Ah, more hypocritical congressmen: vote against the stimulus, but then beg for its money

[mhd24]

http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/2532/

[Duckus]

[Chicken Fried]

I don't understand the argument. Other threads like this have come up. Yes, he voted against the stimulus, but is he supposed to not keep his district competitive with others by refusing to take stimulus money to make a point? Part of the stimulus bill is tax money from his district. That's their money to begin with.

[twa]

I don't find it hypocritical to ask for some of what you will be paying for.(especially for a donor state)

I would find it stupid to not do so.

Unless you are giving exemptions from the taxes

Duckus ...Don't make me break out the World's most mysterious liberal clip...LOL

[Predicto]

I don't understand the argument. Other threads like this have come up. Yes, he voted against the stimulus, but is he supposed to not keep his district competitive with others by refusing to take stimulus money to make a point? Part of the stimulus bill is tax money from his district. That's their money to begin with.

I agree with this.

This argument is just as weak as when conservatives say: "if you think taxes should be raised, you are a hypocrite if you don't just voluntarily pay more to the Treasury."

[Burgold]

I don't understand the argument. Other threads like this have come up. Yes, he voted against the stimulus, but is he supposed to not keep his district competitive with others by refusing to take stimulus money to make a point? Part of the stimulus bill is tax money from his district. That's their money to begin with.

I don't find it hypocritical to ask for some of what you will be paying for.(especially for a donor state)

I would find it stupid to not do so.

I actually agree with both of you. Now, I might argue that it was hypocritical of him to vote against it knowing that he would take and use it. I do, believe that many voted against the stim believing that it was needed and who planned to take full advantage of it and therefore their votes were phony, but that's par for the course in politics. Will you vote for this so I don't have to. That doesn't necessarily make them hypocrites, but it does make those who voted that way political slimes.

Of course, that's all speculation and I have no way of knowing who voted their conscience and who was playing games.

[twa]

I agree with this.

This argument is just as weak as when conservatives say: "if you think taxes should be raised, you are a hypocrite if you don't just voluntarily pay more to the Treasury."

I prefer saying if you don't think YOU are paying high enough taxes YOU should send more.

Weak is wanting to raise others taxes,but not your own.

[Woodhead]

Of course, that's all speculation and I have no way of knowing who voted their conscience and who was playing games.

Sure you do, if there is an R in front of their name, they are playing games. If there is a D in front of their names, you need to look at them closer to see if they are or not. :pfft:

[Burgold]

Sure you do, if there is an R in front of their name, they are playing games. If there is a D in front of their names, you need to look at them closer to see if they are or not. :pfft:

Depends on the issue

(but I do believe that some were honestly opposed to a stim... Others were for it and even got their trinkets put in and then voted against it to appear conservative)

[Chachie]

That doesn't necessarily make them hypocrites, but it does make those who voted that way political slimes.

Is their any other kind of politician?

[Burgold]

Is their any other kind of politician?

Highly endangered is different than extinct.

[elkabong82]

I don't understand the argument. Other threads like this have come up. Yes, he voted against the stimulus, but is he supposed to not keep his district competitive with others by refusing to take stimulus money to make a point? Part of the stimulus bill is tax money from his district. That's their money to begin with.

Yes, that's exactly what he is supposed to do. If you're against something then you should stand firm on it, not endorse it by accepting it. I knew this argument would get brought up, but it is a HUGE lack of integrity to take money from something you opposed being allocated money.

You stick to your beliefs and maintain your integrity by not taking part in what you oppose.

[twa]

Yes, that's exactly what he is supposed to do. If you're against something then you should stand firm on it, not endorse it by accepting it. I knew this argument would get brought up, but it is a HUGE lack of integrity to take money from something you opposed being allocated money.

You stick to your beliefs and maintain your integrity by not taking part in what you oppose.

Would that prevent them from spending the money you will pay for?

Would that stop future stimulus?

Not taking part would be opting out of paying for it,which is not a option.

