# Stimulus funding for states be contingent on how reps voted?



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

> A pretty brilliant smack-down-and bluff-calling-*over at CNN:*
> 
> Gov. Sanford can lead the way. South Carolina should decline to accept any federal funds for transportation, education, health care, clean energy or any of the other ideas President Obama is advocating to fix the economy. And the rest of the GOP can follow suit.
> 
> ...


Now this being said.. before someone spouts off to disagree with:



> "You know Ryan... that is fine.. so if we don't agree on how the Federal government decides to spend out $$$, and with that provision, we'd be refused the funding based on how our legislators voted..just make sure that if we opt out, don't count on us for taxes..."


You are missing my point.

Noone is saying they should be refused funding, rather the question is:

If you as a government official have stated that this stim is bad for the economy, bad for your constituents, or is an anti-capitalist, pro-socialist package which is about to deal a death blow to American democracy, or if you stated that this is the act of a failed president, and his dangerous, partisan policies and approach to governing, that if you believe what you are saying, and not just saying it, _*shouldn't at least one member of the GOP do what needs to be done, and defend their constituents by refusing to allow the funds to be distributed in their district?*_ :huh:

It's fairly clear that no one in the GOP will even being making noises in this direction, and it _would_ just be noise, but they aren't even being that honest with themselves...

... or with us.

Well guys.. time to put your vote behind your ideals... Are you willing to state that your district shouldn't get stimulus $$ if your representative voted down the package?

I kinda wish that congress would've inserted that as a provision into the stimulus package that said $$ would only go to districts whose representatives voted yes.

Brilliant.

We can therefore reduce the overall amount of the package. Just what the GOP wanted right?


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

In the old days this was called BLACKMAIL in the most simple form.

Used to be a crime............


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

i agree ryan. if you don't believe in this or other government handouts. don't take the money. i know a couple of republicans that take money for government housing. i also know others that take all the union help they can get when it comes to their wages (benefits). if your going to talk the talk then walk the walk.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

zogman said:


> In the old days this was called BLACKMAIL in the most simple form.
> 
> Used to be a crime............


Sorry Zogman. That isn't blackmail at all...

I think many would interpret the will of the voters and politicians as follows:

1. Those voting against the stimulus package didn't think those types of spending measures would help recover the economy.

and

2. Those representatives voting against the stimulus package were rejecting it.. and were representing the interests of the voters in their district by doing so... presumably because the GOP voters in that district advised their rep to please vote it down.

Logically that would mean that those in districts where decidedly against the stimulus on philosophical grounds, therefore don't want any stimulus money, as it isn't in their interest politically. If they don't believe it will help their region's situation, that is their right to not have the money.

That isn't blackmail. That is an extension of their logic. Correct?

You know.... If that provision _was_ in the bill, we'd see alot less "posturing" from GOP politicians, and we'd see lots of Red voters calling their representatives and voicing how they want the stimulus vote to go. I wonder once we put the rubber to the road, where these staunch conservatives would stand?

Here was the original article:



> *WASHINGTON (CNN)* -- 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. Gov. Sanford can lead the way. South Carolina should decline to accept any federal funds for transportation, education, health care, clean energy or any of the other ideas President Obama is advocating to fix the economy. And the rest of the GOP can follow suit.
> 
> ...


Someting tells me that local ND government officials can't wait to get their hands on the money either...

Or so it seems to me...

Has anyone made that call demanding their elected officials pass on receiving money? What did they say?

Anyone? Where's your principles?


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

I would agree that Republican governors should be able to refuse money from the stimulus plan, but only if the citizens of those states get a tax break when the rest of the states have to pay back what they accepted plus interest in a realistic time table of 10 years. Also Republican states get a tax credit from day one on the amount of interest it adds to the national debt yearly, while the Dem states that excepted the funds pay proportionately, about 44 billion per year at 4.5% . Sounds fair, and if you move out of your Dem state the tax liability follows you. :beer:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Bowstring said:


> I would agree that Republican governors should be able to refuse money from the stimulus plan, but only if the citizens of those states get a tax break when the rest of the states have to pay back what they accepted plus interest in a realistic time table of 10 years. Also Republican states get a tax credit from day one on the amount of interest it adds to the national debt yearly, while the Dem states that excepted the funds pay proportionately, about 44 billion per year at 4.5% . Sounds fair, and if you move out of your Dem state the tax liability follows you. :beer:


Nope no tax break. The citizens of all the states benefit directly and indirectly as the economy gets rolling again.

Besides, the majority of those red state citizens already do get a tax break, by receiving more federal money than they contribute into the system.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Yup, total tax breaks, then the working class in the states that don't need the stimulwaste money won't have to pay for the overspending states that need the bail out.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

IF we have to pay for the pork, we should all get some.

It'd be better if there wasnt any pork, but hey, the dems got elected, and they are foaming at the mouths to all that free money the Federal Reserve can print out


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

Would this be a new sort of government control?

Or are they suggesting blackmail to get people to agree with them?


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Gun Owner said:


> IF we have to pay for the pork, we should all get some.
> 
> It'd be better if there wasnt any pork, but hey, the dems got elected, and they are foaming at the mouths to all that free money the Federal Reserve can print out


Exactly, we will all have to pay it back. It will be interesting to see what districts or states get the big $$$. :-?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think your right zogman it is blackmail, but it is much more than that. However, I am sure Ryan is just stirring the pot, because that is what Ryan does. He doesn't think I do it enough, but then I disagree for a reason, not just fun.

I also agree that many of the red states get more back than they pay in. However, that money gives the blue states food for about one third of what Europe pays. In the end things are perhaps even, and surely it doesn't make the blue states superior. Besides they have the colors wrong. Conservative states should be blue and the liberal states like other socialist/communist should be red like red China.

Even though red states get more money back there is a flaw to think they are more beholding. We contribute less because of our population, but on average I am certain that conservatives are more productive than liberals hence pay more tax as an individual. I would also guess that the majority of those on welfare are liberals. What these people are suggesting is punishing the productive even more for the benefit of the liberals even more. What we have is leeches on society who suck most of the blood from this nation and scheme for more. I guess that's not a problem if you lack pride.

The conservatives individually contribute more than their fair share. The liberals spend more than we have. Now the liberals want to hog the money being returned.

I don't see this as fair, I see it as third grade vindictive. Trying to make it sound reasonable is a game for the treacherous. These people get lower in my view as they speak. They are not only socialists, they are worst America has to offer. I often think that liberals can not surprise me, but this intellectual dishonesty has surprised me. It's even a new low for them.

This is like six little boys pooling their money for candy. One has a dollar, one has .75, another has .50, and three have a nickel. They vote for Hershey or Tootsie rolls. They guy with .50 and the three guys with a nickel all vote for Tootsie rolls. These "geniuses" with the nickels then decide that because the guy with a dollar and the one with .75 didn't want Tootsie rolls that they shouldn't get any candy. :eyeroll:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ryan.....it is black mail to a certain extent.

Think of it like this it is the Dem. party is blackmailing the voters. (I would say the same if the Rep are doing it.)

It is saying if you ever want funding of any sort you need to vote Dem because the Rep party voted it down. So that will sway future votes.

Or that will sway the vote of the Rep in power because he will think it will hurt his re-election even though he is trying to do what his voters wanted him to do.

It is a form of blackmail to a certain extent. It is not money they want but votes......votes from the public if the Rep congressman did not vote in favor of the bill. Or votes from the Rep congressman for the bill because he is fearing not getting re-elected.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> I also agree that many of the red states get more back than they pay in. However, that money gives the blue states food for about one third of what Europe pays. In the end things are perhaps even, and surely it doesn't make the blue states superior.


I bought my own groceries in the Netherlands for over a year and I will tell you that groceries are certainly not 2/3 more than what we pay here. Groceries were very similar. And good beer was always cheaper...

I read the article and thought it was pretty clever. My view is that the republicans are doing a dis-service to the stimulus package by stating over and over again how it will not work... by not standing behind it. It's going to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Now, imagine if we have full support on both sides of the aisle I think consumer confidence will be much higher. It amazes me that the republicans still think that tax cuts are all we need to stimulate the economy after what we've been through.

Plainsman, your theory that


> I am certain that conservatives are more productive than liberals hence pay more tax as an individual.


 is a complete joke in my mind. I've happened to surround myself with like-minded people (mostly democrats) as friends and they happen to make a lot of money (a lot more than me). Your world-view of democrats (welfare-recipients) versus republicans (economy stimulating and Bible carrying) is certainly up for serious debate. The fact that you truly believe this about democrats (and you've stated it over, and over, and over, and ov....) gives you little credibility on this score in my opinion.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I've happened to surround myself with like-minded people (mostly democrats) as friends


  So that explains your single perspective.



> I bought my own groceries in the Netherlands for over a year and I will tell you that groceries are certainly not 2/3 more than what we pay here.


I don't know, my brother-in-laws and their families just got back from Norway and they paid $6 for a cup of coffee. It wasn't no trendy latte place either.



> Your world-view of democrats (welfare-recipients) versus republicans (economy stimulating and Bible carrying) is certainly up for serious debate. The fact that you truly believe this about democrats (and you've stated it over, and over, and over, and ov....) gives you little credibility on this score in my opinion.


Well, see the confusing thing is years ago they did a survey and nine of the top ten richest people in the senate were democrat. However, the democrats keep whining about the rich republicans. Which am I to believe? I know a lot of rich democrats myself. When it comes to welfare however, most that I know on it are liberal. So in reality I suppose the rich are equally conservative and liberal, but it is without a doubt that the welfare type are hugely liberal.



> (economy stimulating and Bible carrying)


Now what does the Bible have to do with any of this? Did you simply bring it up because you don't like it? Or did you simply bring it up because I do like it?

Now aside from you seabass: You can tell a lot about people by the way they think. Isn't it fascinating that one man's blackmail and treachery is to another man simply cleverness?


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

After the dollar to Euro exchange rate, I'm sure a cup of coffee was that expensive. They are also that expensive in Minneapolis. But you were talking about groceries, and as I said, I _do_ know how the prices compares since I was there for a year. And they are similar. But what do I know, eh? 



> Well, see the confusing thing is years ago they did a survey and nine of the top ten richest people in the senate were democrat. However, the democrats keep whining about the rich republicans. Which am I to believe? I know a lot of rich democrats myself. When it comes to welfare however, most that I know on it are liberal. So in reality I suppose the rich are equally conservative and liberal, but it is without a doubt that the welfare type are hugely liberal.


I'm trying to follow your logic here but I can't. You said earlier that conservatives are more productive than liberals. That's garbage unless you can back it up. Democrats don't care about the rich (as you pointed out, many dems are rich themselves). It's just that they realize that getting there isn't as easy as the republicans say it is. That's why we believe in some social programs to help people back to their feet so they can help themselves. My personal favorite is the rich republican that "got where there all on their own without help from anybody." ...forgetting of course, their rich parents paid for their college and helped to line up their current job. :roll:

As far as the voting track of welfare recipients, sorry, but I personally need more information than going by "the welfare types" that you know. I'm pretty sure a lot of welfare recipients vote conservative because of guns, religion, and because they sure don't like them gays.

I brought up the Bible because plainsman we all know that republicans are the "religious" group (yeah right :roll: ). Look back at your own posts plainsman, you've told us that many times... just like you've also told us that welfare recipients are "the face of liberalism." 

You are right plainsman, you can tell a lot about a person by the way they think. You've got that much right.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

R y a n said:


> > South Carolina should decline to accept any federal funds for transportation, education, health care, clean energy or any of the other ideas President Obama is advocating to fix the economy. And the rest of the GOP can follow suit.




I like how the article only uses those paticular parts of the "stimulus bill". You know, the parts that arent terribly far fetched, the parts that may actually do some good.

I notice their not suggesting states turn down the endless crap and pork that this bill contains. But rather, the few good parts of the bill. Interesting indeed.

Just an observation about the "impartial" media.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I brought up the Bible because plainsman we all know that republicans are the "religious" group (yeah right ). Look back at your own posts plainsman, you've told us that many times... just like you've also told us that welfare recipients are "the face of liberalism."


OK, so you did bring it up just because I like it. Yes, I have said that many times. I say it because it's always the liberals that confuse the separation of church and state. Many think it's in the constitution which it is not. That however is not the biggest problem. The big problem is they think it means religion should not influence government when the intent was that government could not influence religion.

As far as welfare and liberals. I think more of the welfare people are liberal. If they are on welfare they vote liberal because they know they have a better chance of staying on welfare, and getting more from welfare. Liberalism creates welfare or welfare creates liberalism is sort of like the question which came first the chicken or the egg.

Getting back to the subject, what do you think of these little boys with the nickels that don't want the kids that paid for most of the candy to have any? Do you think they are clever, or selfish little brats?


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Okay, I'll bite:


> This is like six little boys pooling their money for candy. One has a dollar, one has .75, another has .50, and three have a nickel. They vote for Hershey or Tootsie rolls. They guy with .50 and the three guys with a nickel all vote for Tootsie rolls. These "geniuses" with the nickels then decide that because the guy with a dollar and the one with .75 didn't want Tootsie rolls that they shouldn't get any candy.


Your analogy doesn't pertain to the situation at hand. The three little boys voted against having any candy at all. So, why should they get any?

In any case, all I said is that it was a "clever" article. My point in posting at all is that this may all turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy because our elected officials in Washington will not work together. and I believe the republicans are mostly at fault for this.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> In any case, all I said is that it was a "clever" article. My point in posting at all is that this may all turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy because our elected officials in Washington will not work together. and I believe the republicans are mostly at fault for this.


Actually Bush reached across the isle many times only to have his face slapped.

Now it looks like Obama is reaching out. He invited input, and he listened, but he didn't take any action that would look like he was serious.

It's interesting that you don't think the republicans are trying. Evidently you think they are partisan. Since the bill passed along party lines why is either party more partisan than the other? I think the bill was a total wast of taxpayer money and I am happy that the republicans finally are acting like conservatives. My only disappointment is that three republican senators were dumb enough to vote for it. Since the majority of North Dakotans were against it this may be the first time that Dorgan's head is on the chopping block.

Oh seabass, as a liberal I can see why you wouldn't think the two little boys who paid for most of the candy shouldn't get any.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

seabass said:


> In any case, all I said is that it was a "clever" article.


Its not a "clever" article, its a boneheaded article that anyone with half a brain would and should pass off as boneheaded.



> Gov. Sanford can lead the way. South Carolina should decline to accept any federal funds for transportation, education, health care, clean energy or any of the other ideas President Obama is advocating to fix the economy. And the rest of the GOP can follow suit.


what it SHOULD read is.....

Gov. Sanford can lead the way. South Carolina should decline to accept any federal funds for ACORN, National Endowment for the Arts, digital TV coupons, carbon-capture demonstration projects, quit smoking programs, fish barriers, free fruit flavored condoms in fun colors for slutty girls, or any of the other (stupid) ideas President Obama is advocating to fix the economy. And the rest of the GOP can follow suit.

Its all in what "parts" they decide to write about. Sadly, boneheads will read it and go "ohhh yeah, thats a great idea, now bring me another beer and one of those fruit flavored fun colored condoms".


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> > Oh seabass, as a liberal I can see why you wouldn't think the two little boys who paid for most of the candy shouldn't get any.


I can see it too, amazing how the liberal mind thinks. :beer:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Three republicans are trying. And the bill was pared down to meet their demands. The rest of the repubs washed their hands of it completely. Of course the democrats voted for the bill, it's what they came up with together with Obama.

You think the bill is a total waste of tax payer money? So, if there is money to build a dike or a diversion to keep the Red River from flooding Fargo, moorhead, GF, and EGF and the rest of the cities near the river... you are totallly against it? I know that TK33 floated that idea on here. I can't remember your response, but you must have been against it.

Oh plainsman, as a conservative I can see why you think that the boys who paid the least, but actually didn't want any candy at all, should get some.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Oh plainsman, as a conservative I can see why you think that the boys who paid the least, but actually didn't want any candy at all, should get some.


   But the three liberal boys with the nickels and the one with $.50 did vote. It must have been them rotten rich kids with the $1.00 and $.75 that didn't vote, and still had to pay. Ya, that's it.  They perhaps wanted to buy a salad and them brat liberals wanted candy. :rollin:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

> You think the bill is a total waste of tax payer money? So, if there is money to build a dike or a diversion to keep the Red River from flooding Fargo, moorhead, GF, and EGF and the rest of the cities near the river... you are totallly against it? I know that TK33 floated that idea on here. I can't remember your response, but you must have been against it.


Plainsman, you somehow forget about this part of my post. You are totally against things like this in the bill, right? This is a "total waste of tax payer money"?

Plainsman, we all know that the liberals are the ones willing to swallow higher taxes to pay for social programs. You can go on and on with your cute analogy (which I'm still trying to understand where you are pulling your $$ references from) but the bottom line is that I am willing to pay some addititional taxes to pay for high quality government sponsored programs that I believe we all as a society benefit from. It's irritating when programs are taken advantage of, but there is no perfect way to weed those individuals out. But i'm willing to take some bad with the good.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

barebackjack said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> > > South Carolina should decline to accept any federal funds for transportation, education, health care, clean energy or any of the other ideas President Obama is advocating to fix the economy. And the rest of the GOP can follow suit.
> ...




