Begala: Those who opposed, should not take any money, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

Topic started on 16-2-2009 @ 09:39 AM by HunkaHunka

www.cnn.com...

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.

This luminary goes on to say...

South Carolina is a ward of the federal government. It's been on welfare for years. If Gov. Sanford is so all-fired opposed to federal spending, let's start by cutting federal spending in South Carolina. Otherwise, he's got about as much credibility on fiscal conservatism as A-Rod has on steroids.

He has a HUGE point. I for one agree... if you think spending is bad... then don't take the money. EOF.

reply posted on 16-2-2009 @ 10:00 AM by Wethesheeple

reply to post by HunkaHunka

I couldn't disagree more. States are going broke. They are up to their necks in debt. Agree with the bill or not if my local government refused the money they would be complete idiots. Also their is a huge difference between wasteful federal spending and using the money appropriately.

reply posted on 16-2-2009 @ 10:02 AM by Johnmike

The federal government takes our money and then makes us beg for it back.

Now you want us to not get it back at all? I'll stop taking federal money when I stop paying federal taxes.

reply posted on 16-2-2009 @ 10:35 AM by Jnewell33

So what are you saying? Republicans should not get any money? Guess I am just not following.

reply posted on 16-2-2009 @ 10:41 AM by Mynaeris

I am also confused here? So can those of us who are against this "stimulus" package also not pay taxes? Why should I support this idiocy with my money? Isn't it wrong of the government to demand we pay for something we believe is wrong? Or are you saying that all taxes should rather be allocated to more Democrat folly?

[edit on 16-2-2009 by Mynaeris]

reply posted on 16-2-2009 @ 10:41 AM by BlueTriangle

This is ridiculous. I can't believe the OP actually supports this. If refusing the money would keep it from being spent, I might agree. However, what will happen is that the money will just be reallocated somewhere else and STILL spent.

reply posted on 16-2-2009 @ 11:05 AM by 44soulslayer

There is a more fundamental issue.

This is like saying:

If you don't believe in a socialized service, then don't use it. However you still have to pay for it, regardless of whether or not you use it.

If the states have a choice whether or not to pay into the bailout fund, then its a valid argument. However since the federal debt must be equally paid by all states, then how can this be moral?

Refusing funding while still paying for it is simply an unworkable, untenable position.

reply posted on 16-2-2009 @ 11:11 AM by jtma508

reply to post by Mynaeris

Not that I'm entirely in favor of the bailouts --- current or Bush-era --- I'm not. But a great many of us were quite PO'd for the last 8yrs when we were forced to pay for the Republican 'folly' of the Iraq, Afghanistan, Terror and Domestic Spying (aka HLS) wars. If we're going to attack spending 'folly' let's be non-partisan shall we?

reply posted on 16-2-2009 @ 11:19 AM by PammyK

Let the people in these states vote on it. Dosen't that sound logical. I think we have the right to micro-manage our Representives in the government. The GOP is just stomping their feet cause they are not incharge anymore.

reply posted on 16-2-2009 @ 11:22 AM by PammyK

Sorry was a little off topic in previous post. I think they better take the money or most people will be mad! I mean, if it's comming, I want it!

reply posted on 16-2-2009 @ 11:24 AM by Mynaeris

reply to post by jtma508

You raise a valid point- the intent was not because I am partisan , I am neither Dem nor Rep, merely that this particular thread is about a folly that is being touted by the Democrats. I think it's pretty obvious that the Bush administration was a calamity in it's own right. However, in this case we have a rather unusual statement being made by a liberal stating that if we don't like it then we shouldn't be part of the hand out. I don't want to be part of the scheme, is there an opt out button? Can all those who don't approve of the government bailing out every lost cause, choose not to contribute? From my porch the world seems rather strange, the less competent the state, bank, company the more they will receive assistance in this harebrained scheme. It's based on rewarding the incompetent rather than the successful.

reply to post by PammyK

Your argument is a little more spurious. I think if Americans had foreseen what was coming in a post election America, we would have had a different President. Someone who is more experienced and less happy to experiment.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by Mynaeris]

reply posted on 16-2-2009 @ 11:43 AM by vor78

reply to post by HunkaHunka

Begala would have a point if the people of those states could also refuse to pay 'their share' of the taxes that will be necessary to fund this garbage. Of course, they don't have that right and as a result, Begala doesn't have much of an argument.

reply posted on 16-2-2009 @ 08:17 PM by RRconservative

Do we really want the federal government bribing Congressmen for their votes? You vote yes and you'll get your cut..... but If you vote no you get nothing.

Or better yet...Senator we need your vote on this bill, how much will it take to buy your vote?

Who am I kidding...this stuff goes on everyday in Congress! The only thing keeping some in check is fear for their jobs.

reply posted on 16-2-2009 @ 09:01 PM by spacedoubt

OP,

I laugh a little because you called him a "luminary".
I also believe your are 100 percent well-meaning, in your support of the stimulus package. It was sold to a population that is very worried about the future of the country, and their own personal futures. In the selling of this package there were promises made. Some were public promises, others were, as others have said, "back scratchin" promises.
Back Scratchin' is how things get done in politics.

But this spending package is the equivalent of pouring gasoline into the carburetor of our economic engine. Things will fire up, and they might even look good, for a short time.
But the fuel belongs in the gas tank. It took us a long time to get to the mess we are in. It's a long trip back, and without a tuneup and a full tank, recovery will never occur. Just a remission.

reply posted on 17-2-2009 @ 12:39 PM by sos37

Originally posted by Johnmike
The federal government takes our money and then makes us beg for it back.

Now you want us to not get it back at all? I'll stop taking federal money when I stop paying federal taxes.

Totally agree. I'm not for this reckless stimulus package at all. But I'm still a taxpayer like every other legal citizen who doesn't break the law.

So now some two-bit hack politician says I shouldn't take any money coming from the package? Well, seeing as how this is MY MONEY, my daughter's money and her children's money in the first place that's being used to fund this recklessness, I sure as hell AM going to take it back since the U.S. government has been taking it from me ever since I started making my own money!

We'll make a deal - I'll stop paying federal taxes and then I won't take any money from the government. Deal? Otherwise, these politicians from the Carolinas and their bright ideas can piss off.

[edit on 17-2-2009 by sos37]

reply posted on 17-2-2009 @ 02:42 PM by Irish M1ck

I don't understand why they have such a hard time understanding it. Hypocrites.

Do you want the stimulus bill to pass? Yes. Okay then, take the stimulus money and do what your state needs to.

Don't want the stimulus bill to pass? Don't take the money, and reduce the amount the government has to spend. I agree with OP, if you don't think the money should be spent, don't take it.

Otherwise, you're just a hypocrite.

reply posted on 17-2-2009 @ 02:52 PM by skeptic1

reply to post by Irish M1ck

While I agree to a point, how can they not take it and how can they, in turn, not pay for it?

If they don't take it, the money is still going to go somewhere.

And, everyone's got to pay for this. I don't think there is an opt out available.....for the states.

reply posted on 17-2-2009 @ 02:57 PM by Irish M1ck

reply to post by skeptic1

The money is going to be taken regardless. Last I checked, taxes aren't going to be raised any higher than they were previously.

reply posted on 17-2-2009 @ 03:01 PM by skeptic1

reply to post by Irish M1ck

Kind of my point. They don't agree, and hence they don't want to pay for it.

I think it is more a matter of not paying for it than not taking it.

There's no opt out....we are all footing the bill. Even those that get nothing and don't want what they are offering.

reply posted on 17-2-2009 @ 03:09 PM by Irish M1ck

reply to post by skeptic1

But if they don't take the money, the government doesn't need to take as much in loans, and their money can go more towards the things it usually goes to.

Either way, they are paying taxes, so it's not like anyone is physically taking anything else from them. Their taxes are just going to go towards something else, and if they opt out of it, their taxes won't need to go to it as much.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^