Remember all those Republicans who opposed the stimulus, refused to take the funds and claimed that the stimulus wouldn't create jobs? Apparently, not even they believed that one.
Sen. Christopher S. Bond regularly railed against President Obama's
economic stimulus plan as irresponsible spending that would drive up the
national debt. But behind the scenes, the Missouri Republican quietly sought
more than $50 million from a federal agency for two projects in his state.
. . .
In a letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Mr. Bond noted that one
project applying to the USDA for stimulus money would "create jobs and
ultimately spur economic opportunities."
So, Senator Bond, was that "irresponsible spending" or the creation of jobs and economic opportunities?
Senator Bond wasn't alone in his hypocrisy.
Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican who became famous after yelling,
"You lie," during Mr. Obama's addresses to Congress in September, voted against
the stimulus. Nonetheless, Mr. Wilson elbowed his way into the rush for federal
stimulus cash in a letter he sent to Mr. Vilsack on behalf of a foundation
seeking funding.
"We know their endeavor will provide jobs and investment in one of the
poorer sections of the Congressional District," he wrote to Mr. Vilsack in the
Aug. 26, 2009, letter.
Wait, which one of you is a liar again, Mr. Wilson?
On Feb. 13, 2009, Sen. Robert F. Bennett, Utah Republican, issued a
statement criticizing the stimulus — but two days earlier, he privately
forwarded to Mr. Vilsack a list of projects seeking stimulus money.
"I believe the addition of federal funds to these projects would
maximize the stimulative effect of these projects on the local economy," he
wrote.
You know what the worst part about this is? These idiots are going to keep hurling accusations of evil socialism at Obama and the Democrats while simultaneously secretly acknowledging that socialism is the way to go.
Maybe you should only promote socialism after you've lived in a true socialist country for some time. Also you probably shouldn't be basing an argument to go socialist on the fact that there are corrupt politicians who want something for free. That is illogical.
ReplyDeleteI personally don't support socialism because I lived in France for many years and saw what most Americans haven't. Unemployment was much higher there because we were bleeding jobs to Scotland who cut corp tax to boost their economy. Luckily France has been learning its lesson and has been going more capitalist each year. The rest of the world really does want to experience the type of success that America has seen in such a short time as a country (although many of them don't want to have to work that hard).
The lower class in America still lives a higher lifestyle than what is considered middle class in much of Europe. Plus Americans enjoy a stability of government in this country where in France it seemed like the governemnt would change overnight based on one election.
I would never want to go back to socialism with the taxes, the poorer lifestyle, the laziness, and fewer opportunities, especially if you discover you want to change professions. That's another thing. In America people change jobs and they start specializing in college and they don't necessarily do what their family did. In France, you usually do the family business and people don't typically "move up" in the world. You start training in highschool for your field and then you usually stay in that field your whole life. There aren't as many "good" jobs there and there are much fewer incentives so people think "What's the point?" Capitalism actually allows for a lot of growth because there are real, obtainable incentives here. In Europe, they just settle because not many people ever move up or get richer.
Agreed. It is radical socialism when you can score political points, and it is patriotic capitalism when you can help your district. Seriously, this guys are without irony or shame
ReplyDeleteHa, in America people can move up! Don't make me laugh! And, I am not aware of that many lower class Americans that have health insurance. Please, do not insult my intelligence by saying that lower class Americans live better off that middle class french. France's socialist country is real bad...which is why France's unemployment rate is around7 percent right now, and ours is at 9.7, and is projected to be around 9-11 percent for the next year at least. It is true that France historically has had unemployment rates of a percentage point or two higher than the US, but their economy is much more stable than the US economy not subject to strong booms and busts, and they have strong social safety net to help those with less.
ReplyDeleteWithout a doubt, I would rather be poor in Canada, England, France, Germany, Sweeden, Netherlands etc than in America.
So I've got a question for you, Anonymous: did that tinfoil hat you're wearing keep out all the lessons about reading comprehension and logic, or did the lack of logic and reading comprehension lead to a desire to wear shiny, reflective headgear?
ReplyDeleteRobert or Geds,
ReplyDeleteHave either of you lived in Europe? If so, what country and for how long? Visiting doesn't count. Americans go to tourist areas and think that is how everybody lives, but it's not. Your whole perspective on what poor, middle and rich classes are doesn't really apply to the rest of the world. You need to shift the whole thing down for a more accurate perspective.
As for health care, the care itself in France is not that great and you have more limits put on both the doctors and the patients. You don't get much of a say because the state controls it. More people are getting complimentary insurance because the reimbursement is dropping and health expenditures are rising. So we end up paying for both.
American insurance is too expensive also but that's for different reasons having to do with private insurance companies. The government can't provide it any cheaper without compromising the quality of the care.
Robert, if you would rather live in those places in poverty, why don't you? After all, since America is so restrictive to you that can't even move up, maybe you should try it elsewhere and see how you do.
The government should take care of the extremely poor who do not have any reasonable way to get out of poverty because that is humane. In America, the government does provide this to the poor. Medicare and S-CHIP are insurance for the poor yet you imply these programs don't exist.
