Gov. Sanford only wants the money if he can pay off debt - otherwise he’s turning it down on the principle that it will hurt our country. I wonder if it’s the same economic genius principles that has given So. Carolina a $2B budget deficit, the 3rd worst unemplyment in the nation, and heavily dependent on Federal money?
Another genius, Gov. Palin is turning down the money. Maybe she doesn’t realize that Alaska is the number ONE recepient of federal aid in the country not only in per capita but in categories of aid. There’s no shame in taking those funds.
How about Gov. Jindal of Louisiana? One of the poorest States in the nation. That guy thinks he’s got a shot at the national stage. Hilarious.
I wonder if it’s the same economic genius principles that has given So. Carolina a $2B budget deficit, the 3rd worst unemplyment in the nation, and heavily dependent on Federal money?
With rampant illiteracy, the worst transportation and educational infrastructure in the nation (save for the new single-wide trailers that are replacing traditional buildings), the lowest high school graduation rate, and the third worst unemployment rate in the nation (no correlation there), who needs stimulus money? Certainly not the millionaire occupying the governor’s mansion (when not vacationing in his multimillion dollar beach front home), or his privately educated children.
We’re a pull ourselves up by our wingtips kind of state - for those who can afford it.
I think the issue deals with future liabilities once you’ve taken the money and created those programs dictated by the stimulus money. After you run out of money, how are you going to pay for those new programs in future years?
If they had accepted the stimulus money, I’m sure you’d be complaining about their “hypocrisy” in cashing in on it, so who can take your opinions on the matter seriously?
Those three States are already at the top of the list of States that receive Federal funds. It is hypocrital fro them to say they won’t accept the stimulus money when they already receive more Federal money than most other States. These three governors are nothing but hypocrits.
I heard they are turning it all down. At least the portion that relates to the State. Federal programs within their State would not be impacted. If that is not the case, their public rhetoric is off base.
i’m with you for once. frankly, they are all on the government tit anyway, they might as well take the money and pray it does something good. palin is so stupid it’s infuriating.
i think these people turning down the money are sure not to get re-elected. what idiots. they are putting nails in their political career coffins.
“It is hypocrital fro them…nothing but hypocrits.”
Well, as I said, regardless of whether they accepted stimulus money or not, you would construe them as “hypocrites,” or at least some variant on the spelling of that word.
In Sanford’s case, I don’t think it’s political posturing at all. He’s a notoriously frugal conservative, always has been. The problem with Gov. Sanford is that neither he nor his family bear the brunt of the effects of his principled war on taxes and spending.
Would you send your child off to a moldy, crumbling, understaffed schoolhouse, or a moldy, rotting, understaffed single-wide school trailer? In many cases, those are the options. Governor Sanford chose to do neither, and sent his kids off to private school.
We’re facing statewide school closures, along with dramatic increases in class sizes. That oughta bring our graduation rate out of the toilet, eh?
I believe that the new stimulus money has huge strings attached that these states do no think they can fulfill, like larger portions of money going to the Fed from that state after two or three years in areas like unemployment and things.
If they accepted the money, you would say they were hypocritical because Republicans had opposed the stimulus. When they don’t accept it, you say they are hypocritical because their states have accepted money in the past. So either way…
“They’re already accepting an inequitable amount of Federal money. Why don’t the renounce those funds?”
You’re asking why they don’t renounce the non-stimulus funds that their states are already receiving? If they did that (assuming they have the power to do so), then I would regard it as an extremely courageous move. If you’re advocating that our politicians summon up that kind of courage, contrary to all trends over the last hundred years, then we’re in agreement. Of course, if every state returned what was “inequitable,” there wouldn’t be any reason to cycle the money through Washington in the first place.
i think these people turning down the money are sure not to get re-elected. what idiots. they are putting nails in their political career coffins.
For me this points to two things. First people won’t vote for you unless they get something from you…so the only way to get in power is to promise goodies. Somehow you’re an idiot if you don’t give the people goodies and don’t get voted back in…so you can give away more goodies.
If this is even remotely true, which I believe it likely is, we’re fucked…which I already knew
“you heard” That is so typical of how you choose to expound on your knowledge of given situation. I’m so sick of reading post after post of both sides of the argument when dealing with to politics of this country. Both sides are full of shit. First off Jindal is actually using his head when dealing with the proposed money coming in. The federal money is a one time push that means once the money is done the state has to pick up the tab on the program that has been started and as everyone is clearly seeing the states are in a bind for money in the budget. I don’t approve of everything that Jindal is doing in this state but at least he has some sort of plans, would you like to take a look at the previous Govs that have been running this state for the last 30 years. Bottom line in all of this is that 99.9% of politicians in office and those looking for an office are in the game for MONEY. Return on investment… why would a man running for a county council position that pays 13500 per year spend 200000 of his own money to get elected…Return on investment…My current senator David Vitter has doubled his income per year since becoming a Senator…Pres. Obama’s wife huge increase in salary after her husband is elected to political office… the list goes on and both sides of the Isle. The founding fathers wanted you to serve the country and go back home to your “real” business not be in the business of government . RANT OVER. Except for bill, he was down for the poon plain and simple.
The founding fathers wanted you to serve the country and go back home to your “real” business not be in the business of government
And that is what politicians used to do and probably is why there were no term limits added to the constitution. They ran, they served and then went back to “normal life”.
Our founding fathers didn’t foresee that the US government would eventually become the largest business in the world and very profitable for those who serve.
Would you send your child off to a moldy, crumbling, understaffed schoolhouse, or a moldy, rotting, understaffed single-wide school trailer? In many cases, those are the options. Governor Sanford chose to do neither, and sent his kids off to private school.
All the Democratic politicians in Columbia also spend $12k a year to send their kids to Heathwood or Hammond. None of the people who make the ultimate decisions for public school funding actually send their kids to public schools.
Democrats aren’t the ones refusing to raise taxes to fund education, personal school choice notwithstanding.
Do Democrats refuse to raise funding for anything…well except the military
More seriously I’ve yet to see anyone come up with any definitive connection between “Funding” and “Successful education”. We went thru this quite some time back and most of the “Successful” school districts as measured by graduation rate and scores were not near the highest levels of funding.
Successful education has far more to do with the parents and community than it does “Funding”. There were WHOLE bunch of “Successfully educated” kids that went on to do some really great things in this country that came from one room school houses and learned most everything from their teacher, not even books.
I’m not suggesting we should “Defund” schools, just that “More funding” is simply throwing good money after bad. We need to figure out how to get parents, students and the community back to the place that education was important, rather than sports, vacation and free time. Of course that means “Do work” and that’s Soooooo 20th century.
