Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Admit No Evil

[Foxfyre]

This morning I watched one of those talking head interviews with a prominent Democrat who was given three specific questions about why the Democrats had not voted on this or that legilslation. Every single question was answered with a diatribe against the Republicans, twice going back to George W. Bush.

The GOP was voted out of office in 2006 because they refused to acknowledge or address their own 'sins'.

How do the Democrats justify continuing to attack the Republicans for all the nation's ills when they have had the House and Senate for four years now, a super majority in the Senate for more than a year, and have had the White House too for almost two years?

Wouldn't you think they would have been able to fix something they're complaining about in that four years' time?

 

[Full-Auto]

This morning I watched one of those talking head interviews with a prominent Democrat who was given three specific questions about why the Democrats had not voted on this or that legilslation. Every single question was answered with a diatribe against the Republicans, twice going back to George W. Bush.

The GOP was voted out of office in 2006 because they refused to acknowledge or address their own 'sins'.

How do the Democrats justify continuing to attack the Republicans for all the nation's ills when they have had the House and Senate for four years now, a super majority in the Senate for more than a year, and have had the White House too for almost two years?

Wouldn't you think they would have been able to fix something they're complaining about in that four years' time?

THE DEM SHEEP EAT UP THE BUT BUT BUT DEFENSE

It happens when you have been instructed to not discuss your accomplishments.

 

[VaYank5150]

This morning I watched one of those talking head interviews with a prominent Democrat who was given three specific questions about why the Democrats had not voted on this or that legilslation. Every single question was answered with a diatribe against the Republicans, twice going back to George W. Bush.

The GOP was voted out of office in 2006 because they refused to acknowledge or address their own 'sins'.

How do the Democrats justify continuing to attack the Republicans for all the nation's ills when they have had the House and Senate for four years now, a super majority in the Senate for more than a year, and have had the White House too for almost two years?

Wouldn't you think they would have been able to fix something they're complaining about in that four years' time?

This is true. The Democrats are playing the wrong game. THEY couldn't pass a real healthcare bill because THEY couldn't get everyone on board. The Democrats have done some good and they need to showcase that, along with showcasing the GOP's "Pledge to America". The "pledge" is as hollow as Boehner's head and the Democrats should showcase that to the American people.

 

[The Rabbi]

How do the Democrats justify continuing to attack the Republicans for all the nation's ills when they have had the House and Senate for four years now, a super majority in the Senate for more than a year, and have had the White House too for almost two years?

How do they justify it?
Win, baby, win!
It was the winning formula in '06 and '08 so why not now as well? They don't have anything else. They've failed on every promise they made in '06 as well as '08. They're corrupt and the budget is so out of control we don't even have one. Foreign affairs are a mess, the U.S. staggering from one thing to the next with no coherent plan. The war in Afghanistan is a loser, unless Karzai throws us out first. Iran is walking all over us. The Chinese are walking all over us, taking initiatives in Africa and Asia. Our allies don't know which way is up. Our enemies think we're cowardly and powerless.
So without any achievement the best they can muster is, "The GOP screwed things up really badly."

 

[Two Thumbs]

When all the things you have achieved piss people off.

What do you claim as a win?

$1.4 trillion in spending bills for a top claim of 3.3 million jobs saved or created? That's $424k per job! They coulda just taken the working Americans and given them about $50k each, for all that would have been worth.

 

[Foxfyre]

The stimulus package and other spending initiatives wre all billed as absolutely essential NOW to get people back to work.

But now they tell us that the results were never intended to kick in THIS year but would make a difference later on.

And you folks who still support Obama are buying that? How can you? How do you justify that kind of disingenuity and obvious bad intent?

 

[The Rabbi]

The stimulus package and other spending initiatives wre all billed as absolutely essential NOW to get people back to work.

But now they tell us that the results were never intended to kick in THIS year but would make a difference later on.

And you folks who still support Obama are buying that? How can you? How do you justify that kind of disingenuity and obvious bad intent?

Because it would have been WORSE under George W Bush! That's how! It is Bush and the GOP's fault. Obama wanted to do more but hte GOP wouldn't let him.

 

[VaYank5150]

The stimulus package and other spending initiatives wre all billed as absolutely essential NOW to get people back to work.

But now they tell us that the results were never intended to kick in THIS year but would make a difference later on.

