|
|
Post by Cepha on May 28, 2009 12:40:43 GMT -5
If Rick Perry didn't want the Stimulus Money and spoke at Teabagger Rallies against it, then why is he using the money to refurbish his mansion in Texas after swearing that he wouldn't take a dime? news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090521/ap_on_re_us/us_governor_s_mansion_texasStimulus funds to repair Texas Governor's MansionAUSTIN, Texas – While Gov. Rick Perry is criticizing Washington bailouts, state lawmakers are planning to use $11 million in federal stimulus money to help rebuild the badly burned Texas Governor's Mansion.
Approximately $10 million in state tax money will also be spent on a renovation, which is expected to cost about $20 million, officials said Thursday. A House-Senate committee agreed on the expenditures late Wednesday night.
Perry has railed against federal bailouts and what he called the free-spending, power-hungry ways of Washington. In January, he said Texas was endangered by Uncle Sam's "audacity."  |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 28, 2009 13:32:51 GMT -5
Ok, so this is his house, or a government building?
And if his house...why would the house/senate approve it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 28, 2009 13:44:43 GMT -5
Ok, so this is his house, or a government building? And if his house...why would the house/senate approve it? It's the Governor's Mansion (belongs to the state). But! When it comes to the working man, he won't take the money. But when it comes to fixing the Governors Mansion, then he takes the money! Texas Gov. Rick Perry still opposes accepting
stimulus money for unemployment benefitswww.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-perry_23tex.ART.State.Edition1.4ad958f.htmlMeanwhile! The Texas Taxpayer is paying over $9,000. a month for him to live in a fancy house! |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 28, 2009 13:50:43 GMT -5
Perry just does not want to let Obama have his hand dangling over him. I can understand, we dont need the government to own everything..
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 28, 2009 13:55:07 GMT -5
Perry just does not want to let Obama have his hand dangling over him. I can understand, we dont need the government to own everything.. Oh, but he can impose "his" hand over the unemployed citizens of Texas and deny them their rights to receive relief from the same government that they paid taxes into? He certainly didn't mind taking the money to fix the mansion did he? It's ok for his residence to be fixed up, but the working man who paid into those taxes that are going to fixing up the mansion dont' have the right to get helped when they need it! There is no excuse for that! And guess what, when you are part of the United States of America and The United States of America's military is defending your freedom, you owe us for that freedom! That means, pay your taxes like every other good True Blue American in this country! If he doesn't like it, he can move to Russia! LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 28, 2009 15:57:16 GMT -5
First of all texas unemployment does pay people when they get laid off.... whats the beef?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 29, 2009 10:59:24 GMT -5
First of all texas unemployment does pay people when they get laid off.... whats the beef? The beef is that Perry refused Stimulus Money allocated to extend relief to the unemployed of Texas. That was their money that they paid into with their taxes, and he, just to make a political statement, refused the money leaving those unemployed Texans who paid this money into the federal government in the first place out of the money. What, are you going to put the Governor over the working man of Texas too? And it's not just him, but the other Republican Governors in The South did it too... www.politicalarticles.net/blog/tag/stimulus-racists-mark-sanford-bobby-jindal-rick-perry-haley-barbour/Several GOP governors, including Rick Perry of Texas, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Haley Barbour of Mississippi, have said they would reject a portion of the money that would expand unemployment benefits to those not currently eligible to receive them. |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 29, 2009 15:48:13 GMT -5
Cepha, we all get unemployment checks if we qualify so we dont need anymore government money, ya see? There is no problem in that department.
