• 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!

Schwarzenegger hammers fellow Republicans over stimulus hypocrisy

Hatuey

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,334
Reaction score
27,000
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Schwarzenegger hammers fellow Republicans over stimulus hypocrisy - Yahoo! News

Last month, President Obama scolded Republicans in Congress for playing both sides when it came to last year's economic stimulus plan. Addressing a group of House Republicans at a retreat in Baltimore, the president accused many in the group of outright hypocrisy, saying, "A lot of you have gone to appear at ribbon cuttings for the same projects that you voted against." Many Obama supporters have levied similar criticisms, and now at least one prominent Republican politician is joining in on the chorus: California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Schwarzenegger praised the "terrific" effect of the influx of federal dollars into his financially troubled state, and chided Republicans who've tried to play both sides of the fence.

"I find it interesting that you have a lot of the Republicans running around and pushing back on the stimulus money and saying this doesn't create any new jobs," he said. "And then they go out and they do the photo ops and they are posing with the big check and they say, 'isn't this great?'"
Click to expand...

****ing Right. Some republicans seem to only oppose pork when they are in Washington. Then when they go back home they take credit for bringing money back to their states. Same go for these "conservative" blue dog democrats who complain about spending but take the money anyway. Actions speak louder than words in this world.
 
Hatuey said:
Schwarzenegger hammers fellow Republicans over stimulus hypocrisy - Yahoo! News



****ing Right. Some republicans seem to only oppose pork when they are in Washington. Then when they go back home they take credit for bringing money back to their states. Same go for these "conservative" blue dog democrats who complain about spending but take the money anyway. Actions speak louder than words in this world.
Click to expand...

That whole train of argument is so incredibly ridiculous. The fact that you opposed the passage of a $850b bill means that once the bill is passed, you cannot express support for any of the individual results of that bill?

Let's say that under Bush, the Republicans passed an $850b bill that did thousands of things - cut taxes for the wealthy, increased funding for Iraq, deregulated the banks, set aside money to build roads, gave billions to build community hospitals, and jacked up funding for the national park system. Say you're a liberal Democrat who opposes the bill because you think that it gives way too much money to the rich, wrongly ramps up the war in Iraq, and will hurt the budget overall. Does that mean that you can't be pleased about a brand new wildlife reserve that opens up in your district? You can't show up at the ribbon cutting for that community health clinic? You can't take a picture in a hard hat down at the bridge building site?

If a politician opposed the stimulus because he said it was giving too much money to his district, in particular to a worthless plan to build a train station, then celebrating the opening of that train station would make that politician a hypocrite. Short of that, this is just age-old namecalling.
 
RightinNYC said:
That whole train of argument is so incredibly ridiculous. The fact that you opposed the passage of a $850b bill means that once the bill is passed, you cannot express support for any of the individual results of that bill?
Click to expand...

In a short word : Yes.

That is exactly what it means. You can't take credit for things you opposed from the start. It is quite dishonest.

Let's say that under Bush, the Republicans passed an $850b bill that did thousands of things - cut taxes for the wealthy, increased funding for Iraq, deregulated the banks, set aside money to build roads, gave billions to build community hospitals, and jacked up funding for the national park system. Say you're a liberal Democrat who opposes the bill because you think that it gives way too much money to the rich, wrongly ramps up the war in Iraq, and will hurt the budget overall. Does that mean that you can't be pleased about a brand new wildlife reserve that opens up in your district? You can't show up at the ribbon cutting for that community health clinic? You can't take a picture in a hard hat down at the bridge building site?
Click to expand...

Yes. If I oppose a bill. I oppose the entire bill. Not just the parts which do not benefit me. But then again I'm all for people being consistent.

If a politician opposed the stimulus because he said it was giving too much money to his district, in particular to a worthless plan to build a train station, then celebrating the opening of that train station would make that politician a hypocrite? Short of that, this is just age-old namecalling.
Click to expand...

