Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If somebody opposes using tax dollars for stimulas funding, becuase they don't feel that its the best way to use the money, they are now a hypocrite if their state uses the funds because they voted against it?
[MOD CUT/language]
News flash, it was THEIR consituents money that they paid in. If the government votes to use that money to fund projects, then why wouldn't a congressman fight to ensure that those tax dollars benefit the people he represents? Even if he didn't vote for the funding in the first place.
Instead... they are supposed to be ok with the money going elsewhere?
This is about the types of responses I thought we'd get. Can't seem to get it through your head huh? This is being reported EVERYWHERE, not just on Maddow. You guys cry a river about the stimulus, vote against it, then show up to collect the check when it comes to your town. I'm so glad the GOP is being outed for this. Time to admit you've been hoodwinked by your own party. Who has the guts to admit it?
Absolutley we do. What do you think we are going to do, tell you not to withdraw from the community savings account, and when you do it anyway you get to keep yours and OUR money?
What a retarded argument. Sorry. This is just plain stupid.
Hypocracy is a way of political life and both parties share the "center of excellence".
To suggest one party is hypocritical and the other not, would be a perfect example of being hypocritical.
Apparently hypocracy is not a critical issue to the electorate. The sting of hypocracy has been dulled by being incorporated as a way of life, indistinguishable from the formerly undesirable and unethical behavior.
Candidate Obama decrying the rush to vote on a Bush sponsored bill tries to rush healthcare.
Roland Burris condeming any candidate Blago might appoint as invalid and then accepting the offer for the position.
Obama, repeating you can keep your doctor and insurance, mentions the other day that somehow someone slipped a provision in the health care bill that would negate that promise. Oops!
Obama calling for transparency, halting the appointment of lobbyists, tax cheats, etc.
Only the dedicated political minions will be get excited about the exposure of the 'other' party's hypocritical legislators.
Bernanke and Guitner while seated as government watchdogs over the banks miss the biggest financial collapse in US history and then get put in charge of the recovery.
Barney Frank and Chris Dodd defending Freeddie and Fannie loans to high risk borrowers and proclaiming loudly the soundness of F&F. Barney and Chris are still at the helm, compliments of both flavors of hypocritical legislators .
A patriot will take note of the unethical behavior practiced on both sides of the aisle and vote accordingly.
The noise you hear from RM is the rabid barking of a blind watchdog seeking attention in hope to sway the position of the ignorant, the selfish and the partisan electorate..... and to boost the ratings of a deceased show not yet pronounced 'dead'.
So let me get this straight (pardon me Maddow) Maddow thinks spending $787 bllion for a 9.7% unemployment rate was wise?
Hell yeah, especially when you were facing a 12%-15% unemployment rate other wise. Also, as I'm sure you will conviently forget, this was all caused by deregulation allowing the classic boom and bust cycles of the 19th century to return. We need the government to keep everyone honest so that regular honest folks can invest without getting burned by the shysters.
All put 1 dollar into the pot. We will use this money in the future when we need it. So, we start getting pretty hungry 3 of the people want to buy a hamburgers for a dollar each. 1 of the people oppose that and think the money could be more wisely spent. So, the 3 make the decision to take the money anyway and spend it on hamburgers... the one person that voted against it is now a hypocrite because he would rather have a hamburger than to allow somebody else to take his dollar and have two?
If thats a hypocrite to you people... you got some learning to do.
Maddow is a extreme leftist ;so what would you think she would say.She was one of the people who keep any heatkcare bill from passing the congress by her my way rot eh highweay views. She is a socailist right down the line.
Maddow is a extreme leftist ;so what would you think she would say.She was one of the people who keep any heatkcare bill from passing the congress by her my way rot eh highweay views. She is a socailist right down the line.
Sentence 1 - Id expect her to tell the truth, which she did.
If somebody opposes using tax dollars for stimulas funding, becuase they don't feel that its the best way to use the money, they are now a hypocrite if their state uses the funds because they voted against it?
[MOD CUT/language]
News flash, it was THEIR consituents money that they paid in. If the government votes to use that money to fund projects, then why wouldn't a congressman fight to ensure that those tax dollars benefit the people he represents? Even if he didn't vote for the funding in the first place.
Instead... they are supposed to be ok with the money going elsewhere?
Maddow is worse than O'reilly.
Dumb argument. Stupid.
For me, it's not so much that they took the money... it's the comments they made when they took it. Saying how much it would help their district, add jobs, etc. If it was helping their district and added jobs, why wouldn't it help others and in fact benefit the country?
Seems like they're definitely contradicting themselves.
For me, it's not so much that they took the money... it's the comments they made when they took it. Saying how much it would help their district, add jobs, etc. If it was helping their district and added jobs, why wouldn't it help others and in fact benefit the country?
Seems like they're definitely contradicting themselves.
Throw any money at a public project bid by private companies, and of course you are going to see some growth. However, that money is coming from the private sector in the first place in the form of taxation... so was it worth it? After the inefficient government handles it, and passes it back out, how much of the money was lost?
Was the cost of using that money worth the number of jobs obtained?
We spent how much money now, and where is unemployment? Sure, A politican can show his constituents that he is looking out for them by getting their tax dollars back even if he didn't approve of the bill in the first place.
Hell yeah, especially when you were facing a 12%-15% unemployment rate other wise. Also, as I'm sure you will conviently forget, this was all caused by deregulation allowing the classic boom and bust cycles of the 19th century to return. We need the government to keep everyone honest so that regular honest folks can invest without getting burned by the shysters.
Nonsense, there is nothing to suggest that without stimulus unemployment would be 12-15%. If that is true then we should see those levels of unemployment when stimulus runs out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
hypocracy
