Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
Sanford is a grandstanding SOB with big political ambitions who makes a lot of noise to woo the base but will end up taking the bucks.
Without jobs there will be no economy, period, and he knows it. The whole purpose of the money is to help states put people to work.
The stimulus may not work even at that if the economy doesn't catch fire and start to build on the jump start, but from what I have seen there has been no other plan put forward that would accomplish anything.
Cutting taxes and deregulation didn't work for Bush, and won't work now. Taxes were cut, jobs were exported. South Carolina is one of the states hardest hit by jobs sent overseas, and currently has the dubious distinction of being one of the most unemployed states in the nation.
Ask Leader Mark what he intends to do about that and get back to us, somebody. He led S.C. into the Sea of Red Ink. Let him lead it out.
|
Cue I think that letter was very well written stating his case. Understand that 'stimulous' when americans are seeing such an enormous debt about to be placed on the books, is completely counter intuitive. Everyone feels itchy about it. Most of america really is fiscal conservative. Most americans do cut back and budget responsibly. When they get laid off, they turn off the cablevision and scrutinize those rainy day funds instinctively.
I understand many feeling that government doesn't work for them, because all too often, it flounders, or gets circumvented by legal antics. Crooks in 3 piece suits have been the news of the day for years. I'd like you to entertain the possibility that Sanford is sincere, even if you believe misguided in his concerns for just a few. Fiscal conservatives in preservation mode cannot make that leap for stimulous unless there is a viable plan on the table. What plan can SC devise for itself that would begin paying for itself in 2 years besides Sanfords plan?
As described, and certainly the devil would be in the details, his debt repayment would free up more money for long term, and allow tax reductions to occur (which would ammount to a trickle down stimulous). Unless there's crucial infrastructure demanding investment capital, what makes you convinced his plan wouldn't serve the objective of stimulous albiet indirectly?