PDA

View Full Version : Jindall Understands



Jerry
02-21-2009, 03:07 PM
Refusing the "stimulus"!!!

To paraphrase, "It will increase the Unemployment benefits until it expires. Then the State will be on the hook to continue those higher payments"

Jerry

Raymond Little
02-22-2009, 09:10 AM
Yes Jerry I am finally proud of "My Guvnor" here in Louisiana but "He is a Racist" for opposing da "STIMLUS". Read, Rep Clyburn D-SC says anyone
opposing da Stimlus is just keeping their foot on the neck of the blackman.
What would you expect coming from a Southern Pork Producer???????

MYRTLE BEACH South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn has earmarked millions of taxpayer dollars this decade for projects that could directly benefit his friends and family members, a newspaper reported Sunday.
The Sun News of Myrtle Beach found that Clyburn has set aside at least $6.2 million for such projects.
That includes money for two projects his nephew was to help design, a community center that runs a program employing his sister-in-law and a Columbia wellness center that employs his daughter.
Clyburn is the House majority whip. He was the sole sponsor for 32 earmarks totaling $38.8 million in the current budget.
In contrast, all of South Carolina's other lawmakers combined to sole-sponsor $45.5 million in earmarks in the same budget.
Clyburn's office did not return calls seeking comment, although he has repeatedly defended the earmark process, telling reporters last year that the special provisions help provide for community needs.
'I don't see that as wasteful government spending,' he told reporters in February 2007. 'I see that as responding to the needs these people said they had.'
Citizens Against Government Waste, a nonprofit group that watches taxpayer money, calls Clyburn 'hostile' toward taxpayers because of what is termed an extravagant use of public money.
'Mr. Clyburn is notorious for questionable earmarks,' said Leslie Paige, a spokeswoman for the group.
The group once named Clyburn as its Porker of the Month because he set aside $3 million in a military spending bill for the First Tee nonprofit agency. First Tee operates a program at a Columbia golf course named for the congressman. Clyburn defended the money on the House floor, saying the money would benefit military families.
This year's budget includes at least four earmarks that could benefit people close to Clyburn.
The veteran lawmaker helped secure $784,000 for the planning and design of the International African-American Museum in Charleston. Clyburn's nephew, Derrick Ballard, is one of the lead architects on that project.
Similarly, in 2005, Clyburn earmarked $145,500 for a community center to be designed by Ballard.
He also set aside $229,000 in this year's budget to the Charles R. Drew Wellness Center in Columbia a facility he helped construct with a 2003 earmark of $990,000. His daughter, Angela, is the marketing and membership director there.
He got $282,000 appropriated for The South Sumter Resource Center, where his sister-in- law, Gwendolyn, is housing coordinator for the center's community development division. He's secured $670,000 for the resource center in past budgets.
Clyburn earmarks may benefit friends and family in Sumter Clyburn


T.A.R.P. OR Carp It's All Trash

Gerry Clinchy
02-22-2009, 10:13 AM
Amazingly, even NY's governor wants to turn down stimulus money. The NY Times didn't treat the six governors who want to turn down the $ very kindly, yet in a separate op-ed they are supporting the balancing of the NYS budget. Interesting twist, I thought.

M Remington
02-22-2009, 11:22 AM
Jindall's a hack with presidential aspirations (as is the SC governor). He'll sacrifice his state to appeal to right wing national voters. But if another hurricane comes, he'll be the first to come to the public assistance trough.

I don't understand it when states as poor as Louisiana turn down federal funds!! So turn down funds Jindall and keep your state in its stellar economic condition.

K G
02-22-2009, 12:57 PM
Jindall's a hack with presidential aspirations (as is the SC governor). He'll sacrifice his state to appeal to right wing national voters. But if another hurricane comes, he'll be the first to come to the public assistance trough.

