Is this true: Democrat loot?

[Yurt]

"Source: Veronique de Rugy's CALCULATION based on recovery.gov". I will ask one last time, what is this calculation? If you don't know, then there is no way you can understand the bar graph in your original post.

once again...you have the source data

do your own graph if you think this one is wrong...you do know what data is don't you? its funny to watch you desperately try and defend anything that paints dems bad, yet you jump all over anything that makes repubs look bad. hack.

Fine. You win. If you choose to blindly believe some graph made by some person using some calculation, in an attempt to push your agenda, that is your perogative.

blindly believe? tell me the thread title....

i guess you can't be bothered to do your own calculations and graph given you have the source data....

thats what i thought, all hat and no cattle

 

[California Girl]

"Source: Veronique de Rugy's CALCULATION based on recovery.gov". I will ask one last time, what is this calculation? If you don't know, then there is no way you can understand the bar graph in your original post.

once again...you have the source data

do your own graph if you think this one is wrong...you do know what data is don't you? its funny to watch you desperately try and defend anything that paints dems bad, yet you jump all over anything that makes repubs look bad. hack.

Fine. You win. If you choose to blindly believe some graph made by some person using some calculation, in an attempt to push your agenda, that is your perogative.

Ohhhhh, YaWank...... we've all seen you blindly accept what you're spoon fed by the media. Why the skepticism now? Is it because she's from the Cato Inst. instead of some leftie "think" tank?

It's laughable. Truly. You are a gift that just keeps giving.

 

[Foxfyre]

once again...you have the source data

do your own graph if you think this one is wrong...you do know what data is don't you? its funny to watch you desperately try and defend anything that paints dems bad, yet you jump all over anything that makes repubs look bad. hack.

Fine. You win. If you choose to blindly believe some graph made by some person using some calculation, in an attempt to push your agenda, that is your perogative.

Ohhhhh, YaWank...... we've all seen you blindly accept what you're spoon fed by the media. Why the skepticism now? Is it because she's from the Cato Inst. instead of some leftie "think" tank?

It's laughable. Truly. You are a gift that just keeps giving.

Yes, this lady has some impressive credentials.

Veronique de Rugy has joined the Cato Institute as an adjunct scholar. Her research interests include tax competition, financial privacy, bioterrorism, and fiscal sovereignty issues. She is the coauthor of Action ou Taxation, published in Switzerland in 1996. De Rugy is currently on the Board of Directors of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity. She holds a Ph.D. from the University of Paris-Sorbonne and previously directed academic programs for the Institute for Humane Studies -- Europe in France

Her position with Cato was fairly recent. Prior to that she was a senior fellow at the prestigious Marcatus Center at George Mason University.

She does have something of a reputation of a leftwinger in some parts, but she would have to have a lot on the ball for Cato to take her on.

I doubt her critics will be able to come up with anything to dispute her numbers.

 

[code1211]

Um hello, of course its true. The stimulus is just a slush fund to pay back Democrat special interests for donating to Obama's campaign and for their help in getting him elected.

You didn't think it was meant to help the economy did you?

um, hello....i'm giving the democrats the chance to either defend this or explain how it is not true

because if it is true, this is truly disgusting and all should know about it, the dems don't care about america, they care only about themselves

if this is true, only the most partisan hacks will defend it, probably say something about elections etc....

Any organization that seeks to consolidate power will reward those who help. This is what is happening here. Any organization that seeks to diversify power will not have that same reward structure because the power is being spread as opposed to be consolidated.

This consolidation makes the reward spigot singular. As a result, all ideas are also consolidated. Fewer ideas means fewer experiments in overcoming common problems. Instead of many or hundreds or thousands of approaches being tested, one approach is implemented at horrendous cost with doubtful outcome.

This is why the USA of the 20th Century prospered while the USSR of the 20th Century collapsed under its own weight. There was no magic there at all. With many choices, many choosers choose the best for their circumstance and the best rises out of the rest to achieve dominance.

With one choice, one car, one radio, one healthcare system, there is no competition and there is no improvement.

If you need a vision of the destination of centralized everything promoted by the Big 0, use the communist economies of the 20th Century as your template.

We're pretty much screwed.

 

[Kex]

Who's Veronique de Rugy? Sounds French, I don't trust French :/

 

[Foxfyre]

Who's Veronique de Rugy? Sounds French, I don't trust French :/

I posted a short bio just above. Enjoy.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Is the 15th district in AZ Dem or Rep?

 

[boedicca]

It's a slide...with no supporting documentation....how can ANYONE decide if there is any truth to it?

She got the data from Recovery.gov, which is run by the Obama Administration.

Dope.

 

[Yurt]

lol...yank has run away in embarrassment

 

[Foxfyre]

Is the 15th district in AZ Dem or Rep?

On another thread Annie boldly proclaimed that everybody here is able to read.

Let's test that theory:

Jobs Saved or Created in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist - ABC News

 

[amrchaos]

I can argue for the Democrats if it is true!!


It is called "Who can do more for your district"

Republicans suck--therefore they return less money to thier districts.
Democrats excell--they return more money to their districts.

So stop voting for Republican and start voting for Democrats, or else you won't see any funds coming to your district.

Bottomline--that is how it works. Now go vote for the Commies!!

 

[maineman]

elections have consequences!

Translation: Graft and payola are OK, as long as my party is engaging in it.

graft and payola? wtf are you talking about? Do you even know what those words MEAN?

graft:

the acquisition of gain (as money) in dishonest or questionable ways; also : illegal or unfair gain.

payola:

undercover or indirect payment (as to a disc jockey) for a commercial favor (as for promoting a particular recording)

Neither applies.

It is politics... it is how a representative democracy WORKS. And you have NEVER seen me complaining about ANY legislator bringing home the bacon to his or her home district. That is one of the more important things we elect them to do, for crissakes.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is politics... it is how a representative democracy WORKS. And you have NEVER seen me complaining about ANY legislator bringing home the bacon to his or her home district. That is one of the more important things we elect them to do, for crissakes.

That isn't what I elect them to do. I'm campaigning for a Constitutional amendment that will make it illegal for them to do it.

 

[maineman]

It is politics... it is how a representative democracy WORKS. And you have NEVER seen me complaining about ANY legislator bringing home the bacon to his or her home district. That is one of the more important things we elect them to do, for crissakes.

That isn't what I elect them to do. I'm campaigning for a Constitutional amendment that will make it illegal for them to do it.

good luck with that

how would the appropriations process WORK if your amendment passed?

how would government contracts ever be filled?

 

[amrchaos]

It is politics... it is how a representative democracy WORKS. And you have NEVER seen me complaining about ANY legislator bringing home the bacon to his or her home district. That is one of the more important things we elect them to do, for crissakes.

That isn't what I elect them to do. I'm campaigning for a Constitutional amendment that will make it illegal for them to do it.

good luck with that

how would the appropriations process WORK if your amendment passed?

how would government contracts ever be filled?

Let us not forget that reality is not evenly distributed.

That is--some districts need more funding while others do not.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is politics... it is how a representative democracy WORKS. And you have NEVER seen me complaining about ANY legislator bringing home the bacon to his or her home district. That is one of the more important things we elect them to do, for crissakes.

That isn't what I elect them to do. I'm campaigning for a Constitutional amendment that will make it illegal for them to do it.

good luck with that

how would the appropriations process WORK if your amendment passed?

how would government contracts ever be filled?

Thank you. I keep hoping that if enough people will keep beating that drum, the concept will finally get through some thick skulls.

The appropriations process would be restricted to the Constitutionally authorized functions of the federal government as the Founders understood those authorized functions of the federal government to be. No funds would be appropriated that did not provide for the common defense, did not promote the general welfare--meaning everybody equally and not a favored few--and/or pay for the legitimate mandated functions of government.

Can you imagine how little would be necessary to fund the federal government AND maintain a balanced budget if that would be enacted into law?

(Disclaimer: The government would have to ease into it and slowly and carefully ratchet down the entitlements and dependencies that it has forced on the people for decades in order to avoid breaking faith with the people and creating unjustifiable suffering.)

Government contracts would be open to all qualified bidders and would be awarded to the lowest bidder. But there would be a limited number of such contracts since there would be no appropriations for any contracts that did not provide for the national defense and/or promote the general welfare and/or enable government to carry out its constitutionally mandated and authorized functions.

 

[Yurt]

elections have consequences!

Translation: Graft and payola are OK, as long as my party is engaging in it.

exactly

 

[Yurt]

I can argue for the Democrats if it is true!!


It is called "Who can do more for your district"

Republicans suck--therefore they return less money to thier districts.
Democrats excell--they return more money to their districts.

So stop voting for Republican and start voting for Democrats, or else you won't see any funds coming to your district.

Bottomline--that is how it works. Now go vote for the Commies!!

meadowmuffins

its about rewarding dems and fucking over americans who live in republican districts...its about power and the dems doing everything they can to artificially make themselves look better....the stimulus shoudl be party blind, but we all know the thug from chicago in teh WH doesn't play like that

 

[maineman]

elections have consequences!

Translation: Graft and payola are OK, as long as my party is engaging in it.

exactly

you are quite wrong, yurtie... I am against either political party paying DJ's to play their songs on the radio.

here's a hint: you have the vocabulary of a seven year old

oh, and people who overuse stupid words like "meadowmuffins" sound very gay.

 

[maineman]

That isn't what I elect them to do. I'm campaigning for a Constitutional amendment that will make it illegal for them to do it.

good luck with that

how would the appropriations process WORK if your amendment passed?

how would government contracts ever be filled?

Thank you. I keep hoping that if enough people will keep beating that drum, the concept will finally get through some thick skulls.

No funds would be appropriated that did not provide for the common defense, did not promote the general welfare--meaning everybody equally and not a favored few--

unfortunately for YOUR point of view, SCOTUS gets to clarify what the general welfare clause means, and not you.

sorry 'bout that.