• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Talking of Sister Sarah

A

Anonymous

Guest
Since Sister Sarah and her exposure was brought up in some of the threads today--ironically she showed up in D.C today (packing the family with her) to lobby for the stimulus package and to make sure Alaska got its share of the pork....

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said she will attend an exclusive club dinner in Washington this weekend because it could offer her an audience with President Obama.
---------
A dinner Friday night at the home of financier Fred Malek also will give her a chance to lobby congressional leaders, like Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., about Alaska issues regarding the federal stimulus package, she said.

I suppose with their benefactor Senator Stevens out of the picture their pork barrel is running dry... :wink:


GOP Governors Press Congress to Pass Stimulus Bill

Saturday, January 31, 2009 11:16 AM

NEW YORK – Most Republican governors have broken with their GOP colleagues in Congress and are pushing for passage of President Barack Obama's economic aid plan that would send billions to states for education, public works and health care.


Their state treasuries drained by the financial crisis, governors would welcome the money from Capitol Hill, where GOP lawmakers are more skeptical of Obama's spending priorities.


The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, scheduled meetings in Washington this weekend with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other senators to press for her state's share of the package.
---------------

This past week the bipartisan National Governors Association called on Congress to quickly pass the plan.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I'd hesitate to call it a wholehearted endorsement by the governors;

Clyde Frazier, a professor of political science at Meredith College in North Carolina, said it wasn't politically inconsistent for Republican governors and members of Congress to part ways on the stimulus plan.

"For governors, it's free money — they get the benefits and they don't have to pay the costs of raising the revenues," Frazier said. "Senators and representatives get only some credit for the expenditures, and they have to pay the bill."

That's not to say Republican governors are entirely enthusiastic about the plan. Some worry about the debt incurred through so much federal borrowing.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a former member of the House, said he would accept the stimulus money but would have voted against the bill if he were still in Congress. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, said he wasn't sure whether he would accept the approximately $3 billion his state would be in line for.

"Yes, we need some help and we appreciate the help," Barbour said in an interview. "But I don't know about the details and the strings attached to tell you if I'll take all of it or not."

The most outspoken critic has been South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who has warned for months of a steep spike in inflation and a severely weakened dollar if Obama's plan passed. His state is on track to receive $2.1 billion of the stimulus money; Sanford has not yet said whether he would accept it.

"It's incumbent on me as one of the nation's governors to speak out against what I believe is ultimately incredibly harmful to the economy, to taxpayers and to the worth of the U.S. dollar," Sanford said in an interview. "This plan is a huge mistake and is going to prolong and deepen this recession."

Sanford outlined his concerns in December when the then-president-elect met with governors in Philadelphia to discuss the stimulus proposal. Sanford said he had heard nothing from the White House since then.

Associates say Sanford, who recently was elected chairman of the Republican Governors Association, has been disappointed in how few of his GOP colleagues have joined him in speaking out against the size and scope of Obama's plan.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is widely viewed as a potential presidential contender in 2012, said governors have little choice but to accept the relief being offered. "States have to balance their budgets," he said. "So if we're going to go down this path, we are entitled to ask for our share of the money."

But Pawlenty expressed reservations about the cost of the plan and its impact on the federal deficit, which has already grown to over $1 trillion.

"I'm quite concerned about the federal government spending money it doesn't have," Pawlenty said. "We're on an unsustainable path of deficit spending and borrowing."
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
So the question is, if the Governors think it's in the best interest of the state's voters to pass the stimulus bill, what will the voters think of their elected Congressional representatives if they keep playing politics and opposing the stimulus bill? Should be interesting now with the Governors in favor.

Most voters see that it's a stimulus bill in name only and are opposed to it.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Sandhusker said:
reader (the Second) said:
So the question is, if the Governors think it's in the best interest of the state's voters to pass the stimulus bill, what will the voters think of their elected Congressional representatives if they keep playing politics and opposing the stimulus bill? Should be interesting now with the Governors in favor.

Most voters see that it's a stimulus bill in name only and are opposed to it.

