There are strings attached. Some programs you have to match for 2 years then continue unfunded.

This is a tantrum. They lost, so they're stomping their feet and crying "b-b-but it's not FAIR!" at the wind, and showing their displeasure by acting against the desires and needs of those they claim to serve. Someone needs to remind the Republicans that they need to work with the president, instead of against him out of pique.

SpinStopper: I think I remember that from A Farewell To Kings ;)

For we will be read about with sadness for the seeds we let grow.

arkansas: I advise everyone, and every state, and city...to take what they can now. Grab while the printing presses are hot. Take free cheese, welfare, food stamps, whatever. Pretty soon it will be worth nothing, so grab what they are printing and spend it quick.

Just remind me, for my own reference- were you just as outraged when Bush raided the treasury to the tune of several trillion more dollars than this?

GAT_00: SpinStopper: I think I remember that from A Farewell To Kings ;)

For we will be read about with sadness for the seeds we let grow.

... I hate every last one of you.

/Intro now stuck in my head

robomonkster: ... I hate every last one of you.

/Intro now stuck in my head

Heh, I had to switch to that album since it was now stuck in mine too.

That's a Bush Republican right there. You and your children have to pay for it, but we'll make sure you never see a dime.

Oh please, they'll take the money; this is just their cover story.

"Well, I didn't want the money, but if they're just gonna give it away..."

The welfare states should turn it down and demand that they stop stealing money from donor states.

Meh let em. They don't need the tax cuts either.

If it's a case of it's better for us in the long term to say no then I would applaud their stance. Perhaps this is one of those cases where if something is too good to me true then it is.

brainiac-dumdum: Oh please, they'll take the money; this is just their cover story.

"Well, I didn't want the money, but if they're just gonna give it away..."


Better than their counterparts in Congress.

"Look at all this stimulus we're gonna give to you, our loyal constituency! Never mind the fact that not only did we not vote for the stimulus, we lobbied to take this out of the stimulus! Enjoy!"

/John Mica, Don Young, Kit Bond...lookin' at you.

Yeah. Like Palin's going to turn it down. She's already having to dig deeply into the state savings account and cut spending, and is proposing outlandish projects like Bridge to Nowhere II and the Road to Nomewhere.

Alaskans have ALWAYS lived on pork. It's why they elected Ted Stevens and Don Young year after year after year. If she turned down any federal dollars of any kind, they'd have her head on a pike.

More for the rest of us hurrah!

It would be interesting to see if these states followed through with this and could be tracked to see who ultimately ends up faring better in the long run.

It'll never happen though. Politicians, and their insatiable appetite for power and money, will never be fiscally responsible.

Where's the student loan bail out? How can I get mortgages I can't pay for and be a big consumer if all of my money is going to pay off student loans for an education in a market where there are no jobs?

/half serious. Paid my mortgage. Have a job. Hate my student loans. everything else is being forgiven...

Uh, the article says that there is a provision that allows the state legislature to use the money even if their respective governor rejects the money, so yeah. Not a big deal.

Can we redirect that money to my state? We're looking at a budget shortage for next year. Please?

"Though none has outright rejected the money available...."

/grandstanding

LOL, yeah right, sure they'll turn it down.....horseshiat!

TheGreatZarquon: This is a tantrum. They lost, so they're stomping their feet and crying "b-b-but it's not FAIR!" at the wind, and showing their displeasure by acting against the desires and needs of those they claim to serve. Someone needs to remind the Republicans that they need to work with the president, instead of against him out of pique.

Not to be snarky, but were you saying the same things to the democrats back when Bush was president and the republicans controlled congress?

Will you say the same thing to the democrats if things change and the republicans end up with control of the house, senate and white house in 4 years?

After seeing what's been going on for the last 20+ years, I think our best years have been with a Democrat in the White House, and a Republican controlled Congress. Even better when these guys fight against each other. When they're busy fighting each other, it gives them less of a chance to screw the American people over.

nosferatv: Can we redirect that money to my state? We're looking at a budget shortage for next year. Please?

Can you please tell your state to cut back on things so the rest of the country doesn't have to bail you out? I got real good at eating ramen noodles for a year when things weren't so hot for me. Also did without cable, a new car and other things. Your state can do without, too.

Why is it that we have to cut back every time we have a budget shortage, but the government doesn't seem to have to do the same thing?

Failing_Junk: There are strings attached. Some programs you have to match for 2 years then continue unfunded.

This. Also it isn't just the executive branch in many states that fears the money.

Look at the private sector money, the current federal government has begun to attach strings to it (CEO pay, restructuring, etc are all on the table). A lot of states are thinking "Umh, what exactly is the fine print on this? Do we really want it."

I live in MI so we're desperate for any money, but I could see why other states might not be down with it.

I used to hate Rick Perry, governor of Texas. But after these many years, he and I agree more and more. Like this issue.

We are already the highest taxed state in the union. by "not taking the money" we are just saying we don't want to pay more. Some of the government and the teacher unions are the strongest in the nation. I will not be personally happy unless I see at least some cuts across the board, including the schools and hospitals, politicians cannot even propose it without political retribution.

Any Republican governor who tries this is hammering another nail into the R.I.P.ublican coffin.

brainiac-dumdum: Oh please, they'll take the money; this is just their cover story.

Most likely, this. Although there's an outside chance that Mark Sanford will fark over South Carolina in a gamble that the stimulus won't work, since he's term limited in 2010 anyway. Then he'll run for President as a ballsy conservative genius super-maverick.

Bocanegra: Uh, the article says that there is a provision that allows the state legislature to use the money even if their respective governor rejects the money, so yeah. Not a big deal.

I saw that yesterday, the provision smells a bit fishy to me. What business does the federal congress have telling the states how the inner workings and ballance of power within should be handled?

