PDA

View Full Version : Texas Governor Rick Perry says "No" to stimulus


rockdawg21
03-13-2009, 03:51 PM
I didn't vote for the guy because it feels like he doesn't do anything for us, but he did something right this time!

http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=6291

Rick Perry Says NO to Federal Stimulus Money

Governor Rick Perry, speaking at Bering’s, a family-owned business in Houston, today formally rejected the unemployment insurance portion of the federal stimulus money (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act).

“Texans who hire Texans drive our state’s economic engine. During these tough times, Texas employers are working harder than ever to move products to market, make payroll and create jobs. The last thing they need is government burdening them with higher taxes and expanded obligations,” said Perry.

“The calls to ‘take the money now and deal with the consequences later’ are deeply troubling and, quite frankly, irresponsible,” he continued. State Democrats recently held a press conference urging Perry to take the money regardless of the consequences.

Over the last few weeks, a swell of grassroots support has risen against the stimulus money. Many protestors participated in mini “tea parties” and a national Tea Party against spending and high taxes is scheduled for April 15, tax day (www.taxdayteaparty.com).

State economists, along with various watchdog groups, view the stimulus money cautiously, specifically the unemployment insurance portion. The stipulations included in the unemployment insurance stimulus dollars would alter the definition of unemployment, thereby increasing employer tax burden. Speculatively, companies would then be forced to limit hiring and raise prices, which hurts both short-term growth during these economic times, but also long-term growth as well.

Perry joins Governor Mark Sanford (R-South Carolina) as only the second Governor to formally reject stimulus funding, though public statements have been made by Governor Bobby Jindal (R-Louisiana) and others.

NateR
03-13-2009, 04:51 PM
Good for him and good for the State of Texas.:applause:

State Democrats recently held a press conference urging Perry to take the money regardless of the consequences.

Wow, that's some sound financial advice there. :rolleyes: Do these Democrats run payday loan offices on the side?

Crisco
03-13-2009, 05:20 PM
He's actually still taking some 2 billions dollars or so in other stimulus money. He just refused the unemployment portion of it.

Crisco
03-13-2009, 05:23 PM
But also props to him for having the forsight to see what a rocky road it was

logrus
03-13-2009, 05:49 PM
I didn't vote for the guy because it feels like he doesn't do anything for us, but he did something right this time!

http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=6291

So your only for people when they are in YOUR best interests, otherwise they can kiss your $@# huh.

NateR
03-13-2009, 05:54 PM
So your only for people when they are in YOUR best interests, otherwise they can kiss your $@# huh.

This stimulus is a short term fix that, in the long run, will only leave us worse off than we are now. So, rejecting it is within the best interest of ALL Americans.

rockdawg21
03-13-2009, 06:04 PM
So your only for people when they are in YOUR best interests, otherwise they can kiss your $@# huh.
Nate made 1 point that I was going to mention, so I'll just skip that.

But, I mentioned for "us" not for "me". Rick Perry does little to help fund education in this state, nor does he help fight for us to defend our borders. I'm not going to vote for somebody who doesn't make security and education a priority. Investing in education is a GREAT investment for our future future. Investing money in bad business is not a good future.

logrus
03-13-2009, 06:04 PM
This stimulus is a short term fix that, in the long run, will only leave us worse off than we are now. So, rejecting it is within the best interest of ALL Americans.

I wasn't talking about the Stimulus package more then someone having a negative view about something til it fits them, then there all for the guy no matter their stand.

That be like someone loving a fighter cause of his success, but now hating him just cause he lost his last to fights to 2 tough opponents.

It's a classic example of jumping on the bandwagon.

Moose
03-13-2009, 06:05 PM
This stimulus is a short term fix that, in the long run, will only leave us worse off than we are now. So, rejecting it is within the best interest of ALL Americans.

It's hard too tell, and way too early. The Great Depression lasted so long because of government disinterest coming from Hoover, according to many experts. At the same time, it took a ton of money, government government programs, and a world war to get us out of it.

My point? I'd rather see government projects. Even if the money being used doesn't spawn more spending and a revved up economy, at least we'll still see some benefits, whether they be usable bridges, or other public works.

NateR
03-13-2009, 06:20 PM
It's hard too tell, and way too early. The Great Depression lasted so long because of government disinterest coming from Hoover, according to many experts. At the same time, it took a ton of money, government government programs, and a world war to get us out of it.

My point? I'd rather see government projects. Even if the money being used doesn't spawn more spending and a revved up economy, at least we'll still see some benefits, whether they be usable bridges, or other public works.

