Thursday, February 26, 2009

Good Question, Jack

From The Cafferty File: 

In the Republican response to President Obama’s speech last night, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal called the stimulus package “irresponsible”. He said it will grow government, increase taxes in the future and saddle future generations with debt.

“Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need? That is precisely what the Democrats in Congress just did,” said Jindal.

Interesting, after the last 8 years, it would seem that Republicans are hardly in a position to lecture anyone about fiscal responsibility. When President Bush took office in 2000, the national debt was about $5.7 trillion dollars, which after two wars and lots of other spending, is now approaching $11 trillion. President Bush ran up more debt for this country than all previous presidents combined.

Jindal acknowledged last night that in recent years, “our party got away from its principles.” No kidding.

Keep in mind, Jindal — who some see as a possible contender for his party’s presidential nominee in 2012 — is one of the Republican governors talking about rejecting stimulus funding for his state. Jindal says he plans to turn down $100 million because it would require his state to change its unemployment laws. I guess when you’re a wealthy state like Louisiana you don’t need no stinking stimulus money.

Here’s my question to you: Are the Republicans in any position to lecture President Obama on fiscal responsibility?

Obviously, Jack Cafferty is filled with nothing but hate and malice towards the poor innocent Republicans. How dare he try to silence Governor Jindal! Clearly, liberals are attempting to stifle dissent by the fiendish tactic of questioning the GOP. The liberals are the true fascists. 

16 comments:

eviljwinter said...

JD, JD, JD, have you not forgotten the principles upon which this country was founded?

It's OK when my guy does it. When you're guy does it, he's a douchebag.

Ah! Democracy!

eviljwinter said...

*your guy

See? I caught that. We don't need no steenkeeng edumacation dollars. I dropped out of one of the finest community colleges near Kentucky, dammit!

Charlie Stella said...

Careful about quoting Cafferty, JD, JD, JD ... he was all over Obambi a few days ago (in regards to the "change" he was supposedly bringing to Washington).

But Jack is on target with this one. Jindel/Jingle, however you spell it, has a big pair (as any Rep denouncing something they were party to in Tarp I). They're full of it ... no more or less than the Dems, however ... they're both full of it.

And I sure hope that bank that threw that lavish party in Hollywood last week with money they claim they didn't need (but somehow got hold of $1.5 billion) had a good time with OUR cash.

But you're right, Reps should shut up for the next year or so ... it's the public that should be outraged that NO provisions were made for the waste by these bailed out banks (provisions such as shooting the guilty or tossing them off roofs).

I'm willing to give Obambi the floor. He's definitely a lot smarter than the last guy. It's his party that makes me upchuck my pablum. Let's hope he doesn't continue the sellout for much longer and starts governing on his own (which I tend to trust).

JD Rhoades said...

he was all over Obambi a few days ago (in regards to the "change" he was supposedly bringing to Washington).

Not for the first time, which is part of the reason I quoted him.

I'm willing to give Obambi the floor. He's definitely a lot smarter than the last guy. It's his party that makes me upchuck my pablum. Let's hope he doesn't continue the sellout for much longer and starts governing on his own (which I tend to trust).

Well, I'm not comfortable with 'my way or the highway" "I'm the Decider" style politics from Obama any more than I was with Boosh. What I'm hoping is that, after the recent string of victories, the Democrats will be persuaded to let him govern the way he wants.

Charlie Stella said...

I hope you're right, JD.

And it would be even better if he could say how he really feels about gay marriage rather speak than the party line (because I know he can't believe for a second in the "sanctity of marriage"). He's way too smart for that nonsense.

Sean Penn nailed it the other night. It would be great if our politicians could speak as freely.

Charlie Stella said...

Yes … and … let’s just hope that persuasion doesn’t cost us what it cost US when the Democrats persuaded 12 Republicans to vote for TARP 1 … $150 billion.

JD Rhoades said...

Charlie, gay marriage is one of the places I part ways with Obama. I support it; he doesn't. Instead, he supports civil unions. Clinton, IIRC was the same way. I came to terms a while ago with the fact that no candidate's going to agree with me 100% and vice versa.

Charlie Stella said...

He does agree with you. He can't agree with you. That's part of our political package for now. Until either party feels they won't offend the majority of the voting public (whether that majority is real or not), they'll rarely vote their conscience and always opt for votes. There’s no way that guy doesn’t believe gays should be permitted to marry. NO WAY. Be careful about bringing up Bubba regarding this issue … his first promise was to do away with that nonsense regarding the armed forces (no more bans against gays). “Don’t ask, don’t tell" is what gays had to settle for. Politics as usual. Or does Bubba believe in the “sanctity of marriage”?

What Ellen Degeneris(sp) asked John McCain on her show (to embarrass him) was a bit duplicitous (unless she asked Obambi the same thing … and I don’t think she did).

Fran said...

