Fox special promoted numerous myths and falsehoods about Obama and the economic recovery bill
SUMMARY: In Fox News' special, Trillion with a T, Bret Baier promoted or repeated several myths and falsehoods about President Obama and the economic recovery bill, including that some of the spending in the bill -- which Obama has now signed into law -- isn't stimulus; that the bill will lead to "the government deciding which procedures you can have and which ones you can't"; that it would prohibit any religious activity in facilities receiving money; that the Obama administration advocated cutting the defense budget by 10 percent; and that Obama admitted "there might be some pork" in the bill.
In the "exclusive Fox News investigative report," Trillion with a T, which aired February 14-16, host and Special Report anchor Bret Baier promoted or repeated several myths and falsehoods about President Obama and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which Obama signed into law on February 17. These myths and falsehoods include: the assertion that some of the spending in the bill isn't stimulus; the assertion that the recovery bill will lead to "the government deciding which procedures you can have and which ones you can't"; the assertion that the bill would prohibit any religious activity in facilities receiving money; the assertion that the Obama administration advocated cutting the defense budget by 10 percent; and the assertion that Obama admitted that "there might be some pork" in the bill.
Spending in the bill isn't stimulus
Several times during the program, Baier uncritically aired and repeated the myth that some of the spending in the bill is not stimulus. Twice, Baier uncritically aired Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) stating that the bill is not an economic stimulus bill, once stating, "We need an economic stimulus bill, not a big government stimulus bill," and also singling out funding for school lunches and Amtrak: "We're stimulating big government, we're not stimulating the economy here, you know? It's the three quarters of a billion for the after-school lunch program. It may be a decent program on its own, but doesn't stimulate the economy."
Baier also stated that "stimulus opponents" found a "series of provisions they claim have little to do with stimulating the economy. Tax breaks for Hollywood, a pro-union 'buy American' provision that had our allies threatening a trade war, and even a provision for sexually transmitted disease prevention." Additionally, Baier uncritically reported that "Republicans, meanwhile, issue lists of spending items they say do not belong in an emergency bill that's supposed to stimulate the economy," again suggesting that those "spending items" would not "stimulate the economy":
BAIER: Republicans, meanwhile, issue lists of spending items they say do not belong in an emergency bill that's supposed to stimulate the economy. One billion dollars for the U.S. Census Bureau; $300 million for the purchase of cars with better fuel economy, such as hybrid and electric vehicles; $1.3 billion for Amtrak; $650 million to help people switch to digital TV; $200 million for a new Department of Homeland Security headquarters; $25 million for the Smithsonian Institution; $165 million the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service for resource management. Republicans also point out that since hundreds of billions will be given to states and cities to spend how they wish, there is no telling what that money will ultimately be used for. Of course, one politician's pork is another's good government. President Obama defends the millions for fuel-efficient and hybrid cars.
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) director Douglas W. Elmendorf specifically refuted the claim that there is spending in the bill that isn't stimulus. In January 27 testimony before the House Budget Committee, Elmendorf said (from the Nexis database): "[I]n our estimation -- and I think the estimation of most economists -- all of the increase in government spending and all of the reduction in tax revenue provides some stimulative effect. People are put to work, receive income, spend that on something else. That puts somebody else to work."
Also, as Media Matters has noted, in analyzing the House version of the bill and the original Senate version, the CBO stated that contrary to the claim that the legislation is not an "economic stimulus bill," it expects the measures to "have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years." Additionally, in his January 27 written testimony, Elmendorf said that the House version would "provide massive fiscal stimulus that includes a combination of government spending increases and revenue reductions." Elmendorf further stated: "In CBO's judgment, H.R. 1 would provide a substantial boost to economic activity over the next several years relative to what would occur without any legislation."
Moreover, economists say that the notion that all spending is stimulative is a basic economic principle. Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, has written, "[S]pending is stimulus. Any spending will generate jobs. It is that simple."
The Recovery Act will lead to government restrictions on medical treatments
Baier uncritically repeated Rep. Jeff Flake's (R-AZ) assertion that the act "could lead to rationed health care" and uncritically aired Flake's claim that the bill will lead to "government deciding which procedures you can have and which ones you can't." The assertions echoed false media assertions -- repeatedly rebutted by Media Matters -- about the bill's health-care information technology provision based on a distortion that originated in a February 9 Bloomberg "commentary" by former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey, as well as similar misrepresentations regarding the act's funding for the Comparative Effectiveness Research program.
In fact, the provision in the enrolled version of the act regarding the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology does not mandate that the federal government "decid[e] which procedures you can have and which ones you can't" or otherwise interfere with doctors' treatment decisions. Rather, the provision addresses establishing "a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information" in order to create "an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014," thereby reducing "health care costs resulting from inefficiency, medical errors, inappropriate care, duplicative care, and incomplete information" and providing "appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care." Similarly, a provision in the act establishing a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research and calling for funding to "be used to accelerate the development and dissemination of research assessing the comparative effectiveness of health care treatments and strategies" and for the health and human services secretary to "consider any recommendations" by the council provides for no federal ban on treatments, regardless of effectiveness or cost-efficiency.
The Act will prohibit any religious activity in facilities receiving money
Baier uncritically aired Sen. Jim DeMint's (R-SC) false assertion that under the Recovery Act, "[i]f [universities] take any money, you can't have prayer groups meet in a dorm anymore."
In fact, as Media Matters has noted, the section in question provides funding "for modernization, renovation, or repair of institution of higher education facilities that are primarily used for instruction, research, or student housing," and prohibits the use of such funds for "modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities ... used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity ... or in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission" [emphasis added]. It thus would not ban recipients of that funding from having "prayer groups meet in a dorm," as DeMint claimed.
The Obama administration asked the Pentagon to cut its budget by 10 percent
Baier falsely asserted that "as the U.S. fights two major wars, the administration is asking the Pentagon to cut its budget by 10 percent." In fact, as Josh Rogin reported in a February 2 Congressional Quarterly article, the Obama administration has actually proposed increasing the Pentagon's fiscal year 2010 budget by about $14 billion from its 2009 budget. In stating that the Obama administration asked "the Pentagon to cut its budget by 10 percent," Baier was comparing the administration's 2010 budget request for defense spending with what Rogin reported was "a $584 billion draft budget request compiled last fall by the Joint Chiefs of Staff for fiscal 2010."
Obama admitted there "might be some pork" in the recovery bill
Baier quoted Obama saying at a February 9 town hall in Elkhart, Indiana, "I'm not going to tell you that this bill is perfect. I mean, it's coming out of Washington, it's going through Congress." Baier then baselessly asserted that "Obama admits: Sure, there might be some pork." However, during the Elkhart town hall, Obama twice refuted the notion that the bill contained pork, noting that "there aren't individual pork projects that members of Congress are putting into this bill" and later refuted the suggestion that funding for clean energy is pork:
And listen, I know that there are a lot of folks out there who have been saying, oh, this is pork and this is money that's going to be wasted and et cetera, et cetera. Understand: This bill does not have a single earmark in it -- which is unprecedented for a bill of this size -- does not have a single earmark in it. (Applause.)
