Besides, Sanford has been writing op-eds for pretty much anyone who will have them these days-CNN, the WSJ, the State Newspaper-I don’t think his view is suffering from underexposure.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123759827524401409.html

After the money is dispersed, will it be that now we have a taste for what some perceive as free money, is it not natural that people will demand more? Have we opened a fresh Pandora’s box of fiscal irresponsibility? We could all use more money, no matter how much we have, after all.

Any personal financial advisor tells a person facing debt issues that paying it down is a grand idea, but not at the expense of income or basic living expenses.

While I am not a fan of the new federal stimulus package (we borrowed the money from somewhere going deeper into debt) the idea behind it has merit. It seeks to bring funding to help with basic infrastructure needs and as a result bring jobs directly related to that infrastructure. The hopes it will spur more economic growth

What I think Governer Sanford should be doing is seeing how we can get more bang for our buck with these incoming funds, so that our state’s tax revenue starts climbing upward again. All while he and the state legislature look at their own budget and see how state agencies can live within their means while keeping systems like our educational needs intact and vibrant. Maybe they all need to take some unpaid furloughs now and then, and eliminate all unessential expense in their own offices…Now that’s an idea.

Eat a slice of pizza for me at the Blog meet. Work has me stuck there til nine PM.

I think Sanford’s view is more of the long term moral view, but people do need help as soon as they can get it now. It’ll never be enough though, and it’s my hopes that these bailouts don’t become a regular thing, just because the price of living increase from added money in the system will make it harder on everyone as well, even moreso.

I understand some good things can be done with this money in the short term, its the collection methods I’m really against, and long term consequences too in the bigger picture.
..You yourself might not feel extorted from, and most people may just say, that’s the way it is, death and taxes, and all that, but that still doesn’t mean it’s right, at all, ..and that’s not my opinion, it’s an empirical observation that stands universally true, as in it’s unethical.
..As we claim to be civilized country, particularly one that heralds freedom and equality, it seems like we might would use a better system then one that is fundamentally funded by the threat of force and violence over its own citizens.

Is Obama really going to come through with that ending the war stuff ya think? ..because I’ll just have to believe it when I see it myself.

I’d love to go to the blogger meetup, I can possibly take a day off, but I won’t know for sure till Tuesday or so probably. If so though, let’s not argue, just talk, debate, or whatever, but with not with out mouths full, even though that is some dang good pizza.

Before you go: Are you coming to the blogger meet-up on the 26th? We need to argue in person over pizza.

I’m about to embark on a fabulous weekend journey through Spartanburg, announcing my future, few day absence on here. Sorry to postpone our conversation on this, but maybe I’ll some of ya’ll out and we can chat.

I mean, the whole point of the stimulus bill is to start the economy moving again by introducing a flood of cash into a machine that has frozen up due to a chilling effect on lending. Paying down the state’s debt won’t do anything to start that up again, and it certainly won’t put anyone back to work.

Plus, the debt he’s trying to pay exists because of the decisions of S.C. lawmakers — it’s South Carolina’s debt alone — and the stimulus spending is meant to create jobs and fund programs specifically to put the state’s economy back in motion. He’s basically trying to use aid money to pay for the state’s other, completely unrelated spending.

It’s about as unethical as you can get to use relief money like that.

Will paying down $700 million in State Government debt help anyone get a job? No. Will it help initiate new programs that will make the state more competitive? No. Will it help rebuild the infrastructure? No. Will it do anything other than slightly reduce the state’s interest payments? No.

And I’d argue that it’s actually wildly unethical, since it’s trying to subvert money from it’s actual purpose of relief and quite literally hurting people to do so.

It’s almost exactly as if the Feds approved, say, $700 million in emergency funds to address hurricane damage in Charleston, and Sanford then said “I’d rather not repair the damage, I’d rather use this money to lower the state’s debt and let all those homeless people fend for themselves under the existing underfunded programs.” Replace “hurricane” with “economic meltdown” and “homeless” with “jobless”, and you start to see exactly how ethically and morally wrong his actions are.

But it’s great publicity for people who like the IDEA of what he’s doing. He’s saying no to Obama — a liberal who actually clearly won an election — and he’s trying to keep South Carolina a Republican stronghold. Who cares that it’s making this state a laughingstock? Or that, if he’s successful, it’ll mean that S.C. just doesn’t get that money and the Federal government will find some other way to spend it.

I’m not totally defending Sanford, as he is trying, maybe hopelessly, to do the ethical thing, what you guys call, “playing politics.” To his credit though, short-sightedness is synonymous with irresponsibility, and that’s what the author, and these mayors, are demanding.

This money everyone wants is debt we’ll have to pay later, spending it on building things that takes money to maintain is just going to add to the pile. How about living within our means for a change, ya think? We’re gonna have to tighten our belt, either now, or even more so down the road.

Even though paying existing debt with this money is like using one credit card to pay off another, it’s better then going on a shopping spree, just making things even more dire.

Everyone admits this money is a short term solution to what is obviously a long term problem. To use this money wisely would involve not creating any more debt then absolutely necessary. Isn’t that plain as day? (Hello? McFly?)

It is speculation that he is posturing for a presidential bid. Even though it may be true that he has plans to run, the condemnation of him speaking out against what is obviously a step in the wrong direction financially for the state, saying it’s simply posturing, is avoiding the issue and is not a forthright approach to what the authors argument is, which seems to be.. give us something for nothing, and screw the consequences!!

Lets hope our governor and our state legislature at least work at the jobs we elected them to. I personally am getting rather tired of all their shenanigans.

It takes some gall to act so dismissive toward a fellow citizen on national television who is not only speaking for himself, but for many others in a similarly dire situation, about how he is two seconds away from hitting rock bottom thanks to politics, and then to simply respond, “Oh hello Charleston, I’m from there too… I’ll pray for you.” Sanford’s words were completely empty, because he disavows all responsibility for South Carolina’s people when it comes to their situation by laying it all on some mysterious power above and beyond. As if to say, “Your life is in God’s hands…” What a cheap shot.