• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Politics: Democratic Stimulus Haul is Almost Double Republicans

jujuman13 said:
Link
Politics: Democratic Stimulus Haul is Almost Double Republicans - Big Government

Not sure if this is correct venue for this piece but no doubt will be informed if incorrectly.

No doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong, but is it legal for any Political party to disburse taxpayer funds in an unequal manner and tending to reward the party in power?
Click to expand...

Maybe something to do with the greater number of democratic congressmen and greater population represented by said congressmen?

(edit: and yes, it's totally legal)

edit2: And by greater population I mean population density. More money is going to be spent in a dense city than a rural area.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Maybe something to do with the greater number of democratic congressmen and greater population represented by said congressmen?

(edit: and yes, it's totally legal)

edit2: And by greater population I mean population density. More money is going to be spent in a dense city than a rural area.
Click to expand...
Since all Congressional districts have the same # of people, your points are irrelevant. The districts with higher population densities are also smaller in area. While it's true that Democrats have more seats and represent more people, the ratio isn't 2:1.

OTOH, I'm not sure that this is unusual. When the Republicans controlled the Congress and the White House, you might've found the same thing.
 
Last edited:
you probaly would have - though it helps give the lie to the notion that this "stimulus" was about helping the economy rather than helping politicians.
 
mpg said:
Since all Congressional districts have the same # of people, your points are irrelevant. The districts with higher population densities are also smaller in area. While it's true that Democrats have more seats and represent more people, the ratio isn't 2:1.

OTOH, I'm not sure that this is unusual. When the Republicans controlled the Congress and the White House, you might've found the same thing.
Click to expand...

Districts aren't the same population. They're close, but the only update so often and the densities change over time. Also, it's more expensive to do pretty much anything in a dense city.
 
jujuman13 said:
Link
Politics: Democratic Stimulus Haul is Almost Double Republicans - Big Government

Not sure if this is correct venue for this piece but no doubt will be informed if incorrectly.

No doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong, but is it legal for any Political party to disburse taxpayer funds in an unequal manner and tending to reward the party in power?
Click to expand...

Exactly why would Republicans want Stimulus Funds spent in their districts, when they, as a block, opposed them, and voted against them?

Oh yeah...

... the no real principles thing.

Never mind.

:bootyshake
 
jujuman13 said:
No doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong, but is it legal for any Political party to disburse taxpayer funds in an unequal manner and tending to reward the party in power?
Click to expand...

Not only is it legal, it happens all the time - by both parties.

Hey, the Republicans said they didn't want the stimulus, so they got their wish. It's incredibly hypocritical to vote against it and then take the money. They really ought to refuse it.
 
mpg said:
Since all Congressional districts have the same # of people, your points are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Not quite. That's only true within each state. The total population of a state is divided by the number of seats for that state. They don't all divide the same way. They range from about 500,000 to 900,000 people per district.
 
The Uncola said:
Exactly why would Republicans want Stimulus Funds spent in their districts, when they, as a block, opposed them, and voted against them?

Oh yeah...

... the no real principles thing.

Never mind.

:bootyshake
Click to expand...

Ummm...because wether they agree or disagree with the principle OF the stimulus dollars, once the plan was passed, their constituents are most surely PAYING for it...so they SHOULD seek those dollars. Unless you want to allow opt out states to also have zero fiscal responsibility for the bailout programs.
 
VanceMack said:
Ummm...because wether they agree or disagree with the principle OF the stimulus dollars, once the plan was passed, their constituents are most surely PAYING for it...so they SHOULD seek those dollars. Unless you want to allow opt out states to also have zero fiscal responsibility for the bailout programs.
Click to expand...
Yes but it's always good to remind them that they didn't want the money they are going to spend to help them. :2wave:
 
VanceMack said:
Ummm...because wether they agree or disagree with the principle OF the stimulus dollars, once the plan was passed, their constituents are most surely PAYING for it...so they SHOULD seek those dollars. Unless you want to allow opt out states to also have zero fiscal responsibility for the bailout programs.
Click to expand...

I agree - but I don't have any sympathy for the GOP representatives getting less for their districts. If they are going to go out there and yell and scream about the stimulus law, and run ads about how they didn't vote for it (or their opponent did) they shouldn't get the full benefit.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
Ummm...because wether they agree or disagree with the principle OF the stimulus dollars, once the plan was passed, their constituents are most surely PAYING for it...so they SHOULD seek those dollars. Unless you want to allow opt out states to also have zero fiscal responsibility for the bailout programs.
Click to expand...

Like I said..

.. no REAL principles...

... just false bravado and attempts to bully.

And the Teabagged eat it up.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Yes but it's always good to remind them that they didn't want the money they are going to spend to help them. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Far better to point out that they not only DIDNT get the results they wanted, they also didnt get stimulus dollars AND still have to pay for those that do???

Life hands you lemons and tells you that you HAVE to buy them whether you like it or not, then you either bitch and moan about it, throw them away, or make a concoction with something strong...
 