So we may debate -- we can debate, you know, whether you'd rather have this tax cut versus that tax cut, or this project versus that project. Be clear, though, that there aren't a -- there aren't individual pork projects that members of Congress are putting into this bill. Regardless of what the critics say, there are no earmarks in this bill. That's part of the change that we're bringing to Washington, is making sure that this money is well spent to actually create jobs right here in Elkhart.
[...]
We also have put in money that provide for the weatherization of millions of homes across the country. Now, this is an example of where you get a multiplier effect. If you allocate money to weatherize homes, the homeowner gets the benefit of lower energy bills. You right away put people back to work, many of whom in the construction industry and in the housing industry are out of work right now -- they are immediately put to work doing something. You can train young people as apprentices to start getting training at -- in home construction through weatherization. And you start reducing energy costs for the nation as a whole. So there are billions of dollars in this plan allocated for moving us towards a new energy future.
Now, I'll be honest with you, some of the critics of the plan have said that's pork. I don't understand their criticism. Their basic argument is, well, that's -- you're trying to make policy instead of just doing short-term stimulus. Well, my whole attitude is, if we're going to spend billions of dollars that creates jobs anyway, then why wouldn't we want to create jobs in things like clean energy that create a better economic future for us over the long term? That's just -- that's common sense to me. That's common sense to me.
From Fox News' Trillion with a T: How To Spend $1,000,000,000,000.00:
HENSARLING: We're stimulating big government, we're not stimulating the economy here, you know? It's the three quarters of a billion for the after-school lunch program. It may be a decent program on its own, but doesn't stimulate the economy. Spending money on Amtrak.
[...]
HENSARLING: We need an economic stimulus bill, not a big government stimulus bill.
[...]
BAIER: The cause is helped as stimulus opponents dig in to the dense text of the 1,400 pages of House and Senate legislation. They find a series of provisions they claim have little to do with stimulating the economy. Tax breaks for Hollywood, a pro-union "buy American" provision that had our allies threatening a trade war, and even a provision for sexually transmitted disease prevention.
[begin video clip]
BAIER: Republicans are jumping on some of the details. They don't seem to jump-start the economy, some of them. Is the pressure building?
REP. MICHAEL CAPUANO (D-MA): No, not at all. You're going to end up with a few things that most people won't like.
[end video clip]
[...]
BAIER: Republicans, meanwhile, issue lists of spending items they say do not belong in an emergency bill that's supposed to stimulate the economy. One billion dollars for the U.S. Census Bureau; $300 million for the purchase of cars with better fuel economy, such as hybrid and electric vehicles; $1.3 billion for Amtrak; $650 million to help people switch to digital TV; $200 million for a new Department of Homeland Security headquarters; $25 million for the Smithsonian Institution; $165 million to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service for resource management. Republicans also point out that since hundreds of billions will be given to states and cities to spend how they wish, there is no telling what that money will ultimately be used for. Of course, one politician's pork is another's good government. President Obama defends the millions for fuel-efficient and hybrid cars.
[...]
BAIER: The stimulus also funds computerized health records and a mechanism that allows the government to monitor the effectiveness of various treatments around the country.
ANDY STERN (SEIU president): I'm sick of going to my doctor's office and filling out the same form time and time again.
BAIER: Andy Stern is president of the nation's largest labor union, Service Employees International Union, or SEIU. He's a key supporter of the bill, and thinks this part of it makes real sense.
STERN: I have to remember when I got my appendectomy and when I had pneumonia and when I got my shots, boy, if someone could give me come computerization, we could save a lot of money. I think it's a great idea.
BAIER: Congressman Flake, however, worries that the bill could lead to rationed health care.
FLAKE: When you go back to the literature, what that means is basically a government deciding which procedures you can have and which ones you can't. That's what it will end -- you know, end in, and it looks like government rationing. So yeah, this is -- this is the thing that's scary. In the end, we may look at the amount of money spent as the least bad part of this legislation.
[...]
BAIER: You made an appeal to conservative bloggers asking them to comb through this legislation to really find what's in it.
DeMINT: The bloggers have become a huge resource, and that's how we found, like, the discrimination against religious freedom on universities. If they take any money, you can't have prayer groups meet in a dorm anymore -- you know, crazy things like that that are in it.
[...]
MARTIN FELDSTEIN (chairman of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers): Defense spending has basically been left out of this program. Any yet, defense spending could add dollar-for-dollar to GDP. For every dollar that gets spent, for every dollar that's added to the national debt, we would have an extra dollar of GDP. I've talked with the senior people in the Pentagon, and they tell me that they could produce a list of projects that would spend very quickly. Some of this is repairs on equipment that were used in Iraq and Afghanistan, some of it is replacement of supplies, some of it will be domestic infrastructure on military bases, and they can do all of that very quickly. Those are things that are going to have to be done anyway, so this is the time to do them, when there's a lot of slack in the economy.
BAIER: In fact, as the U.S. fights two major wars, the administration is asking the Pentagon to cut its budget by 10 percent.
FELDSTEIN: I've been very disappointed in the specific plan that's come out of the administration, and so I'm very worried that we're adding tremendously to the national debt and not doing enough to help the situation.
[...]
OBAMA [video clip]: I'm not going to tell you that this bill is perfect. I mean, it's coming out of Washington, it's going through Congress.
BAIER: As President Obama admits: Sure, there might be some pork. But at least one Democratic senator doesn't think it's a problem.
"Obama administration asked the Pentagon to cut its budget by 10 percent"
This one's really funny. Remember back when the Republicans controlled everything? They would reduce a proposed increase in a program and the Democrats would call it a cut. Then the Republicans went all apesh*t and Rush Limbaugh told Democrats to "shut the hell up... it's still an increase, just not as much as you wanted".
Well, there you go.
Trillion with a T...
Bulls*** with a B is more like it.
Hey Nocommonsense, when we were at 4.3% unemployment just 4 years ago, was that was a failed system? You mean the system that has been in place since we started this great country, that system? You talk about working with someone, like the way you work with us the last 8 years? I just do not remember you all wanting to help in anyway. All I heard from the Dems where how you were trying to blocking this bill, or block that nomination. The biggest issue I had with Bush is he spent way, way too much many to try and make you all happy. Yes I hope Socialism fails, if this bill had only been for true work programs I would have backed it. Food Stamps, Unemployment Insurance, Unemployment Benefits extended from 13 weeks to 20 + weeks, Welfare and a few other none job creation inserts. Let me give you and example since you all want them around here, a Mayor from Lexington Ky. wants 1. 5 million to build a garden for folks to walk in that would only create one job long term and 5 jobs for 6 months. Wow now that is great use of my money.
Markbfoot199 if you are trying to make a point it will be easier to make people listen to it if you are not insulting others. The reason for this is you lose any illussion that you are fair and unbiased when you insult the otherside. For your information spending works much better than tax cuts as is proven with history. Also you are citing falsehoods on how the money is going to be spent.