True, nobody knows the future, however, we do know some things for sure:

1. Nobody on this planet has $800 billion to loan us. So borrowing it is not an option. Which only leaves raising taxes or printing more money.

2. If Obama raised taxes to 95% of every American's income, it wouldn't even come close to paying off his stimulus plan in our lifetimes (that's not even counting the deficit and Bush's bank bailout.

3. Printing money will only devalue our currency and will lead to inflation and maybe even hyperinflation.

4. Even the Democrats are only 40% sure that this stimulus will even work, which is why they are talking about a second stimulus.

Historically, hard economic times force Americans into greater periods of innovation and progress. So maybe doing nothing is the best option for America in the long term. Sure it will be uncomfortable, but growth is rarely comfortable.

County Mike
03-13-2009, 06:53 PM
So your only for people when they are in YOUR best interests, otherwise they can kiss your $@# huh.

That's my motto!

Bonnie
03-13-2009, 07:03 PM
I think "rockdawg" stated he didn't vote for the guy and why but was giving him kudos for doing something he (RD) feels is a good thing.

And, don't people normally vote for the person/people they feel are going to do what are in their/our best interests? :huh:

R.D. I feel the same way about Perry in that I also don't think he's done enough for education and securing our borders. :ninja:

rockdawg21
03-13-2009, 07:11 PM
R.D. I feel the same way about Perry in that I also don't think he's done enough for education and securing our borders. :ninja:
Nice to get the support of a fellow Texan :happy0159:
Sad to say, there's millions of others who feel this way. If there weren't so many independents in our last election to split the vote, Perry would have lost.

Moose
03-13-2009, 08:46 PM
True, nobody knows the future, however, we do know some things for sure:

1. Nobody on this planet has $800 billion to loan us. So borrowing it is not an option. Which only leaves raising taxes or printing more money.

2. If Obama raised taxes to 95% of every American's income, it wouldn't even come close to paying off his stimulus plan in our lifetimes (that's not even counting the deficit and Bush's bank bailout.

3. Printing money will only devalue our currency and will lead to inflation and maybe even hyperinflation.

4. Even the Democrats are only 40% sure that this stimulus will even work, which is why they are talking about a second stimulus.

Historically, hard economic times force Americans into greater periods of innovation and progress. So maybe doing nothing is the best option for America in the long term. Sure it will be uncomfortable, but growth is rarely comfortable.

Unless we do a Ron Paul-esque reboot and refurb to the entire economic system in these United States, we're going to constantly be borrowing on our future.

1. Printing more money will lead to inflation, and decrease the power of our dollar both domestically and internationally. However, strengthening our economy will increase the value of our dollar at the same time. So, if this works, either immediately or eventually, it will be a risk, but a very necessary one. I really doubt our country will just start producing better cars, pay off all credit card debts, and spawn new decent paying jobs without some kind of help. Right now, this country is full of people scraping (most of us) or people that are doing fine, either from good planning or previous wealth (few of us). I don't see either group going to start spending more money, and boosting profits, which leads to a resurgence in the stock market. I see more cutting costs, increasing debt, and holding onto money from one group and profit taking and holing up from the other.

2. The bottom 80% of this country doesn't make enough money to pay high enough taxes to pay off the debt. This is why stimulating the economy and getting high tax paying corporations back on their feet is paramount.

3. Certainly will in the short term, and maybe even in the long term. Strengthen our economy, domestically and abroad and our dollar's buying power dramatically increases.

4. One stimulus won't work. Didn't work in 2008, won't work today. It's a step, hopefully in the right direction. In the 1930s, it took a lot for this country to get back going in the right direction, and a lot of it had to do with boosting consumer confidence, and gaining trust again in places like banks and the stock market. Doing something to me seems like a better idea than doing nothing and continuing to slip farther down the path to economic depression.

I'm not an economist, but I do pay attention to things and feel like I have a decent grasp on our country's history and the markets. If there's a trained economist out there that would like to correct or tweak what I have to say, please do so.

Miss Foxy
03-13-2009, 08:51 PM
Speaking of governors anyone is better than our California Governor "freakin' idiot" just like Napoleon Dynamite would say....

Moose
03-13-2009, 08:53 PM
Speaking of governors anyone is better than our California Governor "freakin' idiot" just like Napoleon Dynamite would say....

I couldn't be much happier with ours, what's-his-name...

Tyburn
03-13-2009, 09:00 PM
I didn't vote for the guy because it feels like he doesn't do anything for us, but he did something right this time!

http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=6291
anyone who organizes Tea Parties for protests is A-Okay with me.