Yes. Yes a thousand times yes.

You can not pretend you hate pork and then decide to take credit for it when it benefits you. That is called hypocrisy. Regardless of who does. Liberal, Democrat, Conservative or Republican. If you can not understand the basis of the word hypocrite then I can not help you. If you believe in do as I say not as I do then that is fine. But it shows weak moral fiber.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
In a short word : Yes.

That is exactly what it means. You can't take credit for things you opposed from the start. It is quite dishonest.

Yes. If I oppose a bill. I oppose the entire bill. Not just the parts which do not benefit me. But then again I'm all for people being consistent.

Yes. Yes a thousand times yes.

You can not pretend you hate pork and then decide to take credit for it when it benefits you. That is called hypocrisy. Regardless of who does. Liberal, Democrat, Conservative or Republican. If you can not understand the basis of the word hypocrite then I can not help you. If you believe in do as I say not as I do then that is fine. But it shows weak moral fiber.
Click to expand...

I just don't understand how that's hypocrisy. Say you oppose that bill because you want to cut the spending on the war and double the money spent in your district on hospitals. You're saying that you don't get to celebrate the opening of local hospitals despite the fact that you're a long-time supporter of those hospitals and tried to get them even more funding?
 
RightinNYC said:
I just don't understand how that's hypocrisy. Say you oppose that bill because you want to cut the spending on the war and double the money spent in your district on hospitals. You're saying that you don't get to celebrate the opening of local hospitals despite the fact that you're a long-time supporter of those hospitals and tried to get them even more funding?
Click to expand...

That is not what the article is talking about. The article is talking about the money in the stimulus bill. The fact that Republicans opposed it at every turn and then went back and tried to take credit for the good results it had and the money it gave to their states is what is being talked about.
 
RightinNYC said:
That whole train of argument is so incredibly ridiculous. The fact that you opposed the passage of a $850b bill means that once the bill is passed, you cannot express support for any of the individual results of that bill?
Click to expand...

Correct. You can't.

Those Republicans who have blasted the ARRA but turn around and do these photo ops really should be ashamed of themselves. You can't have it both ways on this issue. Either it was a good bill that has shown dividens in communities across the country or it has not. Either it has been a worthwhile effort or it has not. Either it has created jobs and generated revenue for some cities and small towns or it has not. Either you're for it or you're against it. And if you're against it, you shouldn't be attending these ribbon cutting ceremonies and photo ops where you as a politician get props for "securing funding" through the very legistlation you opposed in the first place. It's very hypocritical to play up local support for projects that either got off the ground or received additional funding towards its completion through the ARRA while also denouncing the bill in whole or in part.
 
Last edited:
A few facts to keep in mind here.

#1. Arnold is a RINO not a real republican, and most certainly no Conservative.

#2. Arnold is an Obama apologist and has been from the beginning, the idiot even fell for the Global Warming HOAX.

#3. Of the $787 billion appropriated only 1/3 of it has been spent and much of it used to pay off special interests and to promote Socialism which Obama loves.

#4. Pork is a and has been a fact of Washington life and one mans pork is another mans constituents benefits.

#5. Arnold is most likely going to go directly from Sacramento to the Obama Administration.

I wish Gray Davis had been smarter because it would have made it possible for the people of California not to look like fools for electing Arnold.

It would be better if everyone were to be consistent and I think everyone agrees hypocrisy is problem but it's a toss up whether Arnold's variety is the same or worse than others.
 
Councilman said:
A few facts to keep in mind here.

#1. Arnold is a RINO not a real republican, and most certainly no Conservative.

#2. Arnold is an Obama apologist and has been from the beginning, the idiot even fell for the Global Warming HOAX.

#3. Of the $787 billion appropriated only 1/3 of it has been spent and much of it used to pay off special interests and to promote Socialism which Obama loves.

