Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The Senators are now directly elected by the people, their views do not necessarily represent the views of the state governments.
The senators represent the people of their state as much as the state governors do.
Yes, they do. That wasn't my point. My point was that Senators and Governors may have different opinions regarding the spending package, and since the Senators are no longer agents of the state governments they're voting doesn't necessarily represent the views of the state government or Governor.
The only problem with that idea is that all taxpayers will have to pay for it. As someone already pointed out, we'd be happy to refuse the stimulus money if we didn't have to pay taxes on it. Can you make that happen? And just so you know, States that know how to handle their budgets (like Arkansas) will be bailing out the biggest Blue State in the Union - California. How's that for a redistribution of wealth?
Sorry, the Blue states have been supporting the Red states for years.
Alaska receives more federal money per capita than any state.
so?
The only problem with that idea is that all taxpayers will have to pay for it. As someone already pointed out, we'd be happy to refuse the stimulus money if we didn't have to pay taxes on it. Can you make that happen? And just so you know, States that know how to handle their budgets (like Arkansas) will be bailing out the biggest Blue State in the Union - California. How's that for a redistribution of wealth?
Sorry, the Blue states have been supporting the Red states for years.
Alaska receives more federal money per capita than any state.
Sorry, the Blue states have been supporting the Red states for years.
Alaska receives more federal money per capita than any state.
so?
Remember the republicans and "pork"? It suddenly becomes a whole other story or what? Isn't it the exact same reason why they voted against the bill?
and that would of course include all the assholes who don't pay federal income tax. TIA
Alaska could just keep it oil I guess.The Red states already receive more money per capita than they pay in taxes.
The Blue states are supporting the Red states with their tax money.
The Red states are welfare queens.
Alaska is the worst offender.
Alaska could just keep it oil I guess.The Red states already receive more money per capita than they pay in taxes.
The Blue states are supporting the Red states with their tax money.
The Red states are welfare queens.
Alaska is the worst offender.
and salmon,, and crabs,, you know all that elite gourmet food those shusi eating wine drinking libwal fools like..Alaska could just keep it oil I guess.The Red states already receive more money per capita than they pay in taxes.
The Blue states are supporting the Red states with their tax money.
The Red states are welfare queens.
Alaska is the worst offender.
Just going with Chris's idea of seceding from taxes. Alaska and other precieved Red states might as well take the full leap.Alaska could just keep it oil I guess.The Red states already receive more money per capita than they pay in taxes.
The Blue states are supporting the Red states with their tax money.
The Red states are welfare queens.
Alaska is the worst offender.
Not if it is on National Land!!! They don't own that....
And as far as their own oil and timber, if they didn't sell it to us, then they are crud out of luck....no?
The Red states already receive more money per capita than they pay in taxes.
The Blue states are supporting the Red states with their tax money.
The Red states are welfare queens.
Alaska is the worst offender.
The senators represent the people of their state as much as the state governors do.
Yes, they do. That wasn't my point. My point was that Senators and Governors may have different opinions regarding the spending package, and since the Senators are no longer agents of the state governments they're voting doesn't necessarily represent the views of the state government or Governor.
That is strange, what is the point of the republican party then if they don't share the same views?
Are state governors no longer republicans since they don't seem to share the same views then the senators elected from the same state?
Likewise, all the Republicans on this board who complained about the stimulus should send their extra tax credits back to the Treasury and tell them to apply it to the deficit.
Yes, they do. That wasn't my point. My point was that Senators and Governors may have different opinions regarding the spending package, and since the Senators are no longer agents of the state governments they're voting doesn't necessarily represent the views of the state government or Governor.
That is strange, what is the point of the republican party then if they don't share the same views?
Are state governors no longer republicans since they don't seem to share the same views then the senators elected from the same state?
Do all Democrats agree about everything?
Governors and Senators have different concerns, and different people have different opinions whether they're both Republicans or otherwise. The fact remains, however, that if Republicans, and Libertarians, have to suffer through inflation or taxation for this spending package then we have as much right to the services that will be provided as the Democrats.
What about the districts whose Congressman voted "Yes," but the Senators voted "No?" Do they lose out on the funds? What about the family whose Congressman and Senators voted "No," but they supported it themselves? Do they not deserve the funds?
Also, I believe the whole point of this spending package is to "jolt" the economy back to life like it's Frankenstein. Some Keynesians are saying $800 billion isn't enough, and now you want to say certain sections of the country can't get the money. Doesn't that defeat the purpose all together? If you believe spending on a massive scale is what's called for then neglecting certain parts of the country makes no sense at all.
That is strange, what is the point of the republican party then if they don't share the same views?
Are state governors no longer republicans since they don't seem to share the same views then the senators elected from the same state?
Do all Democrats agree about everything?
Governors and Senators have different concerns, and different people have different opinions whether they're both Republicans or otherwise. The fact remains, however, that if Republicans, and Libertarians, have to suffer through inflation or taxation for this spending package then we have as much right to the services that will be provided as the Democrats.
What about the districts whose Congressman voted "Yes," but the Senators voted "No?" Do they lose out on the funds? What about the family whose Congressman and Senators voted "No," but they supported it themselves? Do they not deserve the funds?
Also, I believe the whole point of this spending package is to "jolt" the economy back to life like it's Frankenstein. Some Keynesians are saying $800 billion isn't enough, and now you want to say certain sections of the country can't get the money. Doesn't that defeat the purpose all together? If you believe spending on a massive scale is what's called for then neglecting certain parts of the country makes no sense at all.
That is not a good argument, all governors and all senators disagree in the way they act: governors all accept the money while the senators vote against the money the governors are so glad to accept. It is hypocrite for republicans to take the money (governors) if you take no responsibility for getting the money from the taxpayers (senators).
Republicans are just being incredibly hypocrite, they let the democrats take the pounding for getting the money from the taxpayers and yet the republican governors are the ones who seem so glad to receive the money. I thought they voted against it because they thought spending was bad?
You know what is very appropriate here?
PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS!!!!!
That is strange, what is the point of the republican party then if they don't share the same views?
Are state governors no longer republicans since they don't seem to share the same views then the senators elected from the same state?
Do all Democrats agree about everything?
Governors and Senators have different concerns, and different people have different opinions whether they're both Republicans or otherwise. The fact remains, however, that if Republicans, and Libertarians, have to suffer through inflation or taxation for this spending package then we have as much right to the services that will be provided as the Democrats.
What about the districts whose Congressman voted "Yes," but the Senators voted "No?" Do they lose out on the funds? What about the family whose Congressman and Senators voted "No," but they supported it themselves? Do they not deserve the funds?
Also, I believe the whole point of this spending package is to "jolt" the economy back to life like it's Frankenstein. Some Keynesians are saying $800 billion isn't enough, and now you want to say certain sections of the country can't get the money. Doesn't that defeat the purpose all together? If you believe spending on a massive scale is what's called for then neglecting certain parts of the country makes no sense at all.
That is not a good argument, all governors and all senators disagree in the way they act: governors all accept the money while the senators vote against the money the governors are so glad to accept. It is hypocrite for republicans to take the money (governors) if you take no responsibility for getting the money from the taxpayers (senators).
Republicans are just being incredibly hypocrite, they let the democrats take the pounding for getting the money from the taxpayers and yet the republican governors are the ones who seem so glad to receive the money. I thought they voted against it because they thought spending was bad?
You know what is very appropriate here?
PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS!!!!!
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina took umbrage at my writing that his approach to the economic crisis is to do nothing. I'll deal with his "ideas" in a moment, but first let me make a modest proposal:
If Republican politicians are so deeply opposed to President Obama's economic recovery plan, they should refuse to take the money. After all, if you think all that federal spending is damaging, there are easy ways to reduce it: Don't take federal money.