And you folks who still support Obama are buying that? How can you? How do you justify that kind of disingenuity and obvious bad intent?

Show me the "obvious bad intent" and we will discuss.

 

[Jeremy]

The stimulus package and other spending initiatives wre all billed as absolutely essential NOW to get people back to work.

But now they tell us that the results were never intended to kick in THIS year but would make a difference later on.

And you folks who still support Obama are buying that? How can you? How do you justify that kind of disingenuity and obvious bad intent?

That type of open ended talking point is all part of the plan. ( Let's say the R's take back control of congress) If the economy continues to flounder, it's because of the R's , if the economy recovers than they will say it was all their doing. ... regardless of the outcome, they think it will give them political cover.

 

[Foxfyre]

The stimulus package and other spending initiatives wre all billed as absolutely essential NOW to get people back to work.

But now they tell us that the results were never intended to kick in THIS year but would make a difference later on.

And you folks who still support Obama are buying that? How can you? How do you justify that kind of disingenuity and obvious bad intent?

Show me the "obvious bad intent" and we will discuss.

Posted January 12th, 2010 at 10:34am in Enterprise and Free Markets with 44 comments
On February 11th, President Barack Obama stood on a windy hilltop in front of a dusty construction site in Fairfax County, Virginia, and promised the American people: “Here in Virginia, my plan will create or save almost 100,000 jobs, doing work at sites just like this one.” Standing alongside current Democratic National Committee Chairman and former-Gov. Tim Kaine, the President continued: “Where we’re standing, that could mean hundreds of construction jobs. And the benefits of jobs we create directly will multiply across the economy.” Eleven months later, none of those promised jobs have been “created or saved.” In fact, the Obama administration quietly announced last week that they were dropping the fraudulent “saved or created” terminology altogether.
Obama Abandons "Saved or Created" Jobs Claims | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

January 6, 2009, 9:26 am
Stimulus arithmetic (wonkish but important)
Bit by bit we’re getting information on the Obama stimulus plan, enough to start making back-of-the-envelope estimates of impact. The bottom line is this: we’re probably looking at a plan that will shave less than 2 percentage points off the average unemployment rate for the next two years, and possibly quite a lot less. This raises real concerns about whether the incoming administration is lowballing its plans in an attempt to get bipartisan consensus. (Paul Krugman)
Stimulus arithmetic (wonkish but important) - NYTimes.com

We're not even sure why Obama uses "jobs" and "economic stimulus" in the same sentence regarding his proposal, since, as one of his senior advisers told Politico, under even the most optimistic scenarios, no jobs would be created until next year. Put another way, this latest Obama stimulus effort is really designed only to stimulate Democrats and fence-sitting moderates in November.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: Examiner Editorial: Obama offers stimulus to stimulate Democrats | Washington Examiner

And we can post again some of the ridiculous projects that the stimulus money has been allocated for, how the unions have been paid off, and how most of the money has gone to Democratic districts to boost the fortune of Democrat re-election efforts, etc. But sure you have seen all that posted all over USMB and the rest of the internet?

Now show me evidence that the President and/or the Democrats gives a sh*t about whether they are actually producing results with the money they have allocated. Show me where they have admitted that they have failed to produce real results with the trillion dollar deficits they have voted. Show me where they acknowledge that they were wrong about anything other than how bad the economy that George Bush left them was going to be.

 

[VaYank5150]

The stimulus package and other spending initiatives wre all billed as absolutely essential NOW to get people back to work.

But now they tell us that the results were never intended to kick in THIS year but would make a difference later on.

And you folks who still support Obama are buying that? How can you? How do you justify that kind of disingenuity and obvious bad intent?

Show me the "obvious bad intent" and we will discuss.

January 6, 2009, 9:26 am
Stimulus arithmetic (wonkish but important)
Bit by bit we’re getting information on the Obama stimulus plan, enough to start making back-of-the-envelope estimates of impact. The bottom line is this: we’re probably looking at a plan that will shave less than 2 percentage points off the average unemployment rate for the next two years, and possibly quite a lot less. This raises real concerns about whether the incoming administration is lowballing its plans in an attempt to get bipartisan consensus. (Paul Krugman)
Stimulus arithmetic (wonkish but important) - NYTimes.com

We're not even sure why Obama uses "jobs" and "economic stimulus" in the same sentence regarding his proposal, since, as one of his senior advisers told Politico, under even the most optimistic scenarios, no jobs would be created until next year. Put another way, this latest Obama stimulus effort is really designed only to stimulate Democrats and fence-sitting moderates in November.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: Examiner Editorial: Obama offers stimulus to stimulate Democrats | Washington Examiner

And we can post again some of the ridiculous projects that the stimulus money has been allocated for, how the unions have been paid off, and how most of the money has gone to Democratic districts to boost the fortune of Democrat re-election efforts, etc. But sure you have seen all that posted all over USMB and the rest of the internet?

