Republicans naysayers take Stimulus

[ImaSmartass2]

Recently it has been discovered that Republican Senators and Representatives who have bashed the stimulus bill have been caught requesting funds from the White House by letter. Almost 90 Republicans are guilty of taking what some would dub "pork" to fund projects in their own districts even as they claimed the Stimulus as "Socialism" or "broken".

Is this the definition of hypocrisy? Those who would constantly moan about the stimulus being ineffective have taken stimulus money? Is the Republican party just trying to block anything associated with Obama? I would have to suppose so because they obviously don't believe that the stimulus bill will not work.

Has the GOP truly become the Party of No? Blocking Democrat's bills and never pushing forth any legislation worth considering? They certainly have the audacity to say, or put in writing that the stimulus is good policy, even though they voted against the bill and would likely vote against any other stimulus package.

What would be the proper response to this?

Source

[MultiCanimefan]

You should have posted an article about Democrats doing the same thing so people don't bitch.

[Memorize]

Nevermind the fact that some of the Republicans were forced to take it in the first place.

[SmilezRoyale]

The appropriate response is to say that it is in the rational self interest of politicians to take free money offered to them to spend it on their districts. Regardless of whether their rhetoric is for or against the 'stimulus', because it is entirely too easy to get away with saying one thing and doing another, even in the span of a matter of weeks or days.

This should be self evident, and yet it is assumed these people are trust worthy enough to control some of the most important parts of a functional society.

[monkeyspanthisgooplz]

Since when is Romania a democracy?

[fli]

At 2/17/10 11:09 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: This should be self evident, and yet it is assumed these people are trust worthy enough to control some of the most important parts of a functional society.

Evidently... we have 8 years of evidence proving this.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 2/18/10 02:52 PM, fli wrote:

At 2/17/10 11:09 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: This should be self evident, and yet it is assumed these people are trust worthy enough to control some of the most important parts of a functional society.

Evidently... we have 8 years of evidence proving this.

That politicians have act in their self interest over the last 8 years or that politicians are trust worthy enough to run the most important parts of a functional society?

[Mast3rMind]

At 2/17/10 11:05 PM, Memorize wrote: Nevermind the fact that some of the Republicans were forced to take it in the first place.

Forced? Ok then. Let's say they were "forced" to take the money. It doesn't excuse the fact that they are hypocrites. Saying that it wouldn't create jobs or save jobs. They voted against it and took it anyway. Then created/saved jobs in their own districts while telling everyone that it didn't do anything. They are trying to have it both ways.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 2/18/10 02:57 PM, Mast3rMind wrote:

At 2/17/10 11:05 PM, Memorize wrote: Nevermind the fact that some of the Republicans were forced to take it in the first place.

Forced? Ok then. Let's say they were "forced" to take the money. It doesn't excuse the fact that they are hypocrites.

The two aren't necessarily irreconcilable. Stimulus money reduces the productivity of the country at large by shifting resources from firms and businesses that produce value to districts of the politicians with the most amount of political clout. The biggest losers are the districts that do not get any money and thus crowding out causes those with the money to buy resources away from those that don't.

[Memorize]

At 2/18/10 02:57 PM, Mast3rMind wrote:

Forced? Ok then. Let's say they were "forced" to take the money. It doesn't excuse the fact that they are hypocrites. Saying that it wouldn't create jobs or save jobs. They voted against it and took it anyway. Then created/saved jobs in their own districts while telling everyone that it didn't do anything. They are trying to have it both ways.

You can't exactly say "no" when your state Supreme Court orders you to do it.

[Mast3rMind]

At 2/18/10 03:24 PM, Memorize wrote: You can't exactly say "no" when your state Supreme Court orders you to do it.

Other than the Sanford case can you name anymore where the a Governor, Senator, and a Congressman were forced to take those funds. Show me some names, and I'll give you credit to your original post to the fullest.

[fli]

At 2/18/10 03:28 PM, Mast3rMind wrote:

At 2/18/10 03:24 PM, Memorize wrote: You can't exactly say "no" when your state Supreme Court orders you to do it.

Other than the Sanford case can you name anymore where the a Governor, Senator, and a Congressman were forced to take those funds. Show me some names, and I'll give you credit to your original post to the fullest.

I don't know which case you either one of you are talking about...
what is the case you are talking about that's forcing republicans to take money.

[Mast3rMind]

At 2/18/10 05:24 PM, fli wrote: I don't know which case you either one of you are talking about...
what is the case you are talking about that's forcing republicans to take money.

Back in 2009 Mark Sanford was forced to take some of the funds in a certain case. I'm thinking that he just based that whole case and tried to juxtapose it upon the GOP Hypocrisy of the whole thing. The hypocrites which a full list should be available soon willingly asked for that money while voting against it, saying it doesn't work. Yet also claiming that it helped create and save jobs within their own States. Posing with the checks for their projects and so on. You have to admit, it's pretty brilliant too, for the most part many people won't look into it and they won't be called hypocrites or liars sadly.

[ImaSmartass2]

At 2/18/10 03:24 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/18/10 02:57 PM, Mast3rMind wrote:

You can't exactly say "no" when your state Supreme Court orders you to do it.

In this particular case, I am talking about the 90 Senators who have written letters requesting Stimulus money, which makes that point moot.

[adrshepard]

At 2/18/10 05:32 PM, Mast3rMind wrote: You have to admit, it's pretty brilliant too, for the most part many people won't look into it and they won't be called hypocrites or liars sadly.

