South Carolina Governor set to reject part of stimulusFollow

It reminds me of Mitt Romney and how he made a whole bunch of random, deep, painful cuts, right after the congress convened and right before Deval took over (so it'd be his problem), sacrificing the needs of his constituents for the sake of looking good on the national ticket. Sanford does have on his side that he's at least always been a fiscal conservative--Mitt is a giant poser, but still the idea of him sacrificing the needs of his state to look good ideologically in order to get national exposure, well...stinks to high heaven.

But that's politics for you.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090313/ap_on_re_us/sanford_stimulus

We should have let the South secede when we had the chance. :P

NOT YOU, SAMIRA. Maybe Mr. Winky.

If you didn't think he was stupid for raising a stint about the 2% of the stimulus package that is pork when he agrees with 98% of the spending in the bill, if you you didn't think he was stupid for rejected the stimulus money based on a difference of opinion yet somehow still willing to accept 3/4 of it, then surely you have to accept he is stupid for wanting to take the kids' college fund and gamble it away in one fun filled night at Santa Barbara.

Edited, Mar 13th 2009 3:25pm by Allegory

So he's accepting 75%? Big frickin' whoop.

By pork I mean pork as the Republicans have labeled it. The parts of the bill that I have heard Republicans raising a stint over comprise about 2% of the total spending in the bill. The rest of the spending package they seem to agree on.

Edited, Mar 13th 2009 4:14pm by Allegory

There's some CNN story about how the teenage chick who was at the pseudo-State of the Union goes to some decaying husk of a school that was supposed to get stimulus funding until Sanford blocked it, yadda yadda. Anyway... money quote:So, once again, he won't spend "money we don't have" on fixing the schools but he will spend "money we don't have" on paying down his state's debt. Which is essentially saying he won't fix the school but he'll show his awesome conservatism by transferring S. Carolina's debt to the United States government and having the nation pay for it instead.

Thanks, Governor Sanford!

Edited, Mar 13th 2009 4:25pm by Jophiel

He's not cutting a much larger portion. He's claiming to cut a large portion while really just asking to allocate it towards the state debt rather than towards the intended projects. And claiming that he's doing this because we shouldn'r spend money we don't have.

For that matter, the bulk of the criticism towards the other governors was because they originally made blustery remarks about how they'd refuse the money and then wound up taking most of it anyway. Which is indeed pretty hypocritical. See, the next step after complaining about the money and saying you won't take the money is... not to take the money. Not taking 95% of the money or claiming you'll only take 75% when you'll really take 95% but spend 20% however you want.

No one's moving the goalposts, your guys just seem intent on running in the opposite direction from them

Yet, strangely, they got by without that 700 million last year, didn't they?

I reject the notion that not spending money on something somehow "hurts" people. Not giving someone something they didn't have last year isn't the same as taking something away.



They're doing it in exactly the way your "side" demanded of them. They said the bill was full of pork, wouldn't help the economy, and that it's largest effect would be to increase the average citizen's dependence on the government via increased social program spending. They got bashed by liberals insisting that they weren't putting their money where their mouths were.

So yeah. Cutting pork and shifting increases in social spending into something as radical as paying off debt seems like an exactly appropriate response. Are you arguing that they're wrong because they didn't reject enough money, or because they rejected too much? I'm just curious because you guys seem to bash them regardless.

If he rejected 100% of the stimulus money, are you seriously saying that we wouldn't see articles about all the poor people being hurt by that? You know damn well we would. Let's stop pretending that this is anything more than political games being played by the left to attempt to demonize any sort of sane fiscal ideas that Republicans might throw out there.



Sure. You'd oppose that too though, wouldn't you? So it's kinda moot. That would also require more time to do than just shifting money to other things.



When? In the 3 weeks since the bill passed? Tax rates are usually set once a year Smash.



Yeah. Cause that just makes so much sense. Has it occurred to you that they might just be doing this because they actually honestly believe that the fiscal policy the Dems are pursuing here is *wrong*? Just plain wrong. Spending more money isn't the answer, and they're doing their part to show how it's not.

I'd also point out that paying down their debts helps their states not be "broke". How do you think they became broke Smash? Maybe because they're spending too much money? I'll also point out that in the case of SC, the Republican partly only recently took control of the legislature. If their plan to get out of being broke is to cut spending, isn't that a valid approach? While you may whine and moan about the significance of that on a national scale, and pretend to care about the poor folks living in SC, I'm pretty darn sure that your only reason for caring is the message that this sends. Conservatives really are trying to be fiscally responsible, while Dems aren't even making an effort.


You're the ones who called them out. Now you're pissed that they're actually doing it. Let's not kid ourselves. That's the real objection here. You don't want the news story to be about Conservatives acting on their ideals of fiscal responsibility, so you spin it to be about anything else you can think of. They're hypocrites. They're not cutting enough. They're cutting too much. They're cutting from the wrong things. They're putting the money in the wrong places. And hey! Let's put some crying poor babies on the TV in order to make our point...

Not sure how that's super relevant. If we're looking at general trends by party in terms of spending versus not spending, and taxing versus not taxing, it's pretty clear that Republicans tend to spend and tax less and Democrats tend to spend and tax more. Finding cases where spending increased during a Republican administration and whatnot does not change this overall trend. In the same situations, Democrats will tend to spend *more*.

