Republicans should refuse stimulus money

[Chris]

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

 

[WillowTree]

Only those who take the money should pay taxes. Leave the rest of us alone. TIA

 

[DiamondDave]

Editor's note: Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist and CNN political contributor

 

[Chris]

Every state whose Senators voted against the stimulus should refuse the money.

 

[Chris]

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.

 

[WillowTree]

Every state whose Senators voted against the stimulus should refuse the money.

that's bullshit,, unless the residents of said states are exempted from paying taxes.. try again DUmbAss!

 

[rayboyusmc]

Elected Republicans, refuse money?
hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[Chris]

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!

 

[editec]

Foolish idea.

More partisan blather.

This time DEMOCRATIC blather, but still blather nevertheless.

We need all the oars in the water pulling in the same direction if we're going to have a hope in hell of this thing working.

Any wanker who seeks to divide the loyalties of the American people at this stage of affairs, is a damned fool.

 

[Munin]

If they have any principles left the governors should follow the party line and should reject the money. It is just hypocrite for the governors to start spending the money that their state s senators have all voted against.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What about the states who had 1 senator vote "Yes" and another vote "No?" Only half of what anybody else gets? Should those that don't receive any of this "stimulus" be exempt from their tax dollars being used to pay it off? Should their currency somehow be made not to decline in value as the Fed creates the money for this "stimulus" out of thin air?

The most important question, however, is how many more spending packages or bailout packages is it going to take for the message to sink in that you cannot spend your way out of a recession? Will you support the next one?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If they have any principles left the governors should follow the party line and should reject the money. It is just hypocrite for the governors to start spending the money that their state s senators have all voted against.

The Senators are now directly elected by the people, their views do not necessarily represent the views of the state governments.

 

[WillowTree]

Yes, leave us Southern states outta the Detroit bailout,, we don't need no damn detroil cars.. now we're cooking on the front burner..

 

[Chris]

Foolish idea.

More partisan blather.

This time DEMOCRATIC blather, but still blather nevertheless.

We need all the oars in the water pulling in the same direction if we're going to have a hope in hell of this thing working.

Any wanker who seeks to divide the loyalties of the American people at this stage of affairs, is a damned fool.

Exactly the point.

The Republicans will oppose the stimulus to score cheap political points, but they will gladly accept the money because they need help.

 

[Munin]

If they have any principles left the governors should follow the party line and should reject the money. It is just hypocrite for the governors to start spending the money that their state s senators have all voted against.

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.

 

[xsited1]

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?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If they have any principles left the governors should follow the party line and should reject the money. It is just hypocrite for the governors to start spending the money that their state s senators have all voted against.

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.

 

[Chris]

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.

 

[WillowTree]

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?

 

[Zoom-boing]

What about the states who had 1 senator vote "Yes" and another vote "No?" Only half of what anybody else gets? Should those that don't receive any of this "stimulus" be exempt from their tax dollars being used to pay it off? Should their currency somehow be made not to decline in value as the Fed creates the money for this "stimulus" out of thin air?

The most important question, however, is how many more spending packages or bailout packages is it going to take for the message to sink in that you cannot spend your way out of a recession? Will you support the next one?

I notice how your points are always on target, make the most sense . . . and are mostly ignored by the Dems.