#4. Pork is a and has been a fact of Washington life and one mans pork is another mans constituents benefits.

#5. Arnold is most likely going to go directly from Sacramento to the Obama Administration.

I wish Gray Davis had been smarter because it would have made it possible for the people of California not to look like fools for electing Arnold.

It would be better if everyone were to be consistent and I think everyone agrees hypocrisy is problem but it's a toss up whether Arnold's variety is the same or worse than others.
Click to expand...

A single thing to keep in mind.

Republican congressman go and claim the stimulus isn't creating jobs and then hold up a giant novelty check and give a speech about the jobs it will create.

Jesus Christ this isn't that hard to understand.

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/29054

I know Maddow is irritating, just watch it.
 
Last edited:
Councilman said:
A few facts to keep in mind here.

#1. Arnold is a RINO not a real republican, and most certainly no Conservative.

#2. Arnold is an Obama apologist and has been from the beginning, the idiot even fell for the Global Warming HOAX.

#3. Of the $787 billion appropriated only 1/3 of it has been spent and much of it used to pay off special interests and to promote Socialism which Obama loves.

#4. Pork is a and has been a fact of Washington life and one mans pork is another mans constituents benefits.

#5. Arnold is most likely going to go directly from Sacramento to the Obama Administration.

I wish Gray Davis had been smarter because it would have made it possible for the people of California not to look like fools for electing Arnold.

It would be better if everyone were to be consistent and I think everyone agrees hypocrisy is problem but it's a toss up whether Arnold's variety is the same or worse than others.
Click to expand...

Attacking the messenger doesn't invalidate the message.
 
Goyboy said:
Attacking the messenger doesn't invalidate the message.
Click to expand...

It really does in conservative world.

I know it isn't all of you guys, but goddamn sometimes it really seems that way.
 
When you publicly criticize and ridicule the bill, but privately request funds...well you can call it what you will.

The requests to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act,

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.
Click to expand...

Sen. Mike Johanns, who took office last year from Nebraska, predicted that "the money would simply never reach the economy."
[...]
"The proposed project would create 38 new jobs and bring broadband to eight hospitals, five colleges, 16 libraries and 161 K-12 schools," Mr. Johanns wrote.
Click to expand...

Sen. Lamar Alexander, Tennessee Republican, who easily won re-election in 2008, said of the stimulus, "This is spending, not stimulus."

In a letter to Mr. Vilsack for a project applying for stimulus money, Mr. Alexander noted, "It is anticipated that the project will create over 200 jobs in the first year and at least another 40 new jobs in the following years."
Click to expand...

Rep. John Linder, Georgia Republican, posted a blog item on his Web site on Oct. 21, stating that recent unemployment figures "only reinforce the fact that the $787 billion 'stimulus' signed into law eight months ago has done nothing for job growth in this country."

Two weeks earlier, Mr. Linder had sent a letter to Mr. Vilsack backing an application for stimulus money by the Elauwit Community Foundation, records show. With unemployment in Georgia topping 10 percent, "the employment opportunities created by this program would be quickly utilized," Mr. Linder wrote.
Click to expand...

Rep. Robert B. Aderholt, Alabama Republican, also voted against and criticized the stimulus.

"Rather than create jobs or stimulate the economy, this massive spending bill was a laundry list of programs that focused on states with big-city urban communities," he wrote in the Oct. 4 edition of the Daily Mountain Eagle newspaper.

Three days later, Mr. Aderholt sent a letter to Mr. Vilsack on behalf of a foundation seeking stimulus money to expand broadband services in his district.
Click to expand...

Stimulus foes see value in seeking cash - Washington Times
 
Hatuey said:
That is not what the article is talking about. The article is talking about the money in the stimulus bill. The fact that Republicans opposed it at every turn and then went back and tried to take credit for the good results it had and the money it gave to their states is what is being talked about.
Click to expand...

Objective Voice said:
Correct. You can't.

