Am I.

Post #303,726 by beepster 2/6/09 5:54:01 PM Reply	Am I. So if you think its good to give the states money to help with their budgets..why attach strings. And don't defend Pelosi. She is an idiot. Its captured in way too many soundbites. It has nothing to do with being a woman, or from California. And separating the legislation from its regulatory impact is just a tad non-sensical don't you think? There can't be one without the other. The legislature writes and passes the laws. Enforcement is executive. And the Recovery Act was supposed to include things that were immediate in their impact. (18 months) There's alot of stuff there that isn't. In Beltway terms thats called pork. Thats business as usual, not CHANGE. Weren't we promised change? He's done some good things so far...and he's hit or miss on some others. The no strings money given to wall street was a mistake. The first "stimulus" giveaway to you and I was a mistake. The bill that came out of the House would be a mistake. The Repos talking about getting us out of this with tax cuts as the majority is a mistake. The infrastructure development stuff is all good. We should have been doing that for a long time. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,731 by boxley 2/6/09 6:31:24 PM Reply	the stimulus to you and I was not a mistake the mistake is providing infrastructure spending with zero maintenance money, thats a HUGE hole for future local governments and yes pelosi by her attitudes and writing is indeed an idiot although a better quality idiot than denny
Post #303,735 by drook 2/6/09 7:54:06 PM Reply	Black or white, again ... strawman much? "So if you think its good to give the states money to help with their budgets..why attach strings." Sure. And if giving the states money is good, then giving them more money is better. And if giving them more money is better, then giving them even more than that must be better still, right? Until the proposal becomes so obviously bad that you can point out it never should have been tried to begin with. -- Drew
Post #303,738 by beepster 2/6/09 8:15:03 PM Reply	Excuse me? "Giving money to the States so that they don't have to make more draconian cuts in their budgets for Medicaid and the like is an explicit purpose of the bill. " Don't believe my detachment of strings is a strawman. Your "endless supply" might be, though. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,743 by drook 2/6/09 9:18:54 PM Reply	What did you mean by strings, then? "Giving money to the States so that they don't have to make more draconian cuts in their budgets for Medicaid and the like is an explicit purpose of the bill." And the explicit purpose of the TARP was to cover bad mortgages. But because there were no "strings" they instead used it to buy up other banks, and pay themselves huge bonuses. -- Drew
Post #303,746 by beepster 2/6/09 10:34:27 PM Reply	Your point? Which state is California interested in buying? I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,749 by drook 2/6/09 10:58:45 PM Reply	Thought it was obvious, but okay My point is without "strings" there's no reason to believe the money will be used for its "explicit purpose". -- Drew
Post #303,750 by beepster 2/6/09 11:14:29 PM Reply	Block grants happen all the time and go into state general funds. Maybe NY should buy CT. Almost everybody in CT works there already. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #307,667 by CRConrad 4/22/09 8:03:14 AM Reply	Year by year, you sound more and more like... ...some fucking echo of Rush Limbaugh. Were you guys required to hand in your brains the first time you voted for Shrub, or something?

Welcome to IWETHEY!