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

[mojobo]

So somebody on extremeskins says "hey I'm going to take a loan out in everyones name that has an account on extremeskins and spend it so that people can have jobs". A group of people object saying "this is a really stupid idea don't take out the loan its going to cause more problems than its worth". The first guy takes the loan out in everyones name anyway and forces everyone to take on a bunch of debt they didn't want to take on. The people who objected say "well if your going to foolishly do this the least you could do is give me some of the money since I have to pay it back anyways". The members who objected are now hypocrites? You think they should be forced to pay back the debt but not have any of the money?

[twa]

The members who objected are now hypocrites? You think they should be forced to pay back the debt but not have any of the money?

It would leave more for the mentally challenged to play with,and I'm sure makes perfect sense to them.

[elkabong82]

Elkobong don't know where you get the idea that most seem to agree with you. I just read throough 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?

I didn't realize the congressman was in such dire straits that he needed to accept stimulus funds or else starve to death.

I guess I did overstate the majority part though.

I'm saying though that it should be a matter of principle. If you honestly think something is going to be harmful, then why take part in it? If you honestly believed your place would be better off without it, then why request to bring it in?

Since we're playing the analogy game: congressman X campaigns against alcohol being sold in his district. The bill doesn't go in his favor and his district sells alcohol. Congressman X proceeds to go into his district and buy alcohol.

Or... how about the NFL cracking down on the hard hits now and issuing out fines as well as new suspension rules, and then selling pictures of one of the fined hits online, i.e. taking part in the profits of what they had sworn against.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?336629-PFT-League-is-selling-photo-of-James-Harrison-s-illegal-hit

Both seem a bit hypocritical to me, but I'm guessing we're all just going to wind up having to agree to disagree on this.

and mojobo, we already pay back a lot of debt without seeing any of that money. I pay taxes which go to all sorts of services I never actually use, but it does help out a lot of people who actually do use them. And I didn't say those people who disagreed should be forced to, I said they should stick with their statements and not take part in that which they opposed.

[twa]

Elk... ya continue to ignore(or not grasp) the harm is not from spending money already approved...spending causes no harm,and can be beneficial.

do I need to write a paragraph to explain that simple truth?

[mojobo]

and mojobo, we already pay back a lot of debt without seeing any of that money. I pay taxes which go to all sorts of services I never actually use, but it does help out a lot of people who actually do use them. And I didn't say those people who disagreed should be forced to, I said they should stick with their statements and not take part in that which they opposed.

Yes if we all take out a bunch of debt for some people to spend then those people will benefit. Whether you said the people who disagreed should be forced to take on debt or not it doesn't matter, its public debt which they will be responsible for. Nobody is claiming that the money that you get from borrowing will be bad. They are claiming that the cost of paying back the loan plus interest, and the inflation that comes with printing a ton of money by far outweighs the benefits. If someone is forced to take on the costs its stupid to think they wouldn't want some of the benefits of it.

[Hubbs]

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.

Unless you are giving exemptions from the taxes

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

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 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.

Oh look! Everyone seems to agree that we shouldn't elect officials who will argue against stimulus while simultaneously arguing that stimulus money is inherently bad for their area, even while they're taking the stimulus money! Maybe this would affect the voting decisions of the people of that area if our voting system didn't present them with only the belief that the two candidates they can choose are people like Rick Perry and someone else who's actually very similar to Rick Perry, even if the someone else will say different things to describe his/her actions that will mimic the actions taken by Rick Perry!

Keep supporting a government run only by Democrats and Republicans, everyone. No one else could possibly have good ideas. It's impossible.

[elkabong82]

Elk... ya continue to ignore(or not grasp) the harm is not from spending money already approved...spending causes no harm,and can be beneficial.

do I need to write a paragraph to explain that simple truth?

No, you just keep ignoring what I'm saying because the person in question is in your party.

It doesn't matter if it's harmless to spend the money; bottom line is that if you campaign against something then you should not take part in it because you felt you were better off without. Saying something would be bad, but then using it saying it will do good.... and you don't find anything wrong with that. Hilariously sad.

