nihilism grows

Republicans actually have a name for this behavior: Grammstanding. It's a reference to the antics of former Senator Phil Gramm, of 'nation of whiner' fame. Gramm was known among his colleagues for vigorously opposing spending bills then taking rather ostentatious credit for the money once it reached his district while a Congressman, and the state after becoming a Senator.

This is old news to us in the 14th Texas. Ron Paul routinely loads up bills with tens of millions of earmarks for the district, then votes against the legislation. Pretty impressive contortions for an old guy.

This is a non-story. All politicians do the same thing. For example, Democrats who voted against the Bush tax cuts still touted their benefits to their constituents. Nor do I remember hearing of any prominent liberals sending their tax cut back to the Treasury.

For example, Democrats who voted against the Bush tax cuts still touted their benefits to their constituents.

What benefits would those be again? Remind me.

What is happening here is that Republicans know that their base is stupid and are counting on them not being aware or interested as to how the money got to help their state, just that it did.

It's Jindal with them big ol'checks posing for photos when he didn't have anything to do with the money.

I'd like to see a Democrat who did the same during Bush's reign.

I'd also like to see the states whose elected officials voted against the stimulus en masse to be denied any stimulus funds whatever. Then they could see first-hand what the platform of their elected officials does for them.

yeah, this is just stupid. It's perfectly reasonable to oppose the overall stimulus but to seek to maximize your share once the thing comes into effect.

This is a non-story. All politicians do the same thing. For example, Democrats who voted against the Bush tax cuts still touted their benefits to their constituents.

Wow. I was just about to write this exact example before debunking it, and was glad to see someone beat me to it. So I guess I'll just go ahead with the debunking.

The difference is that Democrats NEVER claimed that tax cuts don't help people, but rather, stated that they were too expensive, as the government couldn't afford to lose the extra revenue. Plus, Democrats don't tout the benefit of taxcuts to the rich and remain consistent in our opposition to them. That's why Obama has continued to state that he won't increase taxes on the poor or middle-class, as he thinks those taxcuts were helpful to them and the economy. But taxcuts for the rich weren't necessary and were dangerous to our government due to excessive deficits, and he believes they can afford to pay the extra amount because they make so much more. And that's why he allowed those taxcuts to expire, while continuing to keep the taxcuts for everyone else.

And so the difference here is clear: Republicans state that government funds don't improve the economy and provide no stimulus effect, yet contradict themselves by latching onto stimulus money. After all, if government funds didn't stimulate the economy, they wouldn't be asking for the money. Democrats, on the other hand, are consistent in their opposition to taxcuts for the rich, and I don't recall hearing them claim any benefits from them.

I have no problem with Republicans agreeing that government spending helps their economy, but wish they'd be more honest about it.

Bright idea for some dim bulbs

Hey Dims, when you go on TV arm yourself with some of these facts beforehand. Memorize them. You can do that can't you? And then repeat these facts. Endlessly, Breathlessly, Tirelessly...

Act like a republican:

If the interviewer asks you about A, ignore A and repeat your memorized facts from the "Hypocrisy Hall of Fame." If the interviewer asks you about Z, ignore Z and repeat your memorized facts from the "Hypocrisy Hall of Fame."

Dims, if you throw lots of these facts at the public some of them will eventually stick.
But you got to do three things:

1) Memorize and throw.
1) Memorize and throw.
1) Memorize and throw.

yeah, this is just stupid. It's perfectly reasonable to oppose the overall stimulus but to seek to maximize your share once the thing comes into effect.

Not if the opposition to the overall stimulus is the belief that government stimulus can't help the economy. That's like arguing that carrots aren't good for you and then telling everyone that you're so healthy because you eat carrots all the time. The first claim directly contradicts the second claim.

Either government stimulus works or it doesn't. If their opposition to it was that it was just too expensive, that'd be one thing. But their claim is that it provides no stimulus effect, which they refute when they grab the money and tell their constituents how helpful it was to the economy. Of course, we all knew they were lying when they said it provided no stimulus, and now we have the proof that they were lying.

koreyel - While I don't disagree with your advice, per se, I fail to understand which of us "dimbulbs" you think gets interviewed on TV. I suppose Benen does that sort of thing, but the rest of us have about as much chance of being able to use your advice as we have at winning the lottery.

