This free money isn't

The Washington Times ^ | March 7, 2009 | Paul Greenberg

[Scanian]

Hey,it's free money! Isn't that what they always say - they being state and local officials, and the money being federal grants?

We, as in We the People, aren't supposed to notice the strings attached to federal funds, or the unintended consequences that may result from taking them.

Maybe every federal grant should come with a warning label: Taking this money could have deleterious effects on your fiscal health.

Consider the offer of increased federal funding for states that agree to expand their unemployment benefits. A state can't lose on a deal like that, right?

Wrong. Because the states would have to increase their benefits permanently; the stimulus package lasts only two years.

Those states that take the money might also have to provide benefits for a lot of folks who now don't qualify for them.

Tennessee's Gov. Phil Bredesen noticed the catch. "We are evaluating this piece of money," he says, "whether it makes sense for us to take it."

[allmost]

It’s a theft from the people, and a power grab from the federal government. Socialism.

[Dilbert San Diego]

I thought that the Obamabots were mad at state governors who didn’t want the Porkulus money. I thought somebody said it was racist not to take Porkulus funds because black residents would be disproportionately hurt if these evil Republican governors wanted to know what strings were attached, and decide if they really wanted the money.

[allmost]

I think you are racist for asking. How dare you? Where’s sharpton?

[Cindy]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2136635/posts

“Are you looking for a job?”

Note: This thread is updated on a regular basis.

[Son House]

they being state and local officials, and the money being federal grants

.
And where would Federal Grants get their funding? /sarcasm intended