Sanford’s ‘Compromise’ Offer To State Legislature: Adopt My Neo-Hooverite Approach
Sanford’s ‘Compromise’ Offer To State Legislature: Adopt My Neo-Hooverite Approach
As his state plummets into nearly unmatched unemployment and enormous budget shortfalls, Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) has been waging an ideological, politically-motivated war to prevent needed stimulus funds from reaching South Carolinians. He has already twice proposed spending some $700 million in stimulus cash to pay down the state debt — and has twice been rebuffed by the White House.
Five days before the deadline for accepting the stimulus funds, and as criticism of him escalates, Sanford gave a speech yesterday outlining a new “compromise” proposal: He’ll accept the $700 million but demand that the state legislature find other state funds to pay off the debt. In other words, You accept my neo-Hooverite approach of cutting spending in a deep recession:
Gov. Mark Sanford has proposed a compromise with state lawmakers over accepting $700 million in federal stimulus money — one that would require diverting state funds to pay off debt and accepting Sanford’s suggested budget savings. [...]
Sanford wants:
• Lawmakers to approve $270 million in cuts Sanford included in his executive budget and to spend that money on debt.
• Lawmakers to find $70 million more over the next two years and to spend it on debt.
Sanford noted lawmakers have about $220 million in extra health-care funds — money the House spread throughout its $6.6 billion spending plan — to make up the difference. Paying off debt would save $80 million in each of the next two years, he said.
Sanford is hoping to have his cake and eat it too: accepting stimulus funds with his right hand while paying down the debt — the debt his disastrous tax cuts created — with his left hand. In the end, though, it’s the same pot of money, and forcing the state to pay down the debt means forcing cuts that could have disastrous consequences for South Carolinians.
Sanford’s fuzzy math wouldn’t change the budget cuts to education that state officials say could mean between 4,000 and 7,500 teachers will be fired. And since Sanford is still refusing the stimulus funds — unless his “compromise” is agreed to — the state Senate Finance Committee was forced to rewrite the budget yesterday stripping $368 million away, which “would translate to $161 million in cuts to K-12 education agencies, $103 million to the state’s Medicaid and health agencies, $44 million to higher education and $39 million to prisons and law enforcement.”
Indeed, Sanford’s compromise is a hollow one. Local news reported that the governor told audiences yesterday that he “remains firm in his belief that stimulus funds should be used to pay down debt or not used at all.” He also dismissed worries of teacher layoffs as “a farce” an a “game of chicken”, even as he faced protesters worried about education. Watch a short compilation:
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Why do people vote for these morons amazes me.
March 31st, 2009 at 11:52 amBut would Sanford use the money to change the signs at the state’s borders? “South Carolina, let’s keep it stupid. This message authorized by Guv Sanford.”
March 31st, 2009 at 11:53 amForgive me for not feeling sympathy for the people of South Carolina. If you do not want moronic government stop electing morons to govern.
March 31st, 2009 at 11:54 amIronically, many of the people who would benefit most, are the same wealthy state bond holders who were instrumental in causing the problem in the first place.
March 31st, 2009 at 11:54 amI like how officials elected to represent their state seem to forget that solemn charge when the chance to stand in the national spotlight materializes….
March 31st, 2009 at 11:54 amA ton of money with no strings attached to spend as he pleases? Who does this guy think he is? A mismanaged bank?
March 31st, 2009 at 11:56 amHe’s going to take the money. But first he’s going to put up as much of a fight as possible to burnish his GOP credentials for the next Republican primary. The only game of chicken being played here is between Sanford and reality.
http://www.pufferfishblog.com/
March 31st, 2009 at 11:57 amWhy should he and the rest of the SC aristocracy give a flying fukc about the rest of SC’s population?
There doing just fine. besides, we’re just talking about a bunch of blacks anyway, right? They’re used to being poor.
March 31st, 2009 at 11:58 amI was born in Sumter, South Carolina.
I’d like to take this time to thank my parents for moving before I had any memory whatsoever of the place.
March 31st, 2009 at 11:59 amLocal news reported that the governor told audiences yesterday that he “remains firm in his belief that stimulus funds should be used to pay down debt or not used at all.”
