FargoBison Posted January 22, 2011 Posted January 22, 2011 So you are saying that the Republicans will support a bill for at least 800 million, for one town, without having the political power to make it happen? Why do you think Walalker endorsed Pomeroy instead of a Fargo resident? I would wager that Walaker's heart dropped when he heard Conrad was not running. Yeah, because Pomeroy was going to get a lot done in a Republican dominated house. You can't possibly believe that. Hoeven is on the senate appropriations and energy committees, two of the most powerful committees and he is a freshman senator. I don't think the chances are any worse than they were before, at least based on the people we have sent to DC.
Goon Posted January 22, 2011 Posted January 22, 2011 Why do you think Walalker endorsed Pomeroy instead of a Fargo resident? I would wager that Walaker's heart dropped when he heard Conrad was not running. Probably because he is a democrat? Also, Fargo went big time for Berg in the election so you're really not doing well in this argument.
Goon Posted January 22, 2011 Posted January 22, 2011 See you just when ahead a called something a death panel that is not. That statement is incoherent...
Bison Dan Posted January 22, 2011 Posted January 22, 2011 That statement is incoherent... Since lomackman is an expert on the bill - I hope he'll explain how it's going to lower costs?
lomackman Posted January 22, 2011 Posted January 22, 2011 The ignorance of the right, being lead by talking points, knows no end. Walaker knew that two freshmen, that walk around like deer in headlights, are not going to be much help and Fargo needs a lot of help. But following RWN logic this is a state and local issue that they should fund themselves. States rights you know and it does not say anywhere in the USC that cities are entitled to flood funding. Or are the RWN being hypocrites again in the fact it is ok to spend money in their backyard but not someone else's backyard? 1 1
WYOBISONMAN Posted January 22, 2011 Posted January 22, 2011 I would suspect that unless Conrad can push it through, Fargo flood protection will not get done. Hoeven is a freshman in the minority party and Berg is a single voice among 435 others. Rural states benefit a great deal from earmarks and I would suspect if the flood protection has to be passed as a bill in an of itself, the matter will get more complicated. Time will tell, but with all the snow you guys have this sure is looking pressing......
FargoBison Posted January 22, 2011 Posted January 22, 2011 I would suspect that unless Conrad can push it through, Fargo flood protection will not get done. Hoeven is a freshman in the minority party and Berg is a single voice among 435 others. Rural states benefit a great deal from earmarks and I would suspect if the flood protection has to be passed as a bill in an of itself, the matter will get more complicated. Time will tell, but with all the snow you guys have this sure is looking pressing...... Disagree, if Hoeven and Conrad can work together it could get done. Anything in DC is going to need bipartisan support to get done. Hoeven isn't exactly your typical freshman senator either. I have bigger questions about Berg, especially since there is so much pressure on the house to cut spending.
lomackman Posted January 22, 2011 Posted January 22, 2011 Disagree, if Hoeven and Conrad can work together it could get done. Anything in DC is going to need bipartisan support to get done. Hoeven isn't exactly your typical freshman senator either. I have bigger questions about Berg, especially since there is so much pressure on the house to cut spending. Hoeven and Conrad have always worked well together for the benefit of the state. Hoeven has always been more of a Democrat than a Republican to start with. It still will be a tough sell in the house though. What is it going to take 800 million of fed money at least? They won't have a real hard time with the senate but the house..
WYOBISONMAN Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 Disagree, if Hoeven and Conrad can work together it could get done. Anything in DC is going to need bipartisan support to get done. Hoeven isn't exactly your typical freshman senator either. I have bigger questions about Berg, especially since there is so much pressure on the house to cut spending. I don't think I would argue with you too much about that. The House is likely where it would be killed.
lomackman Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 I don't think I would argue with you too much about that. The House is likely where it would be killed. And if Berg cannot get Fargo the money what are his chances of getting so many votes in Cass County in 2012?
yzerman19 Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 I have a bit of a beef with significant federal dollars going to provide Fargo with flood protection...isn't NoDak one of the few states with a surplus? Philosophically what bothers me is that if the feds are expected to pay for something like this, what's to stop them from expecting NoDak to help bail out California? The two way street is dangerous. Regarding healthcare, the bill really became insurance company legislation specifically targeted at for-profit payors. Removing single payor from the bill really changes the whole argument against the legislation away from death panels and access issues. It now is more of a business freedom issue regarding the mandates.
The Whistler Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 All I can say is, good luck Fargo getting flood protection money now. Shouldn't Conrad, Dorgan and Pomeroy have used their clout two years ago?
Goon Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 Shouldn't Conrad, Dorgan and Pomeroy have used their clout two years ago? Good points didn't the democrats have super majorities for two years and didn't get it done, maybe some of the lefties should lay the blame at their feet first.
