Maybe so, but
My governator can beat up your governor 
Thank OG Tennessee isn’t on that list.
So…Rome’s been burning for how long? Under what administration, with who in control of Congress? And WHO feels they now have the answer for fiscal responsibility?
Yeah.
The list of governors that the Governator can beat up? I’m afraid you are. 
Platitudes will fuck you, hard, right in the ass. Digging yourself out of a hole is a relatively easy concept. Stop diggin down, start diggin diagonally up, and poof! out of the hole. Now you need to get out of the hole, first thing you do is take the shovels away from the dumbasses who keep digging down. Thats what the last two election cycles were all about. Say what you want on a burning rome, you can’t sort out a budget on a failing economy. If you don’t have a stable tax base, you don’t have a budget to balance.
Let the banks fail! The free market knows all! Free Shovels and matches!
And you can start lecturing us on maturity when you pay back the 9 trillion in debt we’ve racked up since 1981. And apologize for mortgaging our futures so you can ruin the economy, shred the constitution, and shit on the American Dream. How about we stop listening to the stupid old fucks who turned our economy into a Ponzi scheme on our dime? Even arch-bastard Alan Greenspan isn’t stupid enough to think that the market can sort this one out.
Oakminster says he’s not a Republican.
So do, and did, others. “I’m not a Republican, I just coincidentally agree with everything they say.”
Gee…then I wonder why the only two campaign contributions I’ve ever made both went to Dems in the last election cycle?
Glass-Steagall was repealed by Clinton after unanimously passing Congress. This hasn’t been a partisan issue. It’s been 30 years of deregulatory ignorance by both parties. To Clinton’s credit, he didn’t run up massive deficits. Republicans have been more egregious, but everyone shares the blame for cheering on the disaster. Except for people under 30, of course. We’re just responsible for all that noise that passes for music. Let’s make a deal. All the old people can shut the hell up about politics, and we can switch all the radio stations to classic rock.
Crap. I work at a desperately cash-strapped public university in one of those states. I really hope this is posturing 
The governors have an out, anyway. They can refuse the money, but then the state legislatures can overrule them. Section 1607, I think they said.
I vaguely do. Although, a lot of people revere her for bringing in Toyota (although how much credit she should actually get for that is another issue).
This reminds me of a defense of tax cuts a former boss once offered me - those who want higher taxes, pay them.
Paying higher taxes if everybody else won’t, of course, is stupid, but he couldn’t see that, because he was so partisan. You are still just as much on the hook as anybody else for the giant deficit.
Refusing stimulus money, even if you were against the stimulus, is also stupid. There’s no hypocrisy in accepting the money even if you fought against it. You’re still on the hook for the giant deficit as much as anybody else even if you didn’t take the money. You might as well take it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tao’s Revenge
Actually I do. Right to bare arms.
That doesn’t mean what you think it does.
Although , for many it has been interpreted to mean exactly this. ;o)
How about this, then?
Expanding “All those states” to Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alaska, South Carolina and Idaho
Table 1: Taxes for the Military and Expenditures by State
State Rank According to Ratio of Amount Returned per Dollar Paid in Taxes Amount Returned to State per Dollar Paid in Taxes Military Distribution by State Taxes for Military (in millions) Military per capita Taxes for Military per Capita
Alaska 2 $4.81 $3,217 $669 $4,851 $1,009
Mississippi 5 $2.89 $4,869 $1,685 $1,674 $579
South Carolina 9 $2.14 $6,918 $3,228 $1,629 $760
Texas 20 $0.97 $31,319 $32,218 $1,366 $1,405
Idaho 22 $0.97 $1,438 $1,485 $1,006 $1,039
Louisiana 23 $0.96 $4,693 $4,878 $1,041 $1,082
By my count that’s three of the six states listed by name which paid more than they received. In case the table above didn’t format well on your screen, the third column is the “Amount Returned Per Dollar Paid in Taxes”. Alaska is $4.81, Mississippi is $2.89 and so on. Since the claim is “historically” that they have received more, do you have these data points for other years? Perhaps over ten or twenty years we can see that these states did indeed get more than they paid?
Once that is established, can you explain how it is germane to the discussion? We all know that distribution of tax monies is not going to be equal among the states. If it were then why would we need a Federal government at all? The state governments could collect the money and spend it locally without siphoning any of it off with Federal bureaucracy or paperwork. The Federal government exists to pool the resources of all the states and spend them in ways which benefit the nation as a whole. In any real world application there are going to be times and situations when this in unequal, this does not necessarily mean it is inequitable.
Enjoy,
Steven
Lets make it that way.
The Federal government costs money to run, so we all need to bear some of the burden, but I don’t see why someone from a red state should get a special cheap deal.
I know how hard funding college can be. Here’s hoping they’re just posturing too. Good luck!
And this just in, from our shoot-yourself-in-the-foot, nail-yer-pecker-to-a-tree desk:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/20/jindal-unemployed/
(ThinkProgress, somewhat lefty site, you know the drill…)
Jindal Rejects $90 Million In Recovery Funding That Would Have Benefited 25,000 Louisiana Residents
Bye, Bobby. Adios, muchacho.