Those Republicans who have blasted the ARRA but turn around and do these photo ops really should be ashamed of themselves. You can't have it both ways on this issue. Either it was a good bill that has shown dividens in communities across the country or it has not. Either it has been a worthwhile effort or it has not. Either it has created jobs and generated revenue for some cities and small towns or it has not. Either you're for it or you're against it. And if you're against it, you shouldn't be attending these ribbon cutting ceremonies and photo ops where you as a politician get props for "securing funding" through the very legistlation you opposed in the first place. It's very hypocritical to play up local support for projects that either got off the ground or received additional funding towards its completion through the ARRA while also denouncing the bill in whole or in part.
Click to expand...

When $850b of spending gets lumped together into one omnibus spending bill, it's just absurd to say that you have to uniformly support or oppose every portion of the bill. That's just not how legislation develops. Never in the history of Congress has there been a bill where every supporter agreed on every part and every opponent opposed every part, so trying to hold legislators to some artificial standard is ridiculous.

Even more ridiculous is to say that once the decision to spend the money is made, officials who opposed the bill can't then turn around and have a hand in where it goes. If I'm a politician opposed to the stimulus because I think it will add too much to the debt, and it gets passed over my objections, I should then turn around and tell Congress that I don't want them to send any of it to my district? That's just naive.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
When $850b of spending gets lumped together into one omnibus spending bill, it's just absurd to say that you have to uniformly support or oppose every portion of the bill. That's just not how legislation develops. Never in the history of Congress has there been a bill where every supporter agreed on every part and every opponent opposed every part, so trying to hold legislators to some artificial standard is ridiculous.

Even more ridiculous is to say that once the decision to spend the money is made, officials who opposed the bill can't then turn around and have a hand in where it goes. If I'm a politician opposed to the stimulus because I think it will add too much to the debt, and it gets passed over my objections, I should then turn around and tell Congress that I don't want them to send any of it to my district? That's just naive.
Click to expand...

You aren't listening. They're bragging about the jobs this funding will create while simultaneously going on TV and saying it hasn't done anything.
 
Deuce said:
You aren't listening. They're bragging about the jobs this funding will create while simultaneously going on TV and saying it hasn't done anything.
Click to expand...

And like I noted here, individual politicians who do that are being hypocrites. That has nothing to do with what we're discussing, which is whether you can oppose the bill as a whole and then celebrate any portion of it.

Try reading the rest of the thread before posting.
 
RightinNYC said:
… Try reading the rest of the thread before posting.
Click to expand...

/me smacks head, rolls eyes

Republicans who claim that the bill created no jobs are not entitled to claim to their constituents that they created jobs.

When they do, they are hypocrites.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
In a short word : Yes.

That is exactly what it means. You can't take credit for things you opposed from the start. It is quite dishonest.
Click to expand...

You mean like when Joe Biden and his boss the Messiah took credit for the successes George Bush gave them in Iraq?

Oh.

You only get excited when it's a Leftist Republican showing Leftist hypocrisy, but it's different when your Messiah does the exact same thing.

Guess that makes you a hypocrite, too.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You mean like when Joe Biden and his boss the Messiah took credit for the successes George Bush gave them in Iraq?

Oh.

You only get excited when it's a Leftist Republican showing Leftist hypocrisy, but it's different when your Messiah does the exact same thing.

Guess that makes you a hypocrite, too.
Click to expand...

Found out who Malcolm X is Mr. Uninformed or will you continue trolling?
 
Hatuey said:
You can not pretend you hate pork and then decide to take credit for it when it benefits you. That is called hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

I can't think of anything better than to oppose something the supermajority party steam-rolled over me than to take credit from them and thereby aid my chances of keeping one of them out of office.

Just in case you haven't noticed, the Stimulus Porkulus hasn't worked, and just in case Schwarzenegger failed to notice, California is going to be showing another 25 billion dollar deficit again. So Arnie needs to stop whining and start cutting. He played a horrible Conan, but still, if he swung that bastard sword around some, he'd have to cut something out of the budget, right?
 
