Thursday, January 29, 2009

Bravo, House Republicans!

By Chadwick Ciocci

Finally, a little backbone!

Although Barack Obama’s stimulus plan passed the House this week, it was met by staunch and unanimous opposition by every single House Republican- a move that every free-market capitalist, conservative and just plain opposed-to-government-waste voter should applaud.

Not only will the package create only 3 million jobs at a cost of over $800 BILLION dollars (that is, if you actually believe in Keynesian economics) but provisions of it have called for:

* BILLIONS of dollars for ACORN (remember that organization that Obama was affiliated with which is under federal investigation for voter fraud?)
* $200 MILLION to fix up the national Mall
* $50 MILLION for the National Endowment for the Arts
* $100 MILLION to reduce the danger of lead paint in peoples’ homes

This is just the tip of the ice berg. The bill includes billions of other dollars in wrong, wasteful, and inappropriate pork spending.

Even if you actually believe that government spending is the way to get us out of this recession, there is no doubting that the stimulus bill includes billions of dollars that will do absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy.

So much for the change we need…


DSKohn said...

Agreed. I would like to see some infrastructure spending but this bill was nothing short of obnoxious.

Emily Genetta said...

How dare we spend money on 'the arts'!!! Not only do they have social and cultural value, but unlike infrastructure, NEA actually creates jobs for men AND women. Why would any woman want to work? I mean, hell, it's not like any of them have to work... they can stay home all day with the babies... unless they're single mothers... which more and more families are headed by...

Oh, crap I forgot to think outside my little white male box again.

DSKohn said...

The irony is that the government National Endowment for the Arts is paltry compared the $2.6 billion that is donated privately. This is totally unnecessary.

Phil said...

Emily your post sums up the stupidity of liberalism.

Chad's post had nothing and I repeat nothing to do with gender roles. The fact of the matter is the Government's job is to protect the life, liberty and property of its citizens. Spending on the NEA does not address any of those issues. Spending such as this is unconstitutional, and that was the purpose of the post--to praise the House Republicans for protecting the Constitution.

As a liberal, you fail to read the blog post for what its worth and instead try and find some hidden discrimination against minorities (in this case women). Conservatives oppose federal spending on the arts because it is a violation of the powers of the Federal Government, not because it creates jobs for women.

Emily Genetta said...

OK, let's see if you'll post my response this time:

Phil, your post sums up the stupidity of conservatism.

Of course Chad's post has to do with the issue of 'gender roles' (I assume you mean 'women in the workforce'). This is a hugely important economic issue and, like all issues, it exists all the time, coloring everything, whether you acknowledge it or not. Conservatives don't seem to like acknowledging these issues-- or, I should say, the realities of these issues... 'these issues' being any social problems that affect people besides themselves. Chad clearly was not taking into consideration the reason why this bill included funding for the NEA: because, as I said above, it has social and cultural value and provides job opportunities for both sexes. Therefore, his post is somewhat laughable; it forgoes the consideration of how the bill might affect (certain other) people in lieu of the knee-jerk conservative reaction, "Ick! Funding for cultural institutions!"

At least, this is how the post came across. At best, then, it's bad writing; at worst, bad logic. Either way it's insulting.

Oh, for what it's worth, I think the stimulus bill is likely a huge waste of money as well. But I criticize the whole thing.

Phil said...

Once again the post had nothing to do with gender roles. Money spent on the NEA simply does not have a stimulating effect to the Marco-economy according to any school of economic thought. The NEA is included in the bill purely for pork reasons.

Also, racial/gender discrimination in the workplace is a seriously overblown issue. The famed economist Thomas Sowell (who is black *gasp*) has done extensive research in this area and concluded men and women of all races are paid nearly identically. The differences that exist between men and women are do to hours worked. Women, on average, work 500 less hours per year than men, thus they are paid less. I suggest you read his book "Economic Facts and Fallacies" if you'd like more information on this topic.