I’m getting more than a little tired of Arnold the RINO decrying hypocrites in his ostensible party, who supposedly rail about the Porkustimulus bill, while going out to cut ribbons at events funded by it and taking credit for them. And yet somehow, he never provides an actual example.
I’m willing to believe that such people exist (Republicans do have some repugnant people in the party, Scharzenegger being quite prominent among them), but if you’re going to damn the party to which you claim to belong in such a way, it would seem that, at a minimum, one should offer some evidence for it. Or admit that one is just blowing it out his…abs. And of course, the press (in this case Greta) never calls him on it.
Well, here’s a list of every Texas Republican who bashed the stimulus while arguing for their constituents to get it.
Here’s an article from the state of Washington.
Here’s the Washington Times expose, focusing on Congress.
I can do this all day, Rand.
‘Hypocrisy is the compliment that vice pays to virtue’
Seriously though Chris, do you suggest that once the gravy was flowing (terrible metaphor, but I am still a bit tired) that politicians should just step back from the trough? If they did that (right wing or left wing) they wouldn’t be politicians…
NONE of the above should excuse the hypocrisy (and yes, it is hyporcrisy) of those who opposed the stimulus package and yet still supped with the devil when it was presented to them. It DOES, however, put it in context, and provide a bit of perspective…
It was a bad bill, a bad idea, and the fact that some of those who opposed it chose to benefit from it doesn’t make it any better…
Sen Bond:
Gerbil:
I can do this all day, Rand.
So? No one asked you to do it at all.
Particularly since it has nothing to do with my point. What part of “I’m willing to believe that such people exist” are you having trouble understanding?
It’s hypocrisy to oppose the bill, make statements in one forum that “it doesn’t work,” and then show up with a giant check, Bobby Jindal and tell your constituents, “see, I saved your jobs!”
The fact that practically every Republican politician did just that is why Arnold didn’t name names. He didn’t have enough airtime!
Please, by all means, feel free to continue to impress everyone with your grasp of modern politics.
Rand – as I said in the previous post, practically every Republican has denounced the stimulus while running, hand outstretched, to get the money. Practically every Republican has then told their constituents, “see, I saved your jobs” then told the national media that “the stimulus failed.”
Arnold didn’t name names because he didn’t have enough airtime.
“So? No one asked you to do it at all.
Particularly since it has nothing to do with my point. What part of “I’m willing to believe that such people exist” are you having trouble understanding?”
You really are something else, man. You say he should admit that he’s just blowing it out his “abs” (I chuckled here, really), and get pissed when someone takes the time to point out the obvious fact that, in this case at least, The Governator is absolutely correct. Never one to let facts get in the way of your bloviating, eh?
Indeed, a principled politician must argue both sides of the case at different times if he is to be responsible to his constituents. Thus, when its inception is being debated, he must argue against it. After the fact, he must argue that his constituents must not be left out (since they’re also paying for it) of the monies (to the extent that accepting them does not put them in greater jeopardy). He must argue the best case he can on the issue before him at the time, regardless of what epithets dullards would issue him – their inability to think does not relieve him of his responsibilities.
Titus, Curt and Scott – you are missing the points, which are:
1) Arnold didn’t have time to list names – the list was too long.
2) It’s one thing to insist your constituents get their fair share, it’s entirely something else to show up at the ribbon-cutting, say “it’s working” and claim credit for that which you opposed and still oppose.
I never said he wasn’t correct, Ethan. Apparently you have trouble with reading comprehension, too. I just said that if he’s going to bash people in his own party to further a Democrat agenda, he should at least man up and call people out.
Arnold didn’t have time to list names – the list was too long.
No one said it had to be exhaustive.
I’m sorry, I took “blowing it out his abs” to be a play on the common phrase “blowing it out his ass,” which is known to mean “lying outright.” I don’t think my reading comprehension is the problem here.
The fact that he didn’t name any names at all should surprise no one…he’s a politician, after all. He can stick the knife in his party’s back but he certainly can’t twist it.
I’m sorry, I took “blowing it out his abs” to be a play on the common phrase “blowing it out his ass,” which is known to mean “lying outright.”
Yes, you got that part right. But apparently, you’re unfamiliar with the meaning of the word “if.”