Hatuey said:
Found out who Malcolm X is Mr. Uninformed or will you continue trolling?
Click to expand...

Nope, who's Malcolm the Tenth? What did Malcolm the First do? Was Malcolm the Second any good, or was he sloppy, and what does any of that have to do with the fact that the Messiah opposed Iraq and claimed credit for Bush's success when His Holiness did nothing Himself to secure victory in Iraq?
 
Last edited:
Chappy said:
/me smacks head, rolls eyes

Republicans who claim that the bill created no jobs are not entitled to claim to their constituents that they created jobs.

When they do, they are hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Which is in no way incompatible with any of my posts.
 
Greg Mankiw's Blog: An Illogical Attack on the GOP

"Let me offer an analogy. Many Democratic congressmen opposed the Bush tax cuts. That was based, I presume, on their honest assessment of the policy. But once these tax cuts were passed, I bet these congressmen paid lower taxes. I bet they did not offer to hand the Treasury the extra taxes they would have owed at the previous tax rates. Would it make sense for the GOP to suggest that these Democrats were disingenuous or hypocritical? I don't think so. Many times, we as individuals benefit from policies we opposed. There is nothing wrong about that."
Click to expand...

However, I do think that if the stimulus has done some good in the congressmans area, he/she should at least be honest and say so. I mean people saying it hasn't made one job...come on. If you disagree with why we did it thats fine, but don't lie about what has really happened.
 
Last edited:
Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Schwarzenegger praised the "terrific" effect of the influx of federal dollars into his financially troubled state, and chided Republicans who've tried to play both sides of the fence.
Click to expand...
Only one problem, Arnold...the effect is only temporary. Federal dollars are not going to cure our state.
 
Councilman said:
A few facts to keep in mind here.

#1. Arnold is a RINO not a real republican, and most certainly no Conservative.

#2. Arnold is an Obama apologist and has been from the beginning, the idiot even fell for the Global Warming HOAX.

#3. Of the $787 billion appropriated only 1/3 of it has been spent and much of it used to pay off special interests and to promote Socialism which Obama loves.

#4. Pork is a and has been a fact of Washington life and one mans pork is another mans constituents benefits.

#5. Arnold is most likely going to go directly from Sacramento to the Obama Administration.

I wish Gray Davis had been smarter because it would have made it possible for the people of California not to look like fools for electing Arnold.

It would be better if everyone were to be consistent and I think everyone agrees hypocrisy is problem but it's a toss up whether Arnold's variety is the same or worse than others.
Click to expand...

I'm not so hard on the govenor. He started out okay. He just crumbled to his insane constituency and the legislators we keep in office.

It doesn't matter who is the govenor. The legislators are killing the state because far too many of the people who put them there want their stuff. We aren't willing to do with less.
 
Objective Voice said:
Correct. You can't.

Those Republicans who have blasted the ARRA but turn around and do these photo ops really should be ashamed of themselves. You can't have it both ways on this issue. Either it was a good bill that has shown dividens in communities across the country or it has not. Either it has been a worthwhile effort or it has not. Either it has created jobs and generated revenue for some cities and small towns or it has not. Either you're for it or you're against it. And if you're against it, you shouldn't be attending these ribbon cutting ceremonies and photo ops where you as a politician get props for "securing funding" through the very legistlation you opposed in the first place. It's very hypocritical to play up local support for projects that either got off the ground or received additional funding towards its completion through the ARRA while also denouncing the bill in whole or in part.
Click to expand...

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If you support some small part of a bill, you can't even oppose it in part?

The stimulus bill didn't do one thing, it spent money on many, many things. It is ridiculous to think that people have to agree with either all of those things or none of them. Not only is there a gray area, but everything is in the gray area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom