In his book and on the campaign trail, Rick Perry rails against the Obama administration’s “failed” 2009 federal stimulus program. But the governor and state lawmakers took more than $17 billion in fed-stim funding, including $8 billion of the one-time dollars to cover recurring state expenses. In fact, Texas used the stimulus to balance the current biennium’s budget ? and the one before that."
The article goes into details, for anyone who is interested.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
Is it just me or are other people noticing that the people arguing against Perry are either living in Texas, from Texas, or have family there?[/quote]
In his book and on the campaign trail, Rick Perry rails against the Obama administration’s “failed” 2009 federal stimulus program. But the governor and state lawmakers took more than $17 billion in fed-stim funding, including $8 billion of the one-time dollars to cover recurring state expenses. In fact, Texas used the stimulus to balance the current biennium’s budget ? and the one before that."
The article goes into details, for anyone who is interested.[/quote]
That did it DOWN WITH PERRY! LOL…seriously guys we have the biggest left wing radical in the White House right now, you honestly think that anyone from the republican party would be worse?
Stop obsessing on Perry the Tea Party will keep him honest. As for Obama he MUST be replaced as we already know what he has done—and it aint good!
On a serious, note; I think that the President will be able to “hold is on” with debate on the Stimulus for the reason stated:
Every State that I’m aware of accepted the funds; and when they “rejected” them, it was because of disagreement on what SOME of the funds were going to be used for. (The most famous “rejection” was Governor “I was hiking in the mountains/not off having sex with my mistress” Sanford of South Carolina).
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
Is it just me or are other people noticing that the people arguing against Perry are either living in Texas, from Texas, or have family there?[/quote]
Yes, I’ve noticed a while ago. All my relatives are from Texas and they are OK with him. But, the big disconnect is simple…if Texans dislike him so much…why has he been Governor FOR TEN YEARS!!!
I think ya-all are jus spoilt, thats all! Dont know how the other 49s been livin. Don’t matter. Americas gonna take im off yer hans.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
That did it DOWN WITH PERRY! LOL…seriously guys we have the biggest left wing radical in the White House right now, you honestly think that anyone from the republican party would be worse?
Stop obsessing on Perry the Tea Party will keep him honest. As for Obama he MUST be replaced as we already know what he has done—and it aint good![/quote]
I agree he must be replaced, the only point I am trying make is that if there is chance we can get someone we agree with why not, but if perry gets the nomination I will be voting for him.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
Is it just me or are other people noticing that the people arguing against Perry are either living in Texas, from Texas, or have family there?[/quote]
Yes, I’ve noticed a while ago. All my relatives are from Texas and they are OK with him. But, the big disconnect is simple…if Texans dislike him so much…why has he been Governor FOR TEN YEARS!!!
I think ya-all are jus spoilt, thats all! Dont know how the other 49s been livin. Don’t matter. Americas gonna take im off yer hans. [/quote]
The first few I understand, took over for Bush + Republican = win. His second re-election he did quite poorly, roughly 35% (if I remember correctly) but it was a four way race and so he ended up on top. His third, and final, re-election was a product of the legislative districting re-alignment in Texas (remember the Dems skipping town) and the complete utter lack of an opponent with any funds or party resources. There have been a couple of good Dems run but they could not match the Republicans ability to campaign.
For those outside of Texas, a Texas Democrat would seem a pre-Tea Party Republican in most other states. Moving North I found out quickly why Republicans dislike NE Democrats.
There was an article in the Dallas Morning News today about Perry. Aparrently Perry was really pissed about the debt ceiling deal and suggested it was treasonous for the continuing low interest by printing money was almost treasonous. the response to the critisism was that he is “very passionate about the issue.” Despite all of the mistakes he’s made here in Texas, the fact that he is openly criticizing Fed’s monetary policy leads me to believe he is the most small government candidate(next to Ron Paul) at least on economics. It’s possible that Herman Cain has a better grasp then Perry, but it’s unclear because of Cain’s focus on tax cuts as “fuel”. We Austrians understand that Tax cuts only increase the burden of government on the free economy if spending isn’t reduced first. Tax cuts don’t lower the cost of doing business if the amount of deb monetized(inflation) goes up as a result. The costs are just born by businesses in the form of increased production costs instead of increased taxes. In fact, deficit spending is worse than taxes because interest must be paid on the debt.
