Saying No: Why Would a Governor Spurn a Stimulus?

[Bert&Jie Lin 0]

Why shouldn't we all stand like pigs at a trough slurping up the government handouts? It's free money right? Well, somebody's got to pay for it, and we will all pay much more than face value. I know; you won't have to pay for it. Someone else will. Our president says he will just squeeze more out of the rich. Does anyone really believe that? It reminds me of Stalin's attack on the "rich". Hoards of neighbors would go out into the night would go out and raid the property of the "rich". It wasn't long before any family with a cow was classed as rich. Stalin finally succeeded when it got to the point when while one group of neighbors was out raiding the property of the "rich", their property was being raided by another group. I heard a senator discussing on a news program one day (seems like it was Bird) that gave his definition of rich. It was anyone that could survive more than a couple of weeks without government benefits after losing a job. We are nearly at the point where half the people don't pay taxes, creating a permanent voting class that relishes in living off other people's money. I am not proud to say that we are now more communist than China.

We will pay for it, either through higher taxes or hyper inflation or a bad economy. Some believe it is better to be equally poor than to have disparities. We may test that theory.

Maybe it doesn't matter in the end; SC will go to hell in a hand basket with the rest of the nation. If we had more politicians stand up for what is right rather that what lined their pocket, we could actually solve the problems of the nation. I salute our fine governor.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I'm touched by all the concern about how the Republican party is doing and how they plan to drag themselves out of the mire I'm also wondering why any of the libes care. The Dims in Congress don't need Republicans to help Obama, Pelosi and Reid destroy the country. I applaud those, Dim or Repub, who won't do their bidding, and I feel so sorry for those short-sighted, politically and fically ignorant among us who have not a clue how federal funding works and how it indeed, in this climate, make you their Dimocrap b!tch. Hey, but time will tell. Stimulous spending will leave a bad taste in its wake and that will probably be the only thing that will shake some of our friends out of their stupor.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm touched by all the concern about how the Republican party is doing and how they plan to drag themselves out of the mire I'm also wondering why any of the libes care. The Dims in Congress don't need Republicans to help Obama, Pelosi and Reid destroy the country. I applaud those, Dim or Repub, who won't do their bidding, and I feel so sorry for those short-sighted, politically and fically ignorant among us who have not a clue how federal funding works and how it indeed, in this climate, make you their Dimocrap b!tch. Hey, but time will tell. Stimulous spending will leave a bad taste in its wake and that will probably be the only thing that will shake some of our friends out of their stupor.

Because VW, there was a time in our political history when the GOP wasn't overrun by extremists. In fact, for most registered voters, you couldn't really tell much of a difference between someone who is registered Democrat or Republican. Both parties actually shared a lot of common interests, but varied on how to approach certain issues. Reagan and Tip O'Neal were good friends even though they didn't share the same political views. I'm not saying that everything was peachy, but the GOP used to show a lot more pragmatism within their leadership, which is sorely missing in the party now. The Right Wing extremists in the party have zero tolerance for any fellow GOP'er who doesn't tow their line. Just look at how the current GOP Chairman is under fire for his stance on abortion. Giuliani's stance on abortion was probably one of the reasons why he never made it in the Primaries. The extremists don't like any of the GOP Moderates...they call them names, like RHINO's. McCain was hated by them until he tried his darndest to be just like them. While I agree that each party has core beliefs or values, the GOP is in a civil war over just what those core beliefs/values are and how much flexibility or tolerance there should be over different positions.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I'm touched by all the concern about how the Republican party is doing and how they plan to drag themselves out of the mire I'm also wondering why any of the libes care. The Dims in Congress don't need Republicans to help Obama, Pelosi and Reid destroy the country. I applaud those, Dim or Repub, who won't do their bidding, and I feel so sorry for those short-sighted, politically and fically ignorant among us who have not a clue how federal funding works and how it indeed, in this climate, make you their Dimocrap b!tch. Hey, but time will tell. Stimulous spending will leave a bad taste in its wake and that will probably be the only thing that will shake some of our friends out of their stupor.

