Eric Cantor - Hypocrite

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,674
8,843
693
Loveland, CO
#1
Why do Tea Partiers fall for this crap? Big government is bad, my ass.

Letters Reveal Eric Cantor Begged For Obama Stimulus Money To Create Jobs

Among the Tea Partiers Newsweek uncovered begging for federal dollars, one name stood out. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor requested tens of millions of federal stimulus dollars to create jobs in his district.

During a March 1, 2009 appearance on ABC’s This Week, Rep. Cantor said that the government can’t create jobs, “And what we see in this budget, frankly, is an attempt, again, to try and stimulate the economy through government expenditure. And, you know, at best what that can do is redistribute wealth. It can’t create jobs; it can’t create wealth. We’ve got to get back to focusing on job creation and creating prosperity.”

Newsweek has uncovered letters that show Rep. Cantor requesting hundreds of millions of stimulus dollars for his district at the same time; he was publicly claiming that government can’t create jobs.

Just a month after going on ABC and claiming that the government can’t create jobs, Cantor sent a letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to request almost $75 million in federal stimulus funds for the I-95 high speed rail project. Cantor along with Rep. Bobby Scott wrote that, “High speed rail provides a sensible and viable solution to our region’s transportation challenges. It is estimated that creating a high speed railway through Virginia will generate as many as 185,500 jobs, as much as $21.2 billion in economic development, and put nearly 6.5 million cars off the road annually.”

In 2010, Eric Cantor wrote in the book Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders that, “Government doesn’t create jobs and build wealth; entrepreneurs, risk takers and private businesses do,” but just months earlier he was still requesting federal money for job creation.

In October 2009, Cantor and several other Congressmen from both parties sent a letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood for $60 million in federal funds to be added to the Title XI Ship Loan Guarantee program. Cantor and the others wrote, “Once an application for a Title XI loan guarantee is approved, the construction order is immediately placed in a shipyard, instantaneously creating and sustaining thousands of jobs in the shipyard and supplier base for two to three years.”

While speaking the language of the tea party publicly, Eric Cantor was doing the exact opposite privately. It turns out that Cantor knows that government spending creates jobs. He admitted as much in his own letters. The tea party and Republican voters have been sold an empty bill of goods. Their leaders talk about cutting government spending publicly while angling privately for more taxpayer dollars for their districts.

It seems that the Republican zeal for cutting spending only applies to programs that they ideologically disagree with like Medicare.

Eric Cantor, the same man who claims that the government can’t afford disaster relief, begged the Obama administration to pour millions of federal dollars into his district in order to create jobs.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Eric Cantor
http://www.politicususa.com/en/eric-cantor-begged-obama-stimulus

Why doesn't Cantor just sit back and wait for Ayn Rand to build him some high speed railroads?
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,574
22,233
398
Northern California
#2
Nice unbiased source.

This is a terrible argument. One can absolutely fight the stimulus, but once it's passed they have a responsibility to their constituents to try and get as much of THEIR TAX MONEY back. Also, no one argues that the government can create jobs. They can absolutely take $100k a year and put someone to work. The argument is the jobs are not as beneficial as they would be in the private sector, who can hire that same worker at the same compensation for less cost... and also ensure that productivity from that worker is sufficient. Not to mention for every job created in the private sector you have a net tax gain, while for every job created by the government you have a net tax loss.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,674
8,843
693
Loveland, CO
#3
Nice unbiased source.

This is a terrible argument. One can absolutely fight the stimulus, but once it's passed they have a responsibility to their constituents to try and get as much of THEIR TAX MONEY back. Also, no one argues that the government can create jobs. They can absolutely take $100k a year and put someone to work. The argument is the jobs are not as beneficial as they would be in the private sector, who can hire that same worker at the same compensation for less cost... and also ensure that productivity from that worker is sufficient. Not to mention for every job created in the private sector you have a net tax gain, while for every job created by the government you have a net tax loss.
How many private enterprises do you have fighting to build new rail systems in the USA? And once built, what types of business and industry do you think they will facilitate?
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
18,077
5,491
838
Wilmington, NC
#4
Nice unbiased source.