Now show me evidence that the President and/or the Democrats gives a sh*t about whether they are actually producing results with the money they have allocated. Show me where they have admitted that they have failed to produce real results with the trillion dollar deficits they have voted. Show me where they acknowledge that they were wrong about anything other than how bad the economy that George Bush left them was going to be.

Bear with me here, as I am trying to comprehend what your angle is. Are you trying to say that Obama purposely allocated monies (borrowed) only to purposely NOT spend it?

 

[Foxfyre]

Show me the "obvious bad intent" and we will discuss.

We're not even sure why Obama uses "jobs" and "economic stimulus" in the same sentence regarding his proposal, since, as one of his senior advisers told Politico, under even the most optimistic scenarios, no jobs would be created until next year. Put another way, this latest Obama stimulus effort is really designed only to stimulate Democrats and fence-sitting moderates in November.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: Examiner Editorial: Obama offers stimulus to stimulate Democrats | Washington Examiner

And we can post again some of the ridiculous projects that the stimulus money has been allocated for, how the unions have been paid off, and how most of the money has gone to Democratic districts to boost the fortune of Democrat re-election efforts, etc. But sure you have seen all that posted all over USMB and the rest of the internet?

Now show me evidence that the President and/or the Democrats gives a sh*t about whether they are actually producing results with the money they have allocated. Show me where they have admitted that they have failed to produce real results with the trillion dollar deficits they have voted. Show me where they acknowledge that they were wrong about anything other than how bad the economy that George Bush left them was going to be.

Bear with me here, as I am trying to comprehend what your angle is. Are you trying to say that Obama purposely allocated monies (borrowed) only to purposely NOT spend it?

No. I am saying that Obama and the Democrats have spent the money mostly to boost their own political fortunes and so far as I can tell don't give a damn that they aren't keeping unemployment under control as they promised and that the jobs they promised have been mostly government jobs, many temporary at that. Obama is now requesting more money for the projects he wanted the first stimulus package for, but for which little of the money has actually been allocated.

I think he truly believes we are too stupid to notice things like that.

 

[VaYank5150]

And we can post again some of the ridiculous projects that the stimulus money has been allocated for, how the unions have been paid off, and how most of the money has gone to Democratic districts to boost the fortune of Democrat re-election efforts, etc. But sure you have seen all that posted all over USMB and the rest of the internet?

Now show me evidence that the President and/or the Democrats gives a sh*t about whether they are actually producing results with the money they have allocated. Show me where they have admitted that they have failed to produce real results with the trillion dollar deficits they have voted. Show me where they acknowledge that they were wrong about anything other than how bad the economy that George Bush left them was going to be.

Bear with me here, as I am trying to comprehend what your angle is. Are you trying to say that Obama purposely allocated monies (borrowed) only to purposely NOT spend it?

No. I am saying that Obama and the Democrats have spent the money mostly to boost their own political fortunes and so far as I can tell don't give a damn that they aren't keeping unemployment under control as they promised and that the jobs they promised have been mostly government jobs, many temporary at that. Obama is now requesting more money for the projects he wanted the first stimulus package for, but for which little of the money has actually been allocated.

I think he truly believes we are too stupid to notice things like that.

But in your previous post, didn't you just prove that the money was never spent?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

It's really not too complicated..."DA BOOOOOOOSH!!" & "YOU A RACIST!!" are all the Democrats have left. That stale stuff probably wont be enough for em this time around though. They have been a real disaster. Look at what's happened to our nation in the last four years they have been in charge? Can't think of anything good that happened during their reign. Time for them to go. Lets hope this happens in November.

 

[Charles_Main]

Bear with me here, as I am trying to comprehend what your angle is. Are you trying to say that Obama purposely allocated monies (borrowed) only to purposely NOT spend it?