I'm sure those you applaud will sleep better tonight. The Great One has conferred his/her blessing upon them. Coming from a self proclaimed political genius and millionare on an off topic visa forum means a lot. What will shake you out of yor stupor?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Why shouldn't we all stand like pigs at a trough slurping up the government handouts? It's free money right? Well, somebody's got to pay for it, and we will all pay much more than face value. I know; you won't have to pay for it. Someone else will. Our president says he will just squeeze more out of the rich. Does anyone really believe that? It reminds me of Stalin's attack on the "rich". Hoards of neighbors would go out into the night would go out and raid the property of the "rich". It wasn't long before any family with a cow was classed as rich. Stalin finally succeeded when it got to the point when while one group of neighbors was out raiding the property of the "rich", their property was being raided by another group. I heard a senator discussing on a news program one day (seems like it was Bird) that gave his definition of rich. It was anyone that could survive more than a couple of weeks without government benefits after losing a job. We are nearly at the point where half the people don't pay taxes, creating a permanent voting class that relishes in living off other people's money. I am not proud to say that we are now more communist than China.

We will pay for it, either through higher taxes or hyper inflation or a bad economy. Some believe it is better to be equally poor than to have disparities. We may test that theory.

Maybe it doesn't matter in the end; SC will go to hell in a hand basket with the rest of the nation. If we had more politicians stand up for what is right rather that what lined their pocket, we could actually solve the problems of the nation. I salute our fine governor.

So sad but very true. Why don't people see this? Are they stupid, lazy or both?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I'm touched by all the concern about how the Republican party is doing and how they plan to drag themselves out of the mire I'm also wondering why any of the libes care. The Dims in Congress don't need Republicans to help Obama, Pelosi and Reid destroy the country. I applaud those, Dim or Repub, who won't do their bidding, and I feel so sorry for those short-sighted, politically and fically ignorant among us who have not a clue how federal funding works and how it indeed, in this climate, make you their Dimocrap b!tch. Hey, but time will tell. Stimulous spending will leave a bad taste in its wake and that will probably be the only thing that will shake some of our friends out of their stupor.

Because VW, there was a time in our political history when the GOP wasn't overrun by extremists. In fact, for most registered voters, you couldn't really tell much of a difference between someone who is registered Democrat or Republican. Both parties actually shared a lot of common interests, but varied on how to approach certain issues. Reagan and Tip O'Neal were good friends even though they didn't share the same political views. I'm not saying that everything was peachy, but the GOP used to show a lot more pragmatism within their leadership, which is sorely missing in the party now. The Right Wing extremists in the party have zero tolerance for any fellow GOP'er who doesn't tow their line. Just look at how the current GOP Chairman is under fire for his stance on abortion. Giuliani's stance on abortion was probably one of the reasons why he never made it in the Primaries. The extremists don't like any of the GOP Moderates...they call them names, like RHINO's. McCain was hated by them until he tried his darndest to be just like them. While I agree that each party has core beliefs or values, the GOP is in a civil war over just what those core beliefs/values are and how much flexibility or tolerance there should be over different positions.

There was a time when the Dimocrap party wasn't overrun by leftist extremists, as it is now. The reason why Reagan and Tip could get along was that they were BOTH pragmatists, not because Reagan leaned to the left. The Dimocraps have shown far less tolerance for anyone who doesn't embrace their socialist agenda. What folks like you wat is for anyone who is to the right of you to be demonised to the point were they are willing to give up their core values just to get along.

Those of us who have been around long enough to see the pendulum swing both ways many times between vanquished Dims and vanquished Repubs times know that that those who to stand up for their country and don't capitulate to the globalist, whatever feels good, do it world view of the leftists will be the heroes in the end. Dimocrap control wil end. You people who act as if it's the end of the conservative movement and the Dims are the last word in politics are only showing your ignorance. Stick around long enough to learn a few new things that can only benefit your long term thinking.