Let me make sure I understand....you're equating the after-effect needs of a natural disaster/hurricane to a stimulus package that portends to create a man-made disaster....:rolleyes:


I don't understand it when states as poor as Louisiana turn down federal funds!! So turn down funds Jindall and keep your state in its stellar economic condition.

Especially since BHO in essence is telling all those with their hands out to just keep them out, we're on our way to fill them.....:cool:

Charity begins in Washington regards,

kg

Bob Gutermuth
02-22-2009, 01:06 PM
A smart Gov would turn down these funds. Federal money has always meant federal control and there has been far too much of that in the last 45 yrs.

Uncle Bill
02-22-2009, 02:35 PM
What small amount of that pork package I was able to examine, Sodak got enough for a total of 30 projects...8 for Rapid City, the rest to that linguini-spined mayor of Sioux Falls. That said, all the 'projects' appear to be shovel ready for the roads and bridges.

I don't fault our governor for accepting that amount. We'll all be paying for it anyway. Besides, our legislature is so cowed by possible federal $$$, they reach for their ankles whenever they have to make a regulation to get more road funds.

Sounds like we'll be increasing our sales tax, however. Once these various welfare programs get OK'd, they can't be cut, even if the state is sinking into the toilet. Not that Sodak is, like the left coast, but it points out the constant arguement of when these programs are developed, they will never end.

Can you guess what will happen when all the cigarette smokers finally shrug? Who will be paying for all those rip-offs? It just amazes me how a faction of our population is bastardized the way smokers are, and they continue to pay through the nose for all those crap programs.

It's incredible how so-called sane folks will allow their freedoms to be legislated away. There are so many examples, and the sheeple just keep shuffling up to the slaughtering houses. Soylant Green anyone?

UB

Goose
02-22-2009, 06:46 PM
I wouldn't take money from this Stalinist regime either.

YardleyLabs
02-22-2009, 07:04 PM
I wouldn't take money from this Stalinist regime either.

That description makes as much sense as calling Bush Hitler and the GOP the Nazi Party of America. When this administration begins to mimic Stalin you will know it because all Republicans and conservatives will be sent to join UB in South Dakota pending "reeducation". They will be joined shortly afterward by almost all liberals who are likely to be viewed as an even greater threat.

tpaschal30
02-22-2009, 08:02 PM
They are not Stalinist, just western European Socialists. Spreading mediocrity worldwide!

kb27_99
02-23-2009, 01:16 PM
Mark, what is your other RTF name? Because its obvious you have developed this name just to carry out your political views.




Cheers, Kevin

Steve
02-23-2009, 04:28 PM
I wouldn't take money from this Stalinist regime either.

But it is our money, minus the amount wasted on overhead.

K.Thomas
02-23-2009, 07:25 PM
Jindall's a hack with presidential aspirations (as is the SC governor). He'll sacrifice his state to appeal to right wing national voters. But if another hurricane comes, he'll be the first to come to the public assistance trough.

I don't understand it when states as poor as Louisiana turn down federal funds!! So turn down funds Jindall and keep your state in its stellar economic condition.

I'm new here so I don't know if you have an insane sense of humor (wich I can fully appriciate) or your just another liberal expecting a hand out, but maybe I can help you understand why someone or a state might not accept that money no matter how poor they are. It's called being "Independant" now to most, if not all liberals this is a unique concept so in case your not pulling everybody's leg I'll explain just a little bit.

1. Most Americans don't want anybody in their Buisiness, and accepting that money would be exactly like inviting Dracula into your house, you would get sucked dry.

2.I, along with alot of the more productive people have this crazy concept that we need to work for a living, earn what we get, and teach our kids to follow these same beliefs, not wait on the government to send us a check or take care of our problems for us.