In other words, a president that accomplishes tax cuts without reducing the debt(not just spending or the rate of spending increases) would actually be worse than a president that keeps tax rates as they are while freezing spending.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
Is it just me or are other people noticing that the people arguing against Perry are either living in Texas, from Texas, or have family there?[/quote]
Yes, I’ve noticed a while ago. All my relatives are from Texas and they are OK with him. But, the big disconnect is simple…if Texans dislike him so much…why has he been Governor FOR TEN YEARS!!!
I think ya-all are jus spoilt, thats all! Dont know how the other 49s been livin. Don’t matter. Americas gonna take im off yer hans. [/quote]
The first few I understand, took over for Bush + Republican = win. His second re-election he did quite poorly, roughly 35% (if I remember correctly) but it was a four way race and so he ended up on top. His third, and final, re-election was a product of the legislative districting re-alignment in Texas (remember the Dems skipping town) and the complete utter lack of an opponent with any funds or party resources. There have been a couple of good Dems run but they could not match the Republicans ability to campaign.
For those outside of Texas, a Texas Democrat would seem a pre-Tea Party Republican in most other states. Moving North I found out quickly why Republicans dislike NE Democrats. [/quote]
Yep Reagan and “the Democratic party left me” and such.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
There was an article in the Dallas Morning News today about Perry. Aparrently Perry was really pissed about the debt ceiling deal and suggested it was treasonous for the continuing low interest by printing money was almost treasonous. the response to the critisism was that he is “very passionate about the issue.” Despite all of the mistakes he’s made here in Texas, the fact that he is openly criticizing Fed’s monetary policy leads me to believe he is the most small government candidate(next to Ron Paul) at least on economics. It’s possible that Herman Cain has a better grasp then Perry, but it’s unclear because of Cain’s focus on tax cuts as “fuel”. We Austrians understand that Tax cuts only increase the burden of government on the free economy if spending isn’t reduced first. Tax cuts don’t lower the cost of doing business if the amount of deb monetized(inflation) goes up as a result. The costs are just born by businesses in the form of increased production costs instead of increased taxes. In fact, deficit spending is worse than taxes because interest must be paid on the debt.
In other words, a president that accomplishes tax cuts without reducing the debt(not just spending or the rate of spending increases) would actually be worse than a president that keeps tax rates as they are while freezing spending.[/quote]
In his book and on the campaign trail, Rick Perry rails against the Obama administration’s “failed” 2009 federal stimulus program. But the governor and state lawmakers took more than $17 billion in fed-stim funding, including $8 billion of the one-time dollars to cover recurring state expenses. In fact, Texas used the stimulus to balance the current biennium’s budget ? and the one before that."
The article goes into details, for anyone who is interested.[/quote]
I agree that it IS complicated. Nothing is black and white.
In my world (Big Construction), I personally remained continuously employed, in large part due to some Stimulus Programs. The corporation that I work for has down-sized to 30-50% of the size we were in 2007, depending upon which part of the country we’re talking about. The Stimulus absolutely helped a TON of people and I believe the recession would have been much much uglier without it. But, I also believe it’s run its course and spending must be reigned in and the debt reduced.
The one thing we have now, which we didn’t have a few years ago, is cheaper, more accessible credit. That’s encouraging private industry to restart projects…it’s happening but ever so slowly. A few years ago, the credit market was frozen. There simply WAS NO MONEY for the construction industry that was NOT stimulus money. I shutter to think of what would have happened had The Stimulus not been there when it was. Not only did it keep people solvent, but the feds focused on green, energy efficient projects. There are a lot of pluses for that, and my favorite is that green projects chip away at our dependence on foreign oil. Fuck the Middle East!
Sorry for the rant…I’m republican and want the debt reduced.
But I also wanted to point out that the spending history was not all bad.
I wish there would be a fiscal conservative that is not all “family values.” Because really, for me when the government is telling you what you can do (and who) in the privacy of your bedroom (assuming everyone if consenting adults) the government has gotten too big.