[Bucaro]

The hypocrisy that bothers me is the representatives/senators telling the public that it would not create any jobs then writing funding request letters to different agencies touting how their use of the funds would create jobs for their district/state. That's about as two-faced as it comes

[elkabong82]

Would that prevent them from spending the money you will pay for?

Would that stop future stimulus?

Not taking part would be opting out of paying for it,which is not a option.

None of your post matters. Regradless of the stimulus going into effect and regardless of where the money is taken from, the bottom line is that if you oppose such a stimulus then you shouldn't support it after the fact, especially not to help yourself when in your campaign against it you urge that it will do more harm than good. It's called having integrity, sticking to your statement. You don't oppose something and then buy in once it's passed.

If you can't understand that, then you are holding money at a higher value then ones own integrity, which is exactly what that congressman did, and what many politicians do.

[Burgold]

The hypocrisy that bothers me is the representatives/senators telling the public that it would not create any jobs then writing funding request letters to different agencies touting how their use of the funds would create jobs for their district/state. That's about as two-faced as it comes

That's a good point right there.

[Burgold]

or in the current electioneering touting how they're going to create jobs through pork stimulus.

[twa]

That's a good point right there.

Yes, I can agree that would be hypocritical

elkabong82...there is NO opting out or 'buying in',once you lose the vote it no longer matters...if you can't understand that you are ignoring reality

[elkabong82]

Yes, I can agree that would be hypocritical

elkabong82...there is NO opting out or 'buying in',once you lose the vote it no longer matters...if you can't understand that you are ignoring reality

I understand that. Apparently you don't understand, or possibly refuse to because the politician in question has an R in front, about sticking to ones beliefs and statements. That congressman campaigned against the stimulus because he claimed it was bad and would do harm not good, but now he wants some of that stimulus to help his area. You really don't see anything wrong with that?

It doesn't matter if you have no option and they take out of it, if you publicly oppose it saying it won't help it will do more harm, and then ask for its help afterwards, then you are a hypocrite.

and your first line "that WOULD be hypocritical." umm, you mean IT IS hypocritical because that is what's going on. Perhaps you are the one ignoring reality.

[twa]

It doesn't matter if you have no option and they take out of it, if you publicly oppose it saying it won't help it will do more harm, and then ask for its help afterwards, then you are a hypocrite.

.

You ignore the harm is already done.

[Larry]

I agree with this.

This argument is just as weak as when conservatives say: "if you think taxes should be raised, you are a hypocrite if you don't just voluntarily pay more to the Treasury."

Damn, I was gonna make that comparison.

Or the people who claim hypocrisy at people who object to Social Security, but who don't send the money back. .

Or Al Gore not traveling on horseback.

It's a stupid argument. (Which probably explains why politicians on both sides, use it.)

[elkabong82]

You ignore the harm is already done.

That doesn't matter. "Oh, everything is already bad so why not buy in." Gimmee a break. If you oppose the stimulus then you shouldn't be requesting funds from it, citing that it will help. It's really a simple matter, most in the thread seem to agree, I can only assume that you are denying it because of the man's party allegiance, plus your one-liners in lieu of actually addressing all my points is both annoying and rude, so we're done here. Have a good night.

[twa]

I'll miss your wisdom

[nonniey]

That doesn't matter. "Oh, everything is already bad so why not buy in." Gimmee a break. If you oppose the stimulus then you shouldn't be requesting funds from it, citing that it will help. It's really a simple matter, most in the thread seem to agree, I can only assume that you are denying it because of the man's party allegiance, plus your one-liners in lieu of actually addressing all my points is both annoying and rude, so we're done here. Have a good night.

Elkobong don't know where you get the idea that most seem to agree with you. I just read through this thread and other than the original post it looks like everyone is disagreeing with your position. Lets put it this way if you were stranded with a group of people on an island and you found some chickens and your position is to keep them for the eggs but a majority of the others want to kill and eat them, does than mean you shouldn't eat any chicken when they're cooked?

[twa]

That was last weeks episode right?...ya don't want to hog the chicken either.