Updated: Daschle Withdraws; Didn't these guys have to fill out an application?

I appreciate your research and I believe there are some legitimate concerns. I think it's important to discuss these concerns and have a rational basis for rejecting the money. I don't really like the Buy American policy (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4803915n) but then again I don't like the idea of the Chinese dumping cheap steel on our market when we're trying to make sure Americans are gainfully employed. You have to walk a fine line and while the free market is preferred but sometimes you have to fight back (http://www.usitc.gov/ext_relations/news_release/2009/er0219gg2.htm).

A lot of states are running out of money (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2008-09-08-unemployment_N.htm) to fund their unemployment expenditures because a lot of people are getting laid off faster and staying unemployed longer than expected. If the good people of Louisiana and Mississippi have enough money to fund their unemployment expenditures I expect them to turn down the money and in the process keep their existing rules. I am curious though what these changes to their rules are and how would changes to these rules impact them negatively compared to the alternative? What is the alternative? What do they intend to do when their unemployment numbers rise? Don't employers in their states have the ability to challenge frivolous unemployment claims (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/02/12/ST2009021200082.html)?


One thing I want be sure of though is that laid-off people are entitled to unemployment benefits for a reasonable amount of time. In the words of my boy Joe the Plumber "it's there to be used not abused." Bloodletting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting) use to be cool up until late 19th century, not so much in the 21st century. You dig?

I appreciate your research and I believe there are some legitimate concerns. I think it's important to discuss these concerns and have a rational basis for rejecting the money.
...
Bloodletting use to be cool up until late 19th century, not so much in the 21st century.
You dig?
And that is all I was trying to say, is that it may/may not be good policy to reject the money, but it does not make a governer an idiot to reject money that he feels would ultimately harm his/her state. I am also glad that the provision is in the bill that lets the state governments bring it to a vote. Hopefully there will be meaningful discussions and not just rhetoric that blasts someone for possibly rejecting federal aid.

I dig. ;)

Well in my area years ago we accepted Federal money to build several interstates but the stipulated that we had to have HOV lanes to get the money. Now its actually costing our area a great deal of money to maintain these HOV lanes that no one is using. If we had rejsected the federal money it would have saved the state money in the long run but hey it was free money. Nothing is free and if there is a long list of stipulations I hope our governer would do the same but as a Dem I know there is no way he would do that.

U know what's definitely not free fd? Freedom... it costs a hefty f@ck*ing fee.

(about a buck o five)

I appreciate your research and I believe there are some legitimate concerns. I think it's important to discuss these concerns and have a rational basis for rejecting the money. I don't really like the Buy American policy (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4803915n) but then again I don't like the idea of the Chinese dumping cheap steel on our market when we're trying to make sure Americans are gainfully employed. You have to walk a fine line and while the free market is preferred but sometimes you have to fight back (http://www.usitc.gov/ext_relations/news_release/2009/er0219gg2.htm).

A lot of states are running out of money (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2008-09-08-unemployment_N.htm) to fund their unemployment expenditures because a lot of people are getting laid off faster and staying unemployed longer than expected. If the good people of Louisiana and Mississippi have enough money to fund their unemployment expenditures I expect them to turn down the money and in the process keep their existing rules. I am curious though what these changes to their rules are and how would changes to these rules impact them negatively compared to the alternative? What is the alternative? What do they intend to do when their unemployment numbers rise? Don't employers in their states have the ability to challenge frivolous unemployment claims (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/02/12/ST2009021200082.html)?


One thing I want be sure of though is that laid-off people are entitled to unemployment benefits for a reasonable amount of time. In the words of my boy Joe the Plumber "it's there to be used not abused." Bloodletting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting) use to be cool up until late 19th century, not so much in the 21st century. You dig?
Do you not like the buy American clause at all or because it does not do enough? They took out most of the buy American clause and watered down what was left in the bill. I think it should have been everthing purchased with this money must buy American first. If you cannot find made in the USA or its way more expensive then and only then can you buy foreign made. Its time we start buying stuff made here and this bill is a good chance to help bring back the MADE IN THE US.

Do you not like the buy American clause at all or because it does not do enough? They took out most of the buy American clause and watered down what was left in the bill. I think it should have been everthing purchased with this money must buy American first. If you cannot find made in the USA or its way more expensive then and only then can you buy foreign made. Its time we start buying stuff made here and this bill is a good chance to help bring back the MADE IN THE US.

We have international treaties and obligations. We must have a valid reason to institute a Buy American policy as is the case with heavily subsidized Chinese steel. If Buy American is misused it will cost us more than it will benefit us so we have to be careful not to pick our own feathers.

We have international treaties and obligations. We must have a valid reason to institute a Buy American policy as is the case with heavily subsidized Chinese steel. If Buy American is misused it will cost us more than it will benefit us so we have to be careful not to pick our own feathers.
Yea, I was reading about that this weekend but its does seem we are the only ones that play by the rules.

Yea, I was reading about that this weekend but its does seem we are the only ones that play by the rules.
i think one of the biggest problems is that there really aren't a whole lot of rules to follow. as far as emissions, we have very strict guidelines. as far as workers safety, we have very strict guidelines. as far as workers compensation, we have very strict guidelines. China, and the rest of the bunch, pretty much has a free pass. not really fair trade, huh?

Obama digs too:

fkuoEM7VpRA

FREE MONEY please explain how this is FREE money. I guess we can all stop paying federal taxes because they have all this FREE money. One day when you have a grandson paying hugh taxes you can explain to him about the good old days when we had all this free money.

Your right.........I'm sorry, I was trying to compare the money that Bush gave me to the money that each state and some cities are getting. And you're right; I can't. I can compare it to Bush's stimulus, but I can't compare it to Obama's. Things have changed. There are no more blank checks being cut anymore. The Federal Government won't be handing out billions of dollars in bonuses to the top execs that caused this problem. The Federal Government isn't going to be buying luxury planes for companies anymore. And of course, they sure as heck won't be paying millions of dollars for massages, waxing, pedicures, and golf.................................By attaching these strings, Obama and his administration are making sure that this money is spent wisely. Okay, Okay, more wisely then in the past. I don't think thats a bad thing. In fact, its what should have been done in the first place.