Gov. Walker costs Wisconsin millions

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

again, it is extremely responsible to not accept 810 million when all you need is 24 million.

considering your political views, you should be mad at the guys in Washington that didnt give Walker his 24 million, not Walker for asking for it. whats up with that?

The 24 million was no longer available. It was immediately given to Illinois.

What do you think about Walker declining the federal funds, but then trying to get them back later? Would you view that as irresponsible?

Ooo - and aren't you happy Obama is FINALLY supporting overturn of DOMA? (see the new "respect for marriage act" I guess that would be RFMA)

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

The 24 million was no longer available. It was immediately given to Illinois.

What do you think about Walker declining the federal funds, but then trying to get them back later? Would you view that as irresponsible?

I find it responsible when it is a 24 : 810 ratio. if it was a 1 :1 ratio, very irresponsible.

and its a great thing that the budget is slashed to the bone. Washington should do the same thing. only what is absolutely needed should be spent. not the billions (trillions) of waste we have. its one thing if we had a surplus, but we dont (instead we have a monsterous deficit made by both parties) so we need to stop acting like we do.

[Antitrust32]

respect for marriage would make me feel better if it wasnt the Dems version of "cut, cap and whatever".

basically just words for voters with no hope of getting accomplished any time soon.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

respect for marriage would make me feel better if it wasnt the Dems version of "cut, cap and whatever".

basically just words for voters with no hope of getting accomplished any time soon.

It is just coming out of Committee. The Senate would pass it, the House is the question.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

It is just coming out of Committee. The Senate would pass it, the House is the question.

the articles I've read about it just make it out to be political jargon. A way for dem politicians to make one section of the voting public happy (gays), while at the same time not actually having to vote on it incase it makes another section of the voting public unhappy (some religious folks). Like I said, the same thing as cut cap and still spend too much (republicans trying to make the tea party happy while knowing it wont pass)

DOMA is so unconstitutional I have no idea how it is still a law.