[elkabong82]

Yes if we all take out a bunch of debt for some people to spend then those people will benefit. Whether you said the people who disagreed should be forced to take on debt or not it doesn't matter, its public debt which they will be responsible for. Nobody is claiming that the money that you get from borrowing will be bad. They are claiming that the cost of paying back the loan plus interest, and the inflation that comes with printing a ton of money by far outweighs the benefits. If someone is forced to take on the costs its stupid to think they wouldn't want some of the benefits of it.

I never said they wouldn't want it, I said they should stick to not wanting it, instead of sacrificing their principles for dollars. Besides, I didn't see anybody in the congressman's party objecting to massive spending and loosening of restrictions when "their guy" was in office, both of which helped put us in the current mess which prompted the perceived need for stimulus in the first place.

Anyways, the congressman and others should be coming up with their own solutions, especially since their party's actions under the last presidency led to the crises today, rather than simply rejecting everything not from their party with excessive fear mongering rhetoric, but then taking part in it anyways.

[twa]

There is no option for not taking part,now if participation was offered and rejected you certainly would be making a stand.

otherwise you are paying and playing.

[panel]

It INFURIATES me that if vote against the stimulus, trying to get your money back makes you a hypocrite.

For those of you calling out people for being hypocrites, is it you opinion that if stimulus passes, EVERYONE should be taxed, but only those that voted for it should get the money?

If I vote AGAINST social security, am I a hypocrite for trying to get the money I paid in back when I retire? Just because I realize that we would be better off saving our money, then paying the government to save our money doesn't mean I am not entitled to try to recover a fraction of the funds that the government mishandled and screwed me out of.

What if universal health care passed? Would anyone that votes against it be a hypocrite if they tried to get treated after it passed?

It is messed up hard core for the people that wanted these stupid things to pass, complain when someone other then them uses it, all the while, requiring everyone to pay for it.

[panel]

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.

How can they do that? Can they just tell everyone "we are opposed to this, there for we will not pay on cent towards the stimulus deficit."?

If they could do that, I sure that many states would do that.

[elkabong82]

There is no option for not taking part,now if participation was offered and rejected you certainly would be making a stand.

otherwise you are paying and playing.

We've been over this and you just keep talking in circles, so obviously you either can't or won't understand my point. So again, we're done with this conversation. We can revisit when a Democrat pulls a similar stunt and we then agree over the hypocricy of requesting funds from a stimulus he opposed, regardless of other circumstances.

[elkabong82]

How can they do that? Can they just tell everyone "we are opposed to this, there for we will not pay on cent towards the stimulus deficit."?

If they could do that, I sure that many states would do that.

Wow, ok, that's not what I said at all. Are purposely convuluting my point? Because I never said what you just calimed I did.

What I said is that since the congressman opposed it, he should not now be requesting money from it, citing it will help as his reasoning. I think all some of you are capable of seeing is that money was paid in despite objection, so its perfectly fine to buy in and request stimulus money to get it back. It's like a revenge motif, which has apparently blinded you guys to the matters of principle and integrity. If the congressman were really that opposed to it, and not just blindly following his party's lead, then he wouldn't be requesting stimulus money, he would be chastising those that do and refusing any stimulus money. If money was allocated to him without choice that'd be different, but he openly is requesting stimulus money that he opposed. And now I'm done repeating myself. You all have a good day.

[mojobo]

I never said they wouldn't want it, I said they should stick to not wanting it, instead of sacrificing their principles for dollars. Besides, I didn't see anybody in the congressman's party objecting to massive spending and loosening of restrictions when "their guy" was in office, both of which helped put us in the current mess which prompted the perceived need for stimulus in the first place.

Anyways, the congressman and others should be coming up with their own solutions, especially since their party's actions under the last presidency led to the crises today, rather than simply rejecting everything not from their party with excessive fear mongering rhetoric, but then taking part in it anyways.

Of course the Republican administration helped lead to the mess, and left Obama with a really bad situation... I'm not going to argue with that. The first bailout was by Bush, which was then followed up by the Obama administration. It is the reason I refuse to vote for Democrats or Republicans as they have proven to me that they can not be trusted. But if you are going to force someone to take on debt you can't expect them to not want the money that comes along with that. Taking on this kind of debt to finance the stimulus isn't a question of morality, its simply an unwise decision as you end up paying more than its worth to do so. There are plenty of things that you can criticize Democrats and Republicans for being hypocritical, this is not one of them.