I think Nathan is right. There is no way out of the depression, you can borrow, the public wont invest, and you cant tax that much, nor print it without devaluation.

Now that the banks are stable...I would do absolutely nothing. The financial world is safe, the rest should bounce back in time....sure pretty hard times...but...thats what I would have done.

Texas needs to stand her ground...and remind Barack that if he goes to far...he can report something Unique in his next State of the (smaller) union address

TexasRN
03-13-2009, 10:28 PM
Texas rocks. I hear the bluebonnets are blooming. :cry:


~Amy

MattHughesRocks
03-13-2009, 10:49 PM
You want Blue Bonnets Amy? I give you Blue Bonnets! :w00t:

http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr39/Tinadvl/DSCN0083_083.jpg
http://i449.photobucket.com/albums/qq220/EMILYSAUNTB/100_0829.jpg
http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll304/Maye_11_Photos/BLUEBONNETS.jpg
http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk289/kchambers222/bb-1.jpg
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn239/CONNOR_FIELDS/spilledpaint.jpg


How was that?! :w00t:





Texas rocks. I hear the bluebonnets are blooming. :cry:


~Amy

TexasRN
03-13-2009, 10:50 PM
You want Blue Bonnets Amy? I give you Blue Bonnets! :w00t:


How was that?! :w00t:


I love you Michelle. No homo :laugh:



~Amy

MattHughesRocks
03-13-2009, 10:52 PM
:laugh: :laugh: :happy0198:

I love you Michelle. No homo :laugh:



~Amy

bradwright
03-14-2009, 12:22 AM
True, nobody knows the future, however, we do know some things for sure:

1. Nobody on this planet has $800 billion to loan us. So borrowing it is not an option. Which only leaves raising taxes or printing more money.

2. If Obama raised taxes to 95% of every American's income, it wouldn't even come close to paying off his stimulus plan in our lifetimes (that's not even counting the deficit and Bush's bank bailout.

3. Printing money will only devalue our currency and will lead to inflation and maybe even hyperinflation.

4. Even the Democrats are only 40% sure that this stimulus will even work, which is why they are talking about a second stimulus.

Historically, hard economic times force Americans into greater periods of innovation and progress. So maybe doing nothing is the best option for America in the long term. Sure it will be uncomfortable, but growth is rarely comfortable.
in the past though Nate people ran their lives pretty much on the cash they had on hand,
now most people do everything on credit,and that is why you need to keep cash flowing,
if you allow the flow of money to slow down it will have a much greater impact on everybody and everything then it did in the past.

NateR
03-14-2009, 12:30 AM
in the past though Nate people ran their lives pretty much on the cash they had on hand,
now most people do everything on credit,and that is why you need to keep cash flowing,
if you allow the flow of money to slow down it will have a much greater impact on everybody and everything then it did in the past.

People use credit because it is convenient. They usually still have money in the bank that they can withdraw. However, if a person is broke and living off of credit cards, then they are a financial disaster waiting to happen. We shouldn't be using taxpayer money to "reward" bad spending habits.

I have yet to understand exactly how the credit market collapsing would affect those who use credit responsibly (pay off the balance of their cards at the end of every month) or don't use credit at all (like me, I have no debt and no credit cards).

Tyburn
03-14-2009, 12:48 AM
People use credit because it is convenient. They usually still have money in the bank that they can withdraw. However, if a person is broke and living off of credit cards, then they are a financial disaster waiting to happen. We shouldn't be using taxpayer money to "reward" bad spending habits.

I have yet to understand exactly how the credit market collapsing would affect those who use credit responsibly (pay off the balance of their cards at the end of every month) or don't use credit at all (like me, I have no debt and no credit cards).
It wouldnt. I understand what Brad is saying...but Nathan is right. The people may use credit more...but they still HAVE cash...they just dont want to spend and invest. Flooding the market only makes it easier for them to spend without a loss...actually cutting the credit would force them back into spending with money...and that would only have them spending what they truely have.

might kill off a few banks...but for those who use credit properly it would be alright.

But the banks should be restricted by law in how much they can tempt people.

Lets face it. Noone needs more then one credit card. yet banks will offer you billions of them...its not right that they market them to promote greed. it should be illegal.

NateR
03-14-2009, 01:25 AM
It wouldnt. I understand what Brad is saying...but Nathan is right. The people may use credit more...but they still HAVE cash...they just dont want to spend and invest. Flooding the market only makes it easier for them to spend without a loss...actually cutting the credit would force them back into spending with money...and that would only have them spending what they truely have.

might kill off a few banks...but for those who use credit properly it would be alright.

