Principled Stance?

Epicurus

Epicurus

Reasonable
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/fir...ernors-refuses-federal-unemployment-benefits/

Handful of Governors May Refuse Federal Unemployment Benefits

Some GOP governors say new rules on unemployment benefits would hurt their states so they aren't going to accept a portion of the $787 billion recovery and reinvestment act signed into law this week.

Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal is sticking to his position of rejecting part of the federal stimulus money for his state, saying Sunday that accepting an increase in unemployment benefits will lead to higher taxes on businesses in his state.

Mississippi Republican Gov. Haley Barbour, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin say they may follow suit. They say the money to be disbursed to the states in the $787 billion spending and tax cuts package comes with too many strings attached.

"The unemployment insurance reform, if you will, would require the state to pay people who are not willing to take a full-time job," Barbour told FOX News, saying his state is not going to expand benefits to part-time workers. "We're not going to change that. ... We're going to give up about $50 million of federal money."

"It would be like spending a dollar to get a dime," Jindal said on NBC's "Meet the Press. "The federal stimulus bill says it has to be a permanent change in state law if you take this money, so within three years, the federal money is gone, we've got now a permanent change in our laws."

"What we would be required to do would be, for the first time, increase the level of benefit for part-time workers," Sanford told "FOX News Sunday." "We can't pay for the benefits already in the program, but to get the stimulus money, we've got to increase the program's size and scale."

The White House says Sanford's state, which has the third highest unemployment rate in the nation, would be eligible for $8 billion from the spending bill, which administration officials say would create 50,000 jobs. Sanford said that's not how job creation works.

"It sounds like the Soviet grain quotas of Stalin's time -- X number of jobs will be created because Washington says so. And that's not the way that jobs get created," he said.

But Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, said she'll be happy to take whatever cash Sanford and others reject. Also in line with an open hand are Republican Govs. Charlie Crist of Florida and Arnold Schwarzenegger of California.
 
If their refusal means 'money not spent', they are correct not to take it. If on the other hand, the fed will spend it elsewhere, they are harming their constituents, who have to pay for his orgy of spending.
 
It's stupid to refuse money even if it won't be spent, because you'll be paying for the stimulus of all the other states stimulus while they won't be paying for you. It's putting conservative ideology before the needs of your constituents.
 
Annie said:
If their refusal means 'money not spent', they are correct not to take it. If on the other hand, the fed will spend it elsewhere, they are harming their constituents, who have to pay for his orgy of spending.
Click to expand...

If what the Govenors claim is true that they are having to create new programs in the state with this federal money and that federal money will not be there in several years then I understand why they wouldn't take the money and support it. If they are lying and just trying to gain political points then f'em.

I understand their concern though. For exaple in good times in California when the state had extra money our Govenors have set up these new long term spending programs and gave extra long term benefits to existing ones and sure enough a couple years down the road when the economy changed the state couldn't afford them. Hence a large part of the $42 billion deficit.

I do find it hard to believe any politician would be as forward thinking as to be concerned with a couple of years down the road when they could have money today but if that is the case then i'm impressed.
 
Americans are going to have to except some ugly facts. The public is going to have to expect less services and higher taxes to pay for those services. We cannot continue with the status quo. That's the hard part politically and is untenable for most politicians. How are you going to tell that reality to your constituents and expect to get elected/re-elected? The American public will have to grow up and understand that you cannot have your cake and eat it too, cause some day, we will have to pay the fiddler.
 
Mottleydude said:
Americans are going to have to except some ugly facts. The public is going to have to expect less services and higher taxes to pay for those services. We cannot continue with the status quo. That's the hard part politically and is untenable for most politicians. How are you going to tell that reality to your constituents and expect to get elected/re-elected? The American public will have to grow up and understand that you cannot have your cake and eat it too, cause some day, we will have to pay the fiddler.
Click to expand...

How's about many Americans don't want cake, even salad or a breadstick from the government state or federal? How's about we want to care for ourselves, leaving the government to figure out how to war and build interstate highways off of reasonable taxes?
 