Sorry, these are facts, saw the interview this morning.
So the entire bill is wrong because someone wants to build a garden?
Really? You'd scrap the whole plan because of that? You'd let millions of people suffer because you don't like one subsection of the plan?
Again, you're an idiot.
you'd let millions of people suffer because you don't like one subsection of the plan That's the whole point of this, commonsense, is that these types of provisions, the walking garden, have been slipped into the bill and we are saying that a great deal of pork like this does not stimulate the economy. Few are saying the entire bill is pork but most on the left are saying there is no pork in the bill. The democrats are relying on the type of rhetoric you just displayed to create a spending bill that has many provisions that simply do not stimulate the economy. That type of blackmail, if you will, is what Stretch Pelosi is relying on to push this type of agenda and I, for one, think it is preposterous.
Work is work, all work stimulates the economy. That's what y'all don't get, or conveniently forget. And many, not few are saying there is a great deal of pork. As a matter of fact, the figure you keep hearing on the news and talk radio is 52%, which happens to be everything in the bill minus tax cuts. Call it blackmail all you want, the bottom line is y'all lost the last election in a landslide, the people want this in spite of your spin and lies, and it went through without you. Enjoy another 40 years in the desert, fool.
I agree, work is in fact work, but why are we so encouraged by so few jobs being created with so much money and spending? Instead of government creating the jobs, why are we not using that money to give employers tax credits as incentives to hire more people and keep them on the payroll?
"...and we are saying that a great deal of pork like this does not stimulate the economy."
To be fair, you might know something I don't, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; however, 3% is not "a great deal of pork."
Three percent. That's how much "pork" is in the bill, according to the Republicans. Now, usually they shy away from any quantifying (I wonder why), but 25 billion dollars (3%) was given as the amount of pork. I'm attaching the quote at the bottom (Senator Coburn, in Post).
If 3% is the best Republicans can come up with, I'm not concerned.
Well, from what Obama says, there is not Pork in this bill. So now you are say 3%?
ok so it creates one permenant job and 5 temproary jobs......well if it wasnt there it would create no jobs permenant or temporary.......i think it might be a good thing even temporary.
considering i was once a temp for a time and desperate for work, i took what was available just to get by until i could get somethign more permenant.
Considering that fox got a judge to say they do not have to report the news no report from tham is abloe to be taken as having a single fact in it. This means that Fox has less credibility than some one who has never paid attention to this at all.
Sorry, markbfoot199, these are NOT the facts. (I'm assuming that the interview to which you refer as evidence of pork in the ARRA was with the Lexington, KY mayor?) These are myths created by GOP hacks who either flunked reading comprehension in grammar school or majored in obfuscation (i.e., lying) in college. The Lexington mayor was simply describing his "wish list" for the city. Federal, state, and local officials across the country have been encouraged to identify shovel-ready, near-term, and long-term projects on which their agency, state, or community need or would like to have for the betterment of their respective constituencies. These "wish lists" are not written into the ARRA -- they are not earmarks, they are not pork. It is from these project lists that the administrators of ARRA funds will select the most stimulative and the most practicable.
As for the mayor's park or any other proposed project being a "great use of [your] money," there's only one problem -- it's not exactly your money, it's the public's money. Our tax dollars are part of our social contract with our country and our fellow Americans. We live in this society, we work in and benefit from this society, and we owe a debt to this society! It's no different from you walking into a convenience store and eating a candy bar right off the shelf. That dollar in your pocket isn't yours any longer; it belongs to the storekeeper to be used as he sees fit for the benefit of his store and his customers.
Wow Linus, you have really bought into the system. I guess you give most of your extra income to the Federal Government then? SInce you view it as the public money. Where is that contract? I would like to take a look at it, make sure they are not overcharging me. You candybar story, that is stealing.
It's funny. Mr. Markbfoot chastised me on another thread for insulting someone, (I called that person an idiot) but then he comes here and does it.
He's just another "do as I say, not as I do" authoritarian, right-wing blowhard who is fresh out of ideas and fresh out of intellect.
I did not call you any names; I just used your name as in NO Commonsense. Wow, such a sensitive individual. I guess you are only able to dish out comments but not take them. I will make sure Snoopy sends you a complaint form.
What offensive behavior! You turned his name into an insult, but because you used his core name, it's somehow not an insult?
Here's a clue. That's an insult.
It's OK LuvLuLu. We know he's got issues.
He's a typical conservative. His mind is like concrete - all mixed up and permanently set. I don't mind being called a name or two. I'm more thick skinned than that.
What I do mind is hypocrisy. Markbfoot169 is full of it.
MARKFOOT, Pull your head out of your back end and look around. BUSH and his NEO-CON allies laid the groundwork for this disaster during the first 6 years while he was in office. Even when the DEMS regained controll of congress in 06 they still didnt have enough of a majority to undo what BOY GEORGE had done.
Please, Hurricaneyankee. Markbfoot's head is permanently stuck in his rectal database. If he pulls his head out, it just may explode. What a mess that would be.
Sounds to me like you have a problem with helping poor people.
I hope you don't dare call yourself a Christian.
Nope, always willing to give a life up, just not a hand out.
Just whose life are you willing to give up?
Your rant is full of lies.
I'll respond to just one - one which stuck out as one of the biggest lies I've had the displeasure of reading:
"The biggest issue I had with Bush is he spent way, way too much many to try and make you all happy." - markbfoot199
Bush didn't spend money to make us happy. He spent money to make shareholders of Halliburton, et al. happy. There's a difference. The only benefit I got from Bush was a $300 check - ONCE. Woo hoo! I'm RICH!!! *NOT*
I didn't get to take advantage of any tax cuts from Bush. I didn't make enough money! That's jacked. When a middle class person who uses most (if not all) of their paycheck to live on (i.e. spend money, helping the economy) can't even get a tax break, that's jacked. If you don't see that, you've got a problem.
Common, what about the Education Bill that was passed with the help of Kennedy. That bill was a large, large spending bill that was to show how Bush was willing to reach across the isle. Again, I prove that I do not lie.
Well, I do not get to take advantage of Obama programs either. I have a job that pays me more then his hand outs, fine. I have been paying my mortgage on time every month. The good part is, it just proves that I have worked hard to maintain my career, and pay my bills. Obama is going to pay for mortgages on people that have failed, wow that is a motivator to succeed.
One example doesn't get you out of your nonsensical assertion.
"Obama is going to pay for mortgages on people that have failed, wow that is a motivator to succeed."
You must have your head wedged deep in your butt. It's not the people who failed here. It's the banking industry, mortgage lenders, and republicans in general who failed. We need regulation - and you guys on the right are so damned greedy that you balk at the thought of even the tiniest amoung of regulation. It's either all or nothing, my way or the highway with you clowns. And you tell me that Dems don't want to work with republicans? Please. And tell me, if Obama weren't going to "pay for mortgages on people that have failed..." how would that be a motivator to succeed?
Of course you don't remember, because if you did you'd have to admit you're wrong.
Hey Snoop, you forgot to add the number of Dems that voted no on Obama's bill. I am sure you just forget to add that piece.
That wasn't the point of his response to you. If you think it is, you genuinely have reading comprehension issues.
Snoopy's response was to your contention that Dems never work in a bipartisan manner. You know that's BS, but you stick with your talking points. You're the partisan. You belong the obfuscation party. You belong to the party that was resoundingly voted out of office. You would think that would be a wake up call to you folks. But instead, you continue to obstruct as much as possible. You'd like to see the American people fail. You, sir, are ANTI-American.
...Bush is he spent way, way too much many to try and make you all happy.
What a whopper of a lie. Yet again, revisionist history raises its ugly head. Did you not have access to newspapers/teevee in the past 8 years?
But if you really believe that, then given Bush's approval ratings late last year, he was a failure in that as well.
Yes. We had too many Americans underemployed, Americans working longer hours to make up for loses in wages, Americans falling into poverty, Americans losing their health and pension benefits, Americans savings rate plunging coupled with rising consumer debt, etc. It was a failed system although the wealthy did fantastic.
Food Stamps, Unemployment Insurance, Unemployment Benefits extended from 13 weeks to 20 + weeks, Welfare and a few other none job creation inserts. Let me give you and example since you all want them around here, a Mayor from Lexington Ky. wants 1. 5 million to build a garden for folks to walk in that would only create one job long term and 5 jobs for 6 months. Wow now that is great use of my money.
For the first part, those things are in the bill because the forecast for millions of Americans is looking to be long periods of economic hardship with limited job opportunities. Many states are already facing budget crises because of unexpected unemployment claims. This money is needed in order to keep the bad from getting worse.
As for the mayor in Lexington, he may want that garden, but that doesn't mean he'll get it.
"You talk about working with someone, like the way you work with us the last 8 years? I just do not remember you all wanting to help in anyway. All I heard from the Dems where how you were trying to blocking this bill, or block that nomination."
ok mark......the real reason this may have been the case is because Bush and Co. were jamming things down everyone's throat. now you have the current minority party doing the very same thing only way more than democrats did.
example.....Hilda Solis, why was her confermation hearing being held up? answer because she is pro union and the neo cons were looking to fight it every step of the way. just like they tried, and failed, with Holder. who by the way i have enourmous respect for at present.
another example. the number of cloture votes that have occured. the trend was about 20-30 during the 90's. and it spiked to about 50 over the last 8 years. and guess how many have had to occur since neo cons are now a minority.....over 120.
so mark it seems to be that neo cons are just being obstructionist and looking to fight everything even though they will eventually loose.
COMMONSENCE, RIGHT ON I couldent have said it better myself. I dont know if the RIGHTIES hate the country so much as the people that dont agree with them and their very narrow view of how things are supposed to be. What I get a real kick out of is how they claim to be christian out of one side of their mouths while having nothing but scorn for people less fortunate than themselves out of the other side.They will say that those people just need to put their nose to the grindstone and pull themselves by their bootstraps and not depend on the GOVT to help. I wonder if these CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES ever really studied how JESUS lived his life,among the poor and downtroden, the very people the RIGHTIES think their better than.
Proverbs 13:11. God blesses honest, hard work. When God is with you, you will succeed in whatever you do at work, at play, or at home. Many times we can get discouraged when someone else achieves success undeserved. We may think that they got lucky, or that they achieved success only through ill-gotten means. This is not for us to judge. Proverbs 13:11 says, “Wealth gotten by vanity shall be diminished: but he that gathereth by labour shall increase”. This is where we need to trust God. If God says that the undeserved will not stay wealthy and that hard workers will succeed, we need to believe Him. God is control and what He says is true. If we stay true and work hard, God will give us success.
Did He mention that it was only us? Because, if I work hard and God rewards me with the kind of success your average Chinese farmer enjoys, I think I'd rather just take it easy.
Don't you know, neon? God will reward you with the kind of success that greedy republican thieves achieve. You know, the kind where you take a bailout made up of American taxpayer money for your own bonus. Don't worry. Markbfoot's god doesn't like the brown people in China. God means for you to be successful and wealthy as we are here in America, not successful and wealthy as in China. See the difference? Markbfoot's god is a white man with money who wants everyone to be wealthy like he is (but western wealthy, not eastern wealthy as in 'I have two pigs and a goat' wealthy).
:P
...and republicans.
"Wealth gotten by vanity shall be diminished: but he that gathereth by labour shall increase"
Is that why Republicans insist on taxing wages at a higher rate than capital gains? WWJD?
Proverbs? That's old testament, not the word of Jesus.
Here's a couple of quotes from Jesus:
Luke 6:24 But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
Luke 12:20 But God said to him (the rich man) "You fool!This very night your life is demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?"
The Bible and Work
Some in the church at Thessalonica who were able to work apparently chose not to do so. Instead, they expected others to provide for their physical needs.
In addressing this issue, the apostle Paul wrote to the church in that city, "Now we exhort you, brethren, warn those who are unruly . . ." (1 Thessalonians 5:14). The Greek word for unruly is ataktos. This word "was especially a military term, denoting 'not keeping rank, insubordinate'; it is used in 1 Thes. 5:14, describing certain church members who manifested an insubordinate spirit, whether by excitability or officiousness or idleness" (Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985, "Disorderly").
Being idle or lazy is not in step with God's expectations of our behavior.
In Paul's second letter to this same congregation, he again addressed this situation: "But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly [ataktos] and not according to the tradition which he received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly [atakteo] among you; nor did we eat anyone's bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us" (2 Thessalonians 3:6-9).
Paul, to show that his motives were pure and to avoid being accused of taking advantage of the members of Thessalonica, cited his own example of having worked to support himself when he was in the area earlier. Although he had the right to be supported by them in exchange for his ministering to them (1 Corinthians 9:1-18), he chose not to.
Paul continued: "For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread" (verses 10-12).
Since other biblical instruction calls for helping the needy (Matthew 19:21; Galatians 2:10), Paul is obviously correcting those who were able to work but chose not to do so. If we are able, God expects us to work so we can provide for our own needs and not unnecessarily burden others.
Hey Mark,
Do you have any quotes actually from Jesus on this subject? I see you quote the old testament and Paul but nothing from the mouth of Jesus.
Any reason for that? Because you do know that the rest of the Bible is just made up stuff, right?
It's pretty dishonest to lift your entire post from a website without giving credit.
Ha! Come on, BillJ. You cannot expect any of us to believe there would be any honesty coming from a right-winger...
:P
Oh, I am sorry. I took the information from the BIBLE, or have you never seen that book. Also, from a "yes" a website that is put together to help christians combat Liberals. I know it is hard for you all to accept the bible as a real book.
Actually, you lifted those 'cut and pastes' from other websites. You didn't do your own research.
DO YOU OWN WORK, REPUBLICAN BLOWHARD!
Common, I took if from Bible.org. Give it a try. Such a great website.
You should still cite your source. You didn't write the commentary you posted as if it was your own, whether that commentary is analyzing the Bible or not.
