Well, yeah, it sure is. Congress larded the 2,000-page bill with so much spending that we're supposed to be so fat by now that we can't do anything more than roll over and submit to any unconstitutional excesses of power that came with the lard. How dare Wisconsin's Attorney General stand up and say no?!
***
I put "sic" up there because I assume "consistuents" is a typo, not a portmanteau, a deliberate incorporation of "sissy."
Posts
19 comments:
consistuents
refudiate
"will Wisconsin return the money ...?"
Is there no honor among thieves?
Consistent constituents = Consistuents.
This reminds me of what that very dangerous conservative rival of President Obama, John Huntsman, thought about the spendulus:
States that don't like the spendulus just shouldn't take the money. Easy peezy, lemon squeezy.
Of course, they're still expected to PAY for the spendulus. But if they complain about the spendulus, then actually take the money, they're hypocrites. I'm sure that state governments declaring Obamacare dead will be called hypocrites by the same impartial media that put forward uber-conservative Huntsman as the biggest threat to Obama.
Just give them an IOU and pay it back later in inflated money like we do to the Chinese.
But if they complain about the spendulus, then actually take the money, they're hypocrites. I'm sure that state governments declaring Obamacare dead will be called hypocrites by garaji mahal
FTFY
Another political hack posing as a "journalist."
Should the states return the money?
No, not the money they have already received. That money is merely reimbursing those states for the costs of (needlessly) having to take the steps to comply with this unconstitutional monster.
Any future monies (which were not going to come anyway with the Republican House) they should refuse.
Listened to this Nina Totenburg/NPR piece on the court ruling and what's ahead as it "moves up the ladder".
Never miss an opportunity to declare "But Bush!"
So I anticipated a review of the applicable laws and constitutional issues. Instead, I listened to an extended exposition of how Bush initiatives fared in the courts. The word "Obama" used once in the piece (near the very end); the word "Bush" used five times and in the "guts" of the piece.
Of course, if you return the money, they'll just spend it on something equally wasteful.
Actually, the current WI administration might be more disposed to give it back to the people.
I'm confused: Whose money is it?
How dare Wisconsin's Attorney General stand up and say no?!
The same way Florida is about to make their public employees pay 5% toward retirement.
E.M. Davis said...
I'm confused: Whose money is it?
The taxpayers'.
Instead of "consistuents" shouldn't it be
consickuents?
Since when did someone who was bribed return the money?
Ann, Has there been an injunction to stop implementation of the law?
It is taxpayer money and should be retained by states for pain and suffering caused.
WV: Jokist - the jokist on the Federal government
This is the liberals go to argument now. They used it against tea-partiers who are Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries. They used it against Congress people who voted against Obamacare while receiving the benefits that are part of their lawful compensation. Now they are using it against states that don't toe the line. It is disgusting. If only the GOP would get rid of its bigotry wing so we could have a real opposition to the bankrupt Democrats.
The legislation was duly enacted by both the House and Senate, the elected representatives of the people and signed into law by the President of the United States, who was elected by a substantial majority of the American people.
So is Wisconsin forming its own country now?
That $40 million isn't yours it belongs to all the taxpayers - if you keep it you are thieves. Now that the law is "dead," will Wisconsin return the money?
If you keep the money, I'll beforced to agree with Pogo that there is no honor among the thieves from Wisconsin.
I can't believe that Wisconsin is part of the suit to overturn . . .and Tennessee is not. Oy.
Post a Comment