BTW, the term "extremist" is totally subjective. When libs apply it to conservatives, it is intended to sound frightening and perjorative, but it is hardly ever applied to liberals. "Moderate", on the other hand, has become more of a worshipful term, but, to me, it connotes a person who can't make up their mind, is so pliable that they go along with anything, and who is fearful of offending anyone. To me, most liberals are moderates, and they are the problem, not so-called right wing extremists, as the left defines them.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Why shouldn't we all stand like pigs at a trough slurping up the government handouts? It's free money right? Well, somebody's got to pay for it, and we will all pay much more than face value. I know; you won't have to pay for it. Someone else will. Our president says he will just squeeze more out of the rich. Does anyone really believe that? It reminds me of Stalin's attack on the "rich". Hoards of neighbors would go out into the night would go out and raid the property of the "rich". It wasn't long before any family with a cow was classed as rich. Stalin finally succeeded when it got to the point when while one group of neighbors was out raiding the property of the "rich", their property was being raided by another group. I heard a senator discussing on a news program one day (seems like it was Bird) that gave his definition of rich. It was anyone that could survive more than a couple of weeks without government benefits after losing a job. We are nearly at the point where half the people don't pay taxes, creating a permanent voting class that relishes in living off other people's money. I am not proud to say that we are now more communist than China.

We will pay for it, either through higher taxes or hyper inflation or a bad economy. Some believe it is better to be equally poor than to have disparities. We may test that theory.

Maybe it doesn't matter in the end; SC will go to hell in a hand basket with the rest of the nation. If we had more politicians stand up for what is right rather that what lined their pocket, we could actually solve the problems of the nation. I salute our fine governor.

So sad but very true. Why don't people see this? Are they stupid, lazy or both?

Both. There has a been a systematic dumbing down and liberalising of the public grade school educational system and university campuses over the last 30 years. It's difficult to even have a serious discussion with those who came up thru the public system during that time coz their matrixes are so skewed left.

[britty 1]

Why shouldn't we all stand like pigs at a trough slurping up the government handouts? It's free money right? Well, somebody's got to pay for it, and we will all pay much more than face value. I know; you won't have to pay for it. Someone else will. Our president says he will just squeeze more out of the rich. Does anyone really believe that? It reminds me of Stalin's attack on the "rich". Hoards of neighbors would go out into the night would go out and raid the property of the "rich". It wasn't long before any family with a cow was classed as rich. Stalin finally succeeded when it got to the point when while one group of neighbors was out raiding the property of the "rich", their property was being raided by another group. I heard a senator discussing on a news program one day (seems like it was Bird) that gave his definition of rich. It was anyone that could survive more than a couple of weeks without government benefits after losing a job. We are nearly at the point where half the people don't pay taxes, creating a permanent voting class that relishes in living off other people's money. I am not proud to say that we are now more communist than China.

We will pay for it, either through higher taxes or hyper inflation or a bad economy. Some believe it is better to be equally poor than to have disparities. We may test that theory.

Maybe it doesn't matter in the end; SC will go to hell in a hand basket with the rest of the nation. If we had more politicians stand up for what is right rather that what lined their pocket, we could actually solve the problems of the nation. I salute our fine governor.

The most intelligent post thus far......

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm touched by all the concern about how the Republican party is doing and how they plan to drag themselves out of the mire I'm also wondering why any of the libes care. The Dims in Congress don't need Republicans to help Obama, Pelosi and Reid destroy the country. I applaud those, Dim or Repub, who won't do their bidding, and I feel so sorry for those short-sighted, politically and fically ignorant among us who have not a clue how federal funding works and how it indeed, in this climate, make you their Dimocrap b!tch. Hey, but time will tell. Stimulous spending will leave a bad taste in its wake and that will probably be the only thing that will shake some of our friends out of their stupor.