Bareback, maybe you didn't realize that this was an opinion piece (i.e. commentary)... it wasn't meant to be impartial. For another impartial one at CNN, check out
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/cafferty.stimulus/index.html?iref=mpstoryview


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman, you somehow forget about this part of my post. You are totally against things like this in the bill, right? This is a "total waste of tax payer money"?


I am totally against it because there is to much waste, and it will perhaps do more harm in the long run than good.

I don't think it is a stimulus bill, I think it is an eight year long liberal wish list. I don't want money available to ACRON or any conservative organization that will mess with our elections. Currently they are being investigated for election fraud.

I think this nation is at a very important turning point. We are at a fork in the road where we either remain capitalist or we go socialist. Many think we are just calling names when we say socialist, but I am using it in the strictest correct sense of the word.

There is no doubt in my mind that Obama and Nancy Pelosi want this nation to be socialistic. Their attack on the first amendment is worrisome. It's disguised as fairness doctrine, but there is nothing fair or about it. The majority of the news papers are liberal, and a vast majority of the television industry is biased liberal. I am not sure about the internet. The am radio is the only media in which the conservatives have a stronger voice. The liberals can't stand that. They want total domination in everything you hear and they are doing their best to squash all communications that do not agree with them. That is very scary. We are creating the American Iron Curtain.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

> Stimulus funding for states be contingent on how reps voted


MN is screwed then since they only had half their votes in the senate.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

Gov of LA, Bobby Jindal may have taken you up on that.

http://tinyurl.com/Jindal-stimulus


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

JustAnotherDog said:


> Gov of LA, Bobby Jindal may have taken you up on that.
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/Jindal-stimulus


Jindal says ""We''ll have to review each program, each new dollar to make sure that we understand what are the conditions, what are the strings and see whether it''s beneficial for Louisiana to use those dollars,"

This means he''s going to take the money so he wants to have it both ways: The headline says he won''t take the $, the details says he will.

How Republican of him.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

What a joke.

PURE AND SIMPLE COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll go for this when you give your tax dollars back from the bush tax cuts Ryan, or the rebates.

But, we all know this is how it goes, pretty soon us hick folk will be paying for the bad mortgages the brainiacs on the coasts and big cities that all went and bought $400,000 houses on $60,000 incomes, and six months later went and got a home equity loan to buy their kids new cars.

How bout we devide the US into two separate countries, between red and blue states, and see who comes out better in the end.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> How Republican of him.


Well at least you have tipped your hand and shown us you were full of bs when you told us how open minded you were. Why didn't you just be honest with us? Your partisan through and through and finally it's now visible to everyone. At least that puts everything in the open now. Why didn't you tell us that before? Ashamed of being lib? It will be much easier discussing thing with you now that your not hiding behind the nonpartisan bologna, and pretending to be something your not.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Ryan wrote


> Sorry Zogman. That isn't blackmail at all...


Ryan I may have missed something in the past. Are you a fiction writter by profession???? Because you can give the best spin I've seen on this site :lol:

Have a nice day.........


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

southdakbearfan said:


> What a joke.
> 
> PURE AND SIMPLE COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ...


 :beer: could not have said it better. I think that you either make it or you dont.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well Ryan at least now we know how to approach logic with you. I'm still sure you do most of it simply to stir things up. I still don't agree with you on that.

So lets look at this silly little plan that you think is logical. You know I often complain about the farm program and subsidies. Some people get upset because they think I am against farming because of that. The truth is many farmers are against some of the farm program and subsidies also. They think it ties their hands. 
However, the farmers who are against it take the subsidies, and I think they would be foolish not to. Their hands are tied they either take it or they go under. It's the hand the government deals them. They are not organized, so they are the easiest target for the government to socialize. Sometimes we foolishly blame them.
Now when we say the guy in Louisiana shouldn't take the money it isn't hurting him, it's hurting the people of Louisiana. It's very short sighted no not be able to see that. At least I hope it's short sighted and not vindictive and selfish. 
The plan no matter how bad will be paid up by the taxpayers of all states including Louisiana. I can see where some very bad liberals would want to punish the people of Louisiana to like spoiled children get back at the governor, but they are not the people most of us would voluntarily associate with. 
I sincerely hope you havn't gone over the partisan brink so far that you will not keep your brain in gear while reading this. To me it's a simple matter of integrity. I would never think of cheating you as a fellow citizen for voting for Obama. I hope you understand all this.


----------