Believe it or not, some politicians actually believe that their highest priority isn't to avoid appearing hypocritical. Even labeling it "shrewd" to accept the stimulus money while disapproving of the concept is too negative in its connotations. Simply put, it'd be irresponsible and selfish NOT to take the money.

Let's assume that the politician genuinely wants what's best for his constituents. Also assume that he chose to be a politician because he believes he will to a better job of it than anyone else.

Politically, there's no way he, as a Republican, can stop the stimulus, nor could he ever have. The Democrats held a supermajority so it passed. So, he has two possible decisions when it comes to stimulus money. Take it or don't.
If he doesn't take it, his reward is the personal satisfaction that comes from standing by his principles. He doesn't save his constituents anything, because the stimulus program doesn't address how it will ever be repaid (those that get the money don't necessarily have to pay it back). Maybe he gets a few admirers. That's it.
He also gets universally condemned by his constituents for passing up on free federal funds that could have "helped" people. His personal integrity will count for nothing when unemployed, indebted, and angry voters enter the ballot booth at the next election. He may speak eloquently about the abstract, long-term effects of the stimulus on the country, but again, the man in the unemployment office doesn't care about a certain percent decrease in per capita income.

If he does take the money, he feels personal shame at participating in the program he dislikes, but he has put himself in a win-win position. If the stimulus works, then he can take credit in passing off on it. If it fails, then the blame falls upon Obama, who orchestrated the program, and it vindicates his earlier criticism. Whatever happens, he has maximized his potential for reelection.

"Bah! He still does it for personal power!"
Not true. The politician still wants success for his people, but the only way he can do that is from office. His own ego is nothing compared to ensuring the welfare of his constituents. If he sees himself as the only one who can advance their interests, then he has a responsibility to the people to remain in office and continue his work.
"Whatever it takes to get elected" isn't necessarily the slogan of the dirty weasel or the party hack. It can also be the ideology of the committed, self-sacrificing public servant, willing to compromise his own moral values and bear a tortured conscience if it means the people will prosper.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

Remember when Sarah Palin was blasted for not taking stimulus money meant for aiding special needs children?

I guess you just cannot win against "them"...

[SmilezRoyale]

At 2/18/10 06:48 PM, adrshepard wrote:

"Bah! He still does it for personal power!"
Not true. The politician still wants success for his people,

You can't make that assumption about politicians in general, though you may say that possibly out of X politicians, one or two of them is going to actually 'care'. But the mere virtue of the fact that they were elected by a popular majority doesn't mean they're going to care about the public.

But if you're not talking about politicians in that sense as if they are a dime a dozen, everything you said was basically correct.

[Mast3rMind]

At 2/18/10 06:28 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: In this particular case, I am talking about the 90 Senators who have written letters requesting Stimulus money, which makes that point moot.

Bingo. It's not as if the GOP Senators had it shoved down their throats. They willingly took that money.

At 2/18/10 06:48 PM, adrshepard wrote: Believe it or not, some politicians actually believe that their highest priority isn't to avoid appearing hypocritical. Even labeling it "shrewd" to accept the stimulus money while disapproving of the concept is too negative in its connotations. Simply put, it'd be irresponsible and selfish NOT to take the money.

I know where you're coming from. And of course I know that it's not a Politicians highest priority not to be hypocritical. But if you spend a full year blasting something you didn't vote for, called toxic spending and a waste and on top of that call yourself a Fiscal Conservative claiming that you really care about the deficit now of all times you are a hypocrite. Simple as that. They didn't come out praising it out loud, only silently. Look up on how some of the GOP members spoke about it. Especially when their words don't match up with even what they're claiming in their states. Like how with that money they were able to create/save. Nothing was stopping them from admitting that it working except for Politics I suppose.

At 2/18/10 07:19 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Remember when Sarah Palin was blasted for not taking stimulus money meant for aiding special needs children?

I guess you just cannot win against "them"...

Kind of off but sure, I'll take a whack at this one. That was her decision, and while I don't remember that situation let's say that she did take the money and spent it on the special needs children only before she claimed the same thing the GOP members are about to get called out on and blasted for as well. She'd be catching hell like them. But she didn't take the money, nor did she have reason to if only to leave office later. That is the discussion of this topic. On the plus side since you brought up Palin and her many pratfalls this is one thing that won't be added on to the list.

[gumOnShoe]

At 2/17/10 11:09 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: The appropriate response is to say that it is in the rational self interest of politicians to take free money offered to them to spend it on their districts. Regardless of whether their rhetoric is for or against the 'stimulus', because it is entirely too easy to get away with saying one thing and doing another, even in the span of a matter of weeks or days.

This should be self evident, and yet it is assumed these people are trust worthy enough to control some of the most important parts of a functional society.

Because it is easy to lie, it is in their self interest to do so and this is the appropriate understanding we are supposed to come to is to excuse it? I'm sorry, if its so wrong to have a bail out and you don't believe in it you shouldn't ask for the money or you are a hypocrite. If you don't disagree I don't understand your argument.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 2/18/10 11:24 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

Because it is easy to lie, it is in their self interest to do so and this is the appropriate understanding we are supposed to come to is to excuse it? I'm sorry, if its so wrong to have a bail out and you don't believe in it you shouldn't ask for the money or you are a hypocrite. If you don't disagree I don't understand your argument.

I'm not making a value judgment. I'm just saying what others have said that the politician is shrewd to accept the stimulus money. Is he or she a hypocrite? Yes. Will it hurt the chances of that person getting elected? Possibly, but unlikely. George Bushes' spending wasn't repudiated.