You either A) Believe these people exist, or B) Believe your governor is lying. You support neither claim here, preferring to take a vague potshot at Schwarzenegger for not being a “real Republican.” This sort of thing is typical of your posts on this blog, Rand.
“Not one Republican voted for the $787 billion plan, but many have devoted time and energy over the last year trying to wangle stimulus funds for the folks back home.”
So Chris,
They didn’t vote for it, knew the money was going to get spent somewhere after it passed and decided to get a piece of the action for their constituents. If my representative voted against a bill and it passed anyway, I would expect him/her to make sure I benefited from what was going to get spent regardless of what he/she did. Why let Dems spend all the money on their pet union thugs and community activists? It would be hypocrisy to decry it and then vote for it.
It’s hypocrisy to decry it, benefit from it, and then continue to decry it.
This sort of thing is typical of your posts on this blog, Rand.
Is someone holding a gun to your head to make you read it?
No, for whatever reason I find it enlightening to see how another side operates.
Notice I didn’t say “the” other side. I’m not sure what side you’re on, but whatever it is it’s really fascinating to watch.
Chris:
I can name one Republican who denounced the stimulus while NOT running, hand outstretched, to get the money. Me. I’m a Republican, and I denounced the stimulus, and didn’t run, hand outstreched, to get the money. Of course, I don’t have any consituents, so there’s always that.
Ethan:
Should the consituents of congressman who voted against the stimulus checks that went out a couple of years ago have been required returned the money? The congressman decried it, he benefited from it, then he continued to decry it.
As Ross Perot said, there’s nothing wrong with calling for the repeal of a law (tax credits in his case) while simultaneously availing yourself of it. At least I don’t see a problem with it.
Then that congressman is a hypocrite. I don’t know what to tell you about his constituents, but I do think they’d be stupid to return free money.
I’m not defending or attacking strawmen, and I’m not trying to paint the Republicans as cartoon supervillains, with “thug anti-gay rights activists” or some such nonsense they might funnel economic stimulus money to. I’m simply saying that the stimulus did avert disaster, the Republicans know it, and they continue to blast it for political points, even as they benefit from it in their own districts. That is hypocrisy, plain and simple.
Like the Founders, I’m on the side of individualism and human liberty.
But you seem to think the government should do absolutely nothing to guarantee either of those things.
I’m on the side of individualism and human liberty too, you know.
You really are something else, man. You jump from “hypocrisy” to… That?? Starting beer-thirty a little early today?
Chris,
I believe it is you who didn’t get it. I dont’ believe that anyone (including Rand) suggested that there aren’t plenty of individuals who opposed the Porkulus bill but later availed themselves of the pork generated by it. It would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise. I don’t doubt that there are many (who I won’t waste time defending) who then took credit for the pork when it came time to take a bow, despite the fact that they opposed the bill at the time. Once again, this is simply what politicians do, and to pretend otherwise is either disingenuous on your part, or simply ignorant, and I rather doubt that the latter is the case.
With that said, NOTHING in the above behavior suggests that the tidal wave of pork had any positive effects other than providing a bunch of corrupt politicians (and most, if not all, of them are quite corrupt…paid for with OUR money) a chance to preen as they showed off their latest attempt to curry favor with a population that they believe can be bought off with the results of that pork.
The behavior of politicians does not undermine the underlying critique. To use an example (and note, I am NOT trying to invoke Godwin here), just because Hitler built the Autobahns doesn’t mean that they weren’t a good idea in the first place…
I was responding to Rand’s comment with that statement, not the original post. The topic moved on slightly, from this particular entry to the blog as a whole.
Try to keep up.
Keeping up with your disjointed garbage would be a tough job for a psychopathologist. Do you want to spend a few minutes and make sense of that?
So if I break your leg and give you a crutch, you’re a hypocrite for using the crutch?
This is why “hypocrisy” is such a vacuous insult. I means the speaker has no core values and must resort to Alinskyesque rhetoric.
Perhaps you’d care to explain why a Congressman who opposed the bill must then either abrogate his responsibilities or, stranger still, change his core principles simply because his side was out-numbered in the vote? So far far the only reason you’ve offered is “to avoid having Ethan call him a hypocrite” which is a rather lousy reason.
You mean offline?
