And I have no doubt that that's why the SC Gov rejected that one part of the bill...Wedgebuster wrote:Some of the "strings attached" to this cash cornucopia may be more expensive than the cash offered.
SC? I think that's part of dumbfuckistan, net importers of federal handouts from America. Good on them for finally standing on their own two feet.Appaholic wrote:Agree with the sentiment, but think it is foolish considering he's basically refusing to recieve the money that was paid to the feds from his own taxpayers....
He is banking on this to maintain his "fiscal conservative" credentials!South Carolina's Republican-controlled General Assembly is poised to rebuff Sanford and seek the stimulus money on its own.
What will be fun to watch is if the SC Democrats call the governor's bluff by agreeing with him.catamount man wrote:You can bet that there are house Repubs in Columbia that are furious with the governor over this one. I am not a big government supporter, but when the nation is in economic crisis and funds are available, funds that WE have already PAID FOR out of our sweat and toil and then for certain leaders with egoistic ideals to come along and basically tell their constituents that they don't need it...nah, I got a problem with that.
He's simply raising his stock for a run at the white house in 2012 and he will get SLAUGHTERED if it's up to him to replace President Obama. I actually voted for Democrat Tommy Moore in the last SC governor's race because Sanford is such an idiot.
Jim Clyburn would drop dead of a heart attack if that happened. As is, I see the Dems and Repubs in Columbia working together on this one for the good of the citizens of South Carolina. Ole Mark is gonna be pissing in the wind again. Thank God we elect a new gov in 2010.houndawg wrote:What will be fun to watch is if the SC Democrats call the governor's bluff by agreeing with him.catamount man wrote:You can bet that there are house Repubs in Columbia that are furious with the governor over this one. I am not a big government supporter, but when the nation is in economic crisis and funds are available, funds that WE have already PAID FOR out of our sweat and toil and then for certain leaders with egoistic ideals to come along and basically tell their constituents that they don't need it...nah, I got a problem with that.
He's simply raising his stock for a run at the white house in 2012 and he will get SLAUGHTERED if it's up to him to replace President Obama. I actually voted for Democrat Tommy Moore in the last SC governor's race because Sanford is such an idiot.
Be careful what you wish for. That's how much of North Carolina felt in 2008 with the douchebag Mike Easley finally leaving office and we got stuck with a moron in Bev Perdue. I don't know which is worse: a douchebag or a moron. Either way, North Carolina (especially western North Carolina) loses.catamount man wrote:Jim Clyburn would drop dead of a heart attack if that happened. As is, I see the Dems and Repubs in Columbia working together on this one for the good of the citizens of South Carolina. Ole Mark is gonna be pissing in the wind again. Thank God we elect a new gov in 2010.houndawg wrote:
What will be fun to watch is if the SC Democrats call the governor's bluff by agreeing with him.
Having both in the same President was just going too far.ASUMountaineer wrote:Be careful what you wish for. That's how much of North Carolina felt in 2008 with the douchebag Mike Easley finally leaving office and we got stuck with a moron in Bev Perdue. I don't know which is worse: a douchebag or a moron. Either way, North Carolina (especially western North Carolina) loses.catamount man wrote:
Jim Clyburn would drop dead of a heart attack if that happened. As is, I see the Dems and Repubs in Columbia working together on this one for the good of the citizens of South Carolina. Ole Mark is gonna be pissing in the wind again. Thank God we elect a new gov in 2010.
houndawg wrote:Having both in the same President was just going too far.ASUMountaineer wrote:
Be careful what you wish for. That's how much of North Carolina felt in 2008 with the douchebag Mike Easley finally leaving office and we got stuck with a moron in Bev Perdue. I don't know which is worse: a douchebag or a moron. Either way, North Carolina (especially western North Carolina) loses.
What if the donks do say: "You're right Mr. Governor, you shouldn't take a penny from the feds."?
Touche. It would be interesting to see if Sanford's bluff is called. I really see SC accepting the money, one way or another.Oh yeah, he'll take the money. How could he not? It just seems that his grandstanding has the potential to backfire badly.ASUMountaineer wrote:houndawg wrote:
Having both in the same President was just going too far.
What if the donks do say: "You're right Mr. Governor, you shouldn't take a penny from the feds."?
Like McCain "suspending his campaign" to work on the economic crisis...houndawg wrote:Oh yeah, he'll take the money. How could he not? It just seems that his grandstanding has the potential to backfire badly.ASUMountaineer wrote:
He just handed the opposition part A of the flip-flop commercial.dbackjon wrote:Like McCain "suspending his campaign" to work on the economic crisis...houndawg wrote:
Oh yeah, he'll take the money. How could he not? It just seems that his grandstanding has the potential to backfire badly.
I think he saw his opening for 2012 after Jindal failed miserably at the "Republican Response." I think Sanford could be the next 2012 hopeful to go down in flames.houndawg wrote:Oh yeah, he'll take the money. How could he not? It just seems that his grandstanding has the potential to backfire badly.ASUMountaineer wrote:
I am so glad I didn't vote for that douchebag. His idea of being a "conservative." 1) Rail against earmarks (but not massive military spending) and 2) restrict free speech--bet he wished he hadn't done "Campaign Finance Reform" in 2008.dbackjon wrote:Like McCain "suspending his campaign" to work on the economic crisis...houndawg wrote:
Oh yeah, he'll take the money. How could he not? It just seems that his grandstanding has the potential to backfire badly.
The Iraqi War had nothing to do with our security. Never did.wildkyle wrote:we need alot of military spending we are in a war
I would like to see less government spending on military. We do not need more money spent on missile defense, we do not need international bases in every country. This is one thing I agreed with Obama on. (and using more public transit and taking cars off the road).dbackjon wrote:The Iraqi War had nothing to do with our security. Never did.wildkyle wrote:we need alot of military spending we are in a war
And no branch of government is immune from wasteful spending.
If true, governors might have good reason to refuse stimulus dollars.Last month, Congress enacted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, popularly called "the stimulus plan." It gives billions of dollars to the states, but the gift has strings attached. One of its unique provisions changes state constitutions! That provision is unconstitutional, and its defect raises problems about the whole enterprise.
...
To receive that money, states have to add thousands of new people to the welfare rolls. In two years, the federal largesse stops, but the new welfare recipients are still there.
...
Because some governors might not accept the money, Congress added a unique provision, in subsection 1607(b): "If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State."
If state law does not give the state legislature the right to bypass the governor, how can Congress just change that law? Where does Congress get the power to change a state constitution?
