The Stimulus did not create a SINGLE JOB

[B_starinvestor]

To be in the public eye talking about how the stimulus doesn't work to create a single job, then to take the money from it to fund programs that do create them and take the credit is hypocrisy. End of story. If they need the money, or take money to help their states, they should be (wo)man enough to admit it.

I think it is more complicated than that, VB.

Essentially, whether or not your state takes the money or not - the national debt/federal budget is borne by everyone. So to refuse those dollars would mean that your constituents are paying for the stimulus, but receiving no benefit.

It is the job of the politician to look out for his/her constituents. If he/she knowingly creates a situation where they are paying for federal programs and not receiving the product/benefit - (s)he has done a huge disservice to the constituents. Arguably the worst result imaginable under the premise of the public servant's role.

Wouldn't you agree with that?

 

[B_talltpaguy]

^No, I would look at the chain of events that occurred in an objective manner and conclude that they are hypocrites.

 

[B_spiker067]

Hahaha.

When the conservative politicians get asked. They will simply say, "I have to take the money or my constituents will be at at competitive disadvantage."

The electorate will get it and render the hypocrisy charge impotent.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

Hahaha.

When the conservative politicians get asked. They will simply say, "I have to take the money or my constituents will be at at competitive disadvantage."

The electorate will get it and render the hypocrisy charge impotent.

Be real bro... So long as he says he hates gays and Mexicans, he doesn't have to give any reason for being an incompetent fool, corrupt or even a hypocrite. Just profess his allegiance to Rush Limbaugh and the new 'conservative litmus test', and he's all set.

This is part of why politicians get reelected again and again, no matter if their Congressional voting records turn out to be on the correct side of issues over time or not. Because people are sheep, especially the cult-like party bases.

 

[SilverTrain]

Hahaha.

When the conservative politicians get asked. They will simply say, "I have to take the money or my constituents will be at at competitive disadvantage."

The electorate will get it and render the hypocrisy charge impotent.

Your glee is a bit difficult to understand.

Anyway, your estimation of "electorate" sophistication is vastly overshot.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I think it is more complicated than that, VB.

Essentially, whether or not your state takes the money or not - the national debt/federal budget is borne by everyone. So to refuse those dollars would mean that your constituents are paying for the stimulus, but receiving no benefit.

It is the job of the politician to look out for his/her constituents. If he/she knowingly creates a situation where they are paying for federal programs and not receiving the product/benefit - (s)he has done a huge disservice to the constituents. Arguably the worst result imaginable under the premise of the public servant's role.

Wouldn't you agree with that?

If this is all true, then why say it doesn't work when it clearly does? This goes beyond feeling obligated to take the money, or feeling like their state is paying for something that they don't receive. I know using the words honesty and politician in the same sentence is an oxymoron these days, but it's too bad that the hypocrites who take the money, bask in the glory on a local scale and denounce it publicly on a national scale feel that it's perfectly fine to exploit such a double standard for the "hope" of rallying more people behind them to win seats in 2010/12.

 

[B_starinvestor]

If this is all true, then why say it doesn't work when it clearly does? This goes beyond feeling obligated to take the money, or feeling like their state is paying for something that they don't receive. I know using the words honesty and politician in the same sentence is an oxymoron these days, but it's too bad that the hypocrites who take the money, bask in the glory on a local scale and denounce it publicly on a national scale feel that it's perfectly fine to exploit such a double standard for the "hope" of rallying more people behind them to win seats in 2010/12.

they are all pretty lame, indeed

 

[B_spiker067]

Your glee is a bit difficult to understand.

Glee!?!

hahaha.

and that's your problem.

 

[lucky8]

I hadn't thought it was racist. Congress is mostly white and monkey, if intended as a racial stab, usually refers to black. Interesting that your first reaction ran to that.

My comment was straightforward. Statements like the one you made are tossed around a lot for effect. But what is the real commentary behind it?

I was stating that politicians care more about their own electability and finger pointing than they do representing their contituents...monkeys with opposable thumbs indeed

 

[SilverTrain]

I was stating that politicians care more about their own electability and finger pointing than they do representing their contituents...

Well, that I can certainly agree with.

 

[lucky8]

You would have to cite those new laws before I believed they were ostensibly 'liberal' in nature.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

American Clean Energy Act

Cybersecurty Act

Credit Card Act of 2009

to name a few biggies...

 

[B_talltpaguy]

Pretty much the only group of people on the planet who would consider such measures to be 'liberal' are US Republicans.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Pretty much the only group of people on the planet who would consider such measures to be 'liberal' are US Republicans.

And "liberal" is a dirty word... very, VERY dirty.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. :biggrin1:

 

[MalakingTiti]

Republicans are assholes.