This is a terrible argument. One can absolutely fight the stimulus, but once it's passed they have a responsibility to their constituents to try and get as much of THEIR TAX MONEY back. Also, no one argues that the government can create jobs. They can absolutely take $100k a year and put someone to work. The argument is the jobs are not as beneficial as they would be in the private sector, who can hire that same worker at the same compensation for less cost... and also ensure that productivity from that worker is sufficient. Not to mention for every job created in the private sector you have a net tax gain, while for every job created by the government you have a net tax loss.
Bingo.

You'd think these lefties learned their lesson when they started whining about Jindal's stimulus check picture last year.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,826
18,547
513
Kingdom of Charis
#5
So I guess in Mayr's world, anyone who opposed the Bush tax cuts should just ignore them and pay more taxes, otherwise they'd all be hypocrites, right?
 

Pigdango

Silence, you mortal Fuck!
Donator
Jun 22, 2004
77,193
49,677
788
#7
So I guess in Mayr's world, anyone who opposed the Bush tax cuts should just ignore them and pay more taxes, otherwise they'd all be hypocrites, right?
That'd be kind of cool if the next studio to offer Sean Penn or any of these other "Raise my taxes" losers a film said that they were just going to give the Government the check. Wonder how that would go over?
 

Hoagie

I suggest you tread lightly
Wackbag Staff
Mar 24, 2004
13,643
312
628
Your Mom's box
#8
How many private enterprises do you have fighting to build new rail systems in the USA?
About 650 of them. Pretty much every private rail freight carrier would love to expand their rail network and branch out to new areas. It's just very difficult to get right of ways and often local governments hold these right of ways for hefty ransom. The railroads are one industry that has been mostly recession proof and are actually doing quite well. Amtrak, as always, would be able to piggy back off any new lines that are built and would help the traffic that piles up around Richmond.

Can't blame the guy for going after stimulus money after it was passed. To sit there and refuse to go after the money because you didn't agree with it would be acting like a petulant child. I would expect my elected official to do the same thing in that situation. If the federal government insists on throwing my tax money around then I expect my representative to fight tooth and nail to get as much of my tax money to be used to improve the area I live in as he or she can.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,674
8,843
693
Loveland, CO
#9
About 650 of them. Pretty much every private rail freight carrier would love to expand their rail network and branch out to new areas. It's just very difficult to get right of ways and often local governments hold these right of ways for hefty ransom. The railroads are one industry that has been mostly recession proof and are actually doing quite well. Amtrak, as always, would be able to piggy back off any new lines that are built and would help the traffic that piles up around Richmond.
Freight rail =/= High Speed Passenger Rail

Can't blame the guy for going after stimulus money after it was passed. To sit there and refuse to go after the money because you didn't agree with it would be acting like a petulant child. I would expect my elected official to do the same thing in that situation. If the federal government insists on throwing my tax money around then I expect my representative to fight tooth and nail to get as much of my tax money to be used to improve the area I live in as he or she can.
You can blame him when his whole philosophy is based on government spending = bad!
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,574
22,233
398
Northern California
#10
You can blame him when his whole philosophy is based on government spending = bad!
No you can't. You're looking at this in an extremely limited way.

Government spending is bad. Work your ass off to prevent it. If you fail and that spending happens, your taxpaying constituents have to foot the bill, so now work your ass of to get them some of their money back. If there was an option where his constituents didn't have to pay the taxes because he didn't support the spending, then he would be a hypocrite for taking the money. However when Option A (no government spending) is removed, you go with Option B (getting as much value for your taxpaying constituents as possible). There's absolutely nothing wrong with that mentality.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,674
8,843
693
Loveland, CO
#11
No you can't. You're looking at this in an extremely limited way.
I'm looking at it the way the Conservative Stimulus Hater Brigade on Wackbag told me to look at it. You're missing the point I'm making. It's one thing if all Cantor did was earmark some money that was eventually provided to his district since it would be a "return" on tax money paid by his constituents. But Cantor ACTIVELY requested funding for a specific purpose, and he used the reasoning/justification for the earmarked project that spending the money in a stimulus fashion on his pet project would lead to an increase in jobs. This is a complete reversal of his quoted position that "Government spending doesn't increase revenue and doesn't increase jobs".
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#13
But Cantor ACTIVELY requested funding for a specific purpose, and he used the reasoning/justification for the earmarked project that spending the money in a stimulus fashion on his pet project would lead to an increase in jobs. This is a complete reversal