I used to say that I didn't care what you called it, I just wanted the federal rights and responsibilities conferred on my straight married friends. I still do, but I'm coming to see that "separate but equal" still makes me a second class citizen paying first class citizen taxes.

But there's a growing movement to separate religious and civil marriages, and I'd love to see that take hold.

And have you ever noticed that the third part of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" never gets mentioned or used? Reckon why that is. . .

It's "Don't Pursue", for those who don't know it. My wife was in the Army and was painfully aware that that particular part of the provision kinda fell by the wayside.

John Dishon said...

Isn't that a straw man? Jindal said the stimulus was irresponsible. Okay.

The truth of that statement is not dependent on how anyone has acted in the past. The stimulus is either responsible or irresponsible.

You could challenge Jindal and say that no, you're wrong, the stimulus is responsible, is a good idea, but instead you say Jindal has no room to talk because the Replubicans did the same stuff before.

That's true, but so what? What does that have to do with this stimulus bill?

Charlie Stella said...

John, I think the point is Jindel (speaking for the Reps) is being more than duplicitous when he complains about spending after giving away the store to banks, etc. with ZERO culpability (to the pols who gave it away and the banks who took it).

It's absurd that Reps are now trying to distance themselve from the mess they created (with a little help from their friends the Dems the last two years) ... but the first six years? Forgetaboutit ... all theirs.

He has a right to speak ... so do nazi's ... if he's the Reps poster boy for the future, they're in bigger trouble than David Brooks thinks (I agree with Brooks--those "traditional" conservative days are over).

Not to fear, though ... there are still a few of us (nuts) out there who'd like to see both parties lined up and shot (anyone who signed onto either mess Tarp I and/or II).

I'm not against government intervention so long as it protects the people it's supposed to serve. This (I or II) isn't close to that. It's a kick in the nuts followed by a backhand.

Both parties deserve to be ousted (by gunshot or votes).

JD Rhoades said...

That's true, but so what? What does that have to do with this stimulus bill?

Credibility is always at issue.

John Dishon said...

You're right, credibility is important. So yeah, if Jindal is fiscally irresponsible himself, or has voted that way (and I don't know anything about Jindal so I don't know if he is or not), then yeah I would not be inclined to believe what he says.

Doesn't mean his statement is wrong though.

I just don't like this us vs. them mentality where if you have an R next to your name you're automatically ______________.

Take Ron Paul for example. He's a Republican, but he doesn't follow the same ideology a lot of other Republicans do. He votes no on most spending.

But your attack on Jindal quickly becomes an attack on Republicans and the important issues get ignored (such as will this Stimulus bill help fix our problems). Why can't we talk about that without getting into Dems vs Repubs? (I say "we" in a general sense. Obviously this is your blog and you can discuss whatever you want however you want. This divisive us vs. them mentality is running rampant throughout the country though, and it's just a distraction).

JD Rhoades said...

Jindal was sent out to deliver not just his response, but that of the Republican Party.

Return with us now to the days of Republican control:

O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.

So when Jindal, as representative of the former "deficits don't matter" party, starts shedding crocodile tears over the deficit, the party lacks credibility.

You're right when you say that:
Take Ron Paul for example. He's a Republican, but he doesn't follow the same ideology a lot of other Republicans do. He votes no on most spending.

I've said before Ron Paul was the only true conservative the Republicans had. I actually respected the guy for that, even though I disagreed with him.

But the GOP treated him like a crazy street person.

My gripe with the Republican Party as it is now constituted is that they call themselves conservatives, but that they are in reality totally devoid of any conservative principles until there's a Democrat in the White House, at which point they pay lip service to the idea of fiscal responsibility after running up the largest deficits in history.

So when Republicans talk about "this won't work," I have to consider their track record of actually making things work, which is pretty shabby.

I'll stop trashing the Republicans when they get leaders who aren't bloody hypocrites.

JD Rhoades said...

Heh. Now it looks like Jindal may have made up the whole "FEMA wouldn't let us use our boats during Katrina" story.

Charlie Stella said...

JD wrote: I'll stop trashing the Republicans when they get leaders who aren't bloody hypocrites.

I agree, and I'll stop trashing Dems when they get leaders who aren't bloody hypocrites.

Party of the people? With what they just signed onto (with gusto)?

NY is currently getting clobbered by the "stimulus" ... I can't tell you how many friends/acquaintences and family have been laid off or had hours reduced ... but the banks get billions. No protection for "the people" ... who needs their fucking party?

I'm sure my day is coming (laid off) from at least one of the two jobs I work. My wife is so sure she'll get the same she's getting a nursing degree (with the hope that when the time comes to bail out hospitals, the party of the people won't follow the NY governor's lead in closing hospitals down).

And as for laughing Ron Paul off the stage ... the only Democrat I agree with on most social issues is Dennis Kucinich ... remember what HIS party did to him during the primaries?

Peace.