I fall in line with the sentiment that most of the rest of you seem to have expressed. I can appreciate not wanting to take the easy road out of a situation just because it's there but in this case, it really seems like the only current option.

oO That doesn't seem right, to turn down money that would help people who have lost their jobs. Truthfully, most stuff like this confuses me. ^^

~Sarah

Can't say I'm surprised by this. Utah is known for this kind of blatant stupidity. They'll literally shoot their foot just to avoid any form of concession. I just feel sorry for all the people losing their jobs, their homes and finding themselves unable to even care for their families. When it comes down to it, that's more important than blind devotion to any party.

@:

I get so tired of hearing people talk about how much they want the stimulus plan to fail simply because the president is a Democrat and not a Republican. And it will show why a Republican president would have been better.

Yeah, that just exposes how they really don't care at all. And they had their chance, but they royally goofed. I wouldn't be surprised if this leads to a major schism in the party. It's time they cut off the bloated ultra-conservative contingent and moved on.

@Aaryanna:

What also disgusts me is the people like my sister mentioned in her comment. The ones who want Obama to fail so next time we'll have a 'Republican' President.

Happens on both sides. I remember hearing people talk for the past six years now how Bush Jr. would ensure a Democrat succeeding him in office. Those people you're hearing are just biased and ignorant.

@Indi:

And though I agree with the principle of not accepting a bail out, it's stupid to let people literally starve and to cut even more jobs. People need to be able to pay the bills, feed the kids and so forth.

Yeah. It's easy for people in the government to say it's only "this" percent that's being cut since it won't affect them. They're not the ones who will lose their jobs or struggle to pay bills. I already know people who have been layed off or had their hours cut.

And all of this while prices for stuff keep going up and up. Even those who aren't losing their jobs are being hurt by the constant increase in living expenses.

~*Aaryanna*~

@Allamorph:

And I do agree about the ideology point. I personally don't like the idea of a bailout because I don't see any long-term good it can do. But refusing it at this point is like telling a man with a gaping stomach wound that it'd be better to bandage him in a hospital because the equipment is better and the environment is sterile. That's all well and good, but the thing we have to do first is stop the freaking bleeding.

That's exactly how I feel. The idea of a bailout is not sound thinking. However the damage is done so we need to put a halt on it before it becomes worse. We need to buy time for us to get a real solution in place. And that's something that will take more than some bailout plan to do.

What also disgusts me is the people like my sister mentioned in her comment. The ones who want Obama to fail so next time we'll have a 'Republican' President. There are a lot of people around here who will vote in the other direction, even if what's presented will solve the problem (or help solve it), all because they're too pig headed to let go of trivial matters such as parties.

And unfortunately, that includes this stimulus package. -_-

~*Aaryanna*~

@TimeChaser:

I thought I'd heard some place that even if governors refuse the stimulus money, state legislatures can still accept it over their objections.

Two thirds of our legislature representatives are also Republican and part of the group against the stimulus money. It's an unfortunate case of the majority not caring if jobs are slashed and taxes are raised. I wish it was otherwise, but unfortunately, it's not.

~*Aaryanna*~

Yeah, I know about that. And though I agree with the principle of not accepting a bail out, it's stupid to let people literally starve and to cut even more jobs. People need to be able to pay the bills, feed the kids and so forth.

The only good thing about this move is they are alienating a lot of people who will see it as the Republican party being too damn stupid to care. So they're going to end up getting voted out of office when the time comes. I for one will only be too happy to help the process.

In the meantime, it's unfortunate that even more people are now going to lose their jobs.

~Crystia

@TimeChaser:

Power corrupts. And everyone loves easy money.

...except for those who understand what money means.

I hope it doesn't take that long, either. But I'm afraid it will. I mean, the situation itself began back in the 70s; who can say when the seeds were first planted? The part that will take the longest is the rooting out of those who would continue such mindsets merely to further their own ambition. It takes a long time to change a nation this large. I mean, heck, we've still got bass-akwards people who think there are superior races.

I certainly don't want to sound pessimistic about things. Just, you know, clearheaded.

@Allamorph:

I entirely agree. I hope it won't take as long as you're predicting, but it certainly isn't going to be a snap fix.

The mentality that led to this is what really angers me. Who thought it was a good idea to deregulate? Or even worse, to cut jobs here and ship them overseas where they would have to pay workers less than they would here? Did they honestly believe we'd all reap some kind of reward and grow fat on our a$$es? There comes a time when you run out of "up", especially when you're constantly shooting holes into the system that damage it so horribly.

Meh... -3-

@TimeChaser:

Depends on the State charter in question. I know the SC governor tried to refuse the money, but backed down when the state legislature threatened to override him anyway. I would think a similar check system would be in place in the rest of the states, but I don't know for certain.

And I do agree about the ideology point. I personally don't like the idea of a bailout because I don't see any long-term good it can do. But refusing it at this point is like telling a man with a gaping stomach wound that it'd be better to bandage him in a hospital because the equipment is better and the environment is sterile. That's all well and good, but the thing we have to do first is stop the freaking bleeding.

What led to this fiasco will take years to undo, and I foresee at least three presidents will pass before we can be certain of any decent success, for the problem itself happened just as gradually. But we can't focus solely on the root of the problem at the moment when its fruits are already poisoning us. We kind of have to make sure we're still alive to finish taking the root out. =P

Incidentally, the economic situation is an excellent illustration of "the sins of the fathers", if you'll excuse the use of the word. ("Mistakes" could be substituted and the meaning would remain the same in this case.)

I read about that in the paper, such a shame really.

Honestly, politicians perplex me. And the Republican party in particular is not gonna win any more support from people with governors refusing to accept stimulus money. They care more about their ideology than they do about people.

Although, I thought I'd heard some place that even if governors refuse the stimulus money, state legislatures can still accept it over their objections. I'm not sure what the situation is in your state.