TexasCHLforum.com

BTW folks...

The one big issue I believe we are missing is not so much the gun-control agenda he supports, but the way he wants to inject the Federal government onto the states fiscal and feduciary (money and budget) processes and our state laws to the issue...

Bobby Jindal got it right on the money for Louisiana...He rejected the entire "stimulus package" because of many thing including the big one...

In accepting the federal stimulus money a state would be required to change its law in regards to the way unemployment funds are collected, maintained and distributed...

A PERMANENT change to the state law, if needed would be required in the acceptance of the unemployment funds in the money going to a state to allow the Federal government to be able to interject its way into how the state does its business, in regards to that money being handled...

Basically the Federal government would dictate policy from here on out...And it would be permanent in how that is done...

The States would have to raise taxes to cover dificiencies in the balance not doled out by the Feds...Therefore when the Fed money is gone (2-3 years tops), states would have to raise taxes (on everyone) to make up for any deficiencies...And when those taxes are raised, it might not necessarily be for just that state...The Feds can distribute higher tax performing states revenue to states that are not performing as well...

Remember the whole "spread the wealth" statement from Obama???

The strings attached by the Feds on this stimulus money are not strings...They are heavy mooring lines used by ships to secure them to piers...

Be mindful of the big picture on this stuff...I believe we are in big trouble, and since former democrat Gov. Rick Perry has decided to accept the stimulus money for Texas...We may have to keep our gas tank full for the duration of this experiment like we do for hurricane season...I want to be able to get out (of where we are) when the bubble bursts to higher ground...

Just my opinion...

Liberty wrote:

KRM45 wrote:

Liberty wrote: As was mentioned he hasn't had anything to do with HR45, which isn't a threat to go anyway.
I don't believe that anything he had a legal right to say before he was inaugerated as President is an impeachable offence. Hey, I don't like the guy much, but lets wait till he commits an impeachable offense before we try him.

I didn't vote for the man, but he won fair and square. He deserves a chance.

He deserves a lot of things I can think of. A chance is one of them.

I was thinking "change" instead of "chance"...