3.The money for this stimulus package isn't waiting in a bank, it has to be borrowed. Now I don't no about you but trying to stimulate the ecconomy with fake jobs, borrowed money, and some slick salesmanship might seem like a good idea to you, but I think I would have to question the morals, ethics, charactor, or intellagance of anybody that would support this nonsense, because they are lacking in at least one of these areas.

badbullgator
02-23-2009, 07:43 PM
My governor is a whore, legs spread waiting for the money and he is the worst kind, just a few months ago bashing BHO during the campaigns for McCain. Not just a whore and dirty disease infested whore

dback
02-23-2009, 08:20 PM
My governor is a whore, legs spread waiting for the money and he is the worst kind, just a few months ago bashing BHO during the campaigns for McCain. Not just a whore and dirty disease infested whore


Yeah Corey.....but how do you feel about your governor??? :-) above or below tOSU?

Bob Gutermuth
02-23-2009, 08:40 PM
You think Fla's gov is putting out for the cash, Comrade Gov O'Malley of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Md would do it in Sears front window and sell tickets to get his liberal money spending hands on the swindle-us money.

Raymond Little
02-24-2009, 06:47 AM
I don't understand it when states as poor as Louisiana turn down federal funds!! So turn down funds Jindall and keep your state in its stellar economic condition.

Where is your knowledge gleened from Marx? Unemployment is 2 points
less than the National average, yes we do have our share of "Porch
Sitters" do you want them? Jindal; Rhodes Scholar, DHHS Secretary
under a prior administration, and "SCARES THE SHIT OUT OF THE
SOCIALISTS PARTY OF AMERICA", Comrade BAMO only wishes his
resume was had Jindal's depth instead of AYERS, AGITATOR, AND
PARTTIME SENATOR.

Yes We Can

TCFarmer
02-24-2009, 11:14 AM
Not only is WA State willing to take what the feds throw at us, the Gov is willing to take whatever money is not accepted by other states.

"I'll not only accept all the dollars coming to Washington state, but any governor who wants to reject the dollars, send 'em my way," Gregoire said Monday after meeting with President Barack Obama at the White House.

Marvin S
02-24-2009, 12:05 PM
Not only is WA State willing to take what the feds throw at us, the Gov is willing to take whatever money is not accepted by other states.

"I'll not only accept all the dollars coming to Washington state, but any governor who wants to reject the dollars, send 'em my way," Gregoire said Monday after meeting with President Barack Obama at the White House.

Gov. Skeletor has the Spend thing down pat.

backpasture
02-24-2009, 05:07 PM
Jindal is making a principled stand by not accepting $98.4 Million.

It's a great story, if you ignore that fact that he IS accepting the other $3.8 BILLION going to Louisiana. :rolleyes:

Making a big deal of rejecting 2.5% of the funds is nothing more than political grandstanding.

Franco
02-25-2009, 12:06 PM
Jindall's a hack with presidential aspirations (as is the SC governor). He'll sacrifice his state to appeal to right wing national voters. But if another hurricane comes, he'll be the first to come to the public assistance trough.

I don't understand it when states as poor as Louisiana turn down federal funds!! So turn down funds Jindall and keep your state in its stellar economic condition.

You have got to be on crack.

Poor as Louisiana? Less than 3% unemployment and the third largest oil revenues in the country. The only thing poor in Louisiana is all the Democrats wanting the Feds to take care of them! A mentallity born of the Democrats.

You want poor states, look at California as the illegals wreck that state. Or, how about New York State with all those great liberal minds. Didn't Michigan vote for Obomo too and look at all those Dems wanting a Federal handout!

Socialism doesn't work, never has and never will!

backpasture
02-25-2009, 12:44 PM
You have got to be on crack.

Poor as Louisiana? Less than 3% unemployment and the third largest oil revenues in the country.



Don't tell us your state is a model of capitalism and self sufficiency when it is one of the top recipients of our tax dollars.

For every $1.00 that Lousiana sends to the federal government, it receives $1.78.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22659.html

And, the states that you are harping on ALL send more money to the federal government than they receive.

Maybe your governor can refuse those tax dollars, too, so your state can finally get off the dole. And, while he's at it maybe he can refuse the other 3.8 BILLION of our tax dollars that are coming your way as part of the stimulus bill.

