Can a conservative explain Amendment 10?

[Expect2Win]

Why on Earth is it a problem that the governor is not spending money?
It seems to me Governor Nixon has been fairly fiscally responsible, and not spending money he is not sure that we have.
Isn't that a conservative principle?

 

[Duck_walk]

Uhhhhh. The conservatards on this board can't explain much of anything.
Especially not law, economics, or science. MillerLeach, Droptard, and Pout4u certainly can't explain
anything requiring words with more than two syllables.

 

[Drop.Tine]

Originally posted by Duck_walk:
Uhhhhh. The conservatards on this board can't explain much of anything.
Especially not law, economics, or science. MillerLeach, Droptard, and Pout4u certainly can't explain
anything requiring words with more than two syllables.

Are you this emotionally inept in real life as well? #dramaqueen #growup

 

[Duck_walk]

Like Howard Cowell I tell it like it is.

 

[Veer2Eternity]

Originally posted by Expect2Win:
Why on Earth is it a problem that the governor is not spending money?
It seems to me Governor Nixon has been fairly fiscally responsible, and not spending money he is not sure that we have.
Isn't that a conservative principle?

Republiberalcans are not conservative.

 

[Black&Gold82]

Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

Originally posted by Expect2Win:
Why on Earth is it a problem that the governor is not spending money?
It seems to me Governor Nixon has been fairly fiscally responsible, and not spending money he is not sure that we have.
Isn't that a conservative principle?

Republiberalcans are not conservative.

Coming from the guy with the hope and change bumper sticker.

 

[HannibalLector]

Originally posted by Black&Gold82:

Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

Originally posted by Expect2Win:
Why on Earth is it a problem that the governor is not spending money?
It seems to me Governor Nixon has been fairly fiscally responsible, and not spending money he is not sure that we have.
Isn't that a conservative principle?

Republiberalcans are not conservative.

Coming from the guy with the hope and change bumper sticker.

Coming from the guy who has two KU bumper stickers.

 

[Stevedangos]

Nixon is withholding allocated funds for political reasons. Nixon is a weasel

 

[Expect2Win]

What reason is that?

 

[Black&Gold82]

Originally posted by HannibalLector:

Originally posted by Black&Gold82:

Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

Originally posted by Expect2Win:
Why on Earth is it a problem that the governor is not spending money?
It seems to me Governor Nixon has been fairly fiscally responsible, and not spending money he is not sure that we have.
Isn't that a conservative principle?

Republiberalcans are not conservative.

Coming from the guy with the hope and change bumper sticker.

Coming from the guy who has two KU bumper stickers.

Now that's just mean.

 

[Veer2Eternity]

Originally posted by Black&Gold82:

Originally posted by HannibalLector:

Originally posted by Black&Gold82:

Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

Originally posted by Expect2Win:
Why on Earth is it a problem that the governor is not spending money?
It seems to me Governor Nixon has been fairly fiscally responsible, and not spending money he is not sure that we have.
Isn't that a conservative principle?

Republiberalcans are not conservative.

Coming from the guy with the hope and change bumper sticker.

Coming from the guy who has two KU bumper stickers.

Now that's just mean.

He's seen your Prius?

 

[Neutron Monster]

They only want this power when its an R governor, it's that simple.

One must point out that Nixon's decision to hold back spending has been prudent since the revenue is short of what was projected. The counter to that is the legislature would likely have picked different places to spend less than he did.

 

[Black&Gold82]

Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

Originally posted by Black&Gold82:

Originally posted by HannibalLector:

Originally posted by Black&Gold82:

Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

Originally posted by Expect2Win:
Why on Earth is it a problem that the governor is not spending money?
It seems to me Governor Nixon has been fairly fiscally responsible, and not spending money he is not sure that we have.
Isn't that a conservative principle?

Republiberalcans are not conservative.

Coming from the guy with the hope and change bumper sticker.

Coming from the guy who has two KU bumper stickers.

Now that's just mean.

He's seen your Prius?

Can't drive a Prius. Doesn't hold enough beer. I have that gas guzzling, jacked up V-8 phallic symbol.

 

[Veer2Eternity]

Originally posted by Stevedangos:
Nixon is withholding allocated funds for political reasons. Nixon is a weasel

GOP is never for spending cuts ^^^

Stinkin' libs make me sick.

