WSJ points out republican hypocrisy on stimulus

[Wry Catcher]

Don't you mean the bipartisan jobs bill that Harry Reid turned around and torpedoed?
Yeah, Republicans are idiots. For thinking they can work with Democrats.
Fortunately after November they won't have to. Every Democrat up for re-election will either drop out, go over to the GOP, or be defeated.

So you admit support for idiot traitors.

 

[del]

Wow. Feb 13. 2009.
Did it take you all this long to read the article that you are just now posting it?

Do you think that it's date invalidates it?
I don't read wingnut papers.

Keith Olbermann featured this on his show Tuesday night.

Countdown with Keith Olbermann Countdown with Keith Olbermann

well, watching keith certainly gives you the RDA of wingnuttery so i can see why you wouldn't read the papers.

 

[American Horse]

The Wall Street Jounal, yes, the one owned by Rupert Murdoch. The Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox news.

GOP Governor Sees Danger in States Accepting Stimulus Money - WSJ.com

Any state chief executive has a responsibility to their state to get back as much as possible of the money that is sent to DC.
To do otherwise is to put their state at a disadvantage.
They have a further responsibility to bring attention to the money leaving the state, and irresponsible use of those funds in Federal programs, and to as much as possible hold true to their principles of letting states decide for themselves about how their tax monies should be expended.
No hypocrisy at all, and citizens of those states completely understand that.

 

[beowolfe]

some of you dems are really desperate....if they don't accept the money, you accuse them of subverting the will of the people, if they accept the money, they are hypocrites

The WSJ is not a bunch of Dems. You may want re-think your comment.

 

[Yurt]

some of you dems are really desperate....if they don't accept the money, you accuse them of subverting the will of the people, if they accept the money, they are hypocrites

The WSJ is not a bunch of Dems. You may want re-think your comment.

you obviously didn't read the article, the OP title has nothing to do with the article, it doesn't point out hypocrisy, it talks about one person's (gov. sanford) struggle on whether to accept the money when he is against the stimulus....

try reading the link next time so you don't make an ass out of yourself

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Wall Street Jounal, yes, the one owned by Rupert Murdoch. The Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox news.

GOP Governor Sees Danger in States Accepting Stimulus Money - WSJ.com

Any state chief executive has a responsibility to their state to get back as much as possible of the money that is sent to DC.
To do otherwise is to put their state at a disadvantage.
They have a further responsibility to bring attention to the money leaving the state, and irresponsible use of those funds in Federal programs, and to as much as possible hold true to their principles of letting states decide for themselves about how their tax monies should be expended.
No hypocrisy at all, and citizens of those states completely understand that.

Nice spin, total bull shit, but a good effort.
Those who voted against the bill were members of Congress, not governors, and their hypocrisy was exposed for all to see by Rachel Maddow last night.
Even if your post were not dishonest, how does it explain the hero of the right, Sarah Palin, whose famous "Thanks but no thanks" to the bridge to nowhere is emblematic of Tea Bagger nation?

 

[American Horse]

The Wall Street Jounal, yes, the one owned by Rupert Murdoch. The Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox news.

GOP Governor Sees Danger in States Accepting Stimulus Money - WSJ.com

What I take away from this, and point out for those who fail to distinquish between editorial comment and real news, is the lack of bias of the WSJ reporting on this subject; to simply just report on state versus federal on the stimulus. It also shows that Rupert Murdoch is more concerned that his media arm is reporting news rather than shaping it, contrary to the criticism he gets.

 

[beowolfe]

some of you dems are really desperate....if they don't accept the money, you accuse them of subverting the will of the people, if they accept the money, they are hypocrites

The WSJ is not a bunch of Dems. You may want re-think your comment.

you obviously didn't read the article, the OP title has nothing to do with the article, it doesn't point out hypocrisy, it talks about one person's (gov. sanford) struggle on whether to accept the money when he is against the stimulus....

try reading the link next time so you don't make an ass out of yourself

Actually, I did read it. But since your comment didn't have anything to do with Sanford, I ddin't feel limited to that topic when I responded.

 

[American Horse]

The Wall Street Jounal, yes, the one owned by Rupert Murdoch. The Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox news.

GOP Governor Sees Danger in States Accepting Stimulus Money - WSJ.com

Any state chief executive has a responsibility to their state to get back as much as possible of the money that is sent to DC.
To do otherwise is to put their state at a disadvantage.
They have a further responsibility to bring attention to the money leaving the state, and irresponsible use of those funds in Federal programs, and to as much as possible hold true to their principles of letting states decide for themselves about how their tax monies should be expended.
No hypocrisy at all, and citizens of those states completely understand that.

Nice spin, total bull shit, but a good effort.
Those who voted against the bill were members of Congress, not governors, and their hypocrisy was exposed for all to see by Rachel Maddow last night.
Even if your post were not dishonest, how does it explain the hero of the right, Sarah Palin, whose famous "Thanks but no thanks" to the bridge to nowhere is emblematic of Tea Bagger nation?

Thanks once again for showing us how you are always able to sink to the lowest levels in any discussion of issues.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm not sure which is funnier, the GOP hypocrisy itself, or the widespread effort among rightwingers to act like it's no big deal.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Any state chief executive has a responsibility to their state to get back as much as possible of the money that is sent to DC.
To do otherwise is to put their state at a disadvantage.
They have a further responsibility to bring attention to the money leaving the state, and irresponsible use of those funds in Federal programs, and to as much as possible hold true to their principles of letting states decide for themselves about how their tax monies should be expended.
No hypocrisy at all, and citizens of those states completely understand that.

Nice spin, total bull shit, but a good effort.
Those who voted against the bill were members of Congress, not governors, and their hypocrisy was exposed for all to see by Rachel Maddow last night.
Even if your post were not dishonest, how does it explain the hero of the right, Sarah Palin, whose famous "Thanks but no thanks" to the bridge to nowhere is emblematic of Tea Bagger nation?

Thanks once again for showing us how you are always able to sink to the lowest levels in any discussion of issues.

Pointing out that you're a liar is sinking low? Liars by omission, or liars by commission are, drum roll please, liars. Rather than suggest my post is low, it might be better to admit you intended to mislead readers for partisan purposes - at least then you'd save me from sinking so low as to expose the truth.

 

[American Horse]

Nice spin, total bull shit, but a good effort.
Those who voted against the bill were members of Congress, not governors, and their hypocrisy was exposed for all to see by Rachel Maddow last night.
Even if your post were not dishonest, how does it explain the hero of the right, Sarah Palin, whose famous "Thanks but no thanks" to the bridge to nowhere is emblematic of Tea Bagger nation?

Thanks once again for showing us how you are always able to sink to the lowest levels in any discussion of issues.

Pointing out that you're a liar is sinking low? Liars by omission, or liars by commission are, drum roll please, liars. Rather than suggest my post is low, it might be better to admit you intended to mislead readers for partisan purposes - at least then you'd save me from sinking so low as to expose the truth.

I read the link in the OP and I attempt to keep up with all issues including that one. Mine was an opinion, expressed as much as possible to stay above gutter sniping. Yours was an opinion, and like almost everything you post, sank immediately to your usual level; which may have something to do with your obsession with "tea baggin". You know it, I know it, and at least half here on the board know it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wow. Feb 13. 2009.
Did it take you all this long to read the article that you are just now posting it?

Is yesterday recent enough for you?

FEBRUARY 16, 2010.

Democrats Target Stimulus Critics Who Sought Funds

Some Republicans Who Slammed $787 Billion Program Also Sought Funds for Projects in Their Districts, Letters Show.

WASHINGTON—Democrats, stung by criticism of their $787 billion economic-stimulus plan, are targeting Republicans who have attacked the program and then lobbied to get money for their districts.

More than a dozen Republican lawmakers supported stimulus-funding requests submitted to the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Forest Service, in letters obtained by The Wall Street Journal through the Freedom of Information Act....


Democrats Go After Stimulus Critics - WSJ.com

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm not sure which is funnier: the way you look or the way you smell.

Actually the funny part is the charge of hypocrisy. It is like the race card, used so often it has lost any meaning.
Come back when you find real evidence of hypocrisy. In the meantime we can focus on the Democratic Party's falling fortunes and how they screwed up a supermajority control of 2 of the 3 branches of government in record time.

 

[sealybobo]

The Wall Street Jounal, yes, the one owned by Rupert Murdoch. The Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox news.

GOP Governor Sees Danger in States Accepting Stimulus Money - WSJ.com

It’s never all that hard to find examples of politicians in either party being hypocrites, accusing their opponents of things they themselves are guilty of or flipping 180 degrees on supposedly heartfelt positions when it looks to be to their momentary advantage. But the Republicans now taking power in Washington are bringing hypocrisy to spectacular new heights.

Opinion | Republicans reach staggering new heights of hypocrisy

Some of the most conservative members of Congress say they are ready to vote for a budget that would — at least on paper — balloon the deficit to more than $1 trillion by the end of the decade

many members of the hard-line House Freedom Caucus said Thursday they are prepared later this month to support a budget measure that would explode the deficit and increase the public debt to more than $29.1 trillion by 2026

But wait — isn’t it unconscionable to saddle our grandchildren with debt? Don’t these members of the Freedom Caucus believe with every fiber of their beings that deficits are evil and government must be made to live according to its means?

 

[sealybobo]

When George W. Bush was president, Republicans passed huge spending bills without trying to pay for them at all, like the Medicare prescription drug benefit — the cost was just added to the deficit, at the same time as they were slashing revenue with tax giveaways to the rich. Likewise, two wars that together cost trillions of dollars were just put on the tab. The result was that the deficit nearly quadrupled between Bush’s first year in office and his last, with nary a peep of dissent from Republicans.

 

[sealybobo]

But as soon as Barack Obama came into the White House, Republicans began to cry that deficits were a plague, a poison, a crisis that demanded immediate action. Though nearly all the Republicans had happily supported a stimulus package put forward by the Bush administration in January 2008 to give a boost to the economy, in the face of the worst economic crisis in eighty years they stood firm against the Obama administration’s stimulus plan. And in the ensuing years, Democrats did what Republicans never do: paid for their spending, as they did with the Affordable Care Act, every penny of which was paid for with new taxes and spending cuts. In fact, the ACA wasn’t just paid for, it significantly reduced the deficit by lowering overall health costs.

 

[sealybobo]

These increased costs for employers and employees alike may seem steep—up around 50% over the past eight years—but they could have risen far higher had the Affordable Care Act never passed. The Kaiser study shows that average family premiums rose 20% from 2011 to 2016. That rate of increase is actually much lower than the previous five years (up 31% from 2006 to 2011) and the five years before that (up 63% from 2001 to 2006).

 

[whitehall]

WSJ says a South Carolina governor sees danger in accepting stimulus money that isn't even offered yet from an administration that is barely a month old and doesn't even have it's appointments confirmed. It's non-news and has nothing to do with either Murdoch or Fox.

 

[sealybobo]

WSJ says a South Carolina governor sees danger in accepting stimulus money that isn't even offered yet from an administration that is barely a month old and doesn't even have it's appointments confirmed. It's non-news and has nothing to do with either Murdoch or Fox.

I didn't want to start another thread. I just wanted to talk about Republican hypocrisy. Remember Bill Clinton lied about Monica? Well Jeff Sessions is a liar. You better fire him. If you don't then don't try to pretend down the road that you are the party that doesn't lie.

And don't cry about witch hunts when Benghazi and Monicagate were both witch hunts. They were all you could find after 16 years of Obama and Hillary. One BJ and 4 dead Americans. Nothing really.

50 days in and the Trump regime has been caught lying twice already. Stay tuned. Lots more liars and their lies to follow.