It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Begala: Those who opposed, should not take any money

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 03:09 PM

Originally posted 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.

A hypocryte? So if we don't take that money we can trust the government will spend the money wisely in the stimulus package? Let's take a look:

Like $99,600 on doorbells in Laurel, MS?

Or how about $375,000 to upgrade kitchen countertops in Tallahassee, FL?

Or $886,000 on a new golf course in Austin, Tx?

Here's $600,000 on street cameras in Indianapolis.

And $500,000 to construct a dog park in Chula Vista, CA

OHHH here's a nice one. $500,000,000 (yes that's $500 million) on solar water heaters for rural families in Cidra, PR

How about $20,000,000 ($20 million) on a downtown "quiet zone" for San Diego?

Oh and of course we absolutely CANNOT forget to replace the clubhouse and maintenance shop at the golf course in Roseville, MN at a cost of $1.5 million!

Like I said - I do disagree with the stimulus package. But the government is taking MY money to pay for all of these ridiculous programs, so I don't have a problem taking it back.

Does that make me a hypocrite or is our country's elected President who promised there would be no pork in this stimulus bill the REAL hypocrite???

[edit on 17-2-2009 by sos37]

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 03:22 PM
The problem with the "STIMULUS" bill is that it will not stimulate enough economic recovery to cover the half trillion in Democratic pet projects that will have to be paid for after they get started, not to mention the interest that will be paid in perpetuity to the FED because that is where it will come from. The massive layout of taxes that will pay for this will not even cover interest and upkeep. It will all go to more perpetual debt.

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 03:32 PM
reply to post by sos37

It's a stimulus package. First of all, let's look at what you posted:

1) Doorbells. Where are those doorbells being bought from? A company is providing those, which will give them income and ability to supply jobs, and it also gives employment for installation. At the same time, it is humanitarian since it is an upgrade (though an extremely superficial one) to these people.

2) See above for the counter tops.

3) The link you provided for the golf course was wrong, but the same as above. It would provide money for businesses, and jobs being opened up in construction for that area (again, it's a STIMULUS bill).

4) Cameras. Permanent upgrade. Jobs for installation. Money to company that cameras are purchased from.

5) Dog park. Upgrade for residents. This is considered a public service from the government (something they are responsible to maintain to begin with). Helps the crippled construction industry.

6) Solar panels. This one was messed up in your link also, but man, I love this one. Helps out the solar panel industry (which is something we need to be giving massive subsidies to anyway) and provides stimulus locally for installation.

7) Quiet zone. This would create tons of jobs by rerouting a train system. It is also a public service provided by the government by helping create a better environment for the people that live there.

8) Though I agree this stimulus bill could be spent to upgrade other things (like low income housing), it still does what IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO, which is provide jobs and INJECT money into the community.

I agree with the poster. If the state and local reps don't want it, they shouldn't have to take it, smaller loans could be taken from other countries, and everyone can be happy.

*Edit to add:

Personally, I find it completely ironic that democrats support this and republicans reject it. It seems to me, that this bill is supporting supply side economics.

I, as a democrat, would much rather see the money placed in the hands of each citizen (because as the last bailout proved, corporate America is filled with a bunch of money-hogging jerks). And I hear a lot on talk radio that they say why not just hand it to the people also, which means they are saying supply-side economics is hogwash.

I'm just confused at this whole scene.

[edit on 2/17/2009 by Irish M1ck]

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:45 PM
reply to post by Irish M1ck

Hey, I would also like to see it placed in the hands of each citizen. In fact, wasn't it Jay Leno who came up with the idea of handing out each taxpaying citizen a voucher for a new American-made car up to a certain dollar amount, like $40,000 with no cash back on the difference?

Or what about vouchers to pay off credit card debt or mortgage debt? All of those could have been worked out.

In my opinion THAT would have gone much further to stimulate the economy than the hen-pecking we see in the stimulus package. The picture I get is like trying to seed 5 football fields worth of soil with only a handful of grass seed.

Not everyone would have needed the vouchers so you would have seen vouchers being sold privately for cash for full or negotiated values.

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in