So, who are you talking to? I'm not trying to be rude, I just fail to see who you think you're insulting here. And if you're only talking to Benen, I suggest you write to him directly and perhaps try to avoid the insults. And all the same, I doubt he'll take your advice.

There are different levels of hypocricy. For those idiot members of Congress who claimed that "government can't create jobs", it is totally hypocritical to now claim any credit for stimulus spending.

However, there certainly were some Republicans who didn't deny that the stimulus bill would create jobs; they instead claimed that those jobs were only temporary and therefore wouldn't improve the economy, were less effective than tax cuts and/or that the increased deficit resulting from the spending was more harmful to the economy than whatever jolt it would recieve from the spending. For those members of Congress who approached this in a reasonable way (whether you think they were right or wrong), to now claim credit for stimulus spending is merely ordinary hypocricy, which is the lifeblood of politics.

From all I've read, former Governor Palin - who, obviously, was very vocal against the stimulus package, didn't take a nickel from that monstrous bill that none of the politicians read before passage.

Good for her.

However, there certainly were some Republicans who didn't deny that the stimulus bill would create jobs; they instead claimed that those jobs were only temporary and therefore wouldn't improve the economy...

But if they thought it wouldn't help the economy, why are they eager to get the funds? I'm sorry, but this isn't hypocrisy at all. As I suggested above, this is an example of them completely contradicting themselves and showing that they didn't believe what they were saying.

And how on earth would temporary jobs and spending NOT improve the economy? That makes no sense. After all, every building built is a temporary project, yet they're the lifeblood of the construction industry. And it looks like most conservative politicians aren't ashamed to agree with me on that. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

For once, I agree with Bruce Bartlett. There is no inconsistency or hypocrisy involved in believing both that (1) the stimulus package is a bad idea, and (2) if there is to be a stimulus, then you want your own constituents to benefit.

The stimulus package is borrowed money. The money used in the stimulus now will be paid back in the future, with interest. So we are making a deal: short term benefit, long term pain. The disagreement, as with any time you borrow money, is how much short term benefit, how much long term pain, and is it worth it? Opponents of the stimulus package believe that the short term benefit is not worth the long term pain.

But once we pass the stimulus package, we are already locked into the long term pain. We are committed to raising the debt. At that point, there is no downside to taking the stimulus money. It would be stupid not to.

Calling this hypocrisy is ridiculous. It's comparable to the stupid arguments that people use against Democrats: (1) If Al Gore cares so much about the environment, why doesn't he stop using cars and planes? (2) If Obama thinks his health care bill is so great, why doesn't he give up his own health care plan, and take the public option?

From all I've read, former Governor Palin - who, obviously, was very vocal against the stimulus package, didn't take a nickel from that monstrous bill that none of the politicians read before passage.

John C - I guess that just shows that you need to read more. While she was very vocal against it, she accepted over $900 million in stimulus, and only vetoed $28.6 million; which was for an energy program that would have saved Alaskans money. And I believe the Republican legislature ended up overriding that veto, because they liked the program she rejected.

And the problem was that, for as much as she insisted that these funds had "strings attached," she never could explain to anyone where the strings actually were. So while you may have heard she didn't accept any of that "monstrous" money, in reality, she did.

At that point, there is no downside to taking the stimulus money. It would be stupid not to.

Daryl - But according to conservative logic, there would be no upside to taking the stimulus money, because they insisted that it couldn't improve the economy. And so by that logic, there's nothing stupid about rejecting the money. It wasn't just that they thought the stimulus was going to be too expensive in the long run, but that it would have no impact on the economy; and might possibly hurt it.

And they were forced to make that stupid argument, because if they admitted that this was a cost-benefit situation, then they were playing on our court and would already have ceded half their argument. Smarter guys like Bruce Bartlett weren't making that argument, but the politicos and base most definitely were.

And let's remember, many conservatives DID want to reject the money, including Governors Sanford, Jindal, and Palin. And the wingnut base running the party LOVED them for it and insisted that this was the way to go. They wanted to punish Republican governors who were accepting the funds, as well as Republican legislatures who insisted on taking the money. Yes, I agree that this was stupid, but it was what they were saying.

Doctor Blobrain,

The claim that conservatives make about government spending is that it has two steps: (1) the government must borrow money, which takes money out of the economy, and (2) the government spends the money, which puts money back into the economy. The anti-Keynesians believe that these two effects cancel each other out, so that there is no net effect on the economy. Nobody is arguing that spending can't create jobs; what they are arguing is that the precondition for spending, namely borrowing money and therefore taking it out of the economy, has a negative impact on jobs.

Once again, once step (1) has already happened, then it would be stupid not to go ahead with step (2).

I think that the anti-Keynsian view is wrong, but it should not be attacked based on a caricature.

Me thinks that the Republicans are giving hypocrisy a bad name.

Nobody is arguing that spending can't create jobs; what they are arguing is that the precondition for spending, namely borrowing money and therefore taking it out of the economy, has a negative impact on jobs.

Daryl - But they absolutely DID make that argument. Why else were Sanford, Jindal, and Palin making such a big deal about rejecting the stimulus even after it passed? They said it would have no impact on the economy and was part of Obama's Big Brother Government system to takeover America. And the wingnuts, like the jerks at RedState, were cheering them on and denounced Republican politicians who were making them accept the money. Hell, John C wrote earlier that he thought Palin HAD rejected all of the money, and hadn't heard that she had lost that battle.

Sure, no conservative economists were making that argument, but I can assure you that tons of wingnuts did, and many Republican politicians were listening. This isn't about them being anti-Keynsian, but anti-Obama. They weren't making an economic-based argument, but a crazy one. They're also the same ones who scream about Obama killing the elderly by cutting Medicare, but state elsewhere that it's a "handout" which should be abolished. I can make no sense of this, but it's what they say.

Yes, it is stupid for these people to reject the stimulus, but that's exactly what they wanted to do. Hell, the original excuse for Mark Sanford going on a hike on the Appalachian Trail was because he was so upset that his fellow Republicans made him take the stimulus money. So I don't understand how you can possibly say that this didn't happen. While I agree that this is all crazy, I assure, this wasn't invented by liberals.

Perhaps you should spend more time at blogs like RedState and you'll see what I'm talking about. They INSIST that Obama is a Marxist who is intentionally destroying America and have been known to attack Republicans who suggest otherwise.

Perhaps you should spend more time at blogs like RedState and you'll see what I'm talking about.

I've spent time with conservatives in Yahoo Buzz comments, and I know that rank and file conservatives are completely insane. They are incapable of rational discourse. That's why I think that for there to be a civil, rational discussion of conservative versus liberal disagreements, it has to take place in a liberal forum.

That's why I think that for there to be a civil, rational discussion of conservative versus liberal disagreements, it has to take place in a liberal forum.

Good luck with that. As far as I can tell, all the rational conservatives have joined our side. The truth is that conservatives have gone so far around the bend that there is no real conservative-liberal divide anymore, as the term "conservative" now simply means "I hate liberals," and all the real conservatives are just laughing at them with us.

And even still, the rational conservatives are only conservative by modern standards. They might not want to implement Obama's agenda, but nobody rational is seriously proposing we go pre-New Deal; which makes them liberal by historical standards. And so we're stuck with the wingnuts who say crazy stuff about Obama being an evil Marxist who is intentionally destroying America, and how the stimulus was nothing but Big Brother Government rearing its head. For as much as this is a caricature, it's one they fully embrace.

I'll take the bait. I really don't see the hypocrisy in this. If you argue that the stimulus would not create net new jobs before it's passage and then you argue for more for your district after, you're simply trying to have your district have a better than zero outcome (as opposed to a worse than a zero outcome). No hypocrisy there.

By the way, expecting consistency from a politician is pretty stupid. It would be the equivalent of saying that President Obama should allow an Iranian missile (if there ever is one) to hit US forces instead of shooting it down because he voted against missile defense and argued it wasn't worth it.

Caricature is not an effective form of argument if you are looking for a reasonable discussion

And by the way, the stimulus mostly hasn't been yet. The largest part of money spent to date has been tax cuts and money given to states to close their budget gaps. If the point was to get the money into the economy as fast as possible, it was a failure. A pure stimulus would have said something to the effect of "If we can't spend it in the next X months, we shouldn't spend it at all"

The stimulus wasn't big brother government rearing his head, it was simply taking money from our kids and giving it to favored constituents. Nothing new for big brother government regardless of who is running the joint.