Bayh bayhFollow

Well that, and this type of stuff.

Yes. Which is precisely what I was talking about. The politician is put in a position where the public expects him to provide for them. Why be surprised that he does so, or that having done so, he takes credit for it?

The point being that even if you'd rather the rules were changed, you still have to play by the rules as they are currently. I seem to recall the last time we got into this discussion, I likened it to calling a coach who opposed the "Push out rule" in Football a hypocrite for teaching his players to use the rule to advantage.

It's funny how often you label this sort of thing as hypocrisy. I seem to recall a similar discussion about tax deductions for charitable giving at some point in the past as well. Just because someone believes that charity should not be done because of a tax deduction does not mean they're hypocritical to claim said deduction if it's there. It's just more of the same point I'm trying to make. Once you create the rules this way, you can't blame the players for playing according to those rules. This in no way bars someone from pointing out that we'd all be better off if the rules were different...

It is hypocrisy. Selling out your ideals because you see everyone else doing something (as you publicly rail against it) is the very definition of hypocrisy. Trying to rationalize it away doesn't make it less hypocritical, it just lets you sleep better at night after a hard day of supporting hypocrites.

You are apparently still unable to see the difference between opposing the budgeting of said program and using the money in the program once it's already been budgeted. It's funny because I know exactly why you hold this position, but you apparently are unaware of it. At some fundamental level you've bought into your own sides propaganda that Republicans oppose such spending, not because they disagree with the taking of money from those who have it, but because they really just don't like handing it to people who need it. It's ubiquitous in the attacks on the political Right, so I suppose it's not surprising that your own positions would derive from it.


The opposition is to the taking of the funds Joph. Once the government has already taken the money from the people (in one form or another), there isn't much to be gained by refusing to spend it in beneficial ways. That would just be doubling down on the harm, wouldn't it?


It's the same response I've made to the whole "Republicans are bad fiscal conservatives cause they didn't cut spending". It's not the spending. It's the taxing (or borrowing money that'll have to be taxed at some point in the future). That's what Conservatives oppose. I just don't know how many times I have to keep explaining this to you before you get it. If there was some magical way to provide free health care and food and housing for everyone without having to take anything from anyone, Conservatives would be right at the front of the line handing that stuff out. It's not because we don't want to help people. It's because we recognize that taking the money away from people to pay for that harms people and we don't believe it's right for the government to decide to take from one person to give to another.


When does this start to sink in? Ever? It's amazing to me how many of your own ridiculous attacks are based on your own misunderstanding of the position of the other "side". Try to understand us before attacking us. Just at though...

Not that I expect you to acknowledge tis Gbaji, but the point is the pubbies are going out & saying that the stimulous was a complete and utter failure, and helped no one. Then they go home, and say how much good it's doing for them in front of the cameras with the big checks & the ribbons.

That's hypocrosy.

To put it another way, saying that the push out rule is wrong, should be removed and that it doesn't help at all anyway, and you're not going to use it, and then talking about how awesome it is when it wins you a game would be hypocrisy. There is working within the system while wanting to change it, but this is not that.

I happen to be in a position to arrange that, actually. well, at least the stimulus ribbon cutting part.

I can't remember the last time I read something from you that was either rational or logical.

You don't understand at all how the US budgeting system works, do you? Budgets are LAW. That's why they are passed by a legislature. You don't "give money back" once it's budgeted. It's gone. The most you can do is not spend it there and re-apportion it somewhere else. The way to not spend money is to not pass the spending legislation in the first place.


The closest we can do is vote for the guys who opposed said spending in the first place. Which I suppose is kind of the point. Blaming them because when presented with a choice between allowing the money that's already been budgeted to be spent at least on something that matches the original legislation which was passed, or not spending it and letting some other purpose receive it instead, they chose the former is a pretty weak attack IMO...

The government has done it. 2001 and 2008 I believe. Though the 2008 one was different since there wasn't a surplus. And only tax payers were eligible to receive it (both times). So it's not unheard of, but it is rare.

Edited, Feb 20th 2010 1:51am by TirithRR

At the risk of stating the obvious. The money wasn't budgeted that way. Hence, the statement I made. I'm sure every single Republican in Congress would have loved to have a rider in the stimulus bill specifying that funds not spent (or even, say refused by a state) would be returned to the people who paid the taxes for it (or even maybe to the state that chose not to participate). Heck. I seem to recall the GOP pushing for that sort of language and being over ruled by those wonderful Dems who currently control things.



Not that's it's impossible, but that it wasn't done in the case of the Stimulus bill. Yet, for some unexplainable reason, instead of all those concerned citizens wondering why the Dems didn't put such things in the legislation, we're being told we should be bashing Republicans because they're accepting the funds for their states. Funds which their citizens are already being taxed for, and which will just be re-purposed elsewhere if they don't take.

Kind of a lose-lose situation, don't you agree? And utterly unfair to boot!