Patterico's Pontifications

2/18/2010

Eric Cantor Responds to the Stimulus

Filed under: Economics,Politics — DRJ @ 4:20 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Yesterday, on the one-year anniversary of the Stimulus, the Office of House Republican Whip Eric Cantor responded to President Obama and the Democratic Congress:

“After all the rhetoric and an $800 billion economic stimulus plan, here are the results of one-party control of the government by the Democrats: 4,022,000 total jobs lost with unemployment reaching its highest point in 25 years.”

— DRJ

38 Responses to “Eric Cantor Responds to the Stimulus”

  1. I read one time how much the stupid stimulus will cost after it’s paid off with interest. I don’t remember how much but it was a very large number.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  2. That was a most excellent video. Their own words damn themselves.

    JD (3399c0)

  3. Any idea how this video will be used and disseminated more broadly? I agree it is powerful stuff and hits numerous hot buttons for many Americans.

    elissa (76977a)

  4. Any stimulus jobs at that job fair on his website?

    imdw (b75942)

  5. better question: are there any stimulus j*bs anywhere?

    you know: real j*bs that will still be there a year or three from now, because they pay for themselves?

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  6. Huh. On a completely unrelated note, here’s Rep. Eric Cantor celebrating the coming jobs made possible by…some magical source of funding, the origins of which are clearly irrelevant:

    …[Cantor and other Virginia politicians] gathered in the high-ceilinged lobby of the renovated and underused landmark to promote a regional effort to win a piece of at least $8 billion in federal stimulus funding under the U.S. Department of Transportation’s High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan.

    An additional $5 billion, still subject to congressional approval, also could be made available under the program.

    Rep. Eric I. Cantor, the House minority whip, led House GOP opposition to President Barack Obama’s $740 billion stimulus program.

    Yesterday, though, the Henrico County Republican said bringing high-speed rail to the region could further spur economic development, creating as many as 185,000 jobs and bringing $21.2 billion to a region already home to about a half-dozen Fortune 500 companies and 20,000 small businesses.

    “If there is one thing that I think all of us here on both sides of the political aisle from all parts of the region agree with, it’s that we need to do all we can to promote jobs here in the Richmond area,” Cantor said.

    Gotta admire that rare politician who puts principle ahead of politics.

    Tom (79a87e)

  7. Tom – Thanks for that latest Democrat talking point.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  8. daleyrocks – Thanks for that latest example of the ad hominem fallacy. Or did you have anything to say about the argument itself?

    Sorry for not citing the source above, but you can see that it’s from that notorious mouthpiece for Democratic Talking Points, the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

    Tom (79a87e)

  9. I think by talking point he was referring to the dems new line of “if they took the money they are hipocrites”. That is about as logical as saying if you don’t give back all you Bush tax cuts you’re a hipocrite for being a left wing douchebag.

    Mr. Pink (89d037)

  10. If you took any of Bush’s tax cuts and didn’t immediatly refund It to the IRS you are putting your greed ahead of all those people without healthcare Tom. Send that money back you greedy right winger, 40 thousand people a month that die from no healthcare. You killed them Tom, murderer!

    Mr. Pink (89d037)

  11. Thanks for that latest example of the ad hominem fallacy. Or did you have anything to say about the argument itself?

    It’s good to avoid fallacies. But what exactly is the argument anyway?

    Gerald A (a66d02)

  12. I’m not saying Rep. Cantor should’ve resisted the money. But to me, there is foolishness in simultaneously proclaiming that the Recovery Act is a terrible way to create jobs, while celebrating all the jobs that are about to be created by the Recovery Act.

    Tom (79a87e)

  13. Good point, Gerald A. I’m not sure what argument daleyrocks thought s/he was attacking.

    Tom (79a87e)

  14. Good point, Gerald A. I’m not sure what argument daleyrocks thought s/he was attacking.

    Well you must know what it is at least. So let us in on it.

    Gerald A (a66d02)

  15. “there is foolishness in simultaneously proclaiming that the Recovery Act is a terrible way to create jobs, while celebrating all the jobs that are about to be created by the Recovery Act.”

    yeah all those sweet jobs that now have unemployment over ten percent. And to think we get to pay to have those jobs now, reminds me of those “make 2000 a week from your house” posters which require you to pay them for the privelege of working. We are saved!

    Mr. Pink (89d037)

  16. Tom – I think it’s great that people are suddenly discovering so many shovel ready projects in a bill nobody had time to read before voting on, don’t you?

    Do you think it’s odd that the projects are dkewed 2:1 in Democrat versus Republican districts?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  17. “you can see that it’s from that notorious mouthpiece for Democratic Talking Points, the Richmond Times-Dispatch.”

    Tom – The source isn’t what made it a talking point, but your introduction as “made possible by…some magical source of funding, the origins of which are clearly irrelevant,” but thanks for playing.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  18. “yeah all those sweet jobs that now have unemployment over ten percent. ”

    It’s just so amazing that people can’t grasp the fact that we can add jobs at the same time that the economic cycle is taking them away, but only the net effect is visible on the surface.

    It’s like denying that there is water flowing into a tub if the drain is also open.

    imdw (017d51)

  19. Yeah, imdw, and your point reminds me of the guy who is thrilled that he got a promotion, more responsibility, and a raise, but lost it all due to being bumped to a higher tax bracket. He gets to work harder just to keep what he has.

    Ed from SFV (f6a87d)

  20. “Yeah, imdw, and your point reminds me of the guy who is thrilled that he got a promotion, more responsibility, and a raise, but lost it all due to being bumped to a higher tax bracket”

    It’s almost as if he didn’t know that tax brackets are applied marginally. Try to look at a tax table and see where one could be on it such that your pre-tax income goes up and your post-tax income stays the same.

    imdw (017d51)

  21. It’s just so amazing that people can’t grasp the fact that we can add jobs at the same time that the economic cycle is taking them away, but only the net effect is visible on the surface.

    It’s like denying that there is water flowing into a tub if the drain is also open.

    But it could also be argued that some people can’t differentiate between the trickle from the spout and the diameter of the drain.

    Ag80 (f67beb)

  22. i love the false argument made by the bed wetters.

    knowing the Porkulus was a bad idea, Cantor tried to stop it, for everyone’s good.

    now that the moron’s passed it anyway, he’s not supposed to offset the damage to his constituents by at least getting them the most of the money he can, since they are going to have to help pay it back?

    its gotta hurt to ‘think’ that stupid all the time… no wonder lieberals are such a whiny bunch of shits.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  23. daleyrocks – I think it’s great that Eric Cantor can find plenty of those shovel ready jobs in the stimulus bill when it suits him, and then still manage to put out sexy quotes condemning the same, for reasons of ineffectiveness at creating jobs.

    re: talking points: when you don’t have a substantive response to something that has been said, you could simply choose not to respond in the first place. Or, yeah, you could just call it a name. But that seems somehow less conducive to intelligent discourse.

    Tom (98c376)

  24. “re: talking points: when you don’t have a substantive response to something that has been said”

    Tom – I’m sorry that you think my replies to your talking point have not been substantive after you mislabelled my first comment as ad hominem.

    1) Can you answer if job are actually being created on that rail project discussed in the article or if any were created in 2009, e.g. was it indeed “shovel ready?” The video Patterico embedded in the post included a clip of Obama stressing how the bulk of the funds from the stimulus bill were going out the door immediately, which we all know was a bald faced lie, in order to create jobs.

    2) Does voting against the Stimulus bill mean you are against government projects in your state or district? Remember that Republicans criticized the Stimulus bill for having too small a tax cut or rebate component and too much of a delayed impact. They thought a different kind of Stimulus was needed. Their advice and input was not heeded. Does voting against a bill mean you disagree with all of its provisions? If so, when did that start?

    3) Republicans also objected to voting on a bill which nobody had a chance to read. It sounds like to don’t remember that part of the charade. Does voting against something because you want to know what is in it first and want to slow the process down mean you are against everything in the bill?

    Tom, you can continue being a dishonest douchenozzle. I’m here all week and I’ve got your number.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  25. There is another point to be made here: Republicans in DC are considered, by main street Republicans, to be out of touch. And the power-broker Republicans, some of them anyway, might actually be finally hearing the hue and call of the average Joe. Main street Republicans call DC Republicans too liberal. Main street independents call DC Republicans more liberal than their base. By a wide margin.

    At this point in time, if you’re a congresscritter and you stand against everything Obama/Reid/Pelosi/Soros want, you stand a good chance at winning; but if you stand with them, you are at risk of losing (and helping our country if you do lose).

    John Hitchcock (049ba3)

  26. The most persuasive part of the vid is when Obams directly says that the stimulus is going to be spent right away. Of course that was a lie; he meant to shower us with money and faux jobs right before the midterms, and most of it is still thus unspent. It reaffirms again that the stimulus had NOTHING to do with jobs but was and is a giant slush fund.

    The Reps ought to run with that quote; it’s devastating.

    Patricia (e1047e)

  27. Some of the porkulus money is being saved to be spent in 2012 for some unknown reason. Not like spending money in 2012 will help the problems in 2009.

    John Hitchcock (049ba3)

  28. daleyrocks – More name-calling, this time “personal.” Only ya don’t know me, so it’s not really personal, but you’re trying. Fine.

    I see that you also responded more substantively. If there’s a next time, doing it sans cowardly insults will help me feel more obligated to take you seriously.

    Peace.

    Tom (98c376)

  29. “now that the moron’s passed it anyway, he’s not supposed to offset the damage to his constituents by at least getting them the most of the money he can, since they are going to have to help pay it back?”

    If only all our legislators were like this…

    imdw (22078e)

  30. Tom – Maybe any congresscritter that votes against a bill should have their district denied any goods, service, or monies contained therein, should the bill pass.

    JD (b655f9)

  31. I see that you also responded more substantively. If there’s a next time, doing it sans cowardly insults will help me feel more obligated to take you seriously.

    “…and I’m still not going to answer your direct question in any manner whatsoever, but you’re still wrong and I’m right.”

    Please come back and play here more often, Tom – it’s great fun to witness strangers making complete asses of themselves.

    Dmac (799abd)

  32. Peace.

    Translation: I’m a Drive – By Troll.

    Dmac (799abd)

  33. Tom is usually far more rational.

    JD (c62c91)

  34. “If there’s a next time, doing it sans cowardly insults will help me feel more obligated to take you seriously.”

    Tom – If you make honest points instead of repeating dishonest Democrat talking points, people here might take you more seriously, douchenozzle.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  35. “Tom – Maybe any congresscritter that votes against a bill should have their district denied any goods, service, or monies contained therein, should the bill pass.”

    And the sort of opposite: where asking for earmarks in a bill commits you to voting for it.

    Or maybe they just shouldn’t tout and try to get political advantage from things they oppose. But that “should” is a weak “should.” All that will happen is someone will use it to politician’s disadvantage. Given that, some politicians will no doubt make the calculation that it is still worthwhile for them to be against something and for it too.

    imdw (688568)

  36. daleyrocks – I was oversensitive in this thread. But you were also more of an asshole than seems warranted. I’ve been around here since 2004 (‘sup, Dmac) – which should at least be worth a modicum of decorum, if not respect.

    JD – “Maybe any congresscritter that votes against a bill should have their district denied any goods, service, or monies contained therein, should the bill pass.”

    Well, maybe said congresscritter could at least keep the pork-clamoring to a minimum, lest s/he appear to be, say, a dishonest douchenozzle. (Also, good gracious man, did you actually sort of come to my defense in this thread? I don’t really know what to say, other than coming from you, that means a lot!)

    Tom (98c376)

  37. Yes, I did, though it does not make the argument you presented any less specious.

    JD (8b3caf)

  38. Regardless, I appreciate your willingness to differentiate between the argument and the one who argues. ‘Nuff said here.

    Tom (98c376)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0999 secs.