Republicans should refuse stimulus money

[Munin]

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!!!!!

soon as every democrat returns their tax cuts we will do it.. we are right behind ya.. hypocrite.

That is an incredible ignorant statement:

Because you think that the governors are responsible for giving federal tax cuts? The federal state is responsible for the federal taxes, the governors never have anything to do with it.


My point is that democratic governors didn't cut taxes and never got any electoral gain from it, the republican governors will get electoral gain for the spending they will do with the money that the republican senators voted against.


I never stated anything about republican voters, I always spoke about politicians: BIG DIFFERENCE .

 

[Munin]

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

And while we're at it, lets also cut off all federal money to sanctuary cities like NYC and SanFranqueerco.

I never thought that I would here you talking in favor of not cutting spending, you surprise me. Have you become a democrat?

I thought you were against the spending bill, yet now you favor it

 

[Care4all]

Anyone even know what the Republican Stimulus plan looked like?

I believe Republicans ALSO wanted to spend billions no? Or did they NOT want to spend any money on a stimulus?

 

[Meister]

It would save billions that could be used to pay off the deficit.

The Republicans are against spending the money, then don't accept it.

Especially Arizona and Alaska!

Make no mistake on what I'm saying here, Chris....you have got to be with out a doubt, the biggest moron on the forum

 

[WillowTree]

Anyone even know what the Republican Stimulus plan looked like?

I believe Republicans ALSO wanted to spend billions no? Or did they NOT want to spend any money on a stimulus?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/mmemmottpdf/McCain-stimulus-plan-1-17-2008.pdf

 

[Annie]

Anyone even know what the Republican Stimulus plan looked like?

I believe Republicans ALSO wanted to spend billions no? Or did they NOT want to spend any money on a stimulus?

They all want to spend billions, heck now trillions. They are all wrong.

 

[Ravi]

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?

Really? My state, which has been ruled by Republicans for about 10 years or so, has its hand out...thanks, blue states! Or should I say thanks Jeb Bush for getting us into this mess by actively and happily taking 900 new residents a day while he was in office?

 

[xsited1]

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?

Republicans act like conservatives when they have their backs against the wall. If they have the power, they are just like Democrats. However, Democrats push the pork regardless of who's in charge. That's why I don't trust any of them.

 

[Meister]

Anyone even know what the Republican Stimulus plan looked like?

I believe Republicans ALSO wanted to spend billions no? Or did they NOT want to spend any money on a stimulus?

They all want to spend billions, heck now trillions. They are all wrong.

Annie, what you say is true, and I agree it's wrong. Having said that, it's a done deal, but the trillion could have been spent much, much more effeciently than it has. The pork that's in this bill is shameful. Pelosi, and Reid, and anyone else that voted for the train wreck should really feel ashamed. I know they're not, but they are not main stream Americans.

 

[Ravi]

Anyone even know what the Republican Stimulus plan looked like?

I believe Republicans ALSO wanted to spend billions no? Or did they NOT want to spend any money on a stimulus?

They all want to spend billions, heck now trillions. They are all wrong.

Annie, what you say is true, and I agree it's wrong. Having said that, it's a done deal, but the trillion could have been spent much, much more effeciently than it has. The pork that's in this bill is shameful. Pelosi, and Reid, and anyone else that voted for the train wreck should really feel ashamed. I know their not, but they are not main stream Americans.

What pork?

 

[Care4all]

Anyone even know what the Republican Stimulus plan looked like?

I believe Republicans ALSO wanted to spend billions no? Or did they NOT want to spend any money on a stimulus?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/mmemmottpdf/McCain-stimulus-plan-1-17-2008.pdf

that was from JANUARY OF 2008....fyi, and doesn't show the republican stimulus plan for NOW? We are in February of 2009 and ALOT HAS HAPPENED since January of 2008!!!!

 

[Zoom-boing]

They all want to spend billions, heck now trillions. They are all wrong.

Annie, what you say is true, and I agree it's wrong. Having said that, it's a done deal, but the trillion could have been spent much, much more effeciently than it has. The pork that's in this bill is shameful. Pelosi, and Reid, and anyone else that voted for the train wreck should really feel ashamed. I know their not, but they are not main stream Americans.

