GOP who oppose the stimulus bill should get less money for their state

[Generic Other]

An entire state's congressional delegations' votes would be used to adjust the amount of money they received on a sliding scale.

So which legislators will go home with their dicks in their hands under that stimulus package?

[jsamuel]

1. well, the only problem is that it would punish the 45-49% who voted for the Democrat last time

[Generic Other]

3. It would get their state's citizens to act

maybe they need the wake-up call.

[jsamuel]

6. 1 Rep/ 6 Dems in AR

6 votes for and 1 against

Would you punish the whole state because one republican out of 7 seats voted against it?

[Generic Other]

8. No, you only lose one republicans worth of help

Is the idiot McCain? He's the only one? Yeah. The guy who voted against it can go home and tell his constituents why he decided they didn't need help. I wouldn't want to have to do that.

[jsamuel]

20. AR is Arkansas, AZ is Arizona

Boozman, my congressman is the one Republican.

[backwoodsbob]

62. are you 16?

have you ever lived outside your parents basement?

[Generic Other]

73. And what intelligent contribution to this thread have you contributed?

one parent's basement to another?

[Telly Savalas]

23. The point of the legislation is to create jobs and avoid a second Great Depression

not to get elected officials to hold their dicks.

Resources should be allocated to most effectively achieve that goal. 598,000 Americans lost their job last month. If you think their needs should fall in the shadow of petty political vengeance, then you should really reconsider your priorities.

[Generic Other]

25. I am not the petty one...I just think they need to face consequences for actions

If they don't want an economic stimulus because they fear it will make Obama look good and THEY vote against it, they are the petty ones, not me. They should go home and explain their high minded principles to their constituency. If they can vote down funding for all of us, they can refuse funding for themselves and their districts. They can do it voluntarily because it is the right thing to do. Repubs or Dems--it makes no difference to me. Only hypocrites vote against the interests of their own constituents then insist they NEEDED the money after all.

If my representative voted against that bill and my district got nothing as a result, you can be damn sure the fool would hear from me.

[glowing]

2. No, I can't help that my reps are asshats.. I vote against them every time they're up

there's just too many rushies and richies in my neighborhood.. they hate sharing and they, in general, just hate.

[Generic Other]

5. Your asshats are mine as well even though I would sooner vote for a pig

the voters in your state need to learn a lesson.

[proud patriot]

4. I know that's what pukes did to California the last 8 yrs

From Enron to funding for homeland security .

Cheney's Montana got way more per person in
funding then California.

[Generic Other]

7. The way they treated grandma millie in Cali rivaled their treatment of osama

yeah. wonder which states would suffer most for the poor reasoning of their citizens? bet there would be howls of anger and overnight changes in attitude among the GOP shitheads. You got a GOP asshole to send to Congress? Good. All your reps and senators only care about cutting welfare, road funding, education, health insurance and job creation money for your state? Then don't take the money. Hypocritical of the GOP to take money they insisted on voting against allocating. Hate socialism? Then do it on your own. Don't drag down the rest of us.

Something tells me this method would yield instant results.

I apologize for the Dems who would be impacted, but drastic times require drastic measures.

[Spoon]

9. This is wrong on so many levels. Sadly, we're starting to see more and more of this.

These "republican" represented areas consist of more than just republicans, in most cases almost equivalent amount. Also, having children in need, being jobless, knows no political stripe. Heck I know poor dumb republicans, would I voluntarily hold something vital back to punish them? Hell, no, I'd be as bad as the Fat Cats.

Not to mention it would set an incredibly bad precedent. I take it you'd also be for the Nuclear Option being implemented in Congress? Keep in mind, it is not guaranteed that Dems will be in charge forever.

You really want government led by Dem, Repub, whatever party, to dictate public spending based on political party or representation? What comes after this, outlawing them? Camps? Going a bit far, maybe, but it's a dangerous road.

[Generic Other]

10. It's hard to see responsible states carrying the burden of the others on their backs

Some states' taxpayers are already subsidizing other states. Isn't that so?

Many state citizens get more money earmarked to them than other people in other states; they get more than they pay in taxes. Many taxpayers generously pay other taxpayers' share. But there's not enough money to cover everything, so we need to make hard choices. So if your state's delegation prefers not to take/spend the money, voting "no" for vital programs meant to save the economy and people from losing everything, they shouldn't compromise their principles by taking the money after they lose the vote. It's hypocritical. No one says you can't vote "no," but you shouldn't bleed the beast afterwards.