Of course, another reason Republicans may want to re-think stimulus-bashing: CBO says stimulus added up to 2.1 million jobs in 4th quarter 2009.
Facts are difficult things.
I don’t think anyone would reasonably argue that billions of borrowed dollars couldn’t employ a couple million people in the short-term, Chris. The scope of the issue is much greater than that.
That would be $374,761 per job created. Money well spent right Chris?
Yep.
I’m simply saying that the stimulus did avert disaster, the Republicans know it,
Neither you, not the oldest man in the world can possibly know that. But then, you’re never one to let logic stand in the way of a countefactual. The stimulus didn’t avert disaster — it was one.
Chris,
Take a look at where the CBO claims those jobs were created…public sector (particularly the states that got huge windfalls from the stimulus package). The CBO numbers are estimates, and why these estimates should be taken any more seriously than other estimates suggesting far less in the way of jobs created is entirely beyond me…
Facts may be stubborn things, but opinions…not so much…
…take $787 billion out of the economy so you can put it back in the economy and claim credit for having done something except rob Peter to pay Paul.
Everything that comes after is secondary crime made possible/necessary by the original crime.
“So if I break your leg and give you a crutch, you’re a hypocrite for using the crutch?” If you think that’s a fair analogy for this situation then there’s no use in discussing this with you any further.
And Rand, every budget office, every watchdog organization, and every think tank, conservative or liberal, has crunched the numbers and shown that the stimulus kept this recession from becoming a depression, and is slowly starting to push us toward recovery. Not all of the money’s been spent yet, guys. And most economists say it’s being spent wisely. So logic alone doesn’t give one a grasp on this issue…you need the facts, too. Inputs, outputs, results. The only people saying it was a mistake, or that it was ineffective, are people who have something to gain from making Democrats look bad, and the people who read those peoples’ blogs.
Then go away.
Curt – wrong denominator. From the official report:
Contracts paid out = $77 billion of $275 billion = 29.5% of total
Tax cuts received = $92 billion of $288 billion = 31.9% of total
entitlements = $109 billion of $224 billion = 48.6% of total
Overall stimulus “spent” (including tax cuts) = $278 billion of $787 billion or 35%. By that measure, it’s $138,000 / job.
Except you should back the tax cuts out, as they are, by the CBO’s estimate, the least effective parts of the stimulus. So, in terms of spending, it’s $80,000 per job.
Either way, it’s money well spent – unless you think 12% unemployment is better than 10%.
McGehee: Haha, yeah, you tell ’em! We don’t want what you’re sellin, pinko!
That would include anyone not working for a government entity. And anyway you all are doing a fine job on your own.
fify
CBO says stimulus added up to 2.1 million jobs in 4th quarter 2009.
How many of them actually added to, rather than subtracted from, the nation’s wealth? And how many did it destroy, or prevent from being created? We’ll never know.
I keep forgetting, I have to say “You tell ’em Rand” to be a pointy contributor.
every budget office, every watchdog organization, and every think tank, conservative or liberal, has crunched the numbers and shown that the stimulus kept this recession from becoming a depression, and is slowly starting to push us toward recovery.
Really? Every single one? So all I have to do is come up with a single counterexample to demonstrate (once again) that you don’t know what you’re talking about?
Even if you do manage to find one example of an economic think-tank that doesn’t think the stimulus helped, it won’t change the fact that all the major ones think it did. You’ve never demonstrated that I don’t know what I’m talking about, only that you’ll listen to anyone who agrees with you no matter how little THEY know what they’re talking about. Any organization that disagrees with you is guilty of liberal bias, even as you use Pajamas Media as a primary source for your “biting commentary.”
All of us are guilty of this to some degree, I suppose…but instead of waxing philosophical about the psychological underpinnings of the political beliefs that divide us, I’ma go eat some peanut butter cookies and stop reading this.
Goodness, no. I’ve said before that Chris is quite valuable, and he might be the last person to make such a statement. OTOH, you are good for pea-flinging tantrums & ad homs.
…mkay.
I could find many examples. Just look for the ones that actually understand how economies work.
Actually, I rather agree with Ethan – if you are not a member of the amen choir this blog can be irritating. I’ve just been around long enough to decide which battles I’m going to pick.
Rand – I could find many examples I’d love to see them.
I’d love to see them.
I seriously doubt that. But here’s one.