Mottleydude said:
Americans are going to have to except some ugly facts. The public is going to have to expect less services and higher taxes to pay for those services. We cannot continue with the status quo. That's the hard part politically and is untenable for most politicians. How are you going to tell that reality to your constituents and expect to get elected/re-elected? The American public will have to grow up and understand that you cannot have your cake and eat it too, cause some day, we will have to pay the fiddler.
Click to expand...

How is stimulus having your cake and eating it too? It's easy to understand the consequences of the stimulus, and it's easy to understand how far, far greater the consequences of no stimulus would be. It would leave future generations FURTHER in debt because it would destroy the economy to such an extent that tax revenues would fall for quite a time, and as such, it would result in much greater total debt in the future.
 
Annie said:
How's about many Americans don't want cake, even salad or a breadstick from the government state or federal? How's about we want to care for ourselves, leaving the government to figure out how to war and build interstate highways off of reasonable taxes?
Click to expand...

How's about we do what's best for America and ignore morons like you?

There's so much common sense in that. :clink:
 
cawacko said:
If what the Govenors claim is true that they are having to create new programs in the state with this federal money and that federal money will not be there in several years then I understand why they wouldn't take the money and support it. If they are lying and just trying to gain political points then f'em.

I understand their concern though. For exaple in good times in California when the state had extra money our Govenors have set up these new long term spending programs and gave extra long term benefits to existing ones and sure enough a couple years down the road when the economy changed the state couldn't afford them. Hence a large part of the $42 billion deficit.

I do find it hard to believe any politician would be as forward thinking as to be concerned with a couple of years down the road when they could have money today but if that is the case then i'm impressed.
Click to expand...

These states already have to sustain a higher than average part time employment population of their working populace. Imagine being required by law to add to that burden.
 
DonQuixote said:
f'em, they could change their laws after the money stops coming, so i say they are just posturing
Click to expand...

No they can't. The funds in question are tied to a provision that requires each governor to undo requirements regarding welfare that were signed into law under Clinton. Further it would require them to provide for part time workers unemployment benefits. In states like MS and LA with already high unemployment rates and welfare roles this would cripple their state budgets for years to come.
 
Threedee said:
There's also no such thing as common sense.
Click to expand...

The beautiful thing about common sense is that it can be anything you want it to be. It's meaningless, and it's the tool of demagogues and conservative world round.

The only reason I mentioned it was because Kathy has a tendency to appeal to it to justify her dumb points, so I just do the same thing to demonstrate how hollow it truly is.
 
Jindal rejected the money because a tax hike on business would be required, causing further damage to the economy. I applaud Jindal for putting his state first. We need more governors like him.
 
Tabasco said:
Jindal rejected the money because a tax hike on business would be required, causing further damage to the economy. I applaud Jindal for putting his state first. We need more governors like him.
Click to expand...

He's damaging the economy by rejecting the stimulus. The specific provision they are referring to is one to increase unemployment benefits. I don't see why they'd have to raise taxes for this; if it's really such a problem, they can just fuck their citizens over for business interests once the money runs out. What their doing is like spending a dollar to make a dime.

Jindal should have his American citizenship revoked. He makes me want to puke, and he's representative of why conservatives is in its well deserved death throws.
 
Last edited:
Conservatism > Business interests > economy > their constituents

Seriously, these governor's don't deserve to be Americans. They are traitors, and should be treated as such.
 
Watermark said:
He's damaging the economy by rejecting the stimulus, not because of your meager tax hike obsession. You deserve to be executed for treason, for betraying your country to conservatism.
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to ya, but our Founders were all about States' rights and keeping the Federal government small. Try reading the 10th Amendment sometime.

Jindal should have his American citizenship revoked. He makes me want to puke, and he's representative of why conservatives is in its well deserved death throws.
Click to expand...

You just hate him because he's not white. :)
 
Republi-pwned

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/us/politics/23governors.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&hp

Nathan Daschle, executive director of the Democratic Governors Association, said over the weekend: “If Republican governors do not want this money, Democratic governors will put it to good use.”

At least one Republican agreed with the Democrats.

“I’m more than happy to take his money or any other governor in this country that doesn’t want to take this money,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said in response to South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who also said he would reject a portion of the stimulus money: “I take it, because we in California can need it.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top