It doesn't matter if the website is great or not. That's for us to judge. If it's not your own work, you are obligated to provide a link. You didn't do that.
Admit your error. Don't do it again. Go and sin no more.
Luv, I took if from Bible.org. Give it a try. Such a great website. (my opinion, one that you do not accpet, and this is fine)
If you folks have God on your side, why is it that Christians would need help combatting liberals? Are you really that deluded to think that we live in a country of red and blue, us against them? If you believe that, you truly do have a problem with bipartisanship. You really do have a problem with people. You lump people into categories, judge them accordingly through religious-clouded lenses.
You forget that there are tons and tons of Liberals who are Christians. So, you're saying you support a website that advocates combatting, uh, Christians. Nice.
Do you not think through what you type here? Are you having an "off" month? You're shooting yourself in the foot more and more these days.
Oh, I do accept the bible as a real 'book'. I don't accept it as (gospel) truth, but allegory and metaphor. I'm glad you have your crutch to get through your life. my life is fine without your fairy tales being forced upon me.
The apostle Paul wrote in a letter to Christians:
“Brothers and sisters, keep away from Christians who are lazy. Such people do not live in the way that we taught you. We tell you to do this by the authority that the Lord Jesus Christ gives to us. You yourselves know very well that you should live as we did. We were not lazy when we were with you. We did not depend on any of you for our food without paying for it. No, we worked hard night and day. We earned what we needed. So we did not have to charge you anything at all. We did this, not because we do not have the right to expect such help. But we did it so as to be an example of how you should live. Because when we were with you, we gave you this rule: Whoever refuses to work should not eat.
We say this because we hear that some among you are lazy. They talk about other people but do no work themselves. By the authority that we have in the Lord Jesus Christ, we urge them to work quietly. They must earn the money to buy their own food. But you, brothers and sisters, must never tire of doing good things.”
2 Thessalonians 3:6-13
The apostle Paul also wrote:
“If you were a thief, you must stop stealing things. You should work and do something useful with your hands. Then you will earn something that you can share with other people. They may need your help.”
Ephesians 4:28
Still nothing from Jesus? Did Paul decide what was good and bad? I thought Jesus was the actual leader of the Christian Church, am I wrong?
Jesus was busy berating the Temple money changers for not taking enough profit. Wealth creation, you know.
From the Gospel of St. Green:
Now when I talked to God, I knew he'd understand. He said "stick by me and I'll be your guidin' hand. But don't ask me what I think of you - I might not give the answer that you want me to..."
Oh well...
St. Green: 5:18:
Green, green, it can't be green, on the poor side of the hill
Green green, i want more green, says the loutish right-wing shill.
Not sure if you are aware, but the Bible is called the Word of God. Why just look for quotes from Jesus, when you can get them from God.
For Christians the Bible is the word of God. To others, it's just another book.
You do realize that there are other people out there besides Christians? You do realize that not everyone believes the same way you do, right?
That's what right-wing religious whackos like Markbfoot199 fail to see. Not everyone believes the way they do. Not everyone worships the same way. Religious wingnuts also fail to realize that our Constitution guarantees us the right to say 'no' to religion, any religion, even yours, as we see fit.
So, not to be too offensive, but this is not a website for you to to preach your religion on this site as if everyone believes the same way you do. I suggest you shove that book where the sun doesn't shine. Force your beliefs on others elsewhere. Leave it out of comments on POLITICAL events/news.
One more piece of advice: On this site, we like it when people who make claims (especially outrageous claims, as you so often have) to back them up with source citing. It's not a difficult task. It also tends to keep people like you honest (which so far has been a monumental task, seeing as how you like to lie so much).
Wow, Common, I use a simple word in front of your name, just to show you have No Common Sense and you go wacko and a crying spree about your feelings, an how using such words are ignored and shows a person IQ. You in return only know how to throw out insults, which I guess we can now question yours? This whole tread was to answer to Hurrincan, he asked about what Jesus would say. I went to a website bible.org that is put together to help combat Liberals and wow it worked great. Will be using it more often. : )
So because it's called the Word of God, any quote from any apostle or prophet belongs to God as well? Wouldn't what Jesus says be a quote from God also?
Yes
I find this distinction odd, then:"Why just look for quotes from Jesus, when you can get them from God."
What about actions and inconsistencies? For example, Jesus preached to turn the other cheek. But when the prophet Elisha was mocked by a crowd of young men for his faith, God had them mauled by bears. Not exactly a gesture of tolerance and forgiveness there.
That sort of thing demonstrates to me that at the very least people in the Bible speak and act for themselves. Once you say that everyone represents God and his will, you enter some very troublesome territory.
mark, Istill go by what people that thru I posted earlier, look at CHRISTS life and who he hung around with and his message, care and commpassion for your fellow man. That does not mean that I am not blind to the fact that there an lazy jerks and con artists out there but if people thru no fault of there own are in trouble, they deserve a helping hand ,even if it is from the GOVT.
Hurricane, I agree and I am always happy to give a lift up, just not a hand out. With the government many times they are only giving hand outs. I have said many, many times on this website I would support a bill that creates true jobs and trained skills. Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a life time. I truly beleive in this, as long as you give people things, they will come back the next day for the same. If you teach a person a skill they will provide for themselves, and we hope come back and teach the next person as well. This bill has a lot of giving, not teaching.
You can't seem to stop the dishonesty. Cite your source if you're just copying and pasting.
And remember, he is a Christian.
He must not feel the need to give source attribution. Freakin' thief.
If Markbfoot had gone to college, I'm sure he would have been kicked out for academic dishonesty...
In this case, he is actually not doing the work himself, but relying on others to do the work for him (i.e. the research). He then lifts his quotes from others' work, talking about how you shouldn't rely on others' work to support you.
Hypocrite much?
That's a great point. I hadn't made the link between the meanings of the words he plagiarized and their contrast with his actions.
Har! The wingnuts are getting to be ridiculous on so many levels, it's hard to keep up. I didn't catch that either.
Bearing false witness and stealing while lecturing (from the Bible) against those same sins. The far-right maniacs should just start dressing up in baggy polka-dot pants and size 25 shoes, as long as that's the clownish image they're cultivating.
MarkB(ig)foot, meet Plowedcon, ANutterAmerican, Phlippy, and all of the other wingnuts who come to this site to reinforce everything the ridiculous current version of the GOP stands for; a sensible ideology for about 20% of voters, and unintentional comedy for all of us sane Americans.
Please keep this in mind, all of you, the next time you try to act confused as to why the other posters here don't lower themselves to discussing issues( as you understand them) with you.
Clowns.
Hey, Col, I am sure I watched the same results from the last election as you did, and I am sure that Obama did not win with a 80% margin. So your 20% is incorrect.
"MarkB(ig)foot, meet Plowedcon, ANutterAmerican, Phlippy, and all of the other wingnuts who come to this site to reinforce everything the ridiculous current version of the GOP stands for; a sensible ideology for about 20% of voters, and unintentional comedy for all of us sane Americans."
