Perry refuses Stimulus Funds

Just get used to it. SamFisher is pretty much a jerk to people who he doesn't agree with. It's a shame too because he seems like a pretty intelligent fellow.

 

No, just when you can't or won't support your positions with a semblance of evidence and/or logic. You definitely fall into that category.

However, weslinder is one of the most conservative posters on this bbs. See if you can find a post where anyone refers to him has "r****ded".

When you can't, think about why.

 

It's called "Liberal Tolerance", get used to that too.

 

I was waiting to see you use the one-datum-as-proof-of-universal-absolute to complete your special achievement in complete suck. I think you've got a record score!

 

This was common knowledge before Perry rejected that part of the funds. Maybe not the amount of the loan, but the fact that Texas would have to borrow. As it turns out the choices were basically this:
- Accept the $500 Million, change rules to allow part-time workers to collect unemployment, borrow $1 Billion + whatever extra the benefits for part-time workers costs you, increase future unemployment obligations.
Or
- Reject the $500 Million, keep the rules the same, borrow $1.5 Billion, keep future unemployment benefits similar.

 

if they reject the 500M, they get to keep the rules that does not allow part-time workers to collect unemployment right?

 

So the government should spend money in a recession - but at the same time it should be smaller? I don't get it.

 

That's how I understand it.

 

The government shouldn't, the people should.

 

I thought the 1B extra to borrow was for part-time workers to collect unemployment

so if they to keep part-time workers from collecting unemployment, then rejecting 500M means they don't have to spend an extra 1B

 

so where will the poeple get the extra money to spend?

 

From the abolished income tax.

 

ROFL

character requirement.

 

Bingo.

 

How can the people spend more money in a recession when incomes are depressed, savings/assets are depleted, and unemployment insurance is running dry?

 

Wait: you want to "starve the beast" by eliminating tax funds to the federal government, after just tacitly admitting that the government is the only/best source of spending necessary in a time of recession? How will they spend money without any income tax coffers?

Conservatives, you can do better than this.

 

Or, you could read the whole thread.

 

Would re-reading the thread mean you no longer support the abolishment of the federal income tax? If so, I shall do so immediately.

 

Or you would see that I never "tacitly admitted that the government is the only/best source of spending necessary in a time of recession".

 

Yes, you "tacitly" did.

As Fisher correctly points out, it's not possible for the unemployed to increase their spending levels, and (due to fears of future layoffs and increased saving/hoarding for a rainy day [that might not actually come]) it is extremely unlikely for those in the lower, middle and lower-upper class to increase their spending levels.

Therefore, the only entity left to spend to keep the ship afloat is the government.

If you eliminate the federal income tax,

then the government has no money to spend to keep the economy afloat until the recession is over. And the economy nosedives immediately into the Greatest Depression.

Unless you were talking about the Texas state income tax? Which, unless my accountant owes me a big explanation (and cartons upon cartons of cigarettes for my impending imprisonment), does not actually exist.