It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Some Red State Governors Stepping Up to Refuse Welfare

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Finally!

Some GOP Governors consider refusing stimulus money

The governors of Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alaska, South Carolina and Idaho have all questioned whether the $787 billion federal bill signed into law this week will even help the economy, and are considering saying thanks, but no thanks to billions in aid for their crumbling states.

After decades of suckling at the Federal teet, getting more than they pay into the Federal Government, I'm thrilled to see some of the worst Welfare State offenders like Governor Palin of Alaska (takes $1.84 for every dollar in taxes paid) and Governor Barbour of Mississippi (takes $2.02 for every dollar in taxes paid) FINALLY taking a stand and saying NO MORE will they rely on the kindness of fiscally responsible Democrats in the likes of New Jersey, New York and Massachsetts to supplement their broken ideology.

Oh, and good luck in 2012!




posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by DagNabbit
 


Then those states can burn to the ground and be the first the rebuild themselves and operate the way the country as a whole should.

They are right in refusing that money, they understand that there is nothing that can be done for the crisis other then letting it all crumble like in the 20's.

The sooner people realize that stuff, we can get back to creating an economy that works, instead of sustaining an economy that doesnt.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Hats off to them!

I only wish my state was one of them, but unfortunately our Democrat governor is salivating for this money.




posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
Hats off to them!


Yes, I'm quite sure it's not just empty ideological pandering for a 2012 Presidential run, and they'll stick to their guns and refuse Federal money for the first time in their careers.

Yup.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Yes, I'm quite sure it's not just empty ideological pandering


As am I, and perhaps your sarcasm would be best used somewhere else.




posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I doubt the sincerity of most of them. They either expect their state legislature to have a vote forcing the acceptance of the money then the governor will just shrug shoulders and feign distress at the decision.

I'd love to be proved wrong.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


Your faith is inspiring. I guess we shall see if these Governors can walk the talk shortly, won't we?

From the Fox News article I linked:


Pearson Cross, a political scientist at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, said fiscally conservative governors may be able to give themselves political cover by turning down small portions of the stimulus money, like health care dollars requiring a state match, that they might not fully use anyway.

But in the end, he said, they will likely take most of the available money because their states need it so badly.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
There is no shame in taking money that you truly need, but some of this bill is not needed.

Anything they don't need and reject would be fine with me. At least they are voicing their displeasure with this piece of garbage.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I doubt the sincerity of most of them. They either expect their state legislature to have a vote forcing the acceptance of the money then the governor will just shrug shoulders and feign distress at the decision.


Exactly. The political cover is written into the bill.


If funds provided to any state in any division of this act are not accepted for use by the governor, then acceptance by the state legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such state.


It's literally having your cake and eating it to (while standing on a new bridge to nowhere).



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Like everything these days -
we have to look at what is the true intention of this move.

If it really is because they would like to keep their choices their own for the RIGHT reasons - To keep themselves independent, free of strings attached - free of possible Federal blackmail - then good. This is what the world needs.

If it is to manipulate the system even more by making it look like one thing when it really is another ... well then... it is just more of the same.

Time will tell.

[edit on 20-2-2009 by spinkyboo]



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Let's just follow Governor Palin and see if she means it.


Gov. Sarah Palin, ALASKA



Show me the money: $783,786,000

Does my state already get more money from the federal government than it sends to the federal government? Yes. Alaska gets $1.84 for every dollar it pays in. Rank: 3


If just one of these yahoo Republican states wasn't a WELFARE STATE relying on fiscally responsible Democratic voting state FEEDERS supplementing their free market lifestyles, they might actually have something.

Turth is they don't. Republicans can't govern. They just complain.


[edit on 20-2-2009 by DagNabbit]



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
I doubt Mr. Perry means it.

No welfare for Line 2.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Texas is turning it down because we don't need it.

We know how to run things a bit better than most of the states, it seems.

www.gcxmag.com...

That . . . and we have to have a balanced budget . . . the state constitution does not allow for deficit spending.

We cool . . . and we are just starting out.

The US government can buzz off.


Perhaps some other states can learn some lessons from us too.

Just sayin'

[edit on 20/2/2009 by xxpigxx]



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxpigxx
Texas is turning it down because we don't need it.

...The US government can buzz off.



Very true.

Texas is one of the FEW RED STATES on par with what they give the Federal Government versus suckle like a syphon.

I'd be more than willing to let you go.

Please secede. Just think of the surplus in Blue States once we get rid of Republicans.

[edit on 20-2-2009 by DagNabbit]



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Does anyone have any new information on those Red State Governors calling out the National Guard to stop the money train at the border?



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by DagNabbit
Finally!

Some GOP Governors consider refusing stimulus money

The governors of Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alaska, South Carolina and Idaho have all questioned whether the $787 billion federal bill signed into law this week will even help the economy, and are considering saying thanks, but no thanks to billions in aid for their crumbling states.

After decades of suckling at the Federal teet, getting more than they pay into the Federal Government, I'm thrilled to see some of the worst Welfare State offenders like Governor Palin of Alaska (takes $1.84 for every dollar in taxes paid) and Governor Barbour of Mississippi (takes $2.02 for every dollar in taxes paid) FINALLY taking a stand and saying NO MORE will they rely on the kindness of fiscally responsible Democrats in the likes of New Jersey, New York and Massachsetts to supplement their broken ideology.

Oh, and good luck in 2012!
]

So will they be refusing that "government welfare" when the next natural disaster happens? Besides most of this is just rhetoric because the state legislatures have to actually vote to refuse or accept the money.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by DagNabbit
 


Blue state surplus of what? You mean surpluses like the state of Michigan has.? Or those over abundent surpluses California has? Sounds more like a surplus of huberous.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by daddyroo45
 





You mean surpluses like the state of Michigan has.?


The only surplus Michigan has is the number of unemployed in the state.

Michigan is a disaster...and it has been for a long time.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Actually, Michigan has one of the better budget situations in the country, with only a relatively modest deficit:

www.cbpp.org...

It seems that while everybody else was borrowing vast sums of money and calling it "economic growth," Granholm (who I despise) was only borrowing tiny amounts of money, and not even faking economic growth.

Also, next year Texas is projected to join the massive list of States with a deficit, so they have some work to do.

I think it's a good idea, right now, for none of us to get too cocky about our State's budget situation or governance. Very few States are sitting pretty at the moment -- some just haven't had it trickle down to their constituents during this first wave.

Also, California may be a traditionally blue state, but they do have a Republican governor.

[edit on 24-2-2009 by theWCH]



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Well, for the sake of consistancy, I have to say it here too.

The governors of SC and LA, I can't say for sure about the others, are both motivated by future persoal and political gain in 2012.

They aren't refusing the money, neither one of them are.

Jindal is known to be in the running for 2012, it's finally something tat he himself will not deny, and he''s being thrown into the spotlight tonight so he can offer the rebuttal of Obama's speech. (which is highly unusual since it's not a state of the union address). The GOP is floating out their "new breed". Doubt this and you are mistaken.

Where were these guys when W was obfuscating the budget, running up the highest defecit in history, playing fast and loose with the nations money, where was their outrage then, where?.

I also know Sanfords motivation, and if you think it's purely in the best interests of the Nation or the State of SC, well, then again you are mistakeen.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join