Where do you get your evidence to make the statement about "most voters"? How many voters is that? What poll or other mechanism did you use?

Rasmussen says support is 42% and going down.

Where do you get your evidence that it is "stimulus" and not just "big spending"?
 

Mike

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Sandhusker said:
reader (the Second) said:
So the question is, if the Governors think it's in the best interest of the state's voters to pass the stimulus bill, what will the voters think of their elected Congressional representatives if they keep playing politics and opposing the stimulus bill? Should be interesting now with the Governors in favor.

Most voters see that it's a stimulus bill in name only and are opposed to it.

Where do you get your evidence to make the statement about "most voters"? How many voters is that? What poll or other mechanism did you use?
Rasmussen Poll..............42% of the public against and the numbers keep climbing. Was around 68% last week. :lol:

This stimulus bill is nothing but another "Entitlement" Spending Bill the Dems concocted because they are building the massive socialism plan here in the U.S.

Does it make sense to take money away from the public in order to promote spending? :roll: :roll: :roll:

The simple way to stimulate the economy would be to cut out all corporate taxes and take the capital gains tax completely away.

Small & large business would thrive and the money would flow.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
So now, Reader, what will voters think when, after chastising Bush's deficit spending and promising to surgically cut spending while campaigning, Obama continues to push for the biggest deficit spending proposal in the history of the nation? Do you think they'll hold his about face against him?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Well that depends upon whether the stimulus package works, doesn't it?

We know that spending $720,000,000 a day in Iraq did not stimulate the economy. These statistics are from 2007, they may be higher or lower now.

CHICAGO, Sept. 21 -- The money spent on one day of the Iraq war could buy homes for almost 6,500 families or health care for 423,529 children, or could outfit 1.27 million homes with renewable electricity, according to the American Friends Service Committee, which displayed those statistics on large banners in cities nationwide Thursday and Friday.

The war is costing $720 million a day or $500,000 a minute, according to the group's analysis of the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance lecturer Linda J. Bilmes.

What does Iraq have to do with Obama's misnamed spending plan?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Well that depends upon whether the stimulus package works, doesn't it?

We know that spending $720,000,000 a day in Iraq did not stimulate the economy. These statistics are from 2007, they may be higher or lower now.

CHICAGO, Sept. 21 -- The money spent on one day of the Iraq war could buy homes for almost 6,500 families or health care for 423,529 children, or could outfit 1.27 million homes with renewable electricity, according to the American Friends Service Committee, which displayed those statistics on large banners in cities nationwide Thursday and Friday.

The war is costing $720 million a day or $500,000 a minute, according to the group's analysis of the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance lecturer Linda J. Bilmes.

I'm sure the vast majority of people in Iraq are happy that they too can now have some of those benefits of a country without a dictator in power!

Unfortunately in North America, some only think of how that money could of helped themselves, instead of thinking of how it DID help those who needed it most!
 

SMN Herf

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Well that depends upon whether the stimulus package works, doesn't it?

We know that spending $720,000,000 a day in Iraq did not stimulate the economy. These statistics are from 2007, they may be higher or lower now.

CHICAGO, Sept. 21 -- The money spent on one day of the Iraq war could buy homes for almost 6,500 families or health care for 423,529 children, or could outfit 1.27 million homes with renewable electricity, according to the American Friends Service Committee, which displayed those statistics on large banners in cities nationwide Thursday and Friday.

The war is costing $720 million a day or $500,000 a minute, according to the group's analysis of the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance lecturer Linda J. Bilmes.

Did this article you quote talk about or put a figure on what it costs to maintain our military if it wasn't deployed in Iraq? Wouldn't the net difference between what it cost to have the military deployed versus the cost of the military not being deployed be the true figure that should be used when equating it to the uses you talk about? After all, you still have the payroll, still have to maintain, cloth, feed and train the troops no matter where they are stationed.

Besides, according to President Obama, WW2 is what brought us out of the Great Depression, but the anti Iraq war people claim it has been a drain to the economy and some even claim it caused the recession.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
She's pulling an OT and diverting to Bush, Hypo. Don't let her.