____________
Sounds good to me – there are 49 other states and plenty of Federal agencies who’d be happy to receive the $700 million South Carolina doesn’t want.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:00 pmRepbulicans think sdarwkcab…
…all you have to do is find out what works and the repukes will do just the opposite.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:02 pmBTW… just WHAT is he talking about in that picture?
WHAT is THAT gesture about?
March 31st, 2009 at 12:14 pmI don’t blame Sanford, he’s only a symptom of the failed SC GOP
March 31st, 2009 at 12:14 pmI thought that the state legislatures could just override the Governors. It looks like the legislature in SC might not do that. I really feel sorry for the people in his state. I wonder if anyone has done a poll on Sanford’s favorability ratings after he refused to take the Stimulus money. I can’t believe the people in his state like this much.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:15 pmBilbo,
Some have raised issue with the constitutionality of Clyburn’s amendment. Many feel if the legislature tries to take the money over Sanford it could get wrapped up in court. Personally, I’d prefer that option but our legislators are gutless, which is why we’re in this mess in the first place.
As for Sanford’s poll numbers, see here
March 31st, 2009 at 12:19 pmOk, someone did do a poll:
http://www.charleston.net/news/2009/mar/30/sanfords_stimulus_message_falls_flat_s_c76933/
March 31st, 2009 at 12:20 pmPalin/Sanford 2012 LOL
March 31st, 2009 at 12:20 pmI think the first South Carolina state employee to be severed should be the governor. I wonder if Sanford would dismiss the importance of that layoff?
March 31st, 2009 at 12:22 pmThese Massengills aren’t capitalists, they’re feudalists.
We don’t need more tax cuts for the “nobility,” we need a few more pitchforks.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:22 pmThe Republic of Hymenoptera Stupidity Says:
WHAT is THAT gesture about?
March 31st, 2009 at 12:14 pm
__________
Seriously. When will these people learn – it’s TWO in the pink, ONE in the stink? Sheesh!
March 31st, 2009 at 12:24 pmJust when you thought shamelessness, gall and ignorance had their limits…
March 31st, 2009 at 12:24 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says
March 31st, 2009 at 12:15 pm
I wonder if anyone has done a poll on Sanford’s favorability ratings after he refused to take the Stimulus money. I can’t believe the people in his state like this much.
___________________________________________________________
Sanford couldn’t care less what the people of South Carolina think of him. He’s already been elected Governor twice, and is term-limited. His next target is the White House, so he’s playing to a national audience now.
Of course, winning South Carolina’s primary is essential to any serious presidential run, because of SC’s position in the primary schedule. Sanford is no doubt taking his favorite son status for granted. That could be a mistake.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:27 pmIs the point here that paying down debt is bad?
March 31st, 2009 at 12:28 pmbackup, I can see you missed the point of this thread. Try reading it before you comment.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:30 pmI’m a New Yorker who has lived in SC for 25 years. It’s nice here and cheap, that’s why I’ve stayed. Greenville, Columbia and Charleston are fairly progressive. The rest of the state is in poverty.
This state has a plantation mentality. The power is in the hands of a very few. This state is third from the bottom in education and the folks who call the shots like it this way. No high taxes on the hundreds of acres of land they own.
There is no Democratic party. That’s why we have to put up with the likes of Sanford. This may change in the not too distant future. I am working toward that goal.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:31 pmAs per usual.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:31 pmbackup Says:
Is the point here that paying down debt is bad?
No moron, the point is that refusing the money will cause havoc with the educational system in SC amongst other things. And considering the fact that SC is already at the bottom of the education ladder, refusing the money is only going to make the state more stupid than it already is.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:33 pmnope, backup – no one is categorically opposed to paying down debt.
Bill Clinton paid down the national debt.
R Presidents never have.
Sanford should worry about keeping SC from attaining 3rd World status first – then worry about the debt. 3rd World places never get their debts paid off.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:35 pmbackup Says:
Is the point here that paying down debt is bad?
Maybe the point here is that you shouldn’t be in debt in the first place. Spending the same amounts, while receiving less tax money due to tax cuts, will cause debt. It’s obvious.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:39 pmbackup Says
March 31st, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Is the point here that paying down debt is bad?