Franco
02-25-2009, 02:16 PM
For every $1.00 that Lousiana sends to the federal government, it receives $1.78.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22659.html

.

Most of that money is going to New Orleans, not the state! Over half-a-million homes were underwater in 05 due to a hurricane. The state is doing just fine and much better since we got rid of Dem. Gov. K Blanco!

backpasture
02-25-2009, 02:29 PM
Most of that money is going to New Orleans, not the state!


Two problems with your argument:
1) These numbers are pretty consistent historically. Southern states get more money from the federal government, and have for many years.
2) These numbers are for money paid to the STATE, not to any municipalities.

To argue that the money goes to the city of New Orleans and not the state is disingenuous anyway. Last time I checked the city of New Orleans was in the state of Lousiana, so money going to that city is going to your state.




Over half-a-million homes were underwater in 05 due to a hurricane.

So, you do you or don't you want federal money to help clean up that mess? If you don't want it, then don't use that as an excuse for why we are sending so many of our tax dollars your way. If you DO want it, then your entire argument is moot.

Franco
02-25-2009, 02:38 PM
The reason N O hasn't fully recoverd is because you have the Democrats of the city waiting on the money. Most others have gone on with their lives and have either rebuilt or moved on. IT IS THE DEMS WAITING FOR THE GOV TO TAKE CARE OF THEM where rebuilding hasn't happened! Yes, it goes through the state but, it is EARMARKED for the city.

If the Feds didn't help, then guess what? The people would have to be mentally tougher and get it done thenselves! As it is now, the Dems have created the entitilement mentallity that started with Dem. President LBJ.

Hew
02-25-2009, 02:43 PM
Two problems with your argument:
1) These numbers are pretty consistent historically. Southern states get more money from the federal government, and have for many years.
2) These numbers are for money paid to the STATE, not to any municipalities.
RE: your point #2....those numbers you and Henry enjoy touting (money received vs. paid by each state) I believe represent Federal money spent in that state...not necessarily money handed over to state legislatures for distribution as they see fit. So unless I'm mistaken (as if...) then the money you're referring to above to is not paid to the state, but spent in the state by the Fed. There is a distinction. Just ask those in the midwest if the Mississipi river is important to their livelihood and what would be the ramifications if it was no longer navigable through the LA delta.

Uncle Bill
02-25-2009, 02:51 PM
Holy Moly, Hew! Now you did it. He's bound to fall off the fence with that knowledge, and all the king's men will never put him together again.

Come to think of it, we all thank you. But it's not fair to point out the facts. Like I mentioned to Henry about all the $$$ spent by the feds in our state to benefit the members on the Res.

Guess all we can do is try.:confused:

UB

backpasture
02-25-2009, 02:52 PM
RE: your point #2....those numbers you and Henry enjoy touting (money received vs. paid by each state) I believe represent Federal money spent in that state...not necessarily money handed over to state legislatures for distribution as they see fit. So unless I'm mistaken (as if...) then the money you're referring to above to is not paid to the state, but spent in the state by the Fed. There is a distinction. Just ask those in the midwest if the Mississipi river is important to their livelihood and what would be the ramifications if it was no longer navigable through the LA delta.


It is actually a combination, as a good chunk is for block grants, federal matching funds, etc.

The only reason I make these arguments is to point out how silly it is for Jindall to be grandstanding about refusing stimulus money.

It pales in comparison to the the hypocrisy in claiming he is not taking stimulus bill money when he is, in fact, taking 97.5% of the stimulus money coming to his state. It's pure political grandstanding.