[pleah]

74. :)

Thank you. You said it better than I could.

side note: They just passed legislation in MS to offer sex education in schools, contraceptive as well as abstinence. MS having one of the highest pregnancy rates in the country. This is huge step forward in my opinion. So, I think things are changing here, finally, too.

[surrealAmerican]

77. Thanks, Spoon.

These are my sentiments exactly.

[Contrary1]

11. Morans

They conveniently fail to tell their constituents that if the states lack needed funds, taxes will be raised. It's not rocket science, or even "My Pet Goat" for the brain-challenged Repubs.

Maybe it needs to get dumber for them to get it.

[Generic Other]

12. Seems like it...I don't normally advocate cruelty to the red staters

but hell in this case, their senators and reps act just like Pavlov's dogs. They are conditioned to respond to stupid by drooling!! We need to cure them. Fast. Before they take us all down.

[Spoon]

15. Curing them is done at the polls...

not unilateral party based, party directed legislation. Red states are more than just the people who represent them, and it doesn't take a history major to know where this type of thinking leads.

[Generic Other]

16. I am not the one who thinks a national emergency is a time to play politics

They are hypocrites. Why shouldn't they put their money or lack of it where their mouth is? And why shouldn't they tell their constituents they couldn't in all conscience accept handouts from the federal government, so they didn't? The voters can applaud the good sense of their elected officials. Or vote them out of office.

I have no illusions here. I know that the greedy pigs who voted to obstruct will be the first at the trough, elbowing everyone else out of the way. But if they had any sense of decency, they'd get out of the line and let those who want to rebuild go to work.

As for my sense of history and where my thinking leads...I would hope closer to my revolutionary forefathers than some oligarchal swine who always vote to fill their own pockets but could careless about the rest of us.

[Horse with no Name]

13. I sooo agree

Let them answer to their constituents, for once, instead of their party.
And I say that wholeheartedly from Texas--who, according to my elected leaders, would receive zip nada nil if they did that.
The will of the people needs to be heard--and I guaranfuckingtee that if their constituents were denied money, tax breaks, and tuition for their kids, the GOP's collective heads would be on a pike.

[Generic Other]

14. We would at DU try to sneak care packages to our poor fellow liberals

to tide you over until your damn legislators changed their tune. We aren't heartless.

You are truly a good citizen to see the logic of my argument since you are from a state that would be impacted.

[4 t 4]

17. You know this is life or death

anyone that voted against it should get nothing for their state, Nothing. All it would take is that and no one would ever vote for them again and the people would be better off without them. I know that is cruel but people can leave. When no one comes home with the bacon go to a state where they voted for it and help yourself. I think it's a great idea. What would you rather do, go through this every time our President tries to help the people ?

[XemaSab]

18. I'm a fan of not giving any money to the districts whose congressmen vote against the package

I'd really like to see Wally Herger try to explain to the people of Siskiyou, Shasta, Tehama, Glenn, Butte, Trinity, Colusa, Sutter, and Yuba (or whatever-all counties are in the district) why we don't get any money.

Hell, I'd pay money to see that. :popcorn:

[Generic Other]

19. Yes a real politician with a conscience would refuse that money

It would clearly show their patriotism and their concern for fiscal responsibility.

[ContinentalOp]

21. I think it will work out fine.

Where do you think research into green energy is going to take place? Not in Oklahoma that's for sure. Where do you think new transportation infrastructure is going to be built? My guess would be cities. Not the hundreds of red counties with more pigs than people.

[pampango]

22. And if a state votes against a civil right law or voter rights law, do we exclude them

from its provisions or reduce the enforcement budget in those states? The concept of applying federal law based on how your state's representatives voted raises too many red flags, no matter how satisfying it might be in this case.

[Generic Other]

28. I concede your point

it would not really be good legislation. So instead, it should be voluntary. A matter of high moral principle on the part of legislators. Don't accept earmarks or money you vote against. That's all. If they find they need money after all, well of course nothing to stop them from proposing a new spending bill.

[MadHound]

24. Fuck off and die, that stimulus has been designed to help all people

But you want to play little partisan political games with the money. Looks to me like you really aren't interested in helping out people as much as you're wanting to play the political game. Congratulations on being part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[SammyWinstonJack]

26. !

:thumbsup:

[Generic Other]

31. Thumbs up I should "fuck off and die"?

Is this really what passes for intellectual debate on DU these days? People used to actually enlighten me when they thought I was wrong in the olde days.

[SammyWinstonJack]

99. .

:wow:

[Generic Other]

29. I should fuck off and die? Hmmmm...I was 100% in favor of the bill

and more. Why isn't the anger directed towards those obstructionists who vote against a bill purely on partisan grounds then shove their way to the front of the money trough to get more than their fair share? Or do you think that's not what's gonna happen?

BTW, been on DU since 2001. Never been told to "fuck off and die" before for expressing my opinion. Great debate strategy there. Very rational argument on your part.

[MadHound]

32. Don't like the language?

Then stop suggesting that people should be punished for their political leanings. Down that road lies fascism.

You're essentially wanting to punish all the people for the actions of some. For instance, my Senator Bond voted against the stimulus. Under your rubric that means that I, and every other single good Democrat and liberal should be punished for that action, despite the fact that we've also got Senator McCaskill, a Democratic governor(who, unlike other Democratic governors, already has a plan in place for this stimulus money to get it to the people as fast as possible(unlike some state governors represented by purely Democratic delegations).

And tell me, since this stimulus package has already been allocated, how is any state going to "shove their way to the front of the money trough to get more than their fair share?"

You also ass u me a hell of a lot, namely that our anger hasn't been directed at Bond. Well guess what, Bond is retiring in '10, so really now, he's got a free hand at this point to be as big of an idiot as he wants to be. But again, you want to punish all of us for his actions, never mind the fact that the current leading contender for his seat is a great Democrat, Robin Carnahan.

You don't like my language, you are offended by my language, tough shit. I'm offended by this highly unAmerican, undemocratic, fascist notion of collective punishment of the many because of the actions of a few. As I said before, down that road lies fascism, is that where you want to go, some Democratic form of fascism? So much for Obama's message of post-partisanism eh:eyes:

[Generic Other]

35. It's not their party that is in question...it's their vote

They are the ones who refused to vote--the partisan ones. They were offered every form of olive branch. Legally, they are entitled to benefit from the bill they so angrily opposed. Morally? Ethically? No. And those who did not vote for them of course do not deserve to suffer. I suspect they wouldn't for very long.

Does it not bother you at all that you have Congressmen and senators who will vote against the interests of your state for partisan political and personal reasons? How do you stop them from doing that? I don't believe Democrats do that.

At the least, I think those who opposed the bill should be forced to defend their actions to their constituents. Can you at least agree with me on that?

Or do you just want to call me names?

[MadHound]

36. Does it bother you that what you propose is collective punishment of an entire group?

Again, how could I, a Missourian, punish Senator Bond, who's retiring anyway? Oh, yeah, that's right, I can't.

Second of all, you lambast these Senators and House members for their partisan actions, yet what you propose is partisan punishment of an entire population. Hmm, where have we seen that happen before? Oh, yeah, in fascist and authoritarian regimes. Is that what you want this country, this administration to become.

And really now, do you understand the full implications of what you propose? OK, lets say we punish somebody like Kansas or Missouri for the actions of their Congressional delegation. They get little or no money, jobs continue to dry up, people start to flee the state. Oh, wait, there goes your labor force that keeps the farming infrastructure going. Hmm, your food prices go up due to scarcity, along with food shortages. Don't you feel like a fucking idiot now?

Yes, it bothers me that I have members in my Congressional delegation who are willing to vote against what you and I see as the best interests of my state. However the fact of the matter is that for many people out there, those who voted for the stimulus are doing the same thing, voting against the interests of their state. That's the joy and the curse of democracy. You may not like it, but that's the government that we've got.

Finally, start thinking long term. 'Pugs aren't going to be out in the wilderness forever. So let's say that when they come back into power, they started playing the same sort of game you propose, punishing blue states instead. Would you like that to happen? Would you find it just or right? Well turn that thinking around and perhaps you'll get what I'm talking about.

This is a bad idea. It is unAmerican, undemocratic, and frankly unwise.

[Generic Other]

39. The GOP has been punishing America for most of my life!!

Every single progressive step forward has required a near death struggle with them.

I am very glad to hear that your particular odious pug is retiring. And that you have a strong Dem in the wings.

But in the past few years, those Republicans in Congress (and a few Democrats) have been waging class warfare, and you are telling me it is wrong to fight it?

For years, I and many DUers have viewed them as criminals who deserved to be brought to justice for their actions of the past few decades. So I don't cut them much slack. I don't really think of them as an opposition party deserving of any respect because they seem to be felons and incapable of changing their behavior. They continue to ignore the needs of most Americans while rewarding care of themselves. When do we quit playing nice with them? Demand they act on their principles? I don't see this as unAmerican. I do see that their policies if enacted would be harmful and cause great misery and suffering. When has that not been so?

[MadHound]

56. So in your rage and anger you're willing to consign millions of your fellow citizens

To an economic hell all in order that you can exact your vengeance upon a relative handful of people.

First of all, what the fuck are you thinking, that sort of moral reasoning only indicates to me that you're becoming that which you hate. Second of all, if you're all so fired pissed off at these people, fed up with living with their shit, dealing with their petty little mindset, how the hell do you think that I, and my fellow progressive Missourians feel having had to deal with these assholes all my life. Before Bond and Ashcroft came on the scene to wreak havoc on a national scale, we here in state got to deal with them as governor and attorney general. So really now, after having to deal with a lifetime of these assholes now I've got to put up with your quaint little bit of collective justice all so that you feel you can extract some sort of perverse form of justice. Again, what the fuck are you thinking.

Finally there are more than a few Dems, past and present, who've enacted policies that caused great harm, misery and suffering. Hmm, we can start with most of those veteran Dems in Congress, who failed to stand up to Bushco, who enabled the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, and so much more of the Bush agenda. Then we can look at Clinton, whose deregulation and outsourcing contributed to the state we're in now. And do we really want to get into how many hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis died due to the policy of sanctions and thrice weekly bombing?

Wake up, both parties wage class warfare on the rest of us. Most the time the difference between the Dems and the 'Pugs is about the same difference as good cop, bad cop, and despite all the hoopla and hype, I expecting pretty much the same out of Obama and the Dems this time around. Until take corporate money out of government via publicly funded elections, all we're really doing here is watching more of the same ol' same ol' at work, the two party/same corporate master system of government.

So I suggest your anger and rage at those who are responsible for, those 'Pugs Congressmen that you loathe. Taking your anger and vengeance out on myself and others like myself is simply wrong, morally and legally wrong.

[Generic Other]

64. I agree both parties share blame but it isn't me that is lashing out angrily in this thread

I can see the impotent rage you feel in the face of your state politics. Anyone would. But how else do we wake up the residents of your state who voted in to office these irresponsible individuals who were willing to slash away at anything they could target in the stimulus package with the supposed goal of hammering out a bill both sides could agree on, when in fact their actual goal was to make the bill fail as Rush reminded us. We compromised, they broke the bargain. My state and every other one will have less help as a result. Our local schools will suffer because of your elected officials. Our infrastructure projects will go unfinished because of your elected officials. Our mortgages, our jobs, all lost due to the actions of your elected officials.

But you don't think they owe any of us an explanation? And you are fine and dandy at the thought that they should line up to be first for a handout? And why be angry at me for suggesting they forego the benefits they sought to eliminate? This is not an unreasonable request. It is only suggested in hope that they finally have to take responsibility for their actions and by extension the citizens of your state also have to do some reckoning. To call me full of hate when you sound positively rabid seems a bit of a projection of your own emotions here, not mine.

I would say don't bite the hand of the citizens of states that feed you.

[Pithlet]

98. Thing is, I'm not so sure it would wake them up.

Living in a red state, I live with the consequences of the idiot decisions red staters make all the time with their voting decisions. Those consequences don't make them vote smarter, on any government level. If it did, we'd be blue already.

[Terran]

27. Dumb, dumb, dumb

My state is getting $27 million to prevent homelessness, and we've never had a PENNY before to do that. So screw your, *ahem*, "idea".

[Generic Other]

30. It's your reps who oppose your state having money not me

shouldn't they face the wrath of your voters at least once in their careers? I say they are morally obligated to refuse the money. Unless they change their minds. And I believe they would change their minds overnight. Because you and every other reasonable person in your state would insist on it. It would make them quit grandstanding, playing politics as usual, acting like drama queens, etc. at a time when the country cannot afford such theatrics.

Funny how I am more the target of rage than those who voted to try and prevent anyone from getting a stimulus bill passed.

[MadHound]

34. Maybe you've become the target because what you've proposed is a fascist nightmar

:shrug:

You're wanting to engage in collective punishment of an entire state, in a time of dire economic distress. You're wanting to play partisan political games with people's money, denying them this lifeline all because of how their reps voted.

I guess you didn't hear Obama did you, we aren't the red states of America or the blue states of America, but the United States of America.

[Generic Other]

37. I concede the point about this not being legislated

but as a moral and ethical principle, I think those who voted against should go home and tell constituents they refused the money for whatever highminded reasons they choose to use.

I am not voting "no" on helping Americans. I want those in need to benefit from the one progressive piece of legislation to come out of DC in 8 years. Hell, I wanted even more in that bill. I accepted much less because those who opposed the bill insisted it be watered down. Then they didn't vote for it. We ALL are getting less because of your state's elected leaders' decisions. And that sucks. While it isn't your fault, neither is it my fault.

But those who caused the problem are still there. I am just calling upon them to act consistently with their so-called principles. They deserve the public reaction they would get in their own home states. I wanna hear them tell people they can't have extensions on unemployment, that they don't jobs projects, how tax cuts for the rich would have saved them.

They are going to take us all the way down unless we passengers wrestle the plane out from their control.

[MadHound]

38. Those legislators have no control on how this money is going to be spent

That's in the hands of the Obama administration. Besides, even if these legislators refused the money, that refusal would hurt other state, blue states. Reference my preceding scenario concerning two of our breadbasket states. The same would happen in any other state that didn't get this money, they would collapse and some vital, national component of our economy would go out of wack and we all would suffer. Hate to tell you this, but we're all in this mess together, because we all live in the same country and we are' Dems, 'Pugs, liberals and conservative, are all interdependent on each other.

And frankly, judging from the game Obama played with this stimulus bill, asking for more than he wanted, knowing the 'Pugs would cut it back to the point where he still wound up with almost exactly what he wanted, I would say that the 'Pugs no longer have control of the plane, Obama and the Dems do. Yes, the 'Pugs are a pain and an annoyance, but really now, for the most part they're irrelevant. Obama and the Dems will do what they did with the stimulus, work around them. I'm with you, I wanted more in this bill, but Obama got almost precisely what he wanted, and I'm fairly certain we'll be revisiting all of this to pick up the rest, the stuff that you and I wanted but didn't get.

[Generic Other]

42. Are you sure the Repugs wouldn't change their position?

Maybe come back to DC and say they now thought an economic stimulus bill 2 was needed?

They are the ones playing games with people's lives here. It really makes me sick. The people impacted by them need to direct their collective anger toward these clowns who pulled this stunt. They are the ones who "baited and switched" on this bill. The bill should never have been watered down. And now it has been. All of us suffer. Yet those whose states sent these clowns to Congress get mad at me instead of the clowns.

I don't think I'm a fascist. I like to think I am a peasant with a pitchfork willing to poke some clown in the butt if he gets out of line though. Really we all have a lot to answer to history for. We let the past 8 years happen because we didn't want to consider taking drastic measures. Sometimes we have to stand up to the stupid.

[Terran]

81. And meanwhile, you would have thousands of people suffer

and that's just in my state. Some ideas may sound good on paper, but they suck when applied to real life.

[Generic Other]

84. Funny how it becomes me who makes people suffer

I just want the people voting against the common good to have some incentive to stop. Like an entire stet worth of angry constituents. Seems like their voices could effect change overnight if they were raised loudly enough.

[Terran]

85. Do I have to spell it out for you?

Your idea = less money for my state = greater suffering for the people of my state.

[Generic Other]

87. And your citizens would not demand your politicians vote FOR the next bill?

They would just accept such representation? Because apparently that's how they are acting now. This is a incentive to change.

[Terran]

89. Uh, yeah...a cattle prod is incentive to change too. n/t

[Generic Other]

92. I don't advocate torture

I advocate taking responsibility for actions. Letting elected officials face angry voters. They are much more likely to be carrying the cattle prods not me.

[MadHound]

96. Bullshit, that's exactly what you're advocating

That citizens of certain states and regions suffer economic torture because their reps didn't vote for the stimulus bill. Sorry, but you're advocating economic torture on a large scale against innocent people.

[Generic Other]

33. Interesting...looks like this is already happening in Florida education

They spent their money on private vouchers. And now are told they CAN have part of the stimulus package IF they can fund public education at levels they did prior to handing out vouchers which they evidently can't do. So the people of Florida are clearly about to be penalized for the irresponsibility of their own legislators. This is not partisan vengeance. It is just happens to be a small part of the new spending bill.

Will Florida legislators feel any shame returning to their constituents to explain their choices the past few years?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5052443

[Marr]

40. I'd settle for very public announcements on what states contribute, vs. what they take out.

Almost without exception, the states that offer up the most strident anti-socialism voices are the same states that take more money out of the system than they put into it. This should be more widely known.

As it stands, Republicans in the south can talk about liberal "welfare queens" and suggest that the hard working people of their state are being bled dry by liberal policies they don't use, when in fact, they've been sucking harder on the public teat than anyone else. Those liberal states they complain about are actually paying their bills.

When a Republican politician talks about cutting government services, it should be clear to his constituents that it is *their* services that are to be cut, and not those of some mythical, lazy liberal in another state.

[Generic Other]

44. Hear! Hear! You articulate this so well

I also would love to see this account book.

[Mr Generic Other]

41. our government can do one of two things to address the current crisis

1. it can figure out a way to provide americans with enough resources for us to survive (keep us docile)and maintain the status-quo or 2. it can do what is morally right and give us control of what rightfully belongs to the people of america. there is no argument that justifies our debt peonage to private bankers when the government could print the same money and free us from perpetual debt. the banks need to be nationalized.
currently, banks are the parasites that weaken our constitution and introduce all the infections that our weakened body must then fight (so we haven't energy to be anything but docile).
the fractional reserve monetary system is designed to create increasing and perpetual debt and the eventual transfer of all wealth to the banks. this needs to stop.
likewise, we need to nationalize energy and water resources, especially those resources on public land, and provide universal health coverage (develop a concept of human rights as opposed to just civil rights). we could, like all of latin america, where roman law as it pertains to sub-soil wealth is the post-conquest tradition, consider all sub-soil wealth as property of the state.
almost every single american would benefit from these moves. it would allow our dreams of freedom and prosperity to be realized while the current system guarantees only increasing poverty and conflict.
since it seems unlikely that our government will do what is in the best interest of its citizens then they need to move on the stop-gap measures that will be tossed our direction. failure to do so only increases the problems and misery faced by americans.
the republican and democratic congresspeople who voted against this "stimulus" bill are asking for vocal if not violent response from the public.
the disbursal structure proposed by generic other is a civil approach to address the irresponsible and cruel attitudes of those who consider us chattel. such a move would postpone the sharpening of pitchforks and would be a non-violent and positive reminder to the uber-class that they govern with our consent.

[Generic Other]

45. you can use the pitchfork on odd numbered days

I get it the rest of the time. :)

[Mr Generic Other]

49. pitchforks for the people

wasn't that aunt bea's slogan when she was running for public office?

[cherish44]

43. Nah that's the kind of crap we would expect from Bush's goons

We're above that I hope. I'm with you when it comes to being frustrated with the GOP though...

[Generic Other]

47. we are still dealing with Bush's goons

we shouldn't forget this fact.

[zagging]

46. Should we apply that same political philosophy to all legislated spending?

Or just this one bill because you're unhappy with a few holdouts? With that same philosophy, I'm sure with just a little effort I could come up with reasons that your state should get less money because your legislators didn't vote with the majority on some spending bill at some time or another.

[Generic Other]

48. Sorry I already conceded...this is a voluntary program

and yes, my clowns should also live with the consequences of their high moral principles.

[zagging]

54. Ok. But only for stimulous bills?

That's pretty arbitrary. How about...say...civil rights legislation, too? Can the states opt out of those?

Face it, your proposition is reckless.

[Generic Other]

58. Isn't that a Constitutional issue?

I don't think you should overturn the Constitution. Just be man or woman enough to not take money you voted against others having. Ask them to step up and volunteer to follow their consciences.

[zagging]

60. Right

That's exactly what all those folks in the pointy white hats want to do; follow their consciences. And as for the constitution, I'm pretty sure the 14th amendment would prevent your idea from getting off the ground.

[Generic Other]

66. I am asking them to volunteer to not to take money

they are the ones with the philosophical arguments, not me. They took money out of the hands of the poor in my state with their shenanigans.

[zagging]

69. And honestly, even if they tried...

I don't think they'd be able to do it, constitutionally. An example might be the school lunch program. If a state's senators voted against increasing the program's budget, could the state then refuse to take the money and let the kids go hungry?

I think you would find the answer to be no.

I understand your vengeful point, but it wouldn't fly even if they volunteered.

[Generic Other]

78. then they are thieves and hypocrites stealing the crumbs from your poor kids

then stealing them from mine to feed yours.

I am not being vengeful. I am merely pointing out the facts. These elected officials who obstruct, vote down and sabotage every social program force all of us to suffer. Yet usually they are the ones screaming loudest for more than their share of the tax revenue. The folks who live in the districts who elect these people need to open their eyes to what they are doing to everyone else. They need to hear what we think of them. They need to rethink the status quo. At least elect reps who vote in their interest!!

[Generic Other]

50. Okay, I concede...let this be a voluntary act on the part of the opposition

Those who oppose a stimulus bill should also on principle refuse the help. Seems like a highly principled ethical stance to me.

[Thickasabrick]

51. Better idea....quiz them publicly to oppose or accept....would be

awesome.

[Generic Other]

53. yeah. public humiliation needed

If they can publicly admit they need and want the money, then give it to them. They don't even need to apologize. Just be willing to accept the moral consequences of their votes.

[Mr Generic Other]

52. those legislators who vote to prolong or increase the suffering

of americans should be pilloried. we should all have a chance to throw rotten fruit or shoes at them to remind them of the oath they promised to uphold as elected officials. to govern for the common good.

[ColbertWatcher]

55. Any GOPer who voted for Dumbass' TARP bill AND voted against this JOBS BILL ...

... should get no money for their state/district.

[Generic Other]

57. yes they should voluntarily refuse the handout to show

the courage of their convictions.

[ColbertWatcher]

100. Well put! n/t

[blue_onyx]

59. How about the states whose Senators authorized the Iraq war pay that debt?

Both of my Senators voted against the Iraq war, which has bankrupted our country.....why should our tax money pay for the mistakes of others?

Sorry but this is not a good argument. We are the United States and we will either succeed or fail as a country, whether we like it or not.

[Generic Other]

68. Actually, your senators should be given a public apology by those who refused to listen to them

They were right and listening to them would have spared us untold misery. An acknowledgment of that fact seems in order to me.

And while I acknowledge we can't foirce them to take less money, it would be the morally conscionable thing for them to do. Instead, you know they will muscle their way top the front of the line to demand a lion's share of the allocations they so doggedly opposed.

[backwoodsbob]

61. SO when they regain control*and they will*

You would agree they should be allowed to allocate money according to how people voted?

[Generic Other]

72. Maybe...if you choose to vote only for military spending and social spending cuts

it might be a good idea to subtract the difference from your state's allocation of funds. The government's role is to care for the needs of all. When they fail to do so or choose to do so in h8ighly questionable ways, there ought to be consequences.

[Born_A_Truman]

63. That idea SUCKS!

My congressman voted against it as did all house GOP. Why should my county/community suffer because of it?

Now if you want to put a sign up on all projects that lists the names of those who voted against said projects, that might be helpful to voters.

[Generic Other]

71. I sympathize with your dilemma and would hope your elected officials would have epiphanies

overnight.

And sign on for Stimulus Bill #2.

IN the meantime, where do we post those signs?

[mmonk]

65. No. We want it to work so the state won't vote for them anymore.

[Generic Other]

70. well how will you get the people to vote them out when the bums obstruct, sabotage, vote no

and reward themselves by bringing home most of the bacon (much of it produced by progressive citizens in other states)? How do we help deliver the message we think their behavior is morally reprehensible? Apparently, we in the other states are allowed no say in this matter. And so the situation continues. We need to break this cycle.

I am thinking of the common good here.

The whole country got less help in this stimulus bill because of these clowns. And now they'll want their share. And more.

[DearAbby]

67. What good would that do?

We want to lift this country up, ALL OF IT. We cant play these games...too much hangs in the balance.

[Generic Other]

75. How is it a game to ask men to follow their consciences?

These people voted enmasse to shaft Americans. They played with the economic wellbeing of every American not just their own constituents. They brought my state's standard of living down. Yours too. They may contribute to the total bankrupcy of several other states. How are the consequences of their actions already not serious? They were the ones who played a game. They should now live with their choices. I am asking them to voluntarily step up. Admit they were wrong or continue to let their consciences guide them and refuse the money thus proving their true commitment to their ideals and letting their own constituents know how well they represent them.

[L0oniX]

76. Give money to GOP'rs? You might as well use it for a campfire because it damn well...

won't go to help poor people. It will go to all their fat pork corporate and MIC friends.

[Generic Other]

79. seems that way doesn't it

but most DUers think I am a monster for proposing that these elected officials be asked to live by their principles, by refusing the money they voted not to spend. I just don't believe they would do this for very long before they would see the error of their ways. We need to call their bluff for a change, not always just let them get away with it.

[Canuckistanian]

80. I don't know

Then, you'd be punishing the people who DIDN'T vote for the Repuke in question.

And there are a LOT of Repukes them who BARELY made it in the last Congressional election.

I understand the sentiment, but you can't collectively punish an entire state for the actions of 50.0001% (or less) of the state population's actions.

[Generic Other]

82. The money is there to provide help for everyone

so why wasn't there a unanimous vote and why are we all getting less help? Because some elected officials acting on behalf of their constituents said "no" we don't need jobs, economic stimulus. But we should just overlook it. If that's the will of the people of those states as reflected in their elected officials' votes, why would they even consider accepting the money? And if it's not the will of their people, why aren't they making their voices heard in those states?

Obviously, I am fed up with the GOP. Way fed up!

[proud2BlibKansan]

83. No no and no again

This is the dumbest idea yet.

There are good Democrats in every state where reps voted against the bill. Like me:)

[Generic Other]

86. I know and I apologize for your pain

but what of the pain your elected officials inflicted on my state? They stripped the stimulus bill of much needed funds so that many others will feel the pain. And now you believe they are entitled to get a free pass? Why? All they have to do is confess to your state's citizens that they took this action in your name, that they refuse on principle to help you all out. The howls of outrage would rival Dorothy's tornado! And they'd be changing their tunes faster than the wicked witch could say "I'm melting." That's just my guess based on my hunch that the citizens of your state would respond to them swiftly and with extreme anger.

[proud2BlibKansan]

91. They aren't getting a free pass at all

We already have candidates lined up to run against them in 2010. Went to a meeting this morning in fact. And we flooded their offices with calls this week.

This idea also completely violates our president's call for unity. This is about the 100th time someone has posted this on DU and it still sucks.

[Generic Other]

93. Our president's call for unity encouraged them to unite against us

I also notice that the DUers mostly complaining about this idea mostly live in states represented by these very elected officials. No one in the states seem able to rein them in. Maybe it's time they were reminded what impact their choices have on the rest of us.

Many of my colleagues face lay-offs because of what these GOP leaders removed from the bill. You expect me to pal around with them?

[proud2BlibKansan]

97. You expect me to move?

This is just hysterical silliness.

[Mz Pip]

88. What I would like to see

is these Congresscritters go back to their States and advocate for less money or no money from the Stimulus.

It's not fair for poor states to have to suffer because their Congresscritters are morons. I would just like to hear them try to convince their constituents that the honorable thing to do would be to reject the money since they didn't support the stimulus in the first place.

The Republicans are getting off easy. They knew they didn't have the votes to defeat it and I'll bet if it were a close vote a bunch of them would have voted for it. So these morons really don't risk anything by voting no. They can stand on 'principle' because their states will still get the money and they know that.

I'm sure most of them are glad it passed.

[Generic Other]

90. Yes, this is a fine idea

They are the ones playing games and someone needs to call their bluff. We need another stimulus package to add whatever was left off the table last time including repeal of the bankrupcy laws they passed and some kind of universal healthcare package.

Those who want to vote against those ideas should be prepared to explain to their constituents why their citizens oughtn't be included in the plan.

[Mz Pip]

95. So many of them

were voting the way their constituents wanted. If conservative talk is any barometer of Red State mentality then the folks in these districts didn't want all this "socialism" anyway.

Now what I'd like to see is a Free Republic or Rush Limpbags petition put out there by the folks in these districts demanding the money be returned.

Fat chance.

[Mr Generic Other]

94. it is difficult to believe

the reactions of so many here on DU to what is clearly a fine suggestion. the suggested method of allocation for stimulus funds is not only fair but could prove to be the best proving grounds for what is always sold to us as "just another perfectly honest model" for achieving the goals set out in the declaration of independence and the constitution.
if we followed generic other's suggestions this would provide us with social-scientific control groups which we could then study and observe and after several years we could make valid comparisons between the republican model and the democratic model of government intervention when trying to stimulate the economy. perhaps those in republican controlled states will fare better than those in more liberal areas. who knows?
it is time to find out once and for all which model works so that those short on critical thinking skills can see for themselves. the current "everyone gets a piece of the pie" model allows saboteurs to do their dirty work and claim its for the good of us all. let them demonstrate the truth of their insistence that providing aid to those in need will make things worse for the needy.