[Cortez]

Ok we can agree for starters about the need for action by the governement in response to an economic crisis. Obviously, Response to Crisis = Good, generally. So the idea is, we can all agree addressing and acting on a crisis is indeed good. But this is not to say that this response is good:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200907 ... tico/25114

Rank and file Republicans who criticize the stimulus have also suddenly found themselves under a concerted DNC assault that asks if they’d prefer the federal funding left their districts out. And criticism from Sen Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) drew letters from no fewer than four Cabinet secretaries to his state’s governor, asking if she would prefer they withheld stimulus money. That pushback has been urged, and welcomed, by state leaders like Redfern and Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer. “The DNC has been and we were quickly able to rebut and demonstrate all the money that is being spent in their respective districts,” said Brewer of two GOP congressmen attacking the stimulus. “They’ve backed off.”

Now the question: do you find this tactic alarming? Tactic being: extract [800 Billion] dollars from the people whether they are willing or not, and use it to bribe and bully your local elected leaders to support further and oncoming legislature, whether its good for their people, Democrat or Republican, - whether its good for them or not.

[Cortez]

Extra: I guess I'm here to try to get a better understanding of why libs. think as they do. Adding to that, the common response I see is for the ones on the left to assume those on the right are getting their words from pundits (Limbaugh etc). I wish! I wish I did, as opposed to having to make such conclusions based on the reality on the ground. I might not have the same opinion as you, but I come to it in the same way you do, via my own experience, which is what I'm here to share. Point being I thought I'd share the pundit-free version of the lefty-free interpretation of the stimulus/recovery act of 2009:

We all want action in response to the economic crisis but what I see us getting is a dark surprise in its place. Moving to the center, we look at that and say "this is a power grab". Hurry, they president says, "hurry and spend money quicker: it will work better if we spend it faster": http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.d ... 9906250460.

I see it as an imperative to force compliance and not ask questions, and that has been the policy. Its bizarre to do so in the name of "stimulus", and alarming to see our federal government acting quickly to silence dissenters. During the election I was not one of those concerned about the whole "solialist" angle, but I see this and I'm alarmed and concerned - blackmail, bribes and power hoarding are not what any of us looked for going into 2009. We are being asked to close our eyes and sign the dotted line without reading or considering it - or face the repurcussions of a manipulation campaign in the coming elections. You guys are cool with that?

Cortez.

[Jazznews]

There are Republicans who did refuse stimulus money for their districts when the last bill was passed, so maybe the Democrats are just asking them first so the money can be used by people who want it.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Friday that he will decline stimulus money specifically targeted at expanding state unemployment insurance coverage, becoming the first state executive to officially refuse any part of the federal government’s payout to states....

Jindal is one of a small group of Republican governors, which includes South Carolina’s Mark Sanford and Mississippi’s Haley Barbour, who have said they might refuse some or all of the stimulus money targeted to their states...

politico

Funny about Sanford refusing it, since he used taxpayer money to cheat on his wife when he flew to South America.

[Cortez]

There are Republicans who did refuse stimulus money for their districts when the last bill was passed, so maybe the Democrats are just asking them first so the money can be used by people who want it.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Friday that he will decline stimulus money specifically targeted at expanding state unemployment insurance coverage, becoming the first state executive to officially refuse any part of the federal government’s payout to states....

Jindal is one of a small group of Republican governors, which includes South Carolina’s Mark Sanford and Mississippi’s Haley Barbour, who have said they might refuse some or all of the stimulus money targeted to their states...

politico

Well I agree with you in that if there's something an elected official can do for the benefit of his or her constituents, he should do it. The part I have a problem with is where the Dems. say "shut up or you can't have it". Yknow that's a real ethical dilemma. Its like saying, "because you are represented by a Republican, your district/state/etc is going to be skipped over in favor of districts/states/etc who are represented by Democrats".

"Take the money and do what we say," in other words. The thing I hope a lot of Dems. will remember is that a lot of people don't object to the stimulus on account of its origins in the Democratic party, but instead because they have a problem with the implimentation and dare I say rightfully doubt the positive impact of the stimulus/recovery act as a whole. I doubt many on this board would say the people of Wisconsin have seen or will see many tangible benefits from those few billion dollars; that seems plain. You will definitely hear that throughout the state from Democrats and Republicans alike. It seems clear to many of us that the actual effect of the entire stimulus program is not to benefit the poor or the middle class, but to advance the power of the Democratic party (and we wonder, for the good of whom?)

If I was an Independent governor, the reason in my mind to consider refusing stimulus money wouldn't be to spite the Democrats, it would be to protect my people from corruption in light of what some might call political blackmail. I wouldn't be thinking, "I want to deprive the people in my state of money we need in these troubled times", I'd be thinking "it is my responsibility as the steward of this state government to keep the effects of this ethically questionable money out of my districts". And I'd be thinking "DC wants to give this money to us, but what does it want in return?" Unfortunately at that point my observation would be that it wants compliance, silence and undo influence. Question: Is that how you want the Democrats that represent you doing business?

Any thoughts?