What pork?

ReadTheStimulus.org

Despite Vows, Stimulus Bill Has Some Pork, Magnetic-Levitation Rail Line, Battery Companies And Filipino Veterans All Make Out Well In Compromise Legislation - CBS News

The first sentence in this link says it all:

A 40-Year Wish List - WSJ.com

 

[Ravi]

By any definition stimulus money from the government is pork and it's meant to create jobs. I guess it makes ya'll feel better to think about it that way.

 

[editec]

Anyone even know what the Republican Stimulus plan looked like?

I believe Republicans ALSO wanted to spend billions no? Or did they NOT want to spend any money on a stimulus?

They essantially wanted billions in the form of tax breaks for capital gains.

They're still pushing the supply-side solutions as though our probblems stem from the fact that multibillionaires don't have enough money.

 

[Annie]

By any definition stimulus money from the government is pork and it's meant to create jobs. I guess it makes ya'll feel better to think about it that way.

How does sending money to Filipino vets, mostly living in the Philippines, create jobs in US? If we owe them money, fine. But why in the 'stimulus bill?'

 

[Care4all]

the 8 billion for the lasvegas california high speed rail is ridiculous....imo....way too much money....though it could give a huge boost to las vegas and bring alot of jobs there, it is not a project that the rest of us should be paying for imho....

The money to the states, i agree with....it will keep people employed and keep states from having to raise taxes which would be detrimental.

The tax cuts, i agree with....puts some money in to our hands...

The extended unemployment and food stamps, $250 bucks to seniors etc....I agree with, this will hit the economy immediately with spending by these consumers....

The money spent on repairing our infrastructure....which will bring jobs, I agree with.....
The money spent on the temporary patch for the AMT I agree with, though it did not have to be put in this particular bill....it was 70 billion that could have been spent on a separate bill, to keep the stimulus clean.

I do not agree with their health care measures SNUCK in to this bill....

I do not agree with some of the other individual projects that Senators and representatives added in there....

 

[Meister]

By any definition stimulus money from the government is pork and it's meant to create jobs. I guess it makes ya'll feel better to think about it that way.

Your wrong. The stimulus money that creates jobs effeciently is not pork. but when you spend money where it takes 900,000 to create one job is not efficient. This bill is laden with it. Like the magnetic rail system from Disneyland to Las Vegas...that's just paying back Harry Reid, and just maybe the money can be spent more efficently...do ya think? Like maybe clean energy such as nuclear power...which by the way was taken out of the bill. This bill has a lot of money being spent foolishly, just to pay back the "backers". A lot of this could be put in the federal budget, and debated at that point. Remember...this is a stimulus bill...not, everything and the kitchen sink bill.

 

[Care4all]

Nothing was PORK in this bill because every measure was voted on, and amendments were allowed.

Earmarks (pork) has the definition of something being slipped in to a bill that costs the tax payers money, that was never voted on....is my understanding of the definition of PORK?

None of the items in the sprawling $789 billion package are traditional earmarks -- funding for a project inserted by a lawmaker bypassing the normal budgeting process -- according to the White House and Democratic leaders. Republicans also killed or reduced a number of projects they considered objectionable, such as $200 million to re-sod the Mall in Washington and money for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker.

care

 

[manu1959]

tell you what...you don't take any of my money and i won't take any of yours.......

 

[Meister]

Nothing was PORK in this bill because every measure was voted on, and amendments were allowed.

Earmarks (pork) has the definition of something being slipped in to a bill that costs the tax payers money, that was never voted on....is my understanding of the definition of PORK?

None of the items in the sprawling $789 billion package are traditional earmarks -- funding for a project inserted by a lawmaker bypassing the normal budgeting process -- according to the White House and Democratic leaders. Republicans also killed or reduced a number of projects they considered objectionable, such as $200 million to re-sod the Mall in Washington and money for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker.

care

Nice try..."Government funding of something that benefits a particular district that wins favor with local voters." Like I said, nice try.