Geds, Good job on taking the high road, buddy. You're rebuttal was very impressive.
Geds, don't you think you're being a little over the top?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous seems to have been pointing out the down sides to the reality of socialism based on FH's reference to it.
I'm not sure whether he has lived in America. I'm not sure whether you have lived in Europe. Both of you seem to be making generalisations about the other.
Even if you find him irritating, I don't see how this level of disrespect and anger is warranted.
Even if you find him irritating, I don't see how this level of disrespect and anger is warranted.
ReplyDeleteThis seems to be the same Anonymous who has been popping in here to spew bullshit a lot lately. I have no respect for him, therefore I go with the disrespect angle.
But I'm not angry. It's more that I enjoy the ol' internet flaming more than I probably should. It's something to do to pass the time.
I mean, hell, my general response to any trollishness is to ignore it. It doesn't get anywhere to argue with an anonymous person on the internet whose mind won't be changed and who won't change my mind. But, by the same token, sometimes I enjoy taking the piss out of the person in question.
Also, his or her arguments do seem to stem more from stereotyping than anything else. I mean, the "make fun of lazy, unemployed Frenchmen" argument really doesn't seem like the approach to take.
And the argument that the problem is that other countries are willing to tax their corporations less, so socialism doesn't work is stupid. India and China are willing to pay their people a pittance and don't have/enforce environmental or workplace safety regulations so the United States loses manufacturing jobs. So does that mean the United States needs to return to the working conditions of the Industrial Revolution to stay competitive? Do we really want to go back there again?
Also, I used to work for a large multinational that was trying to reduce its footprint in the United States. One of the reasons was because it didn't like paying for its workers health care. It was actually cheaper for them to have more European employers because of...wait for it...socialized medicine.
You think that stuff is bad? (Talking about the OP, here.) Check out Rachel Maddow’s absolutely beautiful smackdown of Republican hypocrisy when it comes to voting against the very policies they first supported, and then actually taking credit and giving thanks when those same policies pass. Especially when it comes to stimulus bill and funds. It’s mind-numbing how completely blind to irony and dishonesty these morons can be. Good on her for naming names as she did (and quite a few of them, too.)
ReplyDeleteAs she said: Democrats (the only opposition party, sadly) really need to stand up and expose these conniving little rats for what they are.
eh, who's calling France a "socialist country"? France is the home of the idiots who almost elected Le Pen and currently it has a president who is more a clown than a socialist.
ReplyDeleteAnd, no, I haven't lived there. But I lived close to the French border for three years and I can tell you that both the life standard and the health care is better in Germany, Norway and Sweden (just from MY personal experience).
And my father came to Germany with little more than the clothes on his body and he made over 100,000€/year before he retired.
And my taxes are used to keep the infrastructure intact, so that OUR bridges don't suddenly collapse during rush hour.
I think I stay in Europe.
and also - the US most certainly does *not* support even all of the people who are "below poverty".
ReplyDeletedo you know how many homeless people there are in Columbus, Ohio, ALONE?!?! last time i was in DC, walking from the metro station, in a 5 block walk at 10pm i saw over 300 people - HOMELESS, sleeping on the vents from the Metro, so they didn't freeze to death.
i can't even begin to list all of the people i know with no health insurance, because they can't *afford* insurance - because they can't afford to go to college to get a degree that gives them a *chance* at a job that offers insurance - IT and tech support are almost gone from here; almost everyone i know works retail, customer service, or food service. hell, most of the people i know with *degrees* work customer service.
i am a single woman. my tax rate, making $23,000 a year, was over 20%.
i don't complain about that - i want roads to drive on, schools for my neices and nephew and children's friends, i want a fire department
no, my complaint is that i would "make" $23K, and pay $4500 in taxes - and then if i wanted BASIC insurance [and can we please cover how incredibly fucking basic it was?!?! it covered doctor visits, but only a couple a year, and for those i had a 20% co-pay. for dental, it covered up to $500 - except i had a 50% co-pay, so it REALLY only covered $250. my vision plan was a total JOKE, if i went to an "in network" opthomologist, i could get "reimbursed" for up to 30% of the visit... except i never once got them to reimburse me. it theoretically covered "medically necessary hospital stays" - up to 3 days. and it paid 80% of what *IT* thought the hospital stay was - and it did NOT pay for "non emergency" surgery, did NOT pay for anetheseology, and didn't pay for meds at the hospital. it sort of had an Rx plan - if i got a generic, it was $10-$20. if there was no generic, i was fucked and had to pay full price.] and this LOVELY insurance cost me almost $200 a month.
i would MUCH rather pay another 10% in TAXES and get COMPREHENSIVE medical care - especially medical care that included PREVENTIVE medicine - a thing i had NO access to with insurance, as it wasn't covered and i couldn't pay full price.
of course, right now the big question with me personally is "how long until SSI/SSDI stops fucking with me" but that's a *totally* different topic.
and, for the record, if i had had real medical care a decade ago, there wouldn't be the issue NOW that i may never be able to work again.
but, sure, socialism is "evil"