SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Knighty Tin who wrote (122503)5/7/2010 9:49:42 AM
From: longnshort2 Recommendations  Respond to of 132070
 
Obama sure loves BP monies, I see he's not returning any of it.



To: Knighty Tin who wrote (122503)5/7/2010 9:56:52 AM
From: Freedom Fighter  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 132070
 
KT,

>>Meanwhile, Governor Jindl of Louisiana seems to be waffling from his concept that states' rights mean the Fed leaves them alone to take care of their problems the way they want. He is asking for unprecedented monies from the Feds. States' rights only work during prosperous times when there are no problems. In other times it's "Send in the Marines! Now!"<<

I think most people that support state rights think there are some rare occasions when the Federal government has a role.

When an oil spill threatens "multiple" states and the federal government has the means to help, it would be foolish to not use them.

What would be foolish is using the federal government to bail out some of these states and then allowing them to continue doing the same exact stupid things.

We don't want large numbers of people living in hurricane zones, earthquake zones, below sea level so when levies break they get flooded, or doing unsafe drilling off shore etc... We want to encourage them to move to places and behave in ways that make these disasters less likely to occur etc...

If you keep bailing these imbeciles out and allowing things to continue as they were you are making the entire country responsible for the foolishness of a few with a kind of federal government backstop insurance. That's doubly foolish.




To: Knighty Tin who wrote (122503)5/7/2010 10:46:19 AM
From: hdl1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 132070
 
it is against the law to change the law like that after the fact - ex post facto. it is also against the law to make a law that applies to one party - i.e. BP.