____________________________________________________________
No, paying down debt is rarely bad. But stimulus money is intended to — well, stimulate. And paying down debt doesn’t do a thing to create jobs or any of the other things the stimulus bill was designed to do.
This is one of the reasons why using tax rebates don’t work as well as people think it does. People get a check for $600 and are more likely to pay down their credit card balance than go to the mall and spend it. And while saving money and getting out of debt are certainly virtues, right now our economy needs some spending to breathe life back into it.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:39 pmNo, he is finding a way to accept federal funds (that progressives have been screaming for all representatives to do) and use the funds to pay down debt.
If you agree that our representatives should accept stimulus money, you seem to be objecting that Sanford is trying to use the stimulus money to pay down debt.
What’s wrong with paying down debt?
March 31st, 2009 at 12:42 pmPrecisely how many jobs are created by paying down the debt? One? That being the person who actually signs the checks? The original “problem” with the stimulus was that it didn’t create enough jobs. Now, Sanford is countering with a proposal that will create exactly ZERO jobs. The Republican primary in 2012 is going to be HILAAAARIOUS.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:44 pmmiss molley. and others. That is a reasonable point.
The assumption is that Sanford has to answer to the people of South Carolina.
Why shouldn’t we trust the people of South Carolina to find the best use for the funds?
If they believe that paying down the debt makes more sense than stimulating the economy, why should we question their use of the funds?
March 31st, 2009 at 12:44 pmI retract my earlier statement about you being occasionally interested in substantive discussion.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:45 pmWhat’s wrong with paying down debt?
Nothing, when the economy is doing well.
When the economy is doing well, when we have a surplus… that’s when to pay down debt.
When no one is spending the State Government using these funds to pay down their debt instead of spending them on needed projects is the equivalent of the Banks refusing to lend the initial tarp funds and is almost criminally stupid.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:48 pmIf I get a bonus check from work. I can use it to buy things that my family needs or I can use it to pay off my credit card debt. If I decide that the money would best be used to pay down my credit card debt, that would seem to be the best use of the funds for me.
If my credit card debt is paid, I no longer have to pay to finance the debt and I can always borrow more money in the future, if I need more funds.
I don’t see how that’s so wrong.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:48 pmunmitigated jackass
March 31st, 2009 at 12:49 pmIf I decide that the money would best be used to pay down my credit card debt, that would seem to be the best use of the funds for me.
But if you get a pile of money from the Government DESIGNED to encourage growth and activity in the economy and then you instead use it to pay your debts you’re just shifting that debt to the Federal Government and not growing anything… and in the long run that’s bad for you too.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:51 pmThere are no free ponies, backup.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:52 pmIf we all are gonna go in debt for these funds then they should be used for the benefit of us all… not to pay off South Carolina’s debt at the expense of the other states… get it?
wags. what is so naive about the idea of paying off debt?
I’m not the only one fond of the idea:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2008/10/3/whispers-poll-americans-want-to-pay-down-deficit.html
If you don’t agree, I understand. But, just because you don’t agree, doesn’t mean it’s not substantive.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:52 pmyou’re not a state, backup.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:53 pmMarch 31st, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Sure, that’s easy for you to say because you aren’t a moron.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:55 pm08Dariana Says:
——————————————————————————–
Why do people vote for these morons amazes me.
———————————————————
Rhetorical question, no doubt.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:57 pmbackup Says:
If I get a bonus check from work. I can use it to buy things that my family needs or I can use it to pay off my credit card debt. If I decide that the money would best be used to pay down my credit card debt, that would seem to be the best use of the funds for me.
“Gee, Dad, what will you do with the money Grandpa sent us?”
March 31st, 2009 at 12:58 pm“Well, son, I know you want to use this money to buy some tools so you can help him in the family business, and I know your mom wants to buy food as well… but I’m just gonna pay my credit card bills”
“But Grandpa said this money was to be used to start a new business or something”
“Well, what does he know? It’s my money now and I’m gonna use it as I see fit”
“What about asking Uncle Charly to pay us the money he owes us?”
“Now, now, we’re not gonna ask my brother Charly for the money he owes us… he probably needed that money to buy another car or something”.
backup
March 31st, 2009 at 12:58 pmGo find a volume of Keynes and look up something called “the thrift paradox”. That will tell you everything you need to know.
