONE YOU WILL UNDERSTAND..
A$$HOLE..-
100%
Will13139 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just so that everyone UNDERSTANDS. maybe not you.. but everyone with half a brain.. the word...
Reply
***** (hôr, h?r) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. A prostitute.
2. A person considered sexually promiscuous.
3. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.
intr.v. *****d, whor·ing, ******
1. To associate or have sexual relations with prostitutes or a prostitute.
2. To accept payment in exchange for sexual relations.
3. To compromise one's principles for personal gain.
PLEASE NOTE NUMBER 3..
and Hhussk .. if they are not compromising their principals.. by accepting the money they are so **** sure was wrong.. please explain how that is anything but the definition described above...
this should be good.. talk about jumping over a to get to b..
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Eagle_Eye9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hi n2n, BFF!!!
Reply
If they don't accept this money then they are just hurting the people and their state.......as bad as California is hurting I don't see them not taking the money. ALL states are hurting and need this stimulus plan.
Here in Florida stimulus money is going to restore a huge wetland area which will benefit the aquafur, wildlife, habitat and provide jobs. Now that is some thing I can support.-
-
100%
Eagle_Eye9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's right, Gov. Charlie Christ was at Obama's side here in Florida helping him promote the stimulus package. Gov. Christ is the only republican I have voted for in my Independent life.
Reply
Gov. Christ is going to use that stimulus money to clean Florida up and return natural resources, wildlife, put people to work in conservation, stuff every state would benefit from.-
100%
not2needy9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am so glad that Obama is getting co-operation from some of the GOP, sad thing is, the ones that are supporting him and co-operating with him are being called traitors and turn coats by members of their own party.
Reply
If there's anything good that comes out of the GOP Governors and Senators not co-operating, it may be that they will be voted out when their next elections come up. It's past time that people got wise to the GOP and the way they put party lines first and the people somewhere next to the bottom of their list of priorities.
-
-
-
-
Neutral
the_heat9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Are you serious?
Reply
Party Lines?
Members of all parties are against this massive spending. The US has spent all of their money. There is no spending your way out of a problem when you are already trillions of dollars in debt (you have no right to spend money). Get a clue. Not accepting the money would mean taking a stance against deficit spending and robbing future generations of their quality of life.
The inflation from such ideas is just now beginning to hit. You thought last summer/fall was bad, I hope you have a huge amount of savings because we are going to see inflation like we haven't seen since the 70's.
I am but one of millions of Americans who agree that deficit spending and taking money that was created out of thin air is not a good idea.
-
-
90%
doppich9 months, 2 weeks ago
-
22%
Hhussk9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your attack on money received does not factor in the population of the state. Alaska, with its low population, stretches Federal Aid over more people than New York, with its extremely high population.
Reply
Once you factor in populations, you'll see that it's not about welfare. Although, I have doubts to your sincerity to facts.-
40%
slate9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Alaska put money back when they had it and have a nest egg to make it through most if not all of the tough times. California on the other hand, wants the frugal states to bail them out. I have a suggestion for California, 'natural resources' can help out with your situation. Drill baby drill.
Reply-
100%
Will13139 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree. but ..
Reply
Alaska is putting YOUR money aside..
they get back from Washington 1.75 (2005) figures.. for every dollar they send TO Washington...
so it in essence IS YOUR MONEY THEY PUT ASIDE.. while the people that LIVE IN ALASKA get nice big checks from the oil revenues.. you live in Texas. do you get money for Texas oil..
which also brings the question....
didn't the USA. .. purchase Alaska from Russia.. so why is the oil revenue only given to residents of Alaska.. doesn't it belong to America.. ??
as to California seems that Washington might just owe them something.. they only get back .78 for every dollar they send to Washington..
but I agree Drill till it hurts.-
75%
nostalgia9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
'you live in Texas. do you get money for Texas oil."
Reply
In a manner of speaking
Source: Texas Public Records
The Permanent University Fund is a public endowment that provides financial support to institutions in the University of Texas and Texas A University systems.qv The principal of the fund, which includes all proceeds from oil, gas, sulfur, and water royalties, all gains on investments, all rentals on mineral leases, and all amounts received from the sale of university lands, may not be spent. The surface income generated by grazing leases on university lands and the net income from interest and dividends for PUF investments make up the Available University Fund, which is divided between the two university systems. The idea for such a permanent endowment began in 1839, when the Congress of the Republic of Texasqv set aside fifty leagues (221,400 acres) of land to fund higher education.
In 1984 voters amended the state constitution to expand the number of schools benefiting from the proceeds of the PUF bonding program. T
That is what keeps tuition at the colleges and universities here low compared to many other states
Plus when Texas joined the Union in 1845, the vast territory of the republic was mostly unsettled and was considered public land. The state did not turn over ownership of those public lands to the federal government upon joining the Union. Instead, the classic, if peculiar, shape of Texas known today was determined as part of the Compromise of 1850. For a $10 million price tag, Texas sold 98,300 square miles of that public land to the United States. The land included parts of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.
So no Federal lands here
Texas also cut a very different deal with the Feds on territorial waters in the Gulf of Mexico
All other states along the Gulf only can regulate the waters up to 3 miles offshore
For Texas it is 10.2 miles
Texas has used it's oil money wisely. We have no state income tax and last year put $10 billion into a rainy day fund-
100%
Will13139 months, 2 weeks ago
-
0%
nostalgia9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No check but it was a huge benefit to us
Reply
We were able to pay for our kids college tuition with no loans
We have saved a tremendous amount since we have no income tax compared to what we were paying back east
Frankly I prefer the way the oil money is handled here
Too many people are irresponsible with money in this day and age. Do you seriously think a lump sum payment every year would be used responsibly by many people? I think we are seeing the results of how many people have been totally irresponsible with their own money-
100%
Will13139 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
but the neo-conservative mantra..is less taxes.. so you can keep more or your own money .. because YOU better know how to spend it..
Reply
not everyone can go to college. .. not everyone WANTS to go to college. .. so the oil money is spent unfairly.. .. if I read you right only those that go to college benefit..-
0%
nostalgia9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"not everyone can go to college. .. not everyone WANTS to go to college. .. so the oil money is spent unfairly"
Reply
But every state subsidizes their state universities - that is why they are "public" as opposed to "private"
What state do you live in?? They are using everyone's tax money to subsidize their state universities and colleges
So in your view - every state is doing something which is "unfair' and only those that go to college benefit
Have you complained?
You might see it that way BUT it is part of the Texas constitution and dates back to 1839
To change it there would have to be a constitutional amendment and the voters would have to vote on it
Only the oil money on the land granted to the universities go into that fund
The rest of the oil money on other public lands and the Gulf go into the general revenue fund which benefits everyone
When there is extra money it goes into a rainy day fund-
100%
Will13139 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
YOU
Reply
Too many people are irresponsible with money in this day and age. Do you seriously think a lump sum payment every year would be used responsibly by many people? I think we are seeing the results of how many people have been totally irresponsible with their own money
ME
but the neo-conservative mantra..is less taxes.. so you can keep more or your own money .. because YOU better know how to spend it..
----
how do you reconcile your above comment ... with my statement .. this should be really good..-
0%
nostalgia9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Giving me a lump sum of oil money would result in higher taxes
Reply
States would subsidize colleges and universities anyway - they all do (You didn't answer that question about your state. Aren't they getting that money from you in taxes?
Plus not as much money would go into General revenue - again that would require higher taxes
I'll take no state income tax compared to the $1200/person Alaska gives any day
What are you getting from the offshore drilling in Florida?
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/egom/activ...-
100%
Will13139 months, 2 weeks ago
-
-
-
-
100%
Will13139 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
slate I don't have a beef with them getting oil checks..
Reply
I do wonder why Alaska ... . which you said had a surplus... gets more money back from Washington .. than they send.. If they didn't give out the checks couldn't they pay their own bills..??
It was only a question and Nostalgia.. jumps in ...
I ask if you got a check from Texas Oil.. ??
It was the start of a very entertaining day..
-
-
-
-
0%
nostalgia9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually you answered that question for me didn't you?
Reply
"but the neo-conservative mantra..is less taxes.. so you can keep more or your own money .. because YOU better know how to spend it.."
Although I'm a conservative, actually more libertarian.
And I am keeping more of my own money by not having a state income tax. They can keep their $1200/yr and I'll keep my money by not having to pay income tax. Plus I saved a huge amount with the lower tuition in the universities my kids attended here
"I don't get sh*t but I'm not bitching"
Neither am I. I'm totally satisfied with the system in place here
If you don't like the system TX uses and like the system Alaska uses, why aren't you bitching about what FL does?-
100%
Will13139 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't care.. ..what other states do..
Reply
but I will write my congressman to find out why the citizens of the US.. don't own the Alaska
again your position and explanation of that position. .. is feeble at best..
you constantly defend the past 8 years .. and blame the position we are now in on anyone else.. you take the defense of positions that are again diametrically opposed to your STATED BELIEFS..
if your conservative or libertarian.. please tell me WHAT was conservative or libertarian about the past 8 years.. .
is submit NOTHING... don't give me tax cuts...tax cuts are only a valid conservative position when YOU AREN'T PRINTING AND BORROWING MONEY ... balanced budged .. Clinton submitted one...-
0%
nostalgia9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You just don't like my position
Reply
As I recall you were the one bitching "Alaska is putting YOUR money aside"
For some reason you think money from oil and gas in Alaska belongs to you
"why the citizens of the US.. don't own the Alaska "
What????
LOL maybe while you are at it ask why the citizens of the US don't own the Louisiana Purchase
Will, you really don't pay attention do you??
This is defending the last 8 years?
"We shouldn't have been in Iraq and it is past time to get out of Afghanistan"
Bush is not and never has been a conservative
Henry Paulson and Christopher Cox should be fired
Clinton submitted a balanced budget??? When??
Go back and look st the budget Clinton submitted and what came out of Congress - 2 very different budgets. The Congressional budget was "balanced" in Washington budget speak - not the Clinton budget. Of course even the "balanced" budget was simply a gimmick - the inside the beltway accounting that moves Social Security surpluses to the General Fund to mask a deficit
Washington accounting makes Enron accounting look like a standard to live up to
If anyone else used trust funds like Washington does they would be in jail-
100%
Will13139 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
balanced budget lets refresh your selective memory... 4 years of surpluses...
Reply
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_c...
what's really fun is YOU DON'T HAVE A POSITION...
YOU
Too many people are irresponsible with money in this day and age. Do you seriously think a lump sum payment every year would be used responsibly by many people? I think we are seeing the results of how many people have been totally irresponsible with their own money
ME
but the neo-conservative mantra..is less taxes.. so you can keep more or your own money .. because YOU better know how to spend it..
with one side or you mouth you tell me how irresponsible people are with money.. and you want lower taxes so you can keep more of your money. because you as an individual know better how to spend it....
WOW.. DANGER WILL ROBINSON.. it's about to explode..
I don't care I disagree with a lot of reasonable stands.. YOUR'S IS NOT REASONABLE... black and white....
try to be more rational and answer the second question....
WHAT WAS CONSERVATIVE OR LIBERTARIAN ABOUT THE LAST 8 YEARS OF THE ADMINISTRATION YOU SO ADAMANTLY DEFEND...
ONE THING.. TRULY OR LIBERTARIAN THAT CAUSES YOU TO DEFEND THEM ... ONE THING..-
0%
nostalgia9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What part of "Too many people are irresponsible with money " is it that you don't understand? Did I say "ALL people"?? NO
Reply
While you are writing to your Congressman find out for me why the people of the US don't own Florida - after all we purchased it from Spain-
100%
Will13139 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
WORKS FOR ME..
Reply
now you're mincing words. ...
YOU
Do you seriously think a lump sum payment every year would be used responsibly by many people
apparently you hold yourself above most people.. and the conservative approach .. the real conservative approach. would be to give them the money and ALLOW THEM TO FAIL.. free market and all..
I'm having so much fun with this.-
0%
nostalgia9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"apparently you hold yourself above most people"
Reply
Well I don't have any credit card debt, have no auto loans, have a mortgage I can comfortably pay and have no home equity loans
"the real conservative approach. would be to give them the money and ALLOW THEM TO FAIL"
No that was the liberal approach - give them a home mortgage they couldn't afford then throw them out when their failure, which was inevitable, happened
You seem to be forgetting about personal responsibility but that really isn't in fashion now, is it
No one is allowed to fail - not banks, not companies and not irresponsible people
Why do you think there are food stamps and the WIC program which dictate what can be bought? If everyone was responsible they could just send them a check couldn't they?
You are having fun because you have very little common sense-
100%
Will13139 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i'm certainly NOT the one with positions and beliefs that are all over the place....
Reply
"the real conservative approach. would be to give them the money and ALLOW THEM TO FAIL"
No that was the liberal approach
and Bush the person you and administration YOU DEFEND.. was the one bailing out the banks.. NOT OBAMA.. you have very selective and faulty memory.. must be hard keeping track of all those opposing doctrines you selectively adhere to..
this statement is the most telling...then you run off on a tangent about mortgages..
well It was none other that George W Bush .. that pushed for the minority home ownership.. please educate your self and stop spouting party line crap...-
Neutral
nostalgia9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL Will are you delusional??
Reply
I live in Texas remember??
I didn't vote for Bush as governor and I certainly didn't vote for him when he was running for the presidency
"Bush the person you and administration YOU DEFEND.. was the one bailing out the banks.. NOT OBAMA"
Is that why Obama selected Geitner? After all Geitner was in on planning the bank bailouts from the very beginning with Paulson (King Henry and Prince Timothy)
And wasn't it Obama who requested that Bush ask for the second $350 billion of TARP money so Obama would have it ready to go when he took office
I don't toe the lie of any political party.
That is why I rarely vote for any Republican or Democrat
I know that is a difficult concept for you to comprehend since in your view everyone has to be a partisan
The doctrines appear to be opposing to you because you expect strict party line opinions from everyone
"well It was none other that George W Bush .. that pushed for the minority home ownership.. please educate your self and stop spouting party line crap"
Dodd and Frank didn't push minority home ownership?
Obama didn't push minority home ownership as a community organizer and attorney for ACORN?
Your blind partisanship is showing again Will-
Neutral
Will13139 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i didn't mention anything at all about party lines.. ..
Reply
1. What is ADDI?
The American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) was signed into law by President Bush on December 16, 2003 under the American Dream Downpayment Act (Public Law 108-186) (ADDI statute). Funds made available under the ADDI statute will be allocated to eligible HOME program participating jurisdictions (PJ) to assist low-income families become first-time homebuyers.
2. How can low-income families apply for ADDI funds?
ADDI will be administered as part of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) by state and local participating jurisdictions. For more information on ADDI or the HOME program, contact your state or local participating jurisdiction by searching the contact information found at: www.hud.gov/addi/.
note they years. Bush gave several speeches about his plans for minority home ownership....
The housing market exploded under Bush.. it's his and his alone.. he lowered the down payments.. he lowered credit worthiness as a criteria....and dropped the number of banks that fell under CRA regulation which you like to tout the lack of oversight to.. well he just removed the over site.. ..he need something to keep his house of cards together.....
methinks you protest too much about wanting everyone to believe you never voted for Bush.. but that is irrelevant to the conversation...
OBAMA .. ACORN.. CRA.. please.. .. the housing crisis is Bush's.. or are you going to try and tell me that 2 minority members of congress Dodd and Frank..in 2004 were more powerful than the entire Republican led congress and the President Of The United State...
I just not that stupid... apparently some people are.. but unlike you I'm not point a finger and call names.. .. that would be YOU.. and thanks for butting in on my question to Slate.. who I actually respect..
Partisan.. I never .. voted for a Democrat for PRESIDENT .. until this election.. reason... THE REPUBLICAN PARTY .. I WAS A PART OF.. simply does not exist.. Newt. Rove. Delay..Rush.. whatever they caused it to evolve into.. I don't want any part of... -
Neutral
Will13139 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
go read G W's speech given in 2002.. sorry it's not on the White House web site anymore .. cannot deny that bush put home ownership in high gear..
Reply
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/09/24/2002-bus...-
Neutral
nostalgia9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Home ownership was pushed on a bipartisan basis but there is more to this crisis than that
Reply
Time magazine laid it out fairly well on who to blame for this financial crisis
Did you read the article??
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article...
And horror of horrors - the list is bipartisan
Hate to burst your partisan protective bubble but you really need to wise up -
-
-
Neutral
Will13139 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My blind partisanship...
Reply
Frank and Dodd .. ACORN and CRA.. aren't even on the link .. YOU provided..
you own list.. ranks none other than Phil Gramm .. as the # 1 cause..
Frank and Dodd.. ACORN.. CRA .... ARE NOT ON THE LIST.....
THANKS.. I'LL BE USING THAT ONE.....
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Will13139 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As I recall you were the one bitching "Alaska is putting YOUR money aside"
Reply
they have a budget surplus .. and get MORE MONEY FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.. (me and you) .. then they pay into the federal money.. so in essence .. their SURPLUS.. belongs to you and me.. yet they give a big check to each citizen.. with oil money. isn't it the conservative way to pay your own way whenever possible.. they don't seem to be doing that....
an then the governor says with one side of her mouth .. she thinks Obama .. should have vetoed the stimulus package.. yet she's going to Washington to put in a pitch for money she believes should not have been allocated in the first place....
people who compromise their principals are WH*RES.. by definition... not mine Websters..
-
-
-
-
-
-
25%
Hhussk9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm interested if they will or not. I can agree with you on that part. I would love to see the stimulus money turned down, but even in the article, the legislatures may override their governors.
Reply
Do you blame the governor if the legislation overrides him or her?
And likewise, do the states that reject the Federal Aid have the ability to reserve money from the Federal Government?
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
bluetexasvalley9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Will, I agree with you about 99% of the time, but I think there are public benefits from a university that you are not taking into consideration.
Reply
I live in a Texas system university town and the services of the resource center (library) from the entire UT system are available to anyone. The university also has concerts, plays, lectures, art shows, etc. that are open to the public either free or for a very nominal ticket price. Our university has a large business center which offers business advice -- free -- to all small businesses and would-be entrepreneurs. The professors are wonderful about answering any questions on their subjects that a citizen might have.
These are just a few of the benefits of the university for the public. They do much more for anyone, not only the students or their parents.
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Will13139 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
no it isn't population has nothing to do with the equation...
Reply
A STATE WITH A SMALLER POPULATIONS SHOULDN'T NEED AS MUCH MONEY AS LARGER STATES.. they have smaller schools.. less roads .. less of everything..
the equation is the dollars you send to Washington vs. the dollars Washington sends to YOU.. it is not on a per capita basis..
simply dollar vs dollar..
-
-
-
100%
gamahuche9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cutting off the nose to spite the face is a time-honoured tradition among political ideologues.
Reply
What is hard to figure is why anyone other than their mums and dads ever votes for such twisted casuists.
"Casuistry ... destroys, by distinctions and exceptions, all morality, and effaces the essential difference between right and wrong." [Bolingbroke, 1736] -
-
-
the_heatComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
100%
Will13139 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree. but ..
Reply
Alaska is putting YOUR money aside..
they get back from Washington 1.75 (2005) figures.. for every dollar they send TO Washington...
so it in essence IS YOUR MONEY THEY PUT ASIDE.. while the people that LIVE IN ALASKA get nice big checks from the oil revenues.. you live in Texas. do you get money for Texas oil..
which also brings the question....
didn't the USA. .. purchase Alaska from Russia.. so why is the oil revenue only given to residents of Alaska.. doesn't it belong to America.. ??
as to California seems that Washington might just owe them something.. they only get back .78 for every dollar they send to Washington..
but I agree Drill till it hurts. -
-
0%
Albmore9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To voice out against this pork bill is correct. Everyone you signed it without even reading it is NO representative of the people. WE spend OUR money to send these people to washington to do the home work and make decissions in OUR interest. WELL committing so much money in such a reckless way without even reading it in full is shamfull.
Reply
NOW , to not accept this money would also be not representing your people. What do you think will happenend with the money that is given back? -
-
-
-
Republicrat1844Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
100%
orndorffter9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Those people are crazy, they dont want the money for their State, Well if they dont take it as hard as the people are haveing it, they well be voted out just as not2needy said, this is crazy when they know their State needs the money bad. So sorry guys you were voted in and you can be voted out.
Reply -
Neutral
chevydog9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There's a fine balance here that's often ignored. Money is not just money; it's also potential control. If I'm from the Federal govt., I want this money to go for the purposes for which it was appropriated. And I want some sort of mechanism to insure it--standard reports, audits, and the like. And penalties if it wasn't used the way I wanted it. If I'm the state govt, I may have needs that the Feds in their infinite wisdom may have overlooked. I'd like to have money--just money, no strings attached. There's a built-in potential for conflict here; nothing new--it's always been there.
Reply -
-
Neutral
cspezial9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I was reading through some of the posts - good points all. However, there seems to be a misconception in that "all states are hurting". That really isn't the case. For example, Alaska revenues are up this year, and so that state, if managed correctly, doesn't really need a bailout. Do they have some road projects that they need to have done, sure - but NEED a bailout? Wyoming is another state that is on the bailout list, but if you look at the amount, I believe the latest numbers are $570,000. That's about a dollar p/resident. I would be proud if Wyo, and other fiscally responsible states, turned down the bailout money. For one, they don't need it, so give it to those that do. For another, for once I'd like to see some real leadership from our leaders! Set an example for the rest of the country. Is it not PC to shame someone into straightening up? We do it to an errant brother or cousin, maybe a friend - why can't we set examples for larger groups as well, such as other states, or the country as a whole? I wonder how that would go over - a little "flyover state" like Wyo can conduct itself properly, but New York and California have to run to Uncle Sam...
Reply -
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.