[panel]

I have an idea, lets vote to give everyone on Extreme Skins a Credit. You can write me a letter to explain to me how much you think your credit limit should be. After we have all raked up a bunch of Debit, we will collectively pay for all the debit together, it will not matter how much you spent at all, we will just split the costs.

If you think this is a good idea, you will be getting a credit card. If you don't think this is a fair idea you will still have to pay for the spending spree that the other users rake up, but you will not be getting a credit card, because if you don't think it is a good idea, why should you benefit from something that you don't think is a good idea?

Sounds fair, right?

[elkabong82]

Of course the Republican administration helped lead to the mess, and left Obama with a really bad situation... I'm not going to argue with that. The first bailout was by Bush, which was then followed up by the Obama administration. It is the reason I refuse to vote for Democrats or Republicans as they have proven to me that they can not be trusted. But if you are going to force someone to take on debt you can't expect them to not want the money that comes along with that. Taking on this kind of debt to finance the stimulus isn't a question of morality, its simply an unwise decision as you end up paying more than its worth to do so. There are plenty of things that you can criticize Democrats and Republicans for being hypocritical, this is not one of them.

I completely agree with you about the follies of both parties. But I do expect people who opposed stimulus to not request money from it. If they get it anyways, fine, because they didn't have a choice. But personally, if I had openly opposed a stimulus as being harmful in the long run because of the debt it would accrue, I would stick to my convictions and not request money from the stimulus and seek other ways to accrue the money needed.

I also think requesting stimulus funds after opposing them, citing that the stimulus will help as reason for request, seems two faced, and seems more indicative of a congressman opposing it simply because another party proposed it, NOT for the reasons he actually cited, which would explain why he has no qualms in requesting stimulus money now. That's really what I'm driving at, because I feel if the congressman's original oposition were genuine then he wouldn't be requesting it.

I don't know any other way to convey my opinion on this. I understand others' opinions on this that if they are being forced to pay in then they should get the benefits, I just happen to believe that if the reasons for opposing it were genuine that those people would not request stimulus funds out of principle and spite, and simply let what is allocated to them without their say be allocated. But it is painfully apparent my arguments aren't swaying anybody, or even garnering much understanding, and thus I'll just end it on agree to disagree.

But realize, you and others in this thread, that I do understand your side of the argument, and certain others in here pretending or asserting otherwise are flat wrong and asserting so either to diminish my argument or because they don't understand it.

[Burgold]

On the other hand, it's sort of like a tire fire. If you believe that tire fires are dangerous and release noxious stuff into the air... well, just cause one is burning is no reason to add more tires to the fire. If you truly believe it's destructive isn't it in your best medium and long term interest not to add to the damage?

[elkabong82]

I have an idea, lets vote to give everyone on Extreme Skins a Credit. You can write me a letter to explain to me how much you think your credit limit should be. After we have all raked up a bunch of Debit, we will collectively pay for all the debit together, it will not matter how much you spent at all, we will just split the costs.

If you think this is a good idea, you will be getting a credit card. If you don't think this is a fair idea you will still have to pay for the spending spree that the other users rake up, but you will not be getting a credit card, because if you don't think it is a good idea, why should you benefit from something that you don't think is a good idea?

Sounds fair, right?

We all pay for a lot of things we ourselves never use. My taxes go to firemen, but since I never directly get the benefit is that unfair?

And your analogy doesn't work because you are forcing the dissenters to not take part. What I'm saying is that dissenters should elect to not take part and view what they pay from it like they would insurance or a socialized service, they pay in but never see the benefit, but others do get the benefit. Again I'm not saying they shouldn't receive benefits, I'm saying they shouldn't request them, especially when the reasons they put down for the request claim the stimulus will do what they originally said it wouldn't do (such as create jobs).

You seem to think that those who had fears of massive debt and inflation should now contribute to the problem because it exists. At least that's how I view it.

I think analogies in general should be avoided, they aren't really necessary anyways.

I also think Burgold just put it best in saying that you shouldn't want to add to the damage.