In the context of this particular situation, the issue is not wholly about how well someone ran their state government. A collapsing economy affects everything. What a lot of states are getting hit with is a slower consumer market, crashing real estate market, and failing businesses, which significantly reduces their revenues. Meanwhile, their expenses remain at least the same, and in some cases go up due to the way social spending programs are designed. Even if Republicans didn't write the existing rules for their welfare and unemployment systems, they're still required to adhere to them. So if suddenly unemployment and hardship claims double, they have to pay for it, even if the rules they're following were written 30 years ago when Democrats controlled the state.



So the next time a Republican proposes spending cuts, you'll support them? When the news parades a list of people who'll be "hurt" by the cuts in front of the cameras to jerk at the heartstrings of the people, you'll deride that as a charade designed to prevent fiscally responsible policy? When someone condemns republicans for wanting to cut any sort of spending, you'll argue with them that it's important for them to do this so we'll all have a financially secure future for our children?


I suspect not. And that's kinda the point here. Republicans get bashed when they try to cut spending for "hurting" the poor, minorities, and whatever victim group we can find. But then, when they talk about their ideological position of being fiscally responsible, they're called hypocrites because they didn't cut spending. Well gee! They didn't cut spending because you didn't let them.


The problem is that there's a huge gap between what Republicans would like to do fiscally, and what the public (that's you guys) allow them to do. Don't blame the guy who'd like to do the right thing, but is prevented from doing so. Blame the guy(s) preventing it. What's so stunningly strange about this whole thing, is that the very people who oppose Republicans when they try to cut taxes and spending, then flip around and blame Republicans for failing to cut taxes and spending...

Strange, don't you agree?

When? In the 3 weeks since the bill passed? Tax rates are usually set once a year Smash.

Really? This was really worth typing? This is your actual response, that these states can't cut taxes because March 13th just isn't the right day of the year to pass a bill? Why bother to respond, at all? It's a mystery to me, genuinely. You know what you posted was not only false, but transparently so, not to mention embarrassingly ludicrous.


Yeah. Cause that just makes so much sense. Has it occurred to you that they might just be doing this because they actually honestly believe that the fiscal policy the Dems are pursuing here is *wrong*? Just plain wrong. Spending more money isn't the answer, and they're doing their part to show how it's not.

It occurs to me that were that the case, they would, oh, I don't know, *SPEND LESS FUCKING MONEY* to demonstrate this principle.



I'd also point out that paying down their debts helps their states not be "broke". How do you think they became broke Smash?

By cutting taxes, which, SHOCKINGLY, did not generate revenue. Glad you asked, you stupid motherfucker? What's it like to ask rhetorical questions you don't know the answer to? It must make life full of surprises.



Maybe because they're spending too much money?

They're not generating enough revenue given how much they spend. It's arbitrary to characterize it as "spending too much" or "generating too little revenue". EITHER WAY, it's a fucking abject failure of governance.



I'll also point out that in the case of SC, the Republican partly only recently took control of the legislature.

Yeah, recently when I was still in college. Recently before this site existed. When they too control of the legislature, if you had Googled the state to check Wikipedia...oh wait, NEITHER FUCKING EXISTED when they took control of the legislature.

On behalf of all who read or post here, I implore you:

STOP GUESSING AND SPEND 10 SECONDS DOING RESEARCH. YOUR INTUITION SUCKS



If their plan to get out of being broke is to cut spending, isn't that a valid approach? While you may whine and moan about the significance of that on a national scale, and pretend to care about the poor folks living in SC, I'm pretty darn sure that your only reason for caring is the message that this sends. Conservatives really are trying to be fiscally responsible, while Dems aren't even making an effort.


Sure, except for the tiny caveat that THEY AREN'T. There is not now, and has never been, any interest by either party in spending less money. There is argument over what to spend that money on, or the best ways to generate revenue, and certainly rhetoric about "responsibility", but no real attempt to cut spending. Sanford is an empty suit. Deal with it. There are plenty of Democratic Governors who are empty suits as well. Richardson, Culver, etc.



You're the ones who called them out. Now you're pissed that they're actually doing it.

Doing what? Going into crushing debt while their people suffer, and they make PR appearances to talk about fiscal responsibility? No, I'm pretty sure I've never called for that.




Let's not kid ourselves. That's the real objection here. You don't want the news story to be about Conservatives acting on their ideals of fiscal responsibility, so you spin it to be about anything else you can think of.

I could really give a fuck what the news story is in a non election year. If you think I'm concerned that South Carolina is going to undergo an economic miracle while the rest of the country falls apart and becomes a shining city on a hill cited as an example of the benefits of fiscal responsibility, you smoke a lot more meth than anyone realized.


They're hypocrites. They're not cutting enough. They're cutting too much. They're cutting from the wrong things.

All politicians are forced to be hypocrites, you fucking infant. Those who aren't hypocrites lose elections. Obama is a hypocrite. FDR was a hypocrite. It's a meaningless distinction. South Carolina is Somalia without Federal Funds. When a state decides to reject all Federal Funds, and succeeds on it's own in increasing the standard of living for it's people, let me know.


They're putting the money in the wrong places. And hey! Let's put some crying poor babies on the TV in order to make our point...

Haven forbid we consider the suffering of poor children a significant issue when compared with posturing for an election three years from now. How did my priories ever get so screwed up? these are the images that we should be focusing on, important things serious men do: put on a suit and carry live pigs into the legislature your own party controls. That's leadership. Literally crumbling schools and hungry children, well, that's just media manipulation.

Life's not a fucking frat party. Poor people are ACTUALLY suffering, not because they're less talented, not because they did something wrong, because they were JUST UNLUCKY. Ignoring them to make a political point is wrong, period. It's not 1884, Social Darwinism isn't a viable public policy theory anymore.