Because VW, there was a time in our political history when the GOP wasn't overrun by extremists. In fact, for most registered voters, you couldn't really tell much of a difference between someone who is registered Democrat or Republican. Both parties actually shared a lot of common interests, but varied on how to approach certain issues. Reagan and Tip O'Neal were good friends even though they didn't share the same political views. I'm not saying that everything was peachy, but the GOP used to show a lot more pragmatism within their leadership, which is sorely missing in the party now. The Right Wing extremists in the party have zero tolerance for any fellow GOP'er who doesn't tow their line. Just look at how the current GOP Chairman is under fire for his stance on abortion. Giuliani's stance on abortion was probably one of the reasons why he never made it in the Primaries. The extremists don't like any of the GOP Moderates...they call them names, like RHINO's. McCain was hated by them until he tried his darndest to be just like them. While I agree that each party has core beliefs or values, the GOP is in a civil war over just what those core beliefs/values are and how much flexibility or tolerance there should be over different positions.

There was a time when the Dimocrap party wasn't overrun by leftist extremists, as it is now. The reason why Reagan and Tip could get along was that they were BOTH pragmatists, not because Reagan leaned to the left. The Dimocraps have shown far less tolerance for anyone who doesn't embrace their socialist agenda. What folks like you wat is for anyone who is to the right of you to be demonised to the point were they are willing to give up their core values just to get along.

Those of us who have been around long enough to see the pendulum swing both ways many times between vanquished Dims and vanquished Repubs times know that that those who to stand up for their country and don't capitulate to the globalist, whatever feels good, do it world view of the leftists will be the heroes in the end. Dimocrap control wil end. You people who act as if it's the end of the conservative movement and the Dims are the last word in politics are only showing your ignorance. Stick around long enough to learn a few new things that can only benefit your long term thinking.

BTW, the term "extremist" is totally subjective. When libs apply it to conservatives, it is intended to sound frightening and perjorative, but it is hardly ever applied to liberals. "Moderate", on the other hand, has become more of a worshipful term, but, to me, it connotes a person who can't make up their mind, is so pliable that they go along with anything, and who is fearful of offending anyone. To me, most liberals are moderates, and they are the problem, not so-called right wing extremists, as the left defines them.

Clinton was a pragmatist as was Reagan, but I don't think you could call GW Bush as being pragmatic, even though his administration did show signs of it toward the end - like it's change of position with North Korea. At least you probably agree that pragmatism has nothing to with someone's lack of political ideals, but rather a willingness to think outside the box when you've tried one solution and failed. GW Bush was stubborn with his position on things, which many Americans found appealing - perhaps a reaction to Bill Clinton's style of relativism (what 'is' is). But Americans had 8 years of that approach and have a bitter taste from it. Whether it would have been McCain or Obama as our President, what we needed at this moment is not only a pragmatic leader, but one who also is willing to stand on principle...something that Clinton failed at convincing Americans that he had (principles). He did, but the public perception was that he didn't towards the end.

Edited March 14, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I'm touched by all the concern about how the Republican party is doing and how they plan to drag themselves out of the mire I'm also wondering why any of the libes care. The Dims in Congress don't need Republicans to help Obama, Pelosi and Reid destroy the country. I applaud those, Dim or Repub, who won't do their bidding, and I feel so sorry for those short-sighted, politically and fically ignorant among us who have not a clue how federal funding works and how it indeed, in this climate, make you their Dimocrap b!tch. Hey, but time will tell. Stimulous spending will leave a bad taste in its wake and that will probably be the only thing that will shake some of our friends out of their stupor.

Because VW, there was a time in our political history when the GOP wasn't overrun by extremists. In fact, for most registered voters, you couldn't really tell much of a difference between someone who is registered Democrat or Republican. Both parties actually shared a lot of common interests, but varied on how to approach certain issues. Reagan and Tip O'Neal were good friends even though they didn't share the same political views. I'm not saying that everything was peachy, but the GOP used to show a lot more pragmatism within their leadership, which is sorely missing in the party now. The Right Wing extremists in the party have zero tolerance for any fellow GOP'er who doesn't tow their line. Just look at how the current GOP Chairman is under fire for his stance on abortion. Giuliani's stance on abortion was probably one of the reasons why he never made it in the Primaries. The extremists don't like any of the GOP Moderates...they call them names, like RHINO's. McCain was hated by them until he tried his darndest to be just like them. While I agree that each party has core beliefs or values, the GOP is in a civil war over just what those core beliefs/values are and how much flexibility or tolerance there should be over different positions.