 

[millerbleach]

Amendment 10 is an attempt to curb the Governor from acting unilaterally. That seems reasonable to me. It would equal less government control by an individual. This would also apply to GOP Governors.

 

[Veer2Eternity]

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Amendment 10 is an attempt to curb the Governor from acting unilaterally. That seems reasonable to me. It would equal less government control by an individual. This would also apply to GOP Governors.

The governor can withold spending if revenue falls short. Why is the GOP against that?

 

[Expect2Win]

Did you mean D governor?

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Amendment 10 is an attempt to curb the Governor from acting unilaterally. That seems reasonable to me. It would equal less government control by an individual. This would also apply to GOP Governors.

The governor can withold spending if revenue falls short. Why is the GOP against that?

I don't know why the GOP is for or against anything.
The Amendment would remove that ability.
I amin favor of requiring as many votes as possible to do anything. I guess you just like one person rule.

 

[Veer2Eternity]

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Amendment 10 is an attempt to curb the Governor from acting unilaterally. That seems reasonable to me. It would equal less government control by an individual. This would also apply to GOP Governors.

The governor can withold spending if revenue falls short. Why is the GOP against that?

I don't know why the GOP is for or against anything.
The Amendment would remove that ability.
I amin favor of requiring as many votes as possible to do anything. I guess you just like one person rule.

The governor can withold spending if revenue falls short.

What conservative could rationalize being against that?

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

The governor can withold spending if revenue falls short.

What conservative could rationalize being against that?

The Governor isn't the spending (or restraining) arm of government. It doesn't matter who the executive is or what the spending is. It is not the role of the executive.

If the Governor wants to cut education spending, submit a budget to do so!

 

[Veer2Eternity]

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

The governor can withold spending if revenue falls short.

What conservative could rationalize being against that?

The Governor isn't the spending (or restraining) arm of government. It doesn't matter who the executive is or what the spending is. It is not the role of the executive.

If the Governor wants to cut education spending, submit a budget to do so!

Why does the GOP want to change the constitution? Why do they hate Missouri!!!!????

It's sad so many lemmings buy this crap.

 

[millerbleach]

I guess you missed this.

Gov. Nixon has used his executive powers to reduce or withhold funding for budgeted programs that were appropriated by the General Assembly. Oftentimes, this was done even when revenues were meeting projected income.

 

[Veer2Eternity]

Originally posted by millerbleach:

I guess you missed this.

Gov. Nixon has used his executive powers to reduce or withhold funding for budgeted programs that were appropriated by the General Assembly. Oftentimes, this was done even when revenues were meeting projected income.

1) Which GOPer wrote this?
2) What conservative would want to change the constitution to enable more spending?

You republiberalcans are lemmings.

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

1) Which GOPer wrote this?
2) What conservative would want to change the constitution to enable more spending?

1) Don't know. Are you saying it's not true?
2) More spending? Spending what has been legislated and funded is more? It requires paying obligations (debts), can only use actual funds (not proposed funds), and limits executive power. WHAT is wrong with those? Why won't you answer that question?

 

[Veer2Eternity]

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

1) Which GOPer wrote this?
2) What conservative would want to change the constitution to enable more spending?

1) Don't know. Are you saying it's not true?
2) More spending? Spending what has been legislated and funded is more? It requires paying obligations (debts), can only use actual funds (not proposed funds), and limits executive power. WHAT is wrong with those? Why won't you answer that question?

More spending is bad if you're a conservative. You're a GOP lemming so you can't even think for yourself.
MO's constitution is written as it is for a reason. Why change it when it's not broke?

ITS COMMON SENSE TO CUT SPENDING WHEN THERE AREN'T REVENUES.

And if a politician is typing or talking they're lying.

If it was a dumocrap you'd discount it as biased propaganda.

Lemmings.

 

[Buck Commander]

Originally posted by millerbleach:

I don't know why the GOP is for or against anything.

Understatement of the year...

 

[Duck_walk]

Peace be with Miller. Just sayin.

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

1) Which GOPer wrote this?
2) What conservative would want to change the constitution to enable more spending?

1) Don't know. Are you saying it's not true?
2) More spending? Spending what has been legislated and funded is more? It requires paying obligations (debts), can only use actual funds (not proposed funds), and limits executive power. WHAT is wrong with those? Why won't you answer that question?

More spending is bad if you're a conservative. You're a GOP lemming so you can't even think for yourself.
MO's constitution is written as it is for a reason. Why change it when it's not broke?

ITS COMMON SENSE TO CUT SPENDING WHEN THERE AREN'T REVENUES.

And if a politician is typing or talking they're lying.

If it was a dumocrap you'd discount it as biased propaganda.

Lemmings.

You continue to hide. Why would you want ONE person to decide anything?

You have shown no evidence there weren't enough revenues. He was projecting a shortfall.....did it materialize?

I'm opposed to almost all spending and would support the Governors action whole heartedly if it was legislated.

 

[3Rfan]

You're opposed to almost all spending? If that's true just what do you consider spending? It takes a LOT of spending to run a state or a country.

 

[millerbleach]

I did say ALMOST all.
There are legitimate State expenses and less Federal. I would prefer counties and cities fund their own needs rather than the state.

 

[3Rfan]

How would that not be spending? It's all tax money no matter what level of government doles it out. The Poplar Bluff city counsel fired our city manager of 10 years who has worked for the city in some capacity most of his life and hired a new city manager who is being paid over $30k MORE than the old one. He in turn has hired and assistant for himself at $15 an hour, a grant writer at $60k per year and an assistant to the grant writer at $12 an hour. NONE of these positions existed under the previous city manager. The new guy says he is certain the grant writer can come up with enough grant money to cover the cost of the new positions. I guess he doesn't know the grant money will come from TAX DOLLARS.

This post was edited on 10/31 10:06 PM by 3Rfan

 

[Veer2Eternity]

Originally posted by millerbleach:
I did say ALMOST all.
There are legitimate State expenses and less Federal. I would prefer counties and cities fund their own needs rather than the state.

Constitution of the Great State of Missouri gave the governor power to limit the spending when revenues weren't there.

GOP is just ticked they didn't get their pet projects/pork. This isn't a move toward conservatism by the GOP and the folks that keep voting these guys in just aren't able to see it for whatever reason.

Stinkin' liberals.

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

Originally posted by millerbleach:
I did say ALMOST all.
There are legitimate State expenses and less Federal. I would prefer counties and cities fund their own needs rather than the state.

Constitution of the Great State of Missouri gave the governor power to limit the spending when revenues weren't there.

1st, you have yet to show they weren't there.
2nd, that would be the reason for the AMENDMENT. That is what AMENDMENTS do, they AMEND the constitution!
3rd, does that mean YOU support one man decisions on federal or state spending?

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by 3Rfan:
How would that not be spending? It's all tax money no matter what level of government doles it out.

If I and my neighbors decide to spend our money fixing OUR road, it must need fixed. When the state decides to fix OUR road, it may just be the money was allocated and thus spent. Whether schools, roads, libraries, or storm drains, the more local the decisions the more likely the need.

 

[Neutron Monster]

That sounds good in theory but it's not at all true. Localities can and do spend money very poorly just as they can spend it well.

 

[Veer2Eternity]

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Originally posted by 3Rfan:
How would that not be spending? It's all tax money no matter what level of government doles it out.

If I and my neighbors decide to spend our money fixing OUR road, it must need fixed. When the state decides to fix OUR road, it may just be the money was allocated and thus spent. Whether schools, roads, libraries, or storm drains, the more local the decisions the more likely the need.

But you'll vote for Amendment three that does the exact opposite.

Brilliant!!!!

 

[3Rfan]

You and your neighbor can fix YOUR road and spend as much as you want. Our new city manager is spending like a drunken sailor and he's only been on the job for a couple of months. He gave the city's insurance coverage to a firm from LONDON, ENGLAND with their closest office in St.Louis, rather than a local company whose bid was $17,000 LOWER. He another company from Texas and one from Michigan to things that could be done by local companies and keep the money in THIS town. If his new grant writer can come up with enough money to cover the expense of her job and the other two P.B. has never needed before that's fine. That just means YOU will be helping to pay their salaries since that grant money will come from state or federal funds. Maybe you would like to pick up a couple of my house payments while you're at it.

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by Neutron Monster:
That sounds good in theory but it's not at all true. Localities can and do spend money very poorly just as they can spend it well.

Sure they can. You also know exactly where to place blame. The higher up the government ladder things go the less acountability there is.