Ranger Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 Shouldn't Conrad, Dorgan and Pomeroy have used their clout two years ago? Maybe we're giving them too much credit for actually having "clout"? This from a former staffer for one of these guys.
petey23 Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 Pomeroy is(was) the very definition of a back bencher.
dlsiouxfan Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 It will be politically impossible for Berg or Hoeven to get flood protection money for Fargo. The Tea Party is standing strong on it's stance against earmarks in the House, so even if Berg gave a rats ass about Fargo (which he doesn't) he won't have the opportunity to get funding. In the Senate, with the Democrats having lost a number of key Midwestern seats and the general tone of this legislative session being deficit reduction, it's unlikely that Democratic leadership will be able to push for a bill that provides for substantial infrastructure projects. The loss of our Democratic congressional delegation will hurt the state much more than most on this board realize. The state's strong economic shape is largely a result of the substantial federal tax dollars that flow into the state. Dorgan, Conrad, and Pomeroy have been instrumental in securing federal dollars for projects such as the research corridor and were some of the strongest advocates for the agricultural subsidies that sustain the livelihoods nearly all of the farmers in this state. Both programs are likely to be on the chopping block with a federal government that is becoming increasingly filled with conservatives who don't think the government should pay for anything except weapons and warfare.
dlsiouxfan Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 I have a bit of a beef with significant federal dollars going to provide Fargo with flood protection...isn't NoDak one of the few states with a surplus? Philosophically what bothers me is that if the feds are expected to pay for something like this, what's to stop them from expecting NoDak to help bail out California? The two way street is dangerous. Regarding healthcare, the bill really became insurance company legislation specifically targeted at for-profit payors. Removing single payor from the bill really changes the whole argument against the legislation away from death panels and access issues. It now is more of a business freedom issue regarding the mandates. Taxpayers in states like California, Minnesota, and New York have essentially bailed out states like North Dakota for years. Why should ND taxpayers not return the favor? ND has received $2 for every dollar it pays federally for years while states like California and Minnesota have received at times as low as 50 cents on the dollar. It's always been a two- way street and the residents of ND have benefitted from it in far greater proportion than those in most other states. 1 1
BobIwabuchiFan Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Taxpayers in states like California, Minnesota, and New York have essentially bailed out states like North Dakota for years. Why should ND taxpayers not return the favor? ND has received $2 for every dollar it pays federally for years while states like California and Minnesota have received at times as low as 50 cents on the dollar. It's always been a two- way street and the residents of ND have benefitted from it in far greater proportion than those in most other states. I'm still not understanding your logic on why ND needs to bail out states that overspend their own budgets....Why not ask what we could have done with the 65 billion we gave to GM and Chrysler to save the IAW Union...Its going to be neat to see how the Dems play this one when ASFME comes calling asking to be rewarded for all of their campaign dollars in the last 30 years. Again, thinking the states somehow got into this ordeal because of the actions of Republicans in the Federal government makes no sense either nor does it make sense to think the Democrats in ND were the only hope of fixing this as they did nothing whilst in the majority other than vote for a unknown piece of legislation against the will of the people. Additionally, I would state that you only need to look at the legislatures of these states that are suffering the worst to quickly find out that they have been Democrat majority ruled for the longest time and now will have to pay the price of overspending. The country doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem...plain and simple. Lastly, how has the 800 billion stimulus bill gone for all of these states? If we would have focused on infrastructure builds like replacing bridges, highways, and the shoddy electrical grid then we wouldn't be dealing with a minimal bump in growth and a 9.4% unemployement rate for 2011 and a potential double dip recession once the Fed quits buying T-bills in July. Instead, the President and his majority in both houses rewarded cities and states by allowing them to continue to pay their city/state employees for one more year and even letting them add employees that the Federal government will not pay for in the next fiscal cycle. Imagine what you could have done with that money now when we have multiple states having to figure out how to get around the Constitution and try to file Bankruptcy. If you think things have been tough lately, you haven't seen anything yet and most of the politicians, republican and democrat, are trying to get out now so they won't be painted with the loser brush when the crap really hits the fan...My 2 cents... 1 1
dlsiouxfan Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 I'm still not understanding your logic on why ND needs to bail out states that overspend their own budgets....Why not ask what we could have done with the 65 billion we gave to GM and Chrysler to save the IAW Union...Its going to be neat to see how the Dems play this one when ASFME comes calling asking to be rewarded for all of their campaign dollars in the last 30 years. Again, thinking the states somehow got into this ordeal because of the actions of Republicans in the Federal government makes no sense either nor does it make sense to think the Democrats in ND were the only hope of fixing this as they did nothing whilst in the majority other than vote for a unknown piece of legislation against the will of the people. Additionally, I would state that you only need to look at the legislatures of these states that are suffering the worst to quickly find out that they have been Democrat majority ruled for the longest time and now will have to pay the price of overspending. The country doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem...plain and simple. Lastly, how has the 800 billion stimulus bill gone for all of these states? If we would have focused on infrastructure builds like replacing bridges, highways, and the shoddy electrical grid then we wouldn't be dealing with a minimal bump in growth and a 9.4% unemployement rate for 2011 and a potential double dip recession once the Fed quits buying T-bills in July. Instead, the President and his majority in both houses rewarded cities and states by allowing them to continue to pay their city/state employees for one more year and even letting them add employees that the Federal government will not pay for in the next fiscal cycle. Imagine what you could have done with that money now when we have multiple states having to figure out how to get around the Constitution and try to file Bankruptcy. If you think things have been tough lately, you haven't seen anything yet and most of the politicians, republican and democrat, are trying to get out now so they won't be painted with the loser brush when the crap really hits the fan...My 2 cents... North Dakotans can pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves over the surplus, while at the same times rejoicing in the misfortune of other states if they see fit, but they should at least acknowledge the reality that prior to the oil boom the state was in as dire financial straights as most other states are finding themselves now. It should also be pointed out that absent the federal dollars that fill the holes in ND's budget, the state would be looking at a $1 billion dollar deficit instead of the present surplus, but I guess that's inconvenient when we're puffing out our chests and lecturing others about controlling their spending. The economic downturn has hit red and blue states equally as hard. Texas is now projecting a $27 billion deficit that was covered up by Republican golden boy Rick Perry during the last election, but I suppose conservatives will find a way to blame that on Dems even though the state has been in Republican control for decades. Conservatives are going to have to accept that eventually tax rates will need to increase for the wealthy and for corporate America if we're ever going to seriously deal with these deficits at the federal and state level. 1
FargoBison Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 North Dakotans can pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves over the surplus, while at the same times rejoicing in the misfortune of other states if they see fit, but they should at least acknowledge the reality that prior to the oil boom the state was in as dire financial straights as most other states are finding themselves now. It should also be pointed out that absent the federal dollars that fill the holes in ND's budget, the state would be looking at a $1 billion dollar deficit instead of the present surplus, but I guess that's inconvenient when we're puffing out our chests and lecturing others about controlling their spending. The economic downturn has hit red and blue states equally as hard. Texas is now projecting a $27 billion deficit that was covered up by Republican golden boy Rick Perry during the last election, but I suppose conservatives will find a way to blame that on Dems even though the state has been in Republican control for decades. Conservatives are going to have to accept that eventually tax rates will need to increase for the wealthy and for corporate America if we're ever going to seriously deal with these deficits at the federal and state level. Two things before the oil boom ND wasn't running a deficit and wasn't in dire financial straights. Also not sure what federal money has to do with a state budget, or how you could even figure out that without the federal money the state would $1 billion in debt.
lomackman Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Shouldn't Conrad, Dorgan and Pomeroy have used their clout two years ago? First you need a project to use their power on and since there was no project how could they get the money?
yzerman19 Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 North Dakotans can pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves over the surplus, while at the same times rejoicing in the misfortune of other states if they see fit, but they should at least acknowledge the reality that prior to the oil boom the state was in as dire financial straights as most other states are finding themselves now. It should also be pointed out that absent the federal dollars that fill the holes in ND's budget, the state would be looking at a $1 billion dollar deficit instead of the present surplus, but I guess that's inconvenient when we're puffing out our chests and lecturing others about controlling their spending. The economic downturn has hit red and blue states equally as hard. Texas is now projecting a $27 billion deficit that was covered up by Republican golden boy Rick Perry during the last election, but I suppose conservatives will find a way to blame that on Dems even though the state has been in Republican control for decades. Conservatives are going to have to accept that eventually tax rates will need to increase for the wealthy and for corporate America if we're ever going to seriously deal with these deficits at the federal and state level. For the record, income does not equal wealth. The biggest problem (government included) is people repeatedly spending beyond their means. It is the driver of the housing market, the credit card debt issue, the uninsured issue, student loan debt issue... If you can't afford it, don't buy it. I understand that people make mistakes, but I for one, am tired of living within my means so that I can pay for others to live outside of theirs. Don't have health insurance? You better gd not have a new car, boat, gun, or tv in that house you can't afford! (not targeted at anyone on this board- just a rant) Also for the record, I am a resident of Minnesota, so I have no vested interest in NoDak not paying into the feds to bail out bankrupt states.
Bison Dan Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Conservatives are going to have to accept that eventually tax rates will need to increase for the wealthy and for corporate America if we're ever going to seriously deal with these deficits at the federal and state level. I think people like you that don't have a clue should have their taxes increased. Funny how it's always easy to say someone else should pay isn't?
Recommended Posts