11 States Declare Sovereignty

[moraldeficiency]

haha, this is so funny. No state is taking none of the money, the fraction they're refusing is tiny compared to what they're taking. Everyone's taking the money it's just some of the money with restrictions that they're refusing. Anyone saying they won't take a crapload of money for their state is guarnteed to never see the inside of an office again. Politics be damned, people like eating more. Christ John Stewart was making fun of the "I'm not taking the money only 99.99% of the money" guys last week. This is a publicity stunt nothing more, no one's really taking a stand and most of these guys already have the money they're "not taking" from the package spent.

 

[dnno1]

I just checked 5 of these states' web sites. According to them they are still taking the stimulus money. The so called resolutions (not laws) that are being introduced into the state legislature (not passed) by the Republicans is just a stunt and nothing more. I would suggest that the readers check the websites of the posted states to see if there is anything about succession or the non use of the stimulus money to verify if these questionable sources are really factual.

 

[Paradoxium]

I just checked 5 of these states' web sites. According to them they are still taking the stimulus money. The so called resolutions (not laws) that are being introduced into the state legislature (not passed) by the Republicans is just a stunt and nothing more. I would suggest that the readers check the websites of the posted states to see if there is anything about succession or the non use of the stimulus money to verify if these questionable sources are really factual.

No one said anything about secession. Just overstepping it's bounds, ergo the whole Sovereignty thing over these items and/or how it is spent or regulated.

 

[Kelly]

I just checked 5 of these states' web sites. According to them they are still taking the stimulus money. The so called resolutions (not laws) that are being introduced into the state legislature (not passed) by the Republicans is just a stunt and nothing more. I would suggest that the readers check the websites of the posted states to see if there is anything about succession or the non use of the stimulus money to verify if these questionable sources are really factual.

Succession? They are just doing this "stunt" to let the National Government know that it is overstepping its bounds, that they do not like the strings attached to this money etc. Kind of a duh...IT'S CALLED, "putting it in writing"...

 

[dnno1]

No one said anything about secession. Just overstepping it's bounds, ergo the whole Sovereignty thing over these items and/or how it is spent or regulated.

Succession? They are just doing this "stunt" to let the National Government know that it is overstepping its bounds, that they do not like the strings attached to this money etc. Kind of a duh...IT'S CALLED, "putting it in writing"...

Whatever. They are still taking the money (and that is my point)... and BTW nobody is forcing them to take it either. They were always free to refuse it. This is nothing more than political grandstanding.

 

[danielisthor]

I think it has more to do that the Federal Government had it written into the plan that if a Governor refused any of the stimulus that the States Legislature could bypass the Governor and accept the money. That is circumventing State Rights and if allowed to happen they(Fed. Government) will continue to find other ways to do it.

 

[terry78]

http://www.gocomics.com/lacucaracha/2009/03/07/

 

[Addendum]

I think it has more to do that the Federal Government had it written into the plan that if a Governor refused any of the stimulus that the States Legislature could bypass the Governor and accept the money.

Even if it wasn't written into the plan, the state legislature could still overrule the governor's decision if they so chose.

 

[danielisthor]

Even if it wasn't written into the plan, the state legislature could still overrule the governor's decision if they so chose.

not the point. Whether or not it's written into the state constitution, writting it into a Federal law would be against a state's sovereignty.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

Succession? They are just doing this "stunt" to let the National Government know that it is overstepping its bounds, that they do not like the strings attached to this money etc. Kind of a duh...IT'S CALLED, "putting it in writing"...

So by your logic, just let the politicians and other executives put the money in their pockets and not help the Economy? If that's the case then perhaps they should continue doing what they're doing then.

 

[hippie_hunter]

This stimulus bill does very little to help the economy, but actually hurts it in the long term

 

[LastSunrise1981]

This stimulus bill does very little to help the economy, but actually hurts it in the long term

And what if it does work? I'm hearing and seeing a lot of people believing that it won't work and it will hurt in the long run. But what if it helps and doesn't cause any of what people are speculating about? Does Obama receive credit then?

 

[Matt]

So by your logic, just let the politicians and other executives put the money in their pockets and not help the Economy? If that's the case then perhaps they should continue doing what they're doing then.

I'm not sure if you're talking about stimulus money or money they've earned? Why shouldn't executives be allowed to pocket money they've earned. Where did this idea that we are some how entitled to "spread around the wealth," that other people have earned come from?

 

[Matt]

And what if it does work? I'm hearing and seeing a lot of people believing that it won't work and it will hurt in the long run. But what if it helps and doesn't cause any of what people are speculating about? Does Obama receive credit then?

Then we are still 4 trillion in debt.This is a double edged sword. Personally I do not think it will help the economy, there is too much evidence to the contrary, but even if it does, our country is still going to have to pick up the bill for this at some point. Plus we are printing a lot more money to cover these expenses. That will result in inflation. I mean, that's not even deniable. More money in circulation = higher inflation rate. So even if Obama does solve one problem with his solution, he is creating two more.

 

[SuBe]

I'm not sure if you're talking about stimulus money or money they've earned? Why shouldn't executives be allowed to pocket money they've earned. Where did this idea that we are some how entitled to "spread around the wealth," that other people have earned come from?

Liberal Education is where this was picked up.

 

[dnno1]

I think it has more to do that the Federal Government had it written into the plan that if a Governor refused any of the stimulus that the States Legislature could bypass the Governor and accept the money. That is circumventing State Rights and if allowed to happen they(Fed. Government) will continue to find other ways to do it.

These governors refused to take money for unemployment insurance because they felt that it would create a burden for their state once the extra funding ran out. The funding for unemployment insurance that would have supplemented what they were already receiving under section 6 the Wagner-Peyser Act. The catch is that they would not receive the funding for reemployment and other related services if they did not take it all. I don't see this as forcing them since, once again, it is their choice to refuse the money.

One final thing, as far as sovereignty goes, that only applies within each specific state and only as far as federal laws will allow. The Constitution of the United States gives all feral laws supremacy of anything that a state might try to circumvent.

 

[dnno1]

I'm not sure if you're talking about stimulus money or money they've earned? Why shouldn't executives be allowed to pocket money they've earned. Where did this idea that we are some how entitled to "spread around the wealth," that other people have earned come from?

Actually it is the bailout money that is at issue. Once an institution that is dreamed a troubled asset gets the funds, that is where it becomes hard to justify giving an executive a raise whey presumably their company was loosing money. As far as receiving money from the stimulus, if it is for a government contract, then there can be stipulations on how the money is spent, when, and where. This happens all the time with government contracts. If it is just a pure stimulus check which would be going to the American public, that should not affect your normal salary compensation with your place of work at all.

 

[Matt]

Well, I agree with that. If they accept the money, they should be held liable. But for how long? These aren't loans, if I'm not mistaken, so at what point do they get to tell the government, "Get the hell out of my business?"

 

[Kelly]

Well, I agree with that. If they accept the money, they should be held liable. But for how long? These aren't loans, if I'm not mistaken, so at what point do they get to tell the government, "Get the hell out of my business?"

They aren't liable. When they enter into a contract, and receive money....unless the government states EXACTLY how it can be spent in that contract, then theres not a damn thing the government can do or say about how the money is spent. That is one problem with what has already been given, NOTHING was set as $$$$ that goes to this, or $$$$ that goes to that.