Henry V
02-25-2009, 04:28 PM
RE: your point #2....those numbers you and Henry enjoy touting (money received vs. paid by each state) I believe represent Federal money spent in that state...not necessarily money handed over to state legislatures for distribution as they see fit. So unless I'm mistaken (as if...) then the money you're referring to above to is not paid to the state, but spent in the state by the Fed. There is a distinction. Just ask those in the midwest if the Mississipi river is important to their livelihood and what would be the ramifications if it was no longer navigable through the LA delta.
Federal spending in these reports is the total amount of federal dollars returned to the state PERIOD. LA and many other states consistently and historically get substantially more federal dollars returned to their state than they pay in.

AS it says in the linked report:

Each year the Census Bureau releases the Consolidated Federal Funds Report, which estimates the amount of federal spending in each state and territory during the prior fiscal year. The latest report allocates approximately 92 percent of total FY 2005 federal spending. The 8 percent not allocated includes net interest outlays, foreign aid, and other outlays that are not allocable to the states. For the purposes of this report, the Tax Foundation uses this census data as is.

It all seems pretty straightforward though, federal dollars in versus federal dollars out.

Henry V
02-25-2009, 04:30 PM
It pales in comparison to the the hypocrisy in claiming he is not taking stimulus bill money when he is, in fact, taking 97.5% of the stimulus money coming to his state. It's pure political grandstanding.

BP. You will have to wait a long time for an answer for this. It is much easier to blame the messenger or steer the discussion somewhere else. Why do you even try anymore?

YardleyLabs
02-25-2009, 06:55 PM
RE: your point #2....those numbers you and Henry enjoy touting (money received vs. paid by each state) I believe represent Federal money spent in that state...not necessarily money handed over to state legislatures for distribution as they see fit. So unless I'm mistaken (as if...) then the money you're referring to above to is not paid to the state, but spent in the state by the Fed. There is a distinction. Just ask those in the midwest if the Mississipi river is important to their livelihood and what would be the ramifications if it was no longer navigable through the LA delta.

Your understanding on how the numbers are calculated is correct. It includes monies that go to the state government, monies sent to cities, monies spent with private businesses located in the state, etc.

Hew
02-26-2009, 02:23 AM
Federal spending in these reports is the total amount of federal dollars returned to the state PERIOD. LA and many other states consistently and historically get substantially more federal dollars returned to their state than they pay in.

AS it says in the linked report:



Quote:
Each year the Census Bureau releases the Consolidated Federal Funds Report, which estimates the amount of federal spending in each state and territory during the prior fiscal year. The latest report allocates approximately 92 percent of total FY 2005 federal spending. The 8 percent not allocated includes net interest outlays, foreign aid, and other outlays that are not allocable to the states. For the purposes of this report, the Tax Foundation uses this census data as is.


It all seems pretty straightforward though, federal dollars in versus federal dollars out.
Ah, I didn't realize that the Tax Foundation numbers you're so fond of mentioning were so broad and all-encompasing...i.e. they allocate all but 8% of all Federal spending to the individual states. I had either assumed, or you gave the impression (likely the former) that the per capita Federal spending you/they referred to was pretty much entitlement spending (i.e. Medicare, govt. assisted housing, welfare, unemployment, WIC, etc.). Seeing as the Tax Foundation numbers include any and all Federal monies spent (military, federal lands/parks, Army Corp. of Engineers, indian reservations, etc.) it becomes a lot more complicated for you to tag any particular state as a "free-loader." You like to razz Uncle Bill my comparing SD to MN using those Tax Foundation numbers, but a closer look reveals:

8% of South Dakota's population is American Indian (many from tribes who were run out of Minnesota); Minnesota's is 1%. South Dakota has a bunch of Indian reservations, Federal land and national parks; Minnesota, not so much. South Dakota's 2nd largest employer is an air force base; Minnesota has some recruiting stations in strip malls. The people of Minnesota should send the people of South Dakota a thank you card for bearing the burden of Minnesota's shameful treatment of the Indians...with a PS "and thanks for protecting us from Russian nukes and giving us numerous places to vacation." In addition, it's not surprising that many of the states with the highest per cap Federal spending (per the Tax Foundation) are also states with a higher military presence. In a nutshell...the Tax Foundation numbers don't necessarily out states as free-loaders as you'd have us to believe.

Henry V
02-27-2009, 01:45 PM
Ah, I didn't realize that the Tax Foundation numbers you're so fond of mentioning were so broad and all-encompasing...i.e. they allocate all but 8% of all Federal spending to the individual states. I had either assumed, or you gave the impression (likely the former) that the per capita Federal spending you/they referred to was pretty much entitlement spending (i.e. Medicare, govt. assisted housing, welfare, unemployment, WIC, etc.). Seeing as the Tax Foundation numbers include any and all Federal monies spent (military, federal lands/parks, Army Corp. of Engineers, indian reservations, etc.) it becomes a lot more complicated for you to tag any particular state as a "free-loader." You like to razz Uncle Bill my comparing SD to MN using those Tax Foundation numbers, but a closer look reveals:

8% of South Dakota's population is American Indian (many from tribes who were run out of Minnesota); Minnesota's is 1%. South Dakota has a bunch of Indian reservations, Federal land and national parks; Minnesota, not so much. South Dakota's 2nd largest employer is an air force base; Minnesota has some recruiting stations in strip malls. The people of Minnesota should send the people of South Dakota a thank you card for bearing the burden of Minnesota's shameful treatment of the Indians...with a PS "and thanks for protecting us from Russian nukes and giving us numerous places to vacation." In addition, it's not surprising that many of the states with the highest per cap Federal spending (per the Tax Foundation) are also states with a higher military presence. In a nutshell...the Tax Foundation numbers don't necessarily out states as free-loaders as you'd have us to believe.

Congrats Hew. You finally have given UB a reasonable reply to the fact that SD and many other states get a larger return on federal dollars than they pay in. I think I gave him this answer in a reply once but he must not have been paying attention. I doubt that the Indian issue is that substantial compared to the military costs or all the farm subsidize. Also, several other states with military bases still end up with a lower return than 1:1. I'll let you look that stuff up too. I would also bet that the amount of federal land is not much different between SD and MN either given all the national forests, national parks, WPA's, NWR's, and BWCA.

I never said that they were freeloaders but I will say that the data clearly shows that those states are more dependent on the federal government to sustain their economies than others and that there is a clear redistribution of federal tax dollars to those states. It may be because of the military, farm subsidize, FEMA payments, etc, etc. If you suggest a reduction in farm subsidize or the closing of a military base in one of these states all you will hear about are the jobs and associated economic losses, and to think the RNC chair now says "the government does not create any jobs."

Bottom line, those states get more money back than they pay in. I continue to find it ironic that many folks that post here that live in those high return states are all for lower taxes and less government when they already pay relatively lower taxes and get more government benefits than others.

Uncle Bill
02-27-2009, 04:32 PM
Stop your drooling Henry. I know you covet the Sodak life. If you join the tax paying ranks, you can move here, but I don't want any freeloaders... you can stay in the PROM for that.:D

As a break-in period, start in Sioux Falls...lotsa libs there. But don't go west of the river unles you've had a course in 'Redneck'...we don't want this part of the state overrun by socialists.

After Johnson and his cronies had more votes come from the Pine Ridge res than there are voters, and defeated John Thune, we saw to it that wasn't gonna happen again. Voila! Guess who's now in the senate, and who's working to get enough $$$ to pay his back taxes? No it's not Johnson. He's still in Washington building his nestegg. But he'll never spend it.

It's a tossup who will go first...Kennedy, Byrd, or Johnson. Couldn't fault the dude running against him. Too much of a sympathy vote for Johnson. But the farm libs will soon understand his votes to follow the Obamaites are not what a true South Dakotan was voting for. And our neighbors to the North are looking very seriously at those sycophants they have in the Senate also. As they continue following in lock step with BHO and his policies, they will finally have their backsides exposed, and everyone will get into the kicking contest.

UB