[Jazznews]

We went through 8 years of political corruption and blackmail, it can't get any worse than that. In fact it's much better. The Republicans want to derail anything the president does, and that's for their own political gain. People need jobs and hopefully the stimulus money will provide that. The Republicans are the ones who are trying to advance their power. Or rather, take us back to the stone age like under the Bush regime.

[DCB]

If I was an Independent governor, the reason in my mind to consider refusing stimulus money wouldn't be to spite the Democrats, it would be to protect my people from corruption in light of what some might call political blackmail. I wouldn't be thinking, "I want to deprive the people in my state of money we need in these troubled times", I'd be thinking "it is my responsibility as the steward of this state government to keep the effects of this ethically questionable money out of my districts". And I'd be thinking "DC wants to give this money to us, but what does it want in return?" Unfortunately at that point my observation would be that it wants compliance, silence and undo influence. Question: Is that how you want the Democrats that represent you doing business?

Any thoughts?

What does DC want in return? they want the States to spend the money! So that people are working, and so that local municipalities are completing useful projects.

You can argue for or against the effectiveness of the stimulus, but calling it 'political blackmail' is just bizarre.

[fisticuffs]

I don;t think of it as blackmail at all. I call it holding these guys responsible to their constituents. The Republicans are sparing no expense right now to make sure that Obama fails even if that means hurting the people who put them in office (also the people who didn't but they could give a fuck about them anyways). Whether those voters agree with the route we're taking or not they certainly don't want the failure that the hard liners in the party want. They aren't playing the vindictive game of I'm right you're wrong they just want things fixed. The Republicans who want to refuse this money to score political points will just have to deal with the consequences of those actions. My guess is if Alabama all of a sudden starts seeing a rise in employment due to stimulus money and Mississippi next store does everything they can to refuse it and doesn't start regaining these jobs the folks in MS might start looking over at their neighbors and saying WTF? All states hypothetical of course.

[ArturoBandini]

My guess is if Alabama all of a sudden starts seeing a rise in employment due to stimulus money and Mississippi next store does everything they can to refuse it and doesn't start regaining these jobs the folks in MS might start looking over at their neighbors and saying WTF? All states hypothetical of course.

Totally possible, but the opposite might be possible too. States that are more fiscally responsible and less dependent on federal dollars might prosper instead. How is the success of stimulus measured anyway? How can we tell just how many jobs that the stimulus saved, created, or destroyed against the background of countless other economic factors? There are a lot of dollars and political points being scored here, but I'm not convinced that anything economically productive is actually happening.

Denying stimulus money would make sense if the state was also exempted from paying down the debt on the stimulus funding. I'd like to live in a state free from the oncoming tidal wave of federal debt obligations, wouldn't you? But, if a state is on the hook for the debt already, it would be stupid for any politician not to squeeze every dime they can from the fund.

[pjbogart]

Denying stimulus money would make sense if the state was also exempted from paying down the debt on the stimulus funding.

Great idea... can we bill the Iraq war to Texas?

Or how about this? Stimulus "rebates." Every year $1000 is due every citizen of the United States as a rebate or offset, the catch being that the rebate is discounted by the amount that your State spent per capita of federal dollars. So, lets say the residents of Alaska received $1200 per capita in federal dollars. They get no rebate. Then the State of Wisconsin received $800 per capita, so every resident gets $200 off their federal tax liability or a check for $200 if they have none.

It's a race to the bottom to reduce federal spending! No Senator wants to be the guy who cost his constituents a $500 check at the end of the year. It would sell itself too, because you'd write in the $1000 rebate and then have to look up your State in one of those fancy IRS charts. You'd not only see what your State was receiving, but what other States receive as well. Oh crap, I wish I lived in Vermont... they all got an $800 check.

I think it's a winner.

[Bwis53]

Oooh, yeah, that's the ticket. I'm going to grab the latest Lesko book, and get some Stimulus Money to bail me out! Hey, if BOA, Citi, etc. can do it, why can't I? I'll just say I need it for my business. Yeah, that's the ticket...

[Cortez]

We went through 8 years of political corruption and blackmail, it can't get any worse than that. In fact it's much better. The Republicans want to derail anything the president does, and that's for their own political gain. People need jobs and hopefully the stimulus money will provide that. The Republicans are the ones who are trying to advance their power. Or rather, take us back to the stone age like under the Bush regime.

Well I can't tell you I liked Bush at the time though I've been forced to reevaluate. In the face of deficit spending in the trillions, the days of deficit spending in the hundreds of billions look a little better than they used to. You know only 39% http://www.diageohotlinepoll.com/ of people in the country have a favorable outlook on the 09 stimulus act. I have to tell you as I recall it being the first big push by this administration, first thing they did is say "we need to get this stimulus bill passed quickly for the benefit of all Americans". I was in Appleton a few weeks ago reading the paper, that county gets around 4 million and I read the article breakdown - it was all spending; they only planned to create 1 part time job in a position that decides how some of the money will be spent. Part of the money Wisconsin gets is $45 million for its unemployment agency and they're just sticking it into the general fund without hiring more people, in fact they make people work less. There aren't any consequences for completely wasting all of the money, money that is doled out on the basis of favors and compliance - you get the money for playing nice, and if there aren't any consequences to how you spend it (other than debt), what confidence can we have that the entire thing has been anything other than a handout to friends and a battering ram to enemies of the white house? For all the good its doing our budget, for all the jobs its not creating, they might as well have just given 100% of it to the people - at least we could use it to buy things and support our local businesses.