I hear it has something to do with the economic cycle.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:59 pmNo, the fact that you’re so resistant to any sort of logic, bring no real arguments to the table, and skirt your way around real issues makes it not substantive.
a) you missed the point of the thread
March 31st, 2009 at 1:01 pmb) individual finances share very few similarities with state and federal finances
c) paying down debt (caused by the governor’s own policies) while gutting education is generational theft at its worst and is arrogant, misguided and wrong
Here’s some poll results. The question is:
Which of the following concerns you more?
That the federal government will spend too MUCH money trying to boost the economy and as a result will
drive up the budget deficit, OR
That the federal government will spend too LITTLE money trying to boost the economy and as a result the
recession will be longer?
2/09 1/09 12/08
That the federal government will spend too MUCH money…… 61 60 56 [237]
That the federal government will spend too LITTLE money….. 29 33 36
Not sure………………………………………………………………………. 10 7 8
http://pos.org/latestnumbers/wsjfeb2009.pdf (question #24 half way down the page)
March 31st, 2009 at 1:03 pmIt may be the right thing to do to spend trillions in stimulus money.
But, people are concerned about overspending.
Paying down debt when people aren’t confident about the spending will seem prudent to those concerned about overspending until the administration makes a stronger case that the spending (for stimulus) is necessary.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:05 pm…and the black hole of question-begging grew, and grew, and grew, and grew……..until there was no more thread…..
March 31st, 2009 at 1:08 pmshoeless. If democrats are going to make the case that Republicans got us into debt and that was an imprudent thing to do, I’m on board.
But, how do you do that and then chastise Sanford for attempting to pay down the debt of South Carolina?
March 31st, 2009 at 1:09 pmHow do you cheerlead for gutting education and other social services?
March 31st, 2009 at 1:10 pmBut, how do you do that and then chastise Sanford for attempting to pay down the debt of South Carolina?
Because he’s stealing from me and you and the ECONOMY to pay down South Carolina’s debt…
We’re giving the State’s this money to SPEND… and get things going.
Trust me. People with jobs building Schools and Roads in S.C. are gonna be a lot more confident about spending than unemployed people in a South Carolina with no debt.
Get it?
March 31st, 2009 at 1:13 pmIf he wants to pay down his debt then he can raise taxes in his state to pay it down. Stimulus money is not a “bonus” to the states. It is money being paid by all us taxpayers with the sole purpose of stimulating the economy and preventing job loss. GET IT?
March 31st, 2009 at 1:14 pmYou still haven’t read your Keynes assignment little backup. Besides, your poll says nothing about public approval for the stimulus. Meanwhile, if you look at Bilbo’s post above (#16) you will see that Gov. Sanford’s stance has made him quite unpopular in his own state. Not to worry. Obama will work to bring the Republican deficit under control after the financial crisis passes. Meanwhile, the US taxpayers are not going to bail out South Carolina for its governor’s inability to formulate a coherent budget.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:16 pmThere are no Democratic leaders in in SC. Republicans got themselves into debt and they can get themselves out of debt. Newsflash, the less people with jobs they have the more unemployment they pay and less tax money they take in. You people are so small minded you can’t think past the nose on your faces.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:17 pmbackup Says:
Why shouldn’t we trust the people of South Carolina to find the best use for the funds?
If they believe that paying down the debt makes more sense than stimulating the economy, why should we question their use of the funds?
How big of you to speak for all South Carolinans.
Putz.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:17 pmThe myth continues.
Hoover increased spending. He did public works projects etc. Hoover Dam anyone? Plus bridges etc.
He created government agencies to handle the financial sector.
Roosevelt just took it several steps farther.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:19 pmBecause SC can’t generate its own revenue – debt or no.
The idea is to get their economy back on a positive track – THEN they can, and should, go about paying down their debts.
You CAN’T be serious about not comprehending that, backup.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:24 pmAnd Hoover is widely criticized for doing too little, too late, and only after Congress ponied up and showed some initiative. Hoover’s own policies prior to signing the Revenue Act of 1932 were essentially public/private ventures with little or no effect on the overall economy. Not to mention his consistent tax cuts up till that point.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:25 pmThis is why people need the power of of recall from office in every state when you have morans like this clown, he does not care about the people in his state only his politcal career. impeach the bum from office.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:29 pmwags. Hoover was actually a progressive that was courted by the Democrat party before he decided to run as a Republican.