There was a time when the Dimocrap party wasn't overrun by leftist extremists, as it is now. The reason why Reagan and Tip could get along was that they were BOTH pragmatists, not because Reagan leaned to the left. The Dimocraps have shown far less tolerance for anyone who doesn't embrace their socialist agenda. What folks like you wat is for anyone who is to the right of you to be demonised to the point were they are willing to give up their core values just to get along.

Those of us who have been around long enough to see the pendulum swing both ways many times between vanquished Dims and vanquished Repubs times know that that those who to stand up for their country and don't capitulate to the globalist, whatever feels good, do it world view of the leftists will be the heroes in the end. Dimocrap control wil end. You people who act as if it's the end of the conservative movement and the Dims are the last word in politics are only showing your ignorance. Stick around long enough to learn a few new things that can only benefit your long term thinking.

BTW, the term "extremist" is totally subjective. When libs apply it to conservatives, it is intended to sound frightening and perjorative, but it is hardly ever applied to liberals. "Moderate", on the other hand, has become more of a worshipful term, but, to me, it connotes a person who can't make up their mind, is so pliable that they go along with anything, and who is fearful of offending anyone. To me, most liberals are moderates, and they are the problem, not so-called right wing extremists, as the left defines them.

Clinton was a pragmatist as was Reagan, but I don't think you could call GW Bush as being pragmatic, even though his administration did show signs of it toward the end - like it's change of position with North Korea. At least you probably agree that pragmatism has nothing to with someone's lack of political ideals, but rather a willingness to think outside the box when you've tried one solution and failed. GW Bush was stubborn with his position on things, which many Americans found appealing - perhaps a reaction to Bill Clinton's style of relativism (what 'is' is). But Americans had 8 years of that approach and have a bitter taste from it. Whether it would have been McCain or Obama as our President, what we needed at this moment is not only a pragmatic leader, but one who also is willing to stand on principle...something that Clinton failed at convincing Americans that he had (principles). He did, but the public perception was that he didn't towards the end.

Obama is not a pragmatic leader. He and the people he surrounds himself with are ideologues. If you guys could stop beating the Bush to death and move on to the present, you would start to see that. BTW, Reagan had the "Silent Majority" behind him. They haven't disappeared.

Edited March 15, 2009 by Barza Woman

[I'm Gone 60]

Giuliani's stance on abortion was probably one of the reasons why he never made it in the Primaries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_P._Casey

1992 Democratic National Convention controversy

Because he considered abortion a key social issue for the 1992 presidential election, (Bob)Casey sought a speaking slot to give a minority plank on the topic at the 1992 Democratic National Convention. He was not given a speaking slot[6] and in a series of news conferences he said the party was censoring his pro-life views since he agreed with the party on nearly all other issues.

Edited March 15, 2009 by I Quit

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Giuliani's stance on abortion was probably one of the reasons why he never made it in the Primaries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_P._Casey

1992 Democratic National Convention controversy

Because he considered abortion a key social issue for the 1992 presidential election, (Bob)Casey sought a speaking slot to give a minority plank on the topic at the 1992 Democratic National Convention. He was not given a speaking slot[6] and in a series of news conferences he said the party was censoring his pro-life views since he agreed with the party on nearly all other issues.

A good example that there are extremists on both sides of the political spectrum.

[HAL 9000 96]

Giuliani's stance on abortion was probably one of the reasons why he never made it in the Primaries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_P._Casey

1992 Democratic National Convention controversy

Because he considered abortion a key social issue for the 1992 presidential election, (Bob)Casey sought a speaking slot to give a minority plank on the topic at the 1992 Democratic National Convention. He was not given a speaking slot[6] and in a series of news conferences he said the party was censoring his pro-life views since he agreed with the party on nearly all other issues.

Happens when one of the core beliefs of the Democratic platform as it pertains to the entire population of the US is in not imposing minority values upon an entire population.