So there was that big push for the stimulus, now what are they using it for? - "if you're for us you get it if you're against us you don't". There's a word for that.

One thing I think we all can admit is that if the Bush stimulus money was used in that way, the world would've screamed bloody murder. Switch Obama's name for "Bush" and people would call it what it is - a Trojan Horse. Turning a blind eye never did anybody any good. I really have a feeling we're not going to like where the history books show that 800 billion dollars going. We looked for action and improvement, we got corruption and bribes, maybe. Where are the jobs? Where will be the jobs? We want people to make more money, spend more money, and keep more money. What we get instead is spending on the furtherance of one ideology over another - we're actually spending the money on that by using it to shut out people who disagree, and directing much of it straight to Dem.-friendly organizations; thats a power-move, not a people-move. Even from the other side I would want the results to advance my community, not just my cause.

[Stella_Guru]

We looked for action and improvement, we got corruption and bribes, maybe. Where are the jobs? Where will be the jobs? We want people to make more money, spend more money, and keep more money. What we get instead is spending on the furtherance of one ideology over another - we're actually spending the money on that by using it to shut out people who disagree, and directing much of it straight to Dem.-friendly organizations; thats a power-move, not a people-move. Even from the other side I would want the results to advance my community, not just my cause.

Both establishment parties are in business to continue a social order activated by greed and functioning through exploitation, aquisition and accumulation. Current practice in the U.S. economy calls upon the person who has met his needs for necessaries to turn his attention to procuring comforts and conveniences, and after that to luxuries and superfluities. The stimulus is designed to continue this outmoded cultural pattern. Millions of bread-winners have come face-to-face with the perils which lurk for those who purchase their livelihood in this price-profit economy. Many are discovering how much of the clutter and waste can be tossed overboard. The politicians who are proposing to continue the price-profit economy with its dread implications will be tossed overboard too if they continue to fail to be accountable to their constituents.

[DCB]

There aren't any consequences for completely wasting all of the money, money that is doled out on the basis of favors and compliance - you get the money for playing nice, and if there aren't any consequences to how you spend it (other than debt), what confidence can we have that the entire thing has been anything other than a handout to friends and a battering ram to enemies of the white house?

What the hell are you talking about? The money is available to states that apply for it, presumably for projects appropriate for the stimulus - projects that put people to work.

In what way is this a 'battering ram'?

[Cortez]

There aren't any consequences for completely wasting all of the money, money that is doled out on the basis of favors and compliance - you get the money for playing nice, and if there aren't any consequences to how you spend it (other than debt), what confidence can we have that the entire thing has been anything other than a handout to friends and a battering ram to enemies of the white house?

What the hell are you talking about? The money is available to states that apply for it, presumably for projects appropriate for the stimulus - projects that put people to work.

In what way is this a 'battering ram'?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200907 ... tico/25114

Rank and file Republicans who criticize the stimulus have also

suddenly found themselves under a concerted DNC assault that asks if they’d prefer the federal funding left their districts out.

And criticism from Sen Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) drew letters from no fewer than four Cabinet secretaries to his state’s governor, asking if she would prefer they withheld stimulus money.

That pushback has been urged, and welcomed, by state leaders like Redfern and Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer.

“The DNC has been and we were quickly able to rebut and demonstrate all the money ...

“They’ve backed off.”

BAT-TER-ING-RAM. (Caps Lock for emphasis only).

C.

[Cortez]

We went through 8 years of political corruption and blackmail, it can't get any worse than that. In fact it's much better. The Republicans want to derail anything the president does, and that's for their own political gain. People need jobs and hopefully the stimulus money will provide that. The Republicans are the ones who are trying to advance their power. Or rather, take us back to the stone age like under the Bush regime.

I don;t think of it as blackmail at all. I call it holding these guys responsible to their constituents. The Republicans are sparing no expense right now to make sure that Obama fails even if that means hurting the people who put them in office (also the people who didn't but they could give a fuck about them anyways).

Question: all arguments aside, I'm not detecting a lot of confidence that the stimulus will have a significant effect, would that be correct? Not long ago, everybody was arguing about the folly of the prior stimulus act. Moreover there was great debate among the Democratic party over the current stimulus act - debate over "will it work?". Do we think that it will? Do we think that it is? What do we expect in the coming years? I'm always thinking about that. 61% of Americans say they do not expect it to work - not because they hate Democrats, they just don't think it will work. Its definitely not seen as having a positive effect in Wisconsin. All blame aside, a lot of liberals that I talk to have concern that the effort will be derailed in some way or just thought it was a bad idea. I guess I have my opinion but what good does it do me to pass judgement. Personally I just see how its being used and I wish we were better than that as a nation. I do wish they'd sent some to me