What else you going to compare it to- except the past 8 years when we put every dime into Iraq- and built their infrastructure and industry while letting ours fall apart :???:

For the last 6 years we've put every dime in the budget into the Bush War and then rebuilding Iraq and paying appeasement money trying to placate the Chieftains and Mullahs to make it work so GW didn't look so dumb.... :roll: But none of you Flagwavers complained then :???:

These folks in the governors offices know they are either going to have to raise taxes drastically- or cut services drastically (which means jobs)-especially those states that have fiscally conservatively passed balanced budget amendments - which makes me remember back in the 1990's- when we finally got the economic impact of the Reagan/Bush 1 years in Montana- when the state had no money- and no county had money meaning folks in a major injury or fatal accident had to wait sometimes 3-4 hours for a Highway Patrolman to respond 200-250-300 miles to answer the call because they cut overtime and cut officers....Our county had a budget of $600 a month for gas money for patrol....Thats only one example- as it affects teachers, colleges, roads, etc....We don't want to go back to that....

The Bush tax cuts-especially during a period when he instigated a War was wrong- which led to huge deficits- which his first Treasury Secretary told him - so was fired....

And his incompetence on oversight and regulation and enforcement of laws have led us to where we are today- which in even GW's own words is "dire straits"...Which the majority of economic advisors now say can not be stopped with tax cuts alone (except for the Rush blatherers :roll: )- as its going to take a MAJOR impedus of funding into the economy to stimulate it, combined with tax cuts to bring us out...
The major argument is over where the money should be directed- and the tax cuts should be- and the Bush Bust era proved that tax cuts for the rich and Big Corporates- and the trickle down theory doesn't work when you're this deep into a recession-- and its going to take tax cuts/rebates for the small business and middle and poor class's with a trickle thru to get people spending and buying again- as so far the rich and Big Corporates have only used the money to pay off debt/CEO salaries-bonuses/Golden Parachutes or sat on for rainy days ahead- and not invested it into the economy ....
 

SMN Herf

Well-known member
OT, I am wondering at what point of this soaking the rich to pay for all our welfare programs is enough? The top 10% of houshold incomes pay for almost 55% of the total tax liability and the top 1% pays for 27% of the federal tax liability. This has been increasiing steadily since 1980.
 

MsSage

Well-known member
OT, I am wondering at what point of this soaking the rich to pay for all our welfare programs is enough?
Your wrong there. There are many people who make less than $20,000 a year but have no dependents or a house and they pay more than 40% of their income in taxes. No they dont get money back at the end of the year, most hope and pray they dont owe. These are people who are living paycheck to paycheck but make too much for any assistance and not enough to get ahead. With the tax increases these are the ones who will be the new homeless.
 

SMN Herf

Well-known member
MsSage said:
OT, I am wondering at what point of this soaking the rich to pay for all our welfare programs is enough?
Your wrong there. There are many people who make less than $20,000 a year but have no dependents or a house and they pay more than 40% of their income in taxes. No they dont get money back at the end of the year, most hope and pray they dont owe. These are people who are living paycheck to paycheck but make too much for any assistance and not enough to get ahead. With the tax increases these are the ones who will be the new homeless.

Where do you get your information? Here is mine:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=558

One thing to keep in mind with people you talk about is that when businesses are taxed more, they tend to pass these costs on to consumers making the cost of goods go higher. It essentially is a tax increase on those who are consuming these goods and services.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
H & R Block

MsSage, don't stoop to their level, if you have facts, say so. If you have fabicrated, let us know, we will only think less of you for a bit, and then forgive you. Just like any other "Religious, gun-toting country folk"
 

hopalong

Well-known member
MsSage said:
Where do you get your information?
H & R Block

You are using kolo's accountants for information???
Heard she was in Wal Mart the other day filing her returns and trying to figure out how to write off that plastic Mattel JET WITH THE EXTRA SPECIAL dump VALVE :D :D :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Probably right-- Warren Buffet says his secretary pays more taxes than he does...
 
Top