No. I am saying that Obama and the Democrats have spent the money mostly to boost their own political fortunes and so far as I can tell don't give a damn that they aren't keeping unemployment under control as they promised and that the jobs they promised have been mostly government jobs, many temporary at that. Obama is now requesting more money for the projects he wanted the first stimulus package for, but for which little of the money has actually been allocated.

I think he truly believes we are too stupid to notice things like that.

But in your previous post, didn't you just prove that the money was never spent?

And why has it not been spent yet? Because it is being used as a fund to buy votes and reward unions and other supporters, and not to create jobs.

 

[lizzie]

Bear with me here, as I am trying to comprehend what your angle is. Are you trying to say that Obama purposely allocated monies (borrowed) only to purposely NOT spend it?

It was more likely to "save it for a rainy day" when the dems are looking bad in the polls. Same with the health care package. Conveniently, it won't take effect until well after the '12 elections.

 

[Jeremy]

Bear with me here, as I am trying to comprehend what your angle is. Are you trying to say that Obama purposely allocated monies (borrowed) only to purposely NOT spend it?

It was more likely to "save it for a rainy day" when the dems are looking bad in the polls. Same with the health care package. Conveniently, it won't take effect until well after the '12 elections.

Politics 101.

 

[Nosmo King]

This morning I watched one of those talking head interviews with a prominent Democrat who was given three specific questions about why the Democrats had not voted on this or that legilslation. Every single question was answered with a diatribe against the Republicans, twice going back to George W. Bush.

The GOP was voted out of office in 2006 because they refused to acknowledge or address their own 'sins'.

How do the Democrats justify continuing to attack the Republicans for all the nation's ills when they have had the House and Senate for four years now, a super majority in the Senate for more than a year, and have had the White House too for almost two years?

Wouldn't you think they would have been able to fix something they're complaining about in that four years' time?

What were the three specific questions? That might help to explain the fuzzy answers.

 

[Foxfyre]

This morning I watched one of those talking head interviews with a prominent Democrat who was given three specific questions about why the Democrats had not voted on this or that legilslation. Every single question was answered with a diatribe against the Republicans, twice going back to George W. Bush.

The GOP was voted out of office in 2006 because they refused to acknowledge or address their own 'sins'.

How do the Democrats justify continuing to attack the Republicans for all the nation's ills when they have had the House and Senate for four years now, a super majority in the Senate for more than a year, and have had the White House too for almost two years?

Wouldn't you think they would have been able to fix something they're complaining about in that four years' time?

What were the three specific questions? That might help to explain the fuzzy answers.

Okay working from memory here, but the best I can remember is:

Bill Hemmer is interviewing Chris Van Hollen (D).

And the three specific questions were:

Nancy Pelosi's pledge to have ethics hearings by Sepember that aren't going to happen.
What about her 2008 pledge to have the cleanest Congress in history.
What about Democrats failure to address tax cuts and now refusing to do so until after the election?

 

[Nosmo King]

This morning I watched one of those talking head interviews with a prominent Democrat who was given three specific questions about why the Democrats had not voted on this or that legilslation. Every single question was answered with a diatribe against the Republicans, twice going back to George W. Bush.

The GOP was voted out of office in 2006 because they refused to acknowledge or address their own 'sins'.

How do the Democrats justify continuing to attack the Republicans for all the nation's ills when they have had the House and Senate for four years now, a super majority in the Senate for more than a year, and have had the White House too for almost two years?

Wouldn't you think they would have been able to fix something they're complaining about in that four years' time?

What were the three specific questions? That might help to explain the fuzzy answers.

Okay working from memory here, but the best I can remember is:

Bill Hemmer is interviewing Chris Van Hollen (D).

And the three specific questions were:

Nancy Pelosi's pledge to have ethics hearings by Sepember that aren't going to happen.
What about her 2008 pledge to have the cleanest Congress in history.
What about Democrats failure to address tax cuts and now refusing to do so until after the election?

Boy! That's a real primrose path to go down from ethics investigations throgh Republican stonewalling! Even on my best day (and that ain't today) I couldn't link Republicans to blocking ethics hearings, unless the actually are.

As for the tax cuts, if the Bush tax cuts lapse and new tax cuts for folks who actually deserve tax cuts are stonewalled by Republicans, how can the Republicans show their faces ever again?