Begala: If You Oppose Stimulus Don't Take The Money

[ShockBand]

Not saying I necessarily agree or disagree with Begala, but he does raise an interesting notion:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/16/begala.carolina/index.html

[RoyalShock]

Or here's a better idea.

Take the money and donate it to the compaign of a challenger to one of the congressmen who voted for it.

[RoyalShock]

Ok, I reacted to the topic title and not the article content. My bad.

I would love for the states to begin standing up for themselves and give the finger to the feds. But the problem in this case is that, as I understand it, the "stiumuls" bill also included wording that allows a state legislature to override a governor on whether or not to accept "stiumuls" funds. (Another defeat for state's rights when the feds are telling them how to conduct legislative affairs.)

[Capitol Shock]

It's true...Uncle Sam has become the biggest crack dealer in the world. Unfortunately States and citizens are the addicts and can't say no to the hand outs.

There's so many handouts in this bill that that no one can say no to it even if it bankrupts our country. All of these trade groups, home builders, realtors, autoworkers are trying to latch on for their quick hit.

Government is not the answer to our problems but Obama and his team of socialists believe it is. Let's have the government decide everything for us...how much we can make, where we work and live, what kind of cars we drive. It's terrifying.

When we had the same issues in the 70's Reagan came along and turned things around by reducing government. That worked. It will be interesting to see if the opposite strategy by Obama also has the opposite effect. It would be fun to ask the Japanese what they think of O'bamas plan after trying it a dozen times in the last 20 years only to have their economy flounder more and more.

My response to Begala...we'll take your hand out and give it to the GOP to use on the next election while we still have some freedom left. The sad thing about these socialist crack dealers are that they seem to enjoy being enablers and encouraging people to become ever more helpless and dependant on a ever growing more over bearing government rather than having people provide for themselves.

I usually don't post on this stuff but I don't see how to turn the clock back on these decisions once the damage has been done. I hope that we don't pay a enormous price for this down the road.

[pie n eye]

Crack Dealers vs. Warmongers. Sending way too many billions to fund war vs. spending way too many billions on our country.

[RoyalShock]

I'm not pleased with the warmongering from the right, either, but at least with war there is usually an end in site (our 140+ worldwide military bases notwithstanding, grrr).

When was the last time you actually witnessed the end of a significant federal government program?

Didn't the "new deal" bring with it a new sense of entitlement among the citizenry? I would expect this one to have the exact same effect, particularly among the direct beneficiaries.

[Capitol Shock]

States should try and opt to take benefits in the form of reduced tax rates to the federal government. Then we would see which economies take off and which ones flounder.

These low tax states would probably wind up increasing the amount of taxes collected due to increased growth. The problem with this is that the citizens don't become government dependent when taxes are reduced...so the ruling socialist party will never allow this to be a alternative to accepting handout dollars.

[RoyalShock]

I think the only way a state will ever be able to assert power over the feds is to opt out of most, if not all, federal programs and replace them with state-level programs. This would include Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.

The problem with that ever happening is that you know there is no way in heck the feds would ever "reimburse" the state programs with the funds their citizens have paid in. Remember, it's the government's money, not the people's. :roll:

Of course, any state that tries this is likely to have a virtual war on it's hands with the feds. Since a state program is likely to be more successful, they wouldn't want any other states getting the same idea.

[ShockerGorilla]

I think the only way a state will ever be able to assert power over the feds is to opt out of most, if not all, federal programs and replace them with state-level programs. This would include Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.

The problem with that ever happening is that you know there is no way in heck the feds would ever "reimburse" the state programs with the funds their citizens have paid in. Remember, it's the government's money, not the people's. :roll:

Of course, any state that tries this is likely to have a virtual war on it's hands with the feds. Since a state program is likely to be more successful, they wouldn't want any other states getting the same idea.

This sounds like a set up for another Civil War. That's all we need is for states to secede from the Union.

[RoyalShock]

I didn't say anything about secession. I'm talking about taking the feds to task over enumerated powers and state's rights.

[jocoshock]

I

When we had the same issues in the 70's Reagan came along and turned things around by reducing government. That worked. It will be interesting to see if the opposite strategy by Obama also has the opposite effect. It would be fun to ask the Japanese what they think of O'bamas plan after trying it a dozen times in the last 20 years only to have their economy flounder more and more.

The national debt at least doubled, if not tripled or quadrupled during the Reagan years and through the Bush 41 years....

That was some mighty sweet crack that was smoked back then as well.... the economy was living on credit back then just as it is now.

[ShockerPrez]

This is how civil wars will start....

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_021309_news_oregon_beer_tax.126942e1.html?npc