"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what is right."
-Isaac Asimov

Fart_Machine: Meh let em. They don't need the tax cuts either.

That sounds just dumb enough to be a Republican.

"Yeah, well you don't want to take free money from us, well... in that case, we're gonna take more money from you."

PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE: At least they'd be consistent in their opposition.

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.

He inserted the provision based on the early and vocal opposition to the stimulus plan by South Carolina's Republican governor, Mark Sanford. But it also means governors like Sanford and Louisiana's Bobby Jindal - a GOP up-and-comer often mentioned as a potential 2012 presidential candidate - can burnish their conservative credentials, knowing all the while that their legislatures can accept the money anyway.

Nope. Doesn't work that way. You're only going to get credit in a campaign if the state does not accept the money at all. If the legislature overrides you, you don't get credit.

MorrisBird: rohar: What business does the federal congress have telling the states how the inner workings and ballance of power within should be handled?

The ones offering the relief?

Huh? Constitutional limits on federal power? States' rights?

It'd be a biatch if one of these governers truely had a pair and sent this whole mess into the dirt in front of the supreme court. At the very least, a delay in executing the law is definately at play here.

Yeah, have FAITH! It's important to stick to your principles, no matter what!

It's a good thing that republicans know the God of Tax Cuts will reward them. It's always darkets before the dawn. Hold steady, don't EVER compromise!!!


/Incidentally, Jesus never had opinions about torture, right?

Gosling: Nope. Doesn't work that way. You're only going to get credit in a campaign if the state does not accept the money at all. If the legislature overrides you, you don't get credit.

Are you new to politics? Saying you did something big but ultimately meaningless is exactly how it works sometimes.

TheGreatZarquon: This is a tantrum. They lost, so they're stomping their feet and crying "b-b-but it's not FAIR!" at the wind, and showing their displeasure by acting against the desires and needs of those they claim to serve. Someone needs to remind the Republicans that they need to work with the president, instead of against him out of pique.

Actually - I think this has a lot to do with the religion clauses in the stimulus package. I.E. You can't do anything religious in institutions that take the money. Since religion is such a HUGE part of the republican social agenda, I suppose they are technically representing their constituents...

/I still think it's dumb

rohar: Huh? Constitutional limits on federal power? States' rights?

It'd be a biatch if one of these governers truely had a pair and sent this whole mess into the dirt in front of the supreme court. At the very least, a delay in executing the law is definately at play here.

Man... I'm glad you're around these days. I'm too beat down by these guys to fight this fight. I'm cheering you on though!

sarcastrophe: rohar: Huh? Constitutional limits on federal power? States' rights?

It'd be a biatch if one of these governers truely had a pair and sent this whole mess into the dirt in front of the supreme court. At the very least, a delay in executing the law is definately at play here.

Man... I'm glad you're around these days. I'm too beat down by these guys to fight this fight. I'm cheering you on though!

Meh, gotta do something while I'm waiting on that server in NY to come up from it's dirt nap.

farkuufarkinfark: nosferatv: Can we redirect that money to my state? We're looking at a budget shortage for next year. Please?

Can you please tell your state to cut back on things so the rest of the country doesn't have to bail you out? I got real good at eating ramen noodles for a year when things weren't so hot for me. Also did without cable, a new car and other things. Your state can do without, too.

Why is it that we have to cut back every time we have a budget shortage, but the government doesn't seem to have to do the same thing?

Because otherwise they won't get re-elected. Lesson over young'n

Seriously, I'm not kidding. Look at Carter as to why. Republicans hammered the sh*t out of his call to conserve. The funny thing is Carter just inherited the problem from Ford and Nixon. Wasn't their fault either really. We had a long-standing policy of trying to support Israeli survival, and that pi$$ed off the Arabic countries after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, where the Arab side got schooled. So they pulled the oil card. The economic effects were immense, and quick to appear. Carter goes on TV and advises Americans to conserve. American's balk and Reagan comes in bashing Carter with that like a club. You can argue the hostage crisis too, but that was just added to the net effect. We've had blown missions before, whoop-dee freakin' do. Yeah, Mr. Peanut could've handled it better, but no plan survives first contact with the enemy. Voters punished Carter for suggesting a scaling back of the American spending orgy.

You honestly think after THAT happened any politician is seriously going to try and tell Americans that we have to cut back? Listing specific programs their constituents MIGHT use? Puh-lease. Republicans rigged their end of the game, that's why they're not conservatives anymore (other than in name) today. That and buying into the idiotic economic ramblings of Ayn Rand. Philosophy is a great thing in a classroom or book. Too bad in real life it usually is worth f*ck all.

Torches at the Texas Governor's mansion?

Can't- somebody done beat us to it.

Possible preemptive torchification?

Anavrinman:
Actually - I think this has a lot to do with the religion clauses in the stimulus package. I.E. You can't do anything religious in institutions that take the money.

You know that's a GOP lie, don't you?

Number41: Gosling: Nope. Doesn't work that way. You're only going to get credit in a campaign if the state does not accept the money at all. If the legislature overrides you, you don't get credit.

Are you new to politics? Saying you did something big but ultimately meaningless is exactly how it works sometimes.

Ah, but if the state ultimately takes the money, who will perceive it as having actually done anything at all?

I_Approve_Of_This_Message: CONSERVATIVES
We are laughing. At. You.

Whoa - try not to confuse conservatives with republicans, k?

Anavrinman: Actually - I think this has a lot to do with the religion clauses in the stimulus package. I.E. You can't do anything religious in institutions that take the money. Since religion is such a HUGE part of the republican social agenda, I suppose they are technically representing their constituents...

Except that rhetoric isn't true.