He said it was a sensible ideology for that percentage, not that it comprised the percentage of people who voted for the party that reflects that ideology. Some people don't recognize how extreme the Republican party has become.
If this is the basis for you not supporting government assistance, why don't you let God sort it all out and, in the mean time, allow the government to assist those who need assistance?
Oh wait. God didn't say any of that. It was Paul. Silly me.
To you all above, again since you do not like the information that was given about hard work and gaining riches, you attack the messenger. Since I am sure many of you never attended Church, riches does not always mean money. Riches can be the life you live, those around you, those that you help. I have proven that hard work and earning a living is good, but you all cannot accept that, so you attack me. It is ok, does not bother me at all. I will tell you this; I get my information from individuals whom put their works out there to help combat individuals like yourself. Many are pastors whom do not use their name, but highlight this is the word of God, not an individuals. Again, hard work is not something a liberal will accept, just like the word of God.
Again, hard work is not something a liberal will accept, just like the word of God.
Liar. Again.
You're just like Bush cherry-picking intelligence. You cherry-pick the bible to fit your narrow-minded agenda. Sad.
Fog, go back and read the comments that Common has said about me.
You seem to be asserting that anyone who needs assistance is lazy. Is that a Christian attitude? Of course hard work and earning a living is "good", that doesn't mean everyone who is out of a job doesnt want to work.
Barbantio, I did not say that, but I do stand by what I have said before. I will always give a lift up, not a hand out. I am happy to let someone work for money. Have you ever stopped on the side of the road where a person is begging. If you offer them a job (not all) to earn money that day, they blow you off? Why is that? The town I live you, you can give them coupons for food at a local homeless shelter, what do they do with them. Throw them on the ground, why is that? Yes there are folks out of work, and many will find jobs, many will change their lifestyles. Yes, times are tough, but we as a country will survive, not from hand outs but from a lift up.
How did you not say that? When Hurricane talks about the treatment of the poor and downtrodden, you quote Paul talking about the lazy. If you're not addressing what he said, what's the relevance of that?
Did you consider what you read on that website at all before posting it? If you don't believe all the poor and downtrodden are lazy, then you shouldn't have posted it.
Brabantio, Hurricans question "wonder if these CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES ever really studied how JESUS lived his life, among the poor and downtrodden, the very people the RIGHTIES think their better than" I never said I was better then anyone, he asked if we ever really studied how Jesus lived his life. Yes, I have read how Jesus lived his life among the poor, among the downtrodden, among his disciples that he taught, his life as a carpenter. Barbantio, you then only take out a single line of a verse, use it out of context, then you want to use back at me. How many times will I have to say this before it gets into your heads, I will always give a lift up, not a hand out. Yet, there are those whom are lazy and whom only want a hand out. Jesus teaches this to these disciples. I talk about them bum on the side of the road holding out his cup for change. Give that person an opportunity for work, to earn his money he will turn it down. (not all, but majority) Hence an example of a person that is lazy and only wants a hand out, and will only accept a hand out. This government is doing the same, there are 3rd generation individuals in some towns that have never worked, they sit in their government sub sized homes and receive food stamps, and received a monthly check. What is their motivation to work? Now, take that money and living away, and the motivation will change, but before you take it away, you teach them a skill, and offer them a job. If they quite that job, why would you continue to support them?
So how do you make the distinction between the lazy and the hardworking who can't find a job, as far as social policy goes?
Hurricane was talking about the less fortunate, not the lazy, so the quote you provided does not address that. There is certainly overlap between those groups, but when the policy of "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" hurts those who are already trying to do that, then you can't possibly argue that such a view represents the philosophy of Jesus.
Tell me how the context changes anything, please.
The words of God regarding hand-outs:
Deuteronomy 15:7 If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother:
8 But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth.
Luke 3:11 He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.
Proverbs 22:9 He that hath a bountiful eye shall be blessed; for he giveth of his bread to the poor.
1 John 3:17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
Full disclosure, I got some help from yahoo answers. I did verify the passages, though.
Barbantio, I never said not to help, I agree. Not once did I say not help, teaching a skill is helping, is it not? Again from the beginning of these threads, the opinion of Hurrican - It has also shown in a study, http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm (Which really proves Hurrican wrong) "What I get a real kick out of is how they claim to be christian out of one side of their mouths while having nothing but scorn for people less fortunate than themselves out of the other side." I have never scorned anyone, I have only talked about help, giving a lift up.
I'm talking about handouts, though, not teaching a skill. The Bible seems to think handouts are just fine.
If you object to the generalization, I understand that. It's certainly not true for all conservatives. However, you damaged your own cause. Remember you got your post from a conservative website designed to help arguments against liberals (and seem to be very happy and proud about this for some reason). The response to "poor and downtrodden" is to talk about those that are lazy and who therefore shouldn't eat. If that site really intended for that passage to address the plights of the less fortunate, then that is scorn.
Am I my borther's keeper? yes Iam. Motto of the Jesuits "Man for Others". One question? Does being unemployed mean you are not hard working and does being employed mean you are hard working?
That is for you to answer, no myself. What do you consider unemployeed? What about the farmer that grows his own food, is he unemployeed or is he providing for his family? What about a person that is working part time, he may have gone from a full time job to part time, is that a person that is unemployeed?
What bizarre questions. Of course those people are employed, assuming the farmer sells what he grows as well. Also "providing for his family" and "unemployed" aren't mutually exclusive.
Do you believe that everyone who is out of work is lazy or not?
markbfoot199,
How can you say stuff like "Again, hard work is not something a liberal will accept, just like the word of God." And expect to be taken serioiusly? Also if that was really true, why is it that the liberal leaning states subsidize the government programs the conservative leaning states?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelpinto/2987025203/
The Bible also tells us that a socity is responsable to take care of its members who can not take care of themselves. This starts with the family then goes to friends but ends with the socity as a whole. A prime example of this is the gleaning by first widows and orphans then by the poor but the religious right and the right in general forget about the socity witch includes the government have any responsibility.
Mr Right, Society as a whole? Is that like a village is needed to raise a child?
Why isn't there fact checking and verification in journalism today? If I lied to everyone while at my job, I would end up jobless. If our Government does not like it, why do they let it continue? It is obvious to me the Government likes what Fox News does and what they stand for. Disinformation, propaganda and manipulation of the general public. Our collective mindset is being controlled with mass brasinwashing. It's like some science fiction movie...
You mean like Obama lied about not pork in the bill.
No lie there. That pork doesn't exist. If it did, Boehner and co. wouldn't be tripping over each other trying to get most of the stimulus sent to their districts now that the bill passed without their help. oops! Did I mention that bit of hipocracy?
One of the weaker points I've seen from the left is that it is hypocrytical to accept the money if you didn't agree with the stimulus package.
It would be fiscally irresponsible for Governors to turn down Federal money regardless of their position on the stimulus. Many who opposed this package favored a stimulus package just not this particular one.
I've read that Jindal is considering turning down the money. I think that would be a mistake. You have to play the hand you are dealt, once the cards are on the table.
I agree. It's like the "Feel free to pay more" argument some righties make when you disagree with them on taxes.
What were they looking for?
I suppose they were looking for different ingredients in the stew. The devil is in the details.
Only a small minority of congressmen/governors think we should have done nothing. Nothing hasn't exactly been panning out.
I don't think there was any plan that Democrats could have offered that many Republicans would have supported, even if they agreed with it (as I bet many actually did).
They made the decision to oppose it on political grounds.
Like What?
Probably stones.
One I heard floating around was a substantial business tax credit for net jobs created between some set dates.
Another was a 3 or 6 month payroll insurance premium (SS/Medicare) holiday.
A third was direct matching funds for infrastructure work on the books but waiting for cash.
More?????
What good are business tax credits if consumer demand is low or non-existent? Employers are not going to hire anyone if they don't have customers.
A payroll holiday is a no go because we need the funds to SS/Medicare.
I don't understand the third one.
First, I didn't say I backed any of them personally.
Business tax credits are a chicken/egg thing and needs some study, but it is possible that if the tax credits covered the biggest portion of the wage, business could add people (making them taxpayers, consumers, etc). Would it work, don't know, would take a little more study than was spent on this stimulus package (be that 4 weeks or 3 months).
SS/Medicare currently at least have a book surplus, part of the shortfall could be made up by raising the upper limit on which SS/Medicare is paid, jobs would probably be added which would ultimately lead to more revenues for SS/Medicare. Again, some study would have to be done.
Several states have pending infrastructure projects just waiting for funding, some of which diminished last year (gas tax revenues, sales tax revenues, state income tax revenues, etc). These are practically shovel ready projects that just need a little nudge to proceed. Much quicker than waiting for the property acquistion, impact statements, etc required say for electrical grid expansion.
Just three thoughts. I think that there are people currently outside the Federal Government in this country that could come up with other ways to stimulate the economy in relative short order.
Why would you suppose when it was broadcasted 24/7? They wanted 100% upper class and business tax cuts and deregulation and nothing else. They just forgot they don't call the shots anymore.
Jindal and Perry (TX) are now talking about declining some of the money. Too many strings attached. Gee, Really, the Government has strings attached, but I thought this was an up front bill, easy to understand, no strings attached, just get the people back to work. What these two Governors understand is that the government wants the states to create programs that the government will only support for two years. So once the states get these (welfare) programs started, the states then will have to fund them from that point on. Why fund a program that will only spend taxpayers money and not create any jobs in return? No Thanks.
You mean like Obama lied about not pork in the bill. - markbfoot199
I don't recall him saying there was no pork in the bill, and can't find a reference to any such statement. Can you point me to an article with some such quote.
I know that it's a fact that it serves the conservative agenda to label as much of the bill as pork as they possibly can. I've seen quite a few items called pork that actually generate a number of jobs and produce something of lasting economic value to a region or country. A lot of pork is in the eye of the beholder. Or the propagandist.
Is R. M. even a US citiazian? If not he should not be allowed to own any US media.
and prohibits the use of such funds for "modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities ... used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity ... Is there a % to define used for?
Well, I guess this applies to all religions, or just Christianity?
All religions.
VICTIM ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!VICTIM ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!VICTIM ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's another instance of a poor, put upon Christian White Male.
I for one am sick to death of always being a target. When will it all end?
If only the non-believer, or female or minority could walk but one day in my shoes.
They're size 13 W, by the way.
Worrie, you do not know me, you do not know my race, or my religion. Does not matter, I was just making a point. The reason I ask, and knew someone like you would start with victim or race card is this; prisons have churches in them, does that eliminate them from stimulus money to upgrade the prison? What about a hospital that has a chapel, same? Or does that even cross your mind? See in Prisons and Hospitals the are non-denominational churches, so how do they get money?
I don't know you but do know that you just implied that there's a bias towards Christianity and not other religions.
If you don't want us to think you're a cry baby, stop acting like one.
In both of those cases the religious is inextricably tied to the secular. A hospital can probably pay for such maintenance themselves. For a prison, it certainly wouldn't disqualify them from funds altogether, since they're taxpayer-funded to begin with. If it was an issue, it would violate the Constitution no matter what.
You knew that someone would start with the 'victim or race card' because you baited.
Come on, we're smarter than you are. Haven't you figured that out yet?
I bait you bit, smart as a fish.
Actually, I didn't bite. I pointed out that you were baiting. Big difference.
How's your reading comprehension this morning? Seems to me that it's really not so good. Practice makes perfect, my friend.
Now, off you go. You need that practice. Start with 'My Pet Goat'. I'm sure you'll find it as enlightening as entertaining.
I keep telling my friends Bigfoot exists, 13W should prove that.
No religious orginaztion of any religion including humanism and atheism should recieve one dime from the government. This includes the tax exempt status they currently recieve. All religious instituions should be taxed at the appropriate bussness level as should all corperations.
Hey dopey, what you said above about prohibiting the use of government funds for religious activity (whatever it may be) has ALWAYS been against the establishment clause.
Try doing some reading sometime, especially when your rectal database is on the fritz.
Wow, Common, looks like I hit a sour note there.
You hit them all the time. Nice of you to finally notice.
No you been shown to be a hypacrit and not well versed in the Constitution.
Compatriots in the struggle,
To dare incinuate that the party would include pork in a bill is outlandish. That would be offensive to our comrades who fight the capitalist dogs and are part of the downtrodden muslim population only seeking freedom from the onerous slavery by western anti-revolutionary zealots!
Might I remind you, comrades, our situation requires that we repatriate the stolen wealth that the capitalists have taken from us and use it in any fashion that noble leaders of our party deem worthy of our cause. To look closely to find wasteful spending in the USSA act of 2009 is counter revolutionary and must be stopped!
Unfortunately, the decadent bourgoise in talk radio and their puppets at Fox have felt compelled to resist the beneficence of our wonderful leader and actually look at the contents of the USSA act of 2009. Be pleased that our brothers and sisters in other media outlets are willing to let the movement of the people proceed without interference.
Soldiers for the oppressed, if this continues and the masses are confused with information not worthy of our glorious revolution we must restore our civil right to be heard above the putrid messages of the capitalists dogs. Make certain that the 'Fairness Doctrine Surge' is in place to silence these wittless fanatics of personal freedom and responsibility and protect the proletariat from their lies!
This from Putin today about the U.S. and the Socialism of our nations. You know if he can see it happening, pretty bad.
So you're saying you trust Putin's observations more than those in our government?
Sheesh, that says a lot about you, doesn't it?
Hey Common, I am not a Putin fan, but if that man can see what is going on over here, and you can't. Just proves you have blinders on and will trust anything the Obama Administration does. It also says that I listen to many individuals, unlike yourself. This was not about trust, it was about what others are saying.
So you prefer Putin's gangsterism?
I thought we didn't care about what others were saying?
Now where could I have gotten that impression?
Wow, how the world has turned. Remeber when listening to the world was horrible? Remember when some guy named Kerry talked about listening to our allies and the right went nuts? Amazing how 4 years and a Democrat in the WH changes their tune, eh?
What about when Obama said he would meet with the leaders of countries that are not on good terms with the US before any actions were taken on there part to fix things we do not like. these types of meetings are called deplamcy by most of the world but called wrong by conservitives.
In the same speech, Putin blames lack of regulation of the financial markets (and we know how American conservatives hate regulation) as the largest contributor to the economic crisis. He also blames growing disparities in wealth. He also blamed the business community for capitalisation beyond what labor was capable of producing. Do you also agree with these slams on conservatism?
In his solutions he favors greater international control and regulation of business. He favors interdependence of nations on energy issues, "including a swap of assets." He favors controls on energy prices.
Do you also agree with those items or are you picking and choosing where you agree? Is his judgment only worth quoting when it criticizes those with whom you disagree?
Your idiocy is getting old.
I think PC may be on a little bender. Nobody sober could think that was clever the first time, let alone 20 times. The prose seems a little boozier and incoherent than usual, even for PC.
Nah, he just realized he has nothing of value to say. It's pee pee envy for debaters!
but he does have a lot of cool pics of all his heroes.
Proudconservative is not showing idiocy but rather a lack of knowledge of facts, history, and human nature. This is known as ignorance.
You're right. My apologies.
However, it doesn't mean that he's not an idiot, as well as an ignoramus.
The Fairness Doctrine is so that people will get both sides of serrious and contriversial issues not one as many radio and televission outlets provide. Please learn and use the truth. How can you be a proud conservitive at this time when the consevative movement is behind most of the problems in the US at this time? I ask this not to insult but to understand.
PROGRESSIVE,Maybe PROUD CON just cant wrap his mind around that fact that his CONSERVATIVE POLOCIES ARE THE REASON we are in the pickel we are in now.
The conservative policy of changing the social framework by lending money to people who could never hope to pay it back ?
Bush was not the greatest President we have ever had by a long shot, but it sounds like so many of you actually believe the propaganda of the last 8 -10 years.
Remember what you leaders said would happen after Welfare reform was passed ?
None of it happened but you still listened to those people as if they were not completely wrong.
Some of the same people assured us that Fannie and Freddie were right as rain, and yet that clearly not only wasn't true, those people knew it wasn't true.
But they were not guilty of "corporate greed" were they ?
This is about power and this trillion or 2 dollars buys a lot of power.
A lot union jobs will not be affected by the economy because of that money, especially government union jobs, but the regular guy isn't getting those breaks is he ?
Unless you count $13/wk as a stimulative.
But we can't even borrow the money to pay for it so we are printing it.
And you seriously think that will not have a HUGE impact down the line ?
8 BILLION dollars to build an earmark for a Senator, 8 Billion dollars that will not hit the ground for 5 years at least but in the meantime we will have increased the supply of money by 8 billion dollars with nothing to show for it but a Senator grandstanding for his base.
We are in deep, deep excrement and digging in deeper every day.
"Unless you count $13/wk as a stimulative."
Wow, I remember the real stimulus we got under Bush. $500 check for the year. Hmm, I am not so good at math so can you help me out here?
$500 divided by 52. I'll wait for the answer.
It appears the 500 from Bush did little, so why exped twice that to do more? Here is some math for you 2 x 0=?
Shame on you, Military Husband, for asking a Conservative to work out a math problem.
It's not nice to make fun of those who are mentally challenged. :P
KOMRAD, Tell me. how you would turn things around.
I'm thinking ostrich, sand, and a milk pail.
I would pass a large stimulus bill to try and get the country back to work. I would also try to find a way to stabilize the housing market so that more people stay in their homes and entire neighborhoods don't go under. Even people with good mortgages suffer if their neighbors have to go into foreclosure. I would start cracking down on predatory lending and get some bills passed with teeth passed to reduce the practice. I would also try and reverse the bankruptcy rules that were passed in the last few years that hurt working families more than anyone else.
So are you going to answer my question? Really what is 500 divided by 52? Why is that better than $13 per week?
MILITARYHUSBAND,I think you meant that last question for PROUDCONSERVATIVE instead of me.
Sorry, yes that was for KomradObama. I get lost sometimes on these long threads
MILITARY HUSBAND, No problem, you should try counting the number of times I goof up on these posts.
"Unless you count $13/wk as a stimulative."
That $13 is going to be spent by the people who get it. Consumer spending by millions of people, $13 each week by millions of people, is a lot of money.
Ah if only there was anyone actually pushing the fairness doctrine. Alas there is not. It is just another bogeyman that is up there with ACORN. Keep looking under your bed and in your closet for the Gay Secret Agenda and the Eco-anti American-Socialists. I'm sure they are out to get you. BEWARE! BEWARE!
PROUDCON, I dont know what kind of drugs you are o, but judging from your last post, you need some kind of help.
We must never let the populace hear the message of conservatism for fear they will indeed choose a path that leads to destruction, ie. the one (opposed to) liberty and freedom.
There , I fixed that line for you,Prowedcon.Sorry, the long-winded, fact-free propaganda you're selling doesn't work anymore. A majority of the population have access to real information.
You should go vent at Freerepublic.I saw a poster there today, in response to a story about an Italian man who was visiting his wife 14 years into her coma,who theorized that Obama would decapitate the wife rather than remaining married and visiting her. These seem like your people. Nucking Futz.
Hey Col. I like that"...Nucking Futz..." You've given me some ideas, I hope you don't mind??
what's the big deal here folks, trillion is spelt with a t last time i checked so what is wrong with that. i am waiting for the bags of money to start falling out the sky so i can raise my rates and continue charging union workers and do-good liberals more for my services. i think it is good, just tap in comrad, resistance is futile. heck, even obummer's treasury pick is a tax cheat so let's get this party started. EAT THE RICH I SAY.
Over and over...THEY LIE....They are completely insane...of course the insane continues to repeat the same game plan and they continue to LOSE ELECTIONS! These people are fighting for that 5% of our populace that do not need them to fight for them! Go (GO UNTRAINED PERSON)Rush, Hannity....Not degree between them...AND THEY ARE THE LEADERS! What a JOKE!
COACH , You are soooooo right about these clowns.
They are taking a page out of the Nazi playbook. They are not Naziz just using the beliefe that if you tell a big enough lie and repeat the lie often enough people will believe it as the truth.
OBAMA [video clip]: I'm not going to tell you that this bill is perfect. I mean, it's coming out of Washington, it's going through Congress.
BAIER: As President Obama admits: Sure, there might be some pork. But at least one Democratic senator doesn't think it's a problem.
I like how President Obama used pork in that last clip. Interesting
Tax cuts will not work
Ask Markbfoot199 how President Obama used pork in that last clip. Markbfoot199 knows everything. He can read minds.
Of course, we all know that Obama didn't say the bill was full of pork. He didn't say it had no pork. He didn't say anything about pork. But mind-reading conservatives, paranoid as they are, believe there is something more sinister going on.
Notice how cons can never take anything at face value? If you say something to them, there must be a hidden message or ulterior motive.
You cons need meds. I beg you all, please see a doctor. Get on those meds!