[twa]

. We can revisit when a Democrat pulls a similar stunt and we then agree over the hypocricy of requesting funds from a stimulus he opposed, regardless of other circumstances.

Why wait...You mean like the Bush tax cuts?

Any Dem that condemned them that took them is a hypocrite?...filling out the tax return is requesting them..

[alexey]

There is hypocrisy here. Stay sharp, liberals!

It is not hypocritical to be against government spending while being a recipient of government spending. It is highly hypocritical to claim that stimulus was a waste that did not stimulate the economy or create jobs, while also asking for stimulus money this way:

Carrollton’s project will create jobs, stimulate the economy, improve regional mobility and reduce pollution.

This is similar to what's happening with some Tea Party candidates who received government aid at some point of their lives. They really needed that help. These programs only create over-reliance on government aid in other people.

[elkabong82]

Why wait...You mean like the Bush tax cuts?

Any Dem that condemned them that took them is a hypocrite?...filling out the tax return is requesting them..

Filling out a tax return is legally required. Requesting stimulus funds is not. Pretty simple to see the difference, you are reaching bad now.

Actually, that issue you brought up seems more like Dems who opposed tax cuts did so knowing they were opposing cuts they themselves would benefit from because they believed it wouldn't help lower classes. Whereas the congressman opposed the stimulus, but then requested funds using reasons that he originally claimed the stimulus wouldn't do.

[panel]

Filling out a tax return is legally required. Requesting stimulus funds is not. Pretty simple to see the difference, you are reaching bad now.

Actually, that issue you brought up seems more like Dems who opposed tax cuts did so knowing they were opposing cuts they themselves would benefit from because they believed it wouldn't help lower classes. Whereas the congressman opposed the stimulus, but then requested funds using reasons that he originally claimed the stimulus wouldn't do.

I think what he is trying to say is people that voted against the tax cuts did so because they felt lower taxes where not worth the loss of public funds, but once they were given the ability to pay less taxes, they did, they didn't voluntarily pay back the bush tax cuts.

If you are going to be mad at someone for taking stimulus, when they voted that they think it wasn't a good idea, should you get made at people that voted against tax cuts, but took kept the extra money that the tax cuts provided? You can easily fill out a tax return to not get a refund, or to only get a partial refund on what you could be owned.

I think it is the same argument. If you voted against tax cuts, you are just as much a hypocrite for taking them as someone who took stimulus but voted against it.

In my opinion, neither of them is being hypocritical.

[alexey]

If you are going to be mad at someone for taking stimulus, when they voted that they think it wasn't a good idea, should you get made at people that voted against tax cuts, but took kept the extra money that the tax cuts provided?

You are missing the point. These people are screaming that the stimulus failed to create jobs while saying hey, give me stimulus money because it creates jobs.

[twa]

Jobs are obviously different from jobs...details matter No?

[Woodhead]

There is hypocrisy here. Stay sharp, liberals!

It is not hypocritical to be against government spending while being a recipient of government spending. It is highly hypocritical to claim that stimulus was a waste that did not stimulate the economy or create jobs, while also asking for stimulus money this way:

This is similar to what's happening with some Tea Party candidates who received government aid at some point of their lives. They really needed that help. These programs only create over-reliance on government aid in other people.

Absolutely it is hypocritical to be against government spending, and be part of government. A lesson the GOP has not learned, and probably never will.

This is similar to what's happening with some Tea Party candidates who received government aid at some point of their lives. They really needed that help. These programs only create over-reliance on government aid in other people.

Actually, it does just the opposite from my standpoint. . . it just exposes them for the complete hypocrites and the selfish individuals they are. They got theirs when they needed it, screw everyone else right? There is a woman in California with whom I got into a facebook argument with. . .she went to college under state grants, had the state take care of her child while she was in school (was pregnant at 18 mind you), AND pay for her school as a single mother. Now, she has a job making over 100K and had the audacity to tell me "the government has done nothing for her in her life, she has worked for everything she has and people are trying to take away her ability to survive". . . Picture bugs bunny when he is shocked, and his eyes pop out of his head surprised. That was what woke me up to some of the people in the Tea Party. Self Awareness was the antithesis of her