Obama's first failed appointment

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

republicans keep slapping him in the face.

That kind of melodramatic characterization doesn't really support the whole "bipartisan" effort, you know? It must be a little awkward to discover you're part of the problem...

[lookout123]

oooh, daaaaaayuuuuuumm.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

That kind of melodramatic characterization doesn't really support the whole "bipartisan" effort, you know? It must be a little awkward to discover you're part of the problem...

Oh? Isn't it funny how some of those republicans who didn't vote for the bill are now taking credit for a lot of the stuff IN the bill? How can they possibly whine about it being bad and then take credit for it at the same time?

And some of the governors who were against it sure aren't turning the money down. IF they think the bill is bad, and wrong, isn't it hypocritical to take the money?

Face it, they are trying to regain power because they lost their collective asses in the past two elections. John McCain has been going on TV proselytizing about how to fix the economy, when he didn't even know the economy was failing back in September, right before the complete collapse of the economy. yea, we should listen to THAT guy.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Oh? Isn't it funny how some of those republicans who didn't vote for the bill are now taking credit for a lot of the stuff IN the bill? How can they possibly whine about it being bad and then take credit for it at the same time?

They forced some things into the bill not a lot (you are exaggerating A LOT) and for those they can take credit. That's about it. The D's could have taken every thing out - everything and probably still bought the three votes the got. None of them, not one congressman or senator, read the whole damn thing anyway. The D's voted on party lines just like the R's. See it for what it is.

Originally Posted by sugarpop

And some of the governors who were against it sure aren't turning the money down. If they think the bill is bad, and wrong, isn't it hypocritical to take the money?

Nope - they gotta take what they can get when they can get it. There are a lot of people depending upon them.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by classicman

Nope - they gotta take what they can get when they can get it. There are a lot of people depending upon them.

That's a little hypocritical.

[classicman]

The issue I have a problem with is that, and this is not clear, the bill may have put into place items into the states budgets that will force not only current spending from the stimulus bill, but also future spending as well. There was a lot of discussion about it again this morning on tv. I'm not sure how this is possible, but I didn't like what I was "half hearing" as I got ready for work. Anyone else heard or have any info on this?

Originally Posted by classicman

The issue I have a problem with is that, and this is not clear, the bill may have put into place items into the states budgets that will force not only current spending from the stimulus bill, but also future spending as well. There was a lot of discussion about it again this morning on tv. I'm not sure how this is possible, but I didn't like what I was "half hearing" as I got ready for work. Anyone else heard or have any info on this?

Im not sure what this means, but it sounds like one of those talking points.

The "state stabilization funds" component of the bill are to supplement the growing need for funding for programs administered by the states - $$$ for unemployment insurance or food stamps as a result of 3 million people loosng their jobs in the last 18 months. Or $$$ in education or public safety funds so states/cities/counties dont have to lay-off teachers or cops.

Many of the infrastructure and jobs projects, would seem to support, at least to some degree, the Reagan concept of "new federalism".....send the money to states, with few strings attached beyond broad program objectives, and let the states determine the best means of allocating those funds.

There are programs in the bill that would likely require long term funding in order to meet long term objectives. The intent of the stimulus bill has the duel purpose of creating jobs and providing "start up" for these longer term objectives - funding the development of "green" programs is an example.

But there is nothing to suggest that funding for those programs wont go through the normal appropriations process in the future, when the situation is less of an "emergency" to prevent the economy from continuing to decline.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

But there is nothing to suggest that funding for those programs wont go through the normal appropriations process in the future, when the situation is less of an "emergency" to prevent the economy from continuing to decline.

There is definately nothing to say that the funds will go through such a process.

Originally Posted by classicman

The issue I have a problem with is that, and this is not clear, the bill may have put into place items into the states budgets that will force not only current spending from the stimulus bill, but also future spending as well. There was a lot of discussion about it again this morning on tv. I'm not sure how this is possible, but I didn't like what I was "half hearing" as I got ready for work. Anyone else heard or have any info on this?

Poking around a bit on the issue of "putting items into state budgets that will force not only current spending..but also future spending.."

It looks to me like a few Republican governors with presidential ambitions - Palin, Pawlenty, Jindal - suggesting the bill contains unfunded state mandates...but offer no specificity on such mandates.