The Uncola said:
Like I said..

.. no REAL principles...

... just false bravado and attempts to bully.

And the Teabagged eat it up.
Click to expand...

I see...REAL principle would say...go ahead...TAKE our money...and add it to the national debt...and take the money that you WOULD have used here and give THAT to someone else (because you know damn good and well they wouldnt NOT spent it) and screw your own constituents who would then be out twice?

Yeah...that would be a responsible position for an elected official. And well thought out too.
 
misterman said:
I agree - but I don't have any sympathy for the GOP representatives getting less for their districts. If they are going to go out there and yell and scream about the stimulus law, and run ads about how they didn't vote for it (or their opponent did) they shouldn't get the full benefit.
Click to expand...

Frankly I dont think its about sympathy. I think everyone understands the political game. If Conservatives were bribing government officials for their votes like liberals did, liberals would be in an uproar. EVERYONE is purely partisan.

Personally? I think both sides are corrupt. We have a 13.5 trillion dollar debt that will continue to climb unless both parties STOP spending money like its not theirs. Because...oh yeah...its NOT theirs.
 
VanceMack said:
Frankly I dont think its about sympathy. I think everyone understands the political game. If Conservatives were bribing government officials for their votes like liberals did, liberals would be in an uproar.
Click to expand...

And conservatives would blow it off and say they have no sympathy. And back and forth it goes.

EVERYONE is purely partisan.
Click to expand...

Not me.

Personally? I think both sides are corrupt. We have a 13.5 trillion dollar debt that will continue to climb unless both parties STOP spending money like its not theirs. Because...oh yeah...its NOT theirs.
Click to expand...

Okay, so you and I are the only non-partisan people on the planet. We should feel so good about ourselves.
 
It's not a choice. Republican politicians and red states taking money is mandatory. It's just like the first stimulus, when certain states like South Carolina and Texas initially refused forced stimulus money because it came with a high-risk rate of interest, and they didn't want to be indebted to Washington when the stimulus money was meant for a purpose that did not help the states one bit.

That's the true crime happening here, not the partisan bickering and finger-pointing.
 
Gipper said:
It's not a choice. Republican politicians and red states taking money is mandatory. It's just like the first stimulus, when certain states like South Carolina and Texas initially refused forced stimulus money because it came with a high-risk rate of interest, and they didn't want to be indebted to Washington when the stimulus money was meant for a purpose that did not help the states one bit.
Click to expand...

Well then, if it is mandatory as you claim, it's not like the first stimulus, which apparently wasn't.

There are certainly some optional parts of this stimulus. Much of it involves grants that require applications.
 
mpg said:
Since all Congressional districts have the same # of people, your points are irrelevant. The districts with higher population densities are also smaller in area. While it's true that Democrats have more seats and represent more people, the ratio isn't 2:1.

OTOH, I'm not sure that this is unusual. When the Republicans controlled the Congress and the White House, you might've found the same thing.
Click to expand...
Deuce got

PWNED!
 
American said:
Deuce got

PWNED!
Click to expand...

misterman said:
Not quite. That's only true within each state. The total population of a state is divided by the number of seats for that state. They don't all divide the same way. They range from about 500,000 to 900,000 people per district.
Click to expand...

American got

PWNED![/QUOTE]

:doh
 
misterman said:
American got

PWNED!
Click to expand...

:doh[/QUOTE]
Then I guess they aren't following the constitution, since all people are not represented equally. Of course in Virginia we have Democrats with districts that aren't contiguous due to gerimandering. BTW, I made no claim, so my supposed pwnage is null. Apparently you don't know what that means.
 
American said:
:doh
Click to expand...
Then I guess they aren't following the constitution, since all people are not represented equally.[/QUOTE]

I explained this.

Each STATE's population is divided equally, but they can't all divide by the same amount. So if you have a state with 100,000 people and 2 seats, each seat will have 50,000 people. Another state with 140,000 people and 3 seats is going to have roughly 46,666 people per seat. Simple math.

Of course in Virginia we have Democrats with districts that aren't contiguous due to gerimandering.
Click to expand...

No, you do not. Non-contiguous would mean there two parts that don't touch (unless divided by water).

Pretty much every state has gerrymandered districts that are not very compact, but all are contiguous.

BTW, I made no claim, so my supposed pwnage is null. Apparently you don't know what that means.
Click to expand...

You weren't pwned on the claim itself. You were pwned on the claim that Deuce was pwned. It was a counterpwn. I know exactly what it means.
 
Wait how did I get pwnd again? When I was proven "wrong" on districts not having the same number of people in them?
 
Deuce said:
Wait how did I get pwnd again? When I was proven "wrong" on districts not having the same number of people in them?
Click to expand...

You weren't pwned. You were right. The district size varies by state, from about 500,000 to 900,000 people each.
 
misterman said:
You weren't pwned. You were right. The district size varies by state, from about 500,000 to 900,000 people each.
Click to expand...

Hence the quotes around "wrong" :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom