That'll Learn 'Em
-
If your position was as strong as you seem to think. You wouldn't need to reduce yourself to petty characterizations. You betray your position with this childishness.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
This statement is false
Obviously.
-
The biggest problem with this idea should come clear when you consider the 98% of constituents (in Texas at least, percentages may vary from state to state) who asked told their congressmen not to vote for the TARP and were ignored.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
I asked my congressman to vote against TARP and he did. Not for me, I'm sure, but he's a liberal Democrat who felt it was a bad idea.
-
Bullshit.
Rob Graham wrote:
bullsh*t.
Don't believe me? Read for yourself: Federal Taxes Paid vs. Federal Spending Received by State, 1981-2005[^]
-
If you don't give them stimulus money because they voted against it, you shouldn't take their tax money to fuel either. This is a 2-way street.
Le Centriste wrote:
If you don't give them stimulus money because they voted against it, you shouldn't take their tax money to fuel either.
Those who voted against it are in welfare states that collect far more in Federal spending than they pay in Federal taxes. See: Federal Taxes Paid vs. Federal Spending Received by State, 1981-2005[^]
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
However, Congressmen who voted against the Recovery bill voluntarily chose not to participate in the program so their districts should receive no funds from it
Did it ever cross your liberal mind that the reason they voted "NO" was because of all the PORK in it??? You sound like some schoolkid in the third grade. I can hardly wait to see how they arrived at the number of jobs this bill will create. Is there any explanations of just how they were calculated?
AF Pilot
Reagan Conservative wrote:
Is there any explanations of just how they were calculated?
Congressional Budget Office: (PDF) Year-by-year analysis of the economic effects of the stimulus legislation[^]
Reagan Conservative wrote:
Did it ever cross your liberal mind that the reason they voted "NO" was because of all the PORK in it???
No, because that is not why they voted against it. And my liberal mind was and is against the legislation as passed. It has too much pork and not enough stimulus and is too small for the task at hand. I think about $1.5 trillion is needed, with $300 billion going to targeted tax cuts for small businesses and middle income taxpayers, $600 billion for infrastructure, $300 billion for energy and communications development, and $300 billion to states and localities to offset Medicaid and other Federally mandated spending.
-
Reagan Conservative wrote:
Is there any explanations of just how they were calculated?
Congressional Budget Office: (PDF) Year-by-year analysis of the economic effects of the stimulus legislation[^]
Reagan Conservative wrote:
Did it ever cross your liberal mind that the reason they voted "NO" was because of all the PORK in it???
No, because that is not why they voted against it. And my liberal mind was and is against the legislation as passed. It has too much pork and not enough stimulus and is too small for the task at hand. I think about $1.5 trillion is needed, with $300 billion going to targeted tax cuts for small businesses and middle income taxpayers, $600 billion for infrastructure, $300 billion for energy and communications development, and $300 billion to states and localities to offset Medicaid and other Federally mandated spending.
According to Congressional Budget Office: "Correspondingly, the legislation would increase employment by 0.8 million to 2.3 million by the fourth quarter of 2009." (This is by the end of September, by the way --- a little more than 6 months out!) Well, this I have to see. There isn't enough stimuli in this bill to create 10,00 jobs by September! (Plus, in my humble opinion, this reads like Greenspan gobbledegook. I wonder if anyone can break this down into language that common people can understand?) Nothing there in this report as to how they "determine" if a job was/is created by the stimulus package. I suppose any jobs created are to be "claimed" as created by the stimulus package?? So if I go out and start a business with my own money and hire two people that are unemployed, those people count as "gained" by the stimulus package?? So why did they vote against it --- maybe because they were not allowed to have any INPUT to the PROCESS in this new "bi-partisan" administration? The Dems had to have a secret meeting to formulate this mess. Couldn't even do it in the Capitol Building! I thought bi-partisanship was going to be one of the anchors of the Obama Administration. Or has bi-partisanship been re-defined by the Democrats?
AF Pilot
-
According to Congressional Budget Office: "Correspondingly, the legislation would increase employment by 0.8 million to 2.3 million by the fourth quarter of 2009." (This is by the end of September, by the way --- a little more than 6 months out!) Well, this I have to see. There isn't enough stimuli in this bill to create 10,00 jobs by September! (Plus, in my humble opinion, this reads like Greenspan gobbledegook. I wonder if anyone can break this down into language that common people can understand?) Nothing there in this report as to how they "determine" if a job was/is created by the stimulus package. I suppose any jobs created are to be "claimed" as created by the stimulus package?? So if I go out and start a business with my own money and hire two people that are unemployed, those people count as "gained" by the stimulus package?? So why did they vote against it --- maybe because they were not allowed to have any INPUT to the PROCESS in this new "bi-partisan" administration? The Dems had to have a secret meeting to formulate this mess. Couldn't even do it in the Capitol Building! I thought bi-partisanship was going to be one of the anchors of the Obama Administration. Or has bi-partisanship been re-defined by the Democrats?
AF Pilot
Reagan Conservative wrote:
maybe because they were not allowed to have any INPUT to the PROCESS in this new "bi-partisan" administration?
Partly so. I'm sure they were PO'd about that. It was also because they believe tax cuts for the wealthy are more worthy.
Reagan Conservative wrote:
I thought bi-partisanship was going to be one of the anchors of the Obama Administration
Obama does not control Congress any more than any previous president did. Congress has their own agenda which is often at odds with both the president and the American people.
-
I asked my congressman to vote against TARP and he did. Not for me, I'm sure, but he's a liberal Democrat who felt it was a bad idea.
I know for a fact (he called my mother), that Mike Conaway quakes in his boots everytime he thinks about reelection.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.