Gov. Sanford can lead the way. South Carolina should decline to accept any federal funds for transportation, education, health care, clean energy or any of the other ideas President Obama is advocating to fix the economy. And the rest of the GOP can follow suit.
Justice Louis Brandeis famously called states "laboratories of democracy." So let's experiment. Gov. Sanford can be the guinea pig. His Palmetto State already gets $1.35 back from Washington for every dollar it pays in federal taxes, according to 2005 numbers, the latest calculated by the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit tax research group.
Commentary: If you oppose stimulus, don't take the money - CNN.com
Do all Democrats agree about everything?
Governors and Senators have different concerns, and different people have different opinions whether they're both Republicans or otherwise. The fact remains, however, that if Republicans, and Libertarians, have to suffer through inflation or taxation for this spending package then we have as much right to the services that will be provided as the Democrats.
What about the districts whose Congressman voted "Yes," but the Senators voted "No?" Do they lose out on the funds? What about the family whose Congressman and Senators voted "No," but they supported it themselves? Do they not deserve the funds?
Also, I believe the whole point of this spending package is to "jolt" the economy back to life like it's Frankenstein. Some Keynesians are saying $800 billion isn't enough, and now you want to say certain sections of the country can't get the money. Doesn't that defeat the purpose all together? If you believe spending on a massive scale is what's called for then neglecting certain parts of the country makes no sense at all.
That is not a good argument, all governors and all senators disagree in the way they act: governors all accept the money while the senators vote against the money the governors are so glad to accept. It is hypocrite for republicans to take the money (governors) if you take no responsibility for getting the money from the taxpayers (senators).
Republicans are just being incredibly hypocrite, they let the democrats take the pounding for getting the money from the taxpayers and yet the republican governors are the ones who seem so glad to receive the money. I thought they voted against it because they thought spending was bad?
You know what is very appropriate here?
PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS!!!!!
You ignore the fact that Republicans will be taxed and have their currency lose it's value through inflation because it passed whether they supported it or not. You ignore the fact that a Governor has no power over the way a Senator votes, regardless of ideology. You ignore the fact that not using the money in certain parts of the country defeats the entire point of the spending package in the first place.
You are simply trying to find fault with Republicans because they are Republicans.
Every state whose Senators voted against the stimulus should refuse the money.
That is not a good argument, all governors and all senators disagree in the way they act: governors all accept the money while the senators vote against the money the governors are so glad to accept. It is hypocrite for republicans to take the money (governors) if you take no responsibility for getting the money from the taxpayers (senators).
Republicans are just being incredibly hypocrite, they let the democrats take the pounding for getting the money from the taxpayers and yet the republican governors are the ones who seem so glad to receive the money. I thought they voted against it because they thought spending was bad?
You know what is very appropriate here?
PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS!!!!!
You ignore the fact that Republicans will be taxed and have their currency lose it's value through inflation because it passed whether they supported it or not. You ignore the fact that a Governor has no power over the way a Senator votes, regardless of ideology. You ignore the fact that not using the money in certain parts of the country defeats the entire point of the spending package in the first place.
You are simply trying to find fault with Republicans because they are Republicans.
Republican governors are eager to spend money + republican senators are eager to bash obama for spending money.
= Republicans are being hypocrite
If they (as a party) really are so fiscally concerned and fiscally conservative then they should be much more reluctant for receiving money that should be spend.
The GOP as a party has as much power over republican senators as they have over republican governors, this is proved by the governor that was supporting the stimulus bill to much: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/69453-floridas-republican-gov-commits-political-suicide.html
You seem to ignore the fact that republican senators have said that they don't believe that the spending will work (no matter in which states it is spend). You seem to forget that republicans act according to their party: this is all agreed upon by the party leaders, this is just a political game.
This is the republican strategy:
Bash obama for abusing taxpayermoney. => political win situation
Use the federal taxpayermoney to spend in the states, this way they win voters without having to raise taxes as a governor => political win situation
= political win win situation on the backs of the democrats
You can look right through it.
