Obama's first failed appointment - Page 13

sugarpop · 02-17-2009, 10:44 PM

Quote:

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 · 02-18-2009, 06:55 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 02-18-2009, 07:14 PM

Quote:

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 · 02-20-2009, 07:57 AM

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?

Clodfobble · 02-19-2009, 08:45 AM

Quote:

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?

Sure. Some Democrats are douchebags too. Just be aware that you're as bad as Merc when it comes to sweeping generalizations along party lines.

TheMercenary · 02-19-2009, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Sure. Some Democrats are douchebags too. Just be aware that you're as bad as Merc when it comes to sweeping generalizations along party lines.

Oh, yea, we're twins separated at birth.

TGRR · 02-19-2009, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Sure. Some Democrats are douchebags too. Just be aware that you're as bad as Merc when it comes to sweeping generalizations along party lines.

Okay, I'm a bit lefty, and even I know this crop of congressional dems are both insane and ignorant, far beyond even the hubris and jabbering stupidity of the congressional dems in the late 80s. That's not bashing on a party, it's just stating a fact.

sugarpop · 02-20-2009, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Sure. Some Democrats are douchebags too. Just be aware that you're as bad as Merc when it comes to sweeping generalizations along party lines.

Oh believe me, I can't stand most politicians. I just think republicans are worse.

TheMercenary · 02-20-2009, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Oh believe me, I can't stand most politicians. I just think republicans are worse.

yea but are you as bad as me.

sugarpop · 02-21-2009, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

yea but are you as bad as me.

I don't think so Merc. I admit when dems are corrupt and stupid and wrong. You rarely criticize republicans.

TGRR · 02-20-2009, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Oh believe me, I can't stand most politicians. I just think republicans are worse.

Naw. They're just stupid in a (very) slightly different way.

Happy Monkey · 02-20-2009, 06:07 PM

Maybe an unspecified staffer in an unspecified agency told them that if they got the money they might use it to create an unfunded state mandate.

classicman · 02-21-2009, 01:05 AM

Redux - I'm not sure of the "talking points. It was not politicians on the interview. They were talking about it and I asked for that reason. IF - If the administration is going to force the states into doing that, then that is wrong - if not then they are.

02-21-2009, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

Redux - I'm not sure of the "talking points. It was not politicians on the interview. They were talking about it and I asked for that reason. IF - If the administration is going to force the states into doing that, then that is wrong - if not then they are.

I'll give you an example of those "talking points" about forcing states to do something.

The stimulus bill includes $$$ to increase the amount and length of time a person can collect unemployment insurance, in light of the fact that there are more people losing their jobs every day (500,000+ in January alone, over 2 million in the last year) and experiencing unemployment for long periods of time.

The limits on the amount of unemployment insurance and the length of time a person can collect are established by state law, not federal. In order for these federal funds to reach those in need, a state may have to change its law.

The administration is not forcing the state to change its law. But as a practical matter, a state may need legislative action to comply with its own law.

xoxoxoBruce · 02-21-2009, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux

The limits on the amount of unemployment insurance and the length of time a person can collect are established by state law, not federal. In order for these federal funds to reach those in need, a state may have to change its law.

PA has the length of benefits limit set by state law. Numerous times, when unemployment reached a set threshold, weeks were added as a "Federal Extension of benefits", I presume with Federal money. When the rate falls below the threshold the extra weeks stop, I don't think any changes of the law or action by the state legislature is needed.

02-20-2009, 07:57 AM	#4
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	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? __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

02-20-2009, 06:07 PM	#12
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Maybe an unspecified staffer in an unspecified agency told them that if they got the money they might use it to create an unfunded state mandate. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

02-21-2009, 01:05 AM	#13
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	Redux - I'm not sure of the "talking points. It was not politicians on the interview. They were talking about it and I asked for that reason. IF - If the administration is going to force the states into doing that, then that is wrong - if not then they are. __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)