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

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

You took the stage, you got to do the presentation....the floor is all yours.

Right after Lunch

[firstdown]

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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Miller101

And one of those Governors runs a state that has the third highest unemployment rate in the country....................What a FREAKIN IDIOT!!! How the heck can you even question free money when your state is all screwed up like that? I mean, when Bush gave me $700 I took it! Even though he was Republican, I happily took that money then went up to Atlantic City and had some fun!

How can you even question free money. Especially, when you NEED IT!!! I just don't get it.

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

You took the stage, you got to do the presentation....the floor is all yours.

so, i finally got to lunch, then got back and he** broke loose here at work. Finally settled down, and i decided I didn't want to respond purely with anecdotal stuff so i looked up the text and started reading, wow, dry...

so to the point:

Originally Posted by me

Maybe because it isn't free. ...
The "stimulus" bill comes with many such proviso's.

Originally Posted by Saden1

You took the stage, you got to do the presentation....the floor is all yours.

here is one: (at this point i am not debating the validity of the proviso, just that the money comes with stipulations;provisos;etc)

SEC. 1110. USE OF AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL.

(a) IN GENERAL.—None of the funds appropriated

or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron and steel used in the project is produced in the United States.
(b) EXCEPTIONS.—Subsection (a) shall not apply in
any case in which the head of the Federal department or agency involved finds that—

(1) applying subsection (a) would be inconsistent with the public interest; (2) iron and steel are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality; or (3) inclusion of iron and steel produced in the United States will increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25 percent.
(c) WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION FOR WAIVER.—If the head of a Federal department or agency determines that it is necessary to waive the application of subsection (a)
based on a finding under subsection (b), the head of the department or agency shall publish in the Federal Register a detailed written justification as to why the provision is being waived.
(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the terms ‘‘public
building’’ and ‘‘public work’’ have the meanings given such terms in section 1 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 8 10c) and include airports, bridges, canals, dams, dikes, pipelines, railroads, multiline mass transit systems, roads, tunnels, harbors, and piers.

another:

SEC. 1114. REQUIRED PARTICIPATION IN E-VERIFY PROGRAM.

None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used to enter into a contract with an entity that does not participate in the E-verify program described in section 401(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note).

and finally

STATE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND EMPLOYMENT SERVICE OPERATIONS

For an additional amount for ‘‘State Unemployment
Insurance and Employment Service Operations’’ for grants to the States in accordance with section 6 of the Wagner-Peyser Act, $500,000,000, which may be expended from the Employment Security Administration Account in the Unemployment Trust Fund, and which shall be available for obligation on the date of enactment of this Act: Provided, That such funds shall remain available to the States through September 30, 2010: Provided further, 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

I will be the first to admit that all three of these examples may or may not be good in and of themselves. I tried to read all 647 pages, but realized -it ain't happening tonight (or possibly ever). Not to mention that alot of the requirements I did see in the text forced you to go to another federal regulation to see what requirement they were adding to the money. eg the last one refers to the Wagner-Peyser Act whatever that is. (i am sure it is humane and compassionate regulation)

I hope that this shows the money wasn't freely given, it did have strings attached.

And as Firstdown pointed out, every cent of this is borrowed money against future tax income, none is budgeted for. (and yes the republican overspent too thats a separate argument and I would love to see accountability all around)

[CRedskinsRule]

Jindal to refuse some stimulus money

[Louisiana gov. Bobby Jindal said] “The federal money in this bill will run out in less than three years for this benefit and our businesses would then be stuck paying the bill,” Jindal said. “We must be careful and thoughtful as we examine all the strings attached to the funding in this package. We cannot grow government in an unsustainable way.”

In an interview Friday,[Mississippi governor Haley] Barbour said he, too, would likely decline funds for broadening access to unemployment insurance.

“Subject to learning more, my position is that Mississippi won’t accept funds that require us to have a tax increase later, because [they would force] us to change our rules for qualifying for unemployment compensation,” he said.

[saden1]

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 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.

A lot of states are running out of money 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?


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 use to be cool up until late 19th century, not so much in the 21st century. You dig?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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)

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

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 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.

A lot of states are running out of money 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?


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 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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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?

[saden1]

Obama digs too:

[Miller101]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.