And, if you are soo SURE that jobs are about to become easier to get...then why do we need extensions? Benefits last at least 6months anyhow!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 30, 2009 9:29:59 GMT -5
Cepha, we all get unemployment checks if we qualify so we dont need anymore government money, ya see? There is no problem in that department. Tell that to the families who can't get work right now because the economy was destroyed by poor policies. If you were unemployed, you'd reject money that you previously paid into that The Government wanted to give back to you so that you wouldn't have to depend on welfare? That doesn't make any sense. Why would you pay into Unemployment Insurance and then not want the money back when you became unemployed so that you could feed your children and pay your bills when you couldn't get work? Because, as our President said, we can't undo in months what took years to wrought. There are people who aren't going to be able to be employed right away with the new jobs because their jobs were shipped overseas (due to the lack of business regulations during the past 8 years...guess who we can thank for that?). So, they will have to be retrained. Part of the Stimulus Package is for retraining American Workers for new jobs so that they can get off of welfare and unemployment and can once again become tax paying citizens. Why would anybody be against helping out Americans? I never understood that. |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on May 30, 2009 9:51:33 GMT -5
And, if you are soo SURE that jobs are about to become easier to get...then why do we need extensions? Because people don't look for jobs until their unemployment runs out. Instead of extensions they should shorten the time period you can collect money. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 30, 2009 9:57:32 GMT -5
And, if you are soo SURE that jobs are about to become easier to get...then why do we need extensions? Because people don't look for jobs until their unemployment runs out. Instead of extensions they should shorten the time period you can collect money. So, if there's no work, the person who cannot get work has to go on welfare then? |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on May 30, 2009 10:13:39 GMT -5
Because people don't look for jobs until their unemployment runs out. Instead of extensions they should shorten the time period you can collect money. So, if there's no work, the person who cannot get work has to go on welfare then? I work at our local steel mill where the majority of people have been laid off. Between collecting unemployment, sub-pay from the company and extra money from the stimulus package they are receiving almost as much as when they were working. Why are they going to look for jobs.? You would be stupid to. Many of the people I talked to are planning on traveling on vacation for three or four months. By the way the average worker in my mill earns (with overtime) 70,000 a year. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 30, 2009 10:34:09 GMT -5
Why are they going to look for jobs.? You would be stupid to. That's on them. If they've earned that money, they deserve to get it back when they need it. And if they want to take trips like Big Corp CEO's do, why not? They've earned them. It's not like the government is paying for the trips (like they've done for Big Corp Executives). |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on May 30, 2009 11:47:25 GMT -5
Why are they going to look for jobs.? You would be stupid to. That's on them. If they've earned that money, they deserve to get it back when they need it. And if they want to take trips like Big Corp CEO's do, why not? They've earned them. It's not like the government is paying for the trips (like they've done for Big Corp Executives). So at what point do you stop the extensions? I get 52 weeks of unemployment in the state of Ohio. I'm one of the few who are trying to get another job. At what point does the unemployment money stop being the steel workers money? And when it does run out and some of these people end up without a job then they shouldn't place all of the blame on the government. These people have plenty of time to look for a job during the week and it is even possible they might end up with a better job then what they previously had. Besides, I thought most of unemployment was paid for by the company ...not the workers? And if most people getting unemployment aren't looking for jobs (and don't tell me they are) then don't use unemployment statistics to gage the economy. |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 31, 2009 22:07:36 GMT -5
Because people don't look for jobs until their unemployment runs out. Instead of extensions they should shorten the time period you can collect money. So, if there's no work, the person who cannot get work has to go on welfare then? There is allways a job out there...you might just have to swallow your pride and take a lower income job. McDonalds always hiring! |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 31, 2009 22:10:04 GMT -5
That's on them. If they've earned that money, they deserve to get it back when they need it. And if they want to take trips like Big Corp CEO's do, why not? They've earned them. It's not like the government is paying for the trips (like they've done for Big Corp Executives). So at what point do you stop the extensions? I get 52 weeks of unemployment in the state of Ohio. I'm one of the few who are trying to get another job. At what point does the unemployment money stop being the steel workers money? And when it does run out and some of these people end up without a job then they shouldn't place all of the blame on the government. These people have plenty of time to look for a job during the week and it is even possible they might end up with a better job then what they previously had. Besides, I thought most of unemployment was paid for by the company ...not the workers? And if most people getting unemployment aren't looking for jobs (and don't tell me they are) then don't use unemployment statistics to gage the economy. Thats what im saying...if you get a year of unemployment and you still dont have a job because you cant get off your lazy ass...then you deserve to be sitting on the corner begging for money, or work at McDonalds... |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 31, 2009 22:20:28 GMT -5
My husband makes less than people that work at McDonalds. That is how totally messed up our country's Capitalist system is (and healthcare system). So what do you think he does for a living? Clean toilets? (actually they probably get paid much more than him too) No. He works for "Valley Mental Health Care" taking care of disabled adults. Is that the best our country can do?
My husband has a BA of sociology, worked as a charge nurse for 5 years at an assisted living facility and has a lot of other experience in social work. I just hope that he can at least get a decent job after he goes to Grad school for 3 years and we put ourselves like 60,000$ in debt to pay for his MSW.
Are we on "welfare"? Yes, foodstamps and medicaid and I really don't care if anyone thinks we are "lazy" or blah-blah whatever the right-wingers always say. My husband works full time (and until recently had 2 jobs), I am an artist and stay home with my daughter--right now I am taking care of 6 kids (3 are my sisters).
I don't feel guilty at all that we use "welfare". It's not our fault these companies don't pay people a living wage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 1, 2009 9:14:17 GMT -5
That's on them. If they've earned that money, they deserve to get it back when they need it. And if they want to take trips like Big Corp CEO's do, why not? They've earned them. It's not like the government is paying for the trips (like they've done for Big Corp Executives). So at what point do you stop the extensions? I think that they should be based on each geographical area. If there is abundant work in an area and a person supposedly "can't" get a job, then they should'nt get any help. I see that as just that person not wanting to work enough. But in an area where a steady industry has vanished, then I believe that the workforce should get retrained for needed jobs and they should get up to a year of assistance. After that year is up, if they can't find work where they live, then they should move to where the work "is". For those persons who've worked a long time and have paid a substantial amount into unemployment insurance, they should be allowed to use it up as much as they've paid into it (if they have say 10 years in and are entitled to 2 years of relief, they should get it regardless).  Depends where. Most UI is paid by workers though (from withholding taxes). |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 1, 2009 10:16:40 GMT -5
My husband makes less than people that work at McDonalds. That is how totally messed up our country's Capitalist system is (and healthcare system). So what do you think he does for a living? Clean toilets? (actually they probably get paid much more than him too) No. He works for "Valley Mental Health Care" taking care of disabled adults. Is that the best our country can do? My husband has a BA of sociology, worked as a charge nurse for 5 years at an assisted living facility and has a lot of other experience in social work. I just hope that he can at least get a decent job after he goes to Grad school for 3 years and we put ourselves like 60,000$ in debt to pay for his MSW. Are we on "welfare"? Yes, foodstamps and medicaid and I really don't care if anyone thinks we are "lazy" or blah-blah whatever the right-wingers always say. My husband works full time (and until recently had 2 jobs), I am an artist and stay home with my daughter--right now I am taking care of 6 kids (3 are my sisters). I don't feel guilty at all that we use "welfare". It's not our fault these companies don't pay people a living wage. That's alright. Despite the lies that most people on welfare are lazy single minority mothers, the fact is that most people on welfare are "not" minorities, are "not" lazy and are actually women with working husbands. That's what welfare is for, to help those in need when times are tough (as they've been for the past 8 years. I just walked away from a job making $100,000. a year to go back to working for myself. More money working for myself. But I'd never deny a person who had less than me any of my bread. Especially if they were at least working to make a better life. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jun 1, 2009 12:33:17 GMT -5
Doesn't it bother you though, that someone who is caring for disabled persons should receive less money than someone working at McDonalds?
It's really unfair to the disabled persons. My husband only took the job because he couldn't find anything else in this town. Most of the people that work there are--I'm sorry--really crazy, because who would want to work there making a little more than minimum wage and no benefits? So they end up with people working there that probably couldn't care less about the people they are helping. My husband is the exception, he really takes good care of the residents because to him he is serving Christ instead of the company he works for.
|
|