But the banks should be restricted by law in how much they can tempt people.

Lets face it. Noone needs more then one credit card. yet banks will offer you billions of them...its not right that they market them to promote greed. it should be illegal.

So, I guess that begs the question, if the only people who are going to suffer here are the ones who were irresponsible with their finances and the people who profit off said irresponsibility; then why is this credit crisis something that we should care about?

I understand that lots of innocent bystanders (like spouses and children) are going to suffer from the bad decisions made, but why do we want to artificially prop up a flawed system that is doomed to fail by it's very nature?

Finally, is mirroring those very same bad financial practices on an astronomical scale (the stimulus/spending bill), really going to solve anything?

Tyburn
03-14-2009, 01:34 AM
So, I guess that begs the question, if the only people who are going to suffer here are the ones who were irresponsible with their finances and the people who profit off said irresponsibility; then why is this credit crisis something that we should care about?

I understand that lots of innocent bystanders (like spouses and children) are going to suffer from the bad decisions made, but why do we want to artificially prop up a flawed system that is doomed to fail by it's very nature?

Finally, is mirroring those very same bad financial practices on an astronomical scale (the stimulus/spending bill), really going to solve anything?
Well...to a certain extent we dont have to do anything. Recessions eventually pass.

Ensuring the Banks was a big deal, not for America but for the rest of the World. Now that is done, we dont need to worry about it. Except for the fact that the Governments ARENT standing back and letting this play out.

That makes it our business aswell...because suddenly, they want more taxes...and suddenly they are devaluing OUR savings accounts in order to give back to those who didnt save in the first place.

Obama doesnt have the guts to stand back and watch things fall apart to heal naturally. Its a shame..because I think it would have worked better...but he's not like Bush. Obama will do the right thing IF UNLESS it damages his credibility and his status. He cares about his image. That might be his eventual downfall.

Now Bush knows what its like to make mistakes...and by the EARLY point of his second term...he did what was right REGARDLESS of his credibility. Bush was willing to sacrifice himself and his portrayal in history for the good of the Nation....Barack Obama wouldnt dare...his image and reputation is everything...and that was the international criticism all along...no experience, no failures, no nothing...just a good rep...what happens when that gets tarnished...:ninja:

NateR
03-14-2009, 02:00 AM
Well...to a certain extent we dont have to do anything. Recessions eventually pass.

That's what I've been hearing too. If we had done nothing, this situation would have fixed itself in a few years. Granted it would be a tough period, however people would simply have to relearn time-tested, sound economic habits: save more, spend less, do without luxuries and stick to necessities, and NEVER spend money you don't actually have.

If people starving to death on the street is what everyone is afraid of, then just bring back Ronald Reagan's government food program. (Is anyone here old enough to remember the government cheese and peanut butter that they would hand out to needy families? That stuff was a staple at our house in the mid-80s.) Eliminating sales tax on food items (excluding restaurants and fast food establishments) would be a big help also.

But don't spend money on manure research and studying the genetics of grapes and pretend that it's stimulating the economy. Only the most ardent, slobberingly-loyal Obama-worshippers would see that as anything but wasteful government spending in a time of financial hardship.

Tyburn
03-14-2009, 01:01 PM
That's what I've been hearing too. If we had done nothing, this situation would have fixed itself in a few years. Granted it would be a tough period, however people would simply have to relearn time-tested, sound economic habits: save more, spend less, do without luxuries and stick to necessities, and NEVER spend money you don't actually have.

If people starving to death on the street is what everyone is afraid of, then just bring back Ronald Reagan's government food program. (Is anyone here old enough to remember the government cheese and peanut butter that they would hand out to needy families? That stuff was a staple at our house in the mid-80s.) Eliminating sales tax on food items (excluding restaurants and fast food establishments) would be a big help also.

But don't spend money on manure research and studying the genetics of grapes and pretend that it's stimulating the economy. Only the most ardent, slobberingly-loyal Obama-worshippers would see that as anything but wasteful government spending in a time of financial hardship.

See the growth would have to halt, the frivilous research would have to stop, and yes certain sections of the country would die back until such time as the recession was over.

Your empire would retract, would appear to disolve and possibly look like it would collapse. But it would spring back, in about ten odd years. It would make your leader very unpopular because he would seemingly be doing nothing to combat the poverty, nothing to stimulate growth, nothing...he would be criticised for ignoring the recession, for being dillusional, for hoping of something other citizens and politicians dont see.

He would go down as the worst President in History for YEARS after his first term, (the recession would likely not heal itself for about ten years, a president serves 4. You'd need TWO preidents to steer the course for 8 years before you see the benefits.