I believe your assessment that many felt Hoover’s efforts were too little, too late.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:41 pmAnd? His fiscal policies were profoundly un-progressive. I don’t know much else about his other policies to be honest.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:43 pm“If they believe that paying down the debt makes more sense than stimulating the economy, why should we question their use of the funds?”
Why??? Because it’s the nations money not SC!! F***en idiot!!!
We did not give this money so some dumb F*** can use it to protect the state bond holders. There is a reason why SC has one of the worst education records in the union.
There must be a law implemented that allows the federal government to withhold state transfer funds if the state does not provide education standards as the rest of the nation.
WHY IS IT THAT ALL RED STATES HAVE THE LOWEST EDUCATION STANDARDS IN THE NATION???? Anser that Gov. Sanford….errrrrr F***en IDIOT!!!!!!!!
March 31st, 2009 at 1:45 pmhoover sucked, pun intended, and I danced on his grave in west branch iowa in 1986.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:51 pmI won’t argue that Hoover’s interventions were counterproductive.
I’m just pointing out that “Hoover did nothing. He was laissez-faire.” is a complete myth.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:52 pmJust more covert racism from the Reich…….he really wants dumbed down populace so he can be more of a weasel than ever.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:53 pmtombaker. many people are uncomfortable with the increasing debt. I do not have any problem with Democrats pointing to Republican spending and the increases in debt under their leadership. I believe that increase in debt was misguided.
But, if that deficit spending was wrong, why shouldn’t people be concerned about today’s even greater deficit spending?
I believe there was atmosphere of massive government spending when we recovered from the Great Depression. Regardless of which historian, we either recovered due to FDR’s spending programs or the massive government spending that came from our involvement of WWII. I believe that government spending can improve economic conditions. (Although, I think it’s possible that economies cycle and could recover on their own).
I am personally uncertain about how we paid for the accumulated debt after the Depression and WWII. I wonder how that debt compared to the debt we are contemplating today. Do we have the ability to overcome this new debt as we did, with the debt we had after WWII?
There is a general idea that debt comes with a cost. Whether it’s personal debt or government debt.
The idea that we can solve a problem that happened because we got into too much debt to spend money we didn’t have, by going into more debt to spend even more money we don’t have; doesn’t pass the test of common sense.
I’m not saying that it isn’t the best course, I’m just saying that it’s difficult logic for most to comprehend.
What I think could help (not just for me, but for those that voice opposition to the spending) would be more information about how the spending will lead to economic growth and how the new debt will be manageable.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:56 pmHoover was a progressive that both parties wanted to run for president. The stock market crashed 8 months after he took office. Was that really his doing? He made attempts to address the issue. Many believe his efforts were too little, too late. That may be a pretty easy call, in hindsight.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:00 pmabove link: Hoover’s wikipedia.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:01 pmWhat about “we’re spending this money on infrastructure, job creation and education” is so opaque for you?
More jobs, higher paying jobs, better standards of living, better health care…all these mean higher revenues.
Hey, revenues can be used to pay down debt.
Just paying down debt is putting the cart before the horse.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:02 pmHere’s more from Hoover’s wikipedia. He doesn’t sound that disconnected:
March 31st, 2009 at 2:07 pm
And he, admittedly, wasn’t all that disconnected. He just had too much faith in the ability of the market to self-correct, and waited too long to do much about it.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:10 pmwags. you’re right. I do, however, think that it comes down to confidence. If you pay down debt, you realize an immediate gain. Maybe 5-10%. If you opt instead for investing the money (stimulus) you weigh the potential that the investment may not pan out. And you factor in the inefficiencies of government. There is more risk in stimulus than there is in paying down debt.
Maybe people would accept the risk, if they felt more confident in the investment.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:12 pmwags. The economy eventually recovered. The question (by many opponents of government spending) is whether the economy would have eventually recovered without intervention. And, if the intervenion did speed recovery, was that benefit worth the cost of the debt that we amassed.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:16 pmGOVERNOR SANFORD YOU ARE THE BUFFOON OF THE WEEK, WEEK, WEEK!
March 31st, 2009 at 2:17 pm5-10% what? If you’re running a deficit already, all you’re doing by paying down debt is buying time. You’re still in the red.
And things like education aren’t exactly risky investments. The problem is the results aren’t instant. Hence, works projects like roads, parks and other things that create jobs right away.
The problem isn’t confidence, the problem is ignorance.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:25 pmI can’t believe this is still up for debate. The New Deal and its associated programs so radically changed the economy that it is fallacy to argue that “the market fixed itself”.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:29 pmthe cost of debt is like a mortgage. Let’s say it’s 6%. If you have access to funds, you have to make a decision how you should invest those funds. If you do not believe that you can achieve a return of greater than 6%, you would (should) pay down the debt.
Because, retiring the debt (at 6%) has the same financial benefit of investment that returns 6%.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:35 pmI see what you’re saying.
What I’m saying is: spending on debt is both a) a poor use of tax money because it has poor returns in relation to investment (especially education) and b) government has an obligation to act in the best interest of the people; even if they had the same return, investment is better because it helps those who need it most – the people.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:39 pmwags. I agree. I think what we need is more information from the administration or it’s supporters of how the investments are worthy.
For example, a lot of the efforts here at TP has been directed at how those opposed to the stimulus or budget are obstructionist; because of their opposition. I think that the effort should be less about who is opposing and more about why the stimulus or budget spending is important.
Change the focus. Instead of the negative focus on those that come out against the administrations proposals; focus on the vision of what the money will accomplish and convince people that we will be better served by spending the money, than not.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:47 pmYou might be on to something actually.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:51 pmSC has a state income tax. Guess less revenue isn’t an issue for this guy.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:00 pmBackup:
But that’s precisely the crisis that we’re going through. What if you can’t? What if the banks won’t lend you the money.
Say you’re a couple with a house, car payments and some credit card debt. You get a windfall of a significant but not vast amount $5,000-$10,000. What do you do with it.
Well, if you’ve been making your payments but only just, you might very well pay down some of that debt, to make your nut smaller so you can save some.
But you don’t do it if one of you has just lost their job and/or it looks like you’re going to lose yours. Then you put that money in the bank and use it to pay your debts when there’s no income coming in.
If you don’t know that there’ll be enough money coming in, or youu know that there won’t be enough, that money will buy you time and will help you survive.
If you’re sitting there with $5,000 in credit card debt that boosts your nut by $300 a month, do you pay the credit card company the $5,000 and leave you with nothing in the bank?
Not if you’re not sure you’ll be able to pay the mortgage and the electricity–AND the credit-card companies have been slashing your credit limits left and right.
Just as debt is not always bad, paying off debt is not always good. Paying off debt at the wrong time is a good way to go bankrupt.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:23 pmWell said.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:43 pmpbeeg. That’s a good point. Paying off debt is not always the best financial move. Especially, if you may not have access to the credit in the future.
Here’s a point that backs up yours:
wikipedia
If the idea is that paying off the debt will guarantee a more prosperous future, the Jackson example should be considered.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:03 pmwags. what is so naive about the idea of paying off debt?
The folk who hold these bonds are in many cases affluent. So, pay off the well-off, and give short-shrift to the state’s poor?
March 31st, 2009 at 4:38 pmjust a thought, backup….
maybe try “quicksand”, or “tarpit” as a handle, to give people fair warning how their engagement with you will go?
March 31st, 2009 at 7:26 pmAnother thought about the great depression. FDR was faced with a whole group of human problems that straight economics ignores. People were hungury, cold and without resourse, they were desperate! Aside from the finances of the country, FDR was dealing with a rising Communist Party, Facist movements
March 31st, 2009 at 10:37 pmand the Nazies. It is very easy from our perspective to judge, we know how it turned out. FDR had far more on his plate than finances. The chioces he made were not purely economic, nor were they all political. They were pragmatic!
The one thing that seems to scare the hell out of the policies makers now is letting the present problems sink to the levels of 1932. Any student of the great depression knows this country never wants to return there. I wish the governer would shut up, take the money (he has no options) and get things moving.