It would be great if someone who was running would just say “I am here to help fix the economy, do not ask me about the culture wars.”
I wish there would be a fiscal conservative that is not all “family values.” Because really, for me when the government is telling you what you can do (and who) in the privacy of your bedroom (assuming everyone if consenting adults) the government has gotten too big.
It would be great if someone who was running would just say “I am here to help fix the economy, do not ask me about the culture wars.”[/quote]
I’m glad you wrote this, Tex.
ON THIS VERY BOARD, and when people were being interviewed at the rallies; “soldiers” of the Tea Party made it clear that they were all about fiscal responsibility and smaller government…and that other “hot bed” social issues (e.g. gay marriage, abortion, gays in the military, etc.) were NOT part of the agenda. Their reasoning was sound, and actually something that I agreed with. These “cultural” issues served to distract from their central issue of smaller, limited government.
No more. As I stated earlier on a thread, actual power and influence changes things, and it has.
“Acceptable” Tea Party candidates are now more and more having to sign “agreements” and “pledges” that, yes, include decreasing spending and limited government rhetoric…but more and more include things like stands on “defining marriage”, “core values” and the like.
What started (by THEIR admission) as a “purely” fiscally conservative movement is now morphing into a powerful movement to the Far Right of the political spectrum.
Here’s an op-ed written by professors (oh no, professors!) who did a study (oh no, facts!) on who Tea Baggers really are.
Well, they are white, ultra-religious Repubs who hate immigrants and blacks. Sound familiar??
Same old John Birchers as ever. Backed and funded by rich corporate welfare recipients as the Koch brothers.
Read the article. Nobody will, though.
Zeb will say, “blah blah professor” in his moronic way (because he has nothing else to say). Some others will discredit the professors or the universities.
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Here’s an op-ed written by professors (oh no, professors!) who did a study (oh no, facts!) on who Tea Baggers really are.
Well, they are white, ultra-religious Repubs who hate immigrants and blacks. Sound familiar??
Same old John Birchers as ever. Backed and funded by rich corporate welfare recipients as the Koch brothers.
Read the article. Nobody will, though.
Zeb will say, “blah blah professor” in his moronic way (because he has nothing else to say). Some others will discredit the professors or the universities.
Why can’t you guys just admit who you are?[/quote]
Well yeah, consider the source. NYT is one of the most liberal rags out there. Doesn’t make them right. If your gonna read the NYT, go for the Arts & Leisure Section – its much better.
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Here’s an op-ed written by professors (oh no, professors!) who did a study (oh no, facts!) on who Tea Baggers really are.
Well, they are white, ultra-religious Repubs who hate immigrants and blacks. Sound familiar??
Same old John Birchers as ever. Backed and funded by rich corporate welfare recipients as the Koch brothers.
Read the article. Nobody will, though.
Zeb will say, “blah blah professor” in his moronic way (because he has nothing else to say). Some others will discredit the professors or the universities.
Why can’t you guys just admit who you are?[/quote]
Well yeah, consider the source. NYT is one of the most liberal rags out there. Doesn’t make them right. If your gonna read the NYT, go for the Arts & Leisure Section – its much better.[/quote]
The left will never admit that fair media died in 08 when they all started worshipping Obama. The NYT, Newsweek, Time, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and a slew of other outlets will say and do anything to reelect their chosen one. In fact, that is the main reason that I still feel Obama has an excellent chance for another four years. The republican nominee will have to beat Obama and the main stream liberal media, a daunting task indeed.
In his book and on the campaign trail, Rick Perry rails against the Obama administration’s “failed” 2009 federal stimulus program. But the governor and state lawmakers took more than $17 billion in fed-stim funding, including $8 billion of the one-time dollars to cover recurring state expenses. In fact, Texas used the stimulus to balance the current biennium’s budget ? and the one before that."
The article goes into details, for anyone who is interested.[/quote]
I don’t think this really matters. Everyone prefers to elect a man with the courage of his conscience, but simultaneously, voters respect the pragmatism of accepting free money (alternatively, money-that-had-already-been-taken-from-the-states). Sort of like people that vote to decrease the welfare state will still use state unemployment and food stamps when they lose their job.