It wont happen. Even if Obama held that line, in four years they'd drop him like a hot coal for someone who would be seen to target it. No other campaigner for doing nothing would be revoted. The people would feel conned.

But the people, Nathan are stupid and dumbass. It has to be said. They look out for themselves, and their IMMEDIATE wants. They wont wait ten years.

NateR
03-14-2009, 04:06 PM
But the people, Nathan are stupid and dumbass. It has to be said. They look out for themselves, and their IMMEDIATE wants. They wont wait ten years.

Oh, I agree completely. This election proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I have no problem with people who voted for Obama because they were the party faithful, truly thought he was the right man for the job, or were just dissatisfied with Bush. My problem is with the idiots who treated him like he was some kind of Messiah who was going to solve all of their problems with flowery speeches. All they cared about was what Obama was promising to them personally. They didn't care about what the consequences of that would be for other Americans or our future generations, as long as they can live comfortably then that's all that matters to them.

Reagan, so far, has been the only President to do what it really takes to get our nation out of a recession.... nothing. He retracted the government and made sure that people weren't starving to death, but he had the guts to allow the economy to recover on its own. Of course, he was vilified for that, but it worked. Reagan got us out of the worst financial crisis this nation had seen since the Great Depression... by essentially doing nothing.

During the Great Depression, Roosevelt is given a lot of credit for ending the Depression with the New Deal, a massive spending program based on Keynesian theory. However, it still took a world war to finally end the Depression, so many argue that Roosevelt's policies might have actually extended the Depression longer than it would have gone on if the country had just stuck to Hoover's lack of intervention.

Tyburn
03-14-2009, 04:18 PM
Oh, I agree completely. This election proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I have no problem with people who voted for Obama because they were the party faithful, truly thought he was the right man for the job, or were just dissatisfied with Bush. My problem is with the idiots who treated him like he was some kind of Messiah who was going to solve all of their problems with flowery speeches. All they cared about was what Obama was promising to them personally. They didn't care about what the consequences of that would be for other Americans or our future generations, as long as they can live comfortably then that's all that matters to them.

Reagan, so far, has been the only President to do what it really takes to get our nation out of a recession.... nothing. He retracted the government and made sure that people weren't starving to death, but he had the guts to allow the economy to recover on its own. Of course, he was vilified for that, but it worked. Reagan got us out of the worst financial crisis this nation had seen since the Great Depression... by essentially doing nothing.

During the Great Depression, Roosevelt is given a lot of credit for ending the Depression with the New Deal, a massive spending program based on Keynesian theory. However, it still took a world war to finally end the Depression, so many argue that Roosevelt's policies might have actually extended the Depression longer than it would have gone on if the country had just stuck to Hoover's lack of intervention.

I think that Franklin was lucky. Yes his country suffered during the Great Depression, but first not as much as Europe, and remember its all in ballence. If you have little, but everyone else has less...suddenly by default you are on top. Essentially thats what helpped America. Europe which suffered worst during the Depression, was also hit by two world wars...you were going through hard times...but we were bankrupt.

America had the only Western Wealth left, and suddenly found its investment in rebuilding the west. Now how much this deal helpped generate the wealth for that I dont know...I dont know much about America financially until POST the war.

Reagan...I dont know anything about except that lots of people hated him. But doing nothing is sometimes the hardest thing of all. The most competant leaders struggle with it. Leaders who have been in power for years, and with great experience...how much worse must it be for Barack...he was a senator for less time then I've been on the Forum...during which time he actually wasnt responsible for anything major, he just kept his rep intact with good ideas.

I wonder, seriously wonder...if now he wishes in all honnesty that MaCain had won, because I dont think he's power hungry, not truely...he wants the fame and reputation.but he doesnt want to command and lead, he's a diplomat, other then manipulation he wont want direct rule. He got himself ellected at the worst point for someone of his character. He might now be realizeing that being President...isnt quite what he thought it was going to be.

The public have always been dumbass. The problem is, enmass a public can be conned with nothing but soothing words and promises, particularly if they are already in hard times. Right back to Rome, Nate, all the way back to Rome.

I have no idea what will happen...but I found it fascinating that States are saying, they ARE having the guts to say "NO" We do Nothing, with the banks safe, those who die, die. If it goes bad for Obama, it makes them look like Saints...Saints enough in Texas certainly to be considered better, and more competant then the American President...an issue, with the Union get out clause that Texas has...if the US did go down the swanny, could Texas pop up like an airfilled life raft from a sinking ship....? :ninja: