Why can't the stimulus money for the states be an "all or nothing" deal?

[BrklynLiberal]

Why should all these hypocritical politicians be able to make a huge deal out of "rejecting" the stimulus money...when in fact they are "rejecting" a miniscule percentage...mainly what would benefit the unemployed.
The hypocrisy of these people needs to be broadcast loudly and clearly to those in their states...so they know who REALLY wants to make things better for them.
This is the same category of asshat who criticizes and "rejects" the stimulus bill due to the "earmarks", and yet they themselves have added more than their fair share of earmakrs to the bill. Why should they get to brag about the pork they bring to their state, and at the time try to get credit for rejecting a bill they call over-spending?

[backscatter712]

1. I think it is.

Didn't Senator Schumer send a letter to some of those douchebag governors explaining to them that a clause in the stimulus mandates they take all the money and use it as Congress legislated? In other words, they can't pick and choose.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. So these jerks are grandstanding about an action they are actually prevented from taking?

[backscatter712]

5. There may be a court battle, but yes.

On top of the language in the stimulus law itself, there's also the likelyhood that the state legislatures will vote to allocate the money, overriding the douchebag governors.

[Tx4obama]

7. Yep...

One of the Senators did say that.
He said that the Governors have 'no line item veto' and the states have to take ALL or NONE.

[shraby]

3. The state legislators can by-pass the governor

and opt to take the money no matter what the governor does.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Because it has got to be about the people, and not the politicians!

The Stimulus cannot be based on what the naysaying politicians from the party of "NO" want, but rather what Americans need.

[BrklynLiberal]

6. How does that preclude the idea of it being an all-or-nothing package for each state?

It is the naysaying repukes who are playing politics.

[1]

8. the "rejections" are coming from an unwillingness to submit to conditions in perpetuity...

some parts of this two year "stimulus" need to be accepted in exchange for a forever commitment in programs.

it reminds me of the 0% apr credit card offers from the same fuckers that got us into this mess in the first place...

i read the fine print before i sign up for something.

don't you?

[tkmorris]

9. Could you link to that specific part please?

The part that says they have to accept certain changes in the programs "in perpetuity" or similar?

Thanks mate.

[greenkal]

11. He can't link to it because it doesn't exist!

He's just one of those irrational Xtians that have trouble with the truth.

[1]

13. believe me, don't believe me... google is your friend. the bill is available online.

read it and tell me i am wrong. or don't.

whatever...

[tkmorris]

14. I've read the summary

It contains no evidence of your claim. The full text is available of course, and I HAVE skimmed some relevant sections, but again I see nothing like what you say exists. Surely you have read the bill with more thoroughness than I, since you have obviously noted portions I haven't. So help a brother out, whaddya say? Surely you made note of the offending portions, just point them out to me. Show me the part you have an issue with. I really would like to read it you know.

[1]

15. so you slimmed some relevant sections of the bill, eh?

what part of section 6 of the Wagner-Peyser Act did you not understand?

how did you miss "That such funds shall remain available to the States only through September 30, 2010"

and what part of "That, with respect to such funds, section 6(b)(1) of such Act shall be applied by substituting ‘‘one-third’’ for ‘‘two thirds’’ in subparagraph (A), with the remaining one-third VerDate 0ct 09 2002." did you miss?

how does that not imply perpetuity?



you skimmed it, huh? skim again, buddy. you seem to have missed the most important parts...

[vadawg]

10. yeah some of it looks like a trojan balrog, i would be wary as well

[tkmorris]

12. Again, which parts precisely?

You see I've heard this claim before, but I have yet to see anything in the package that does this. If it's in there I WANT to know, I want to be able to quote it chapter and verse, but so far I've got nothing. Could you point me to the "Trojan Balrog", as you so eloquently called it?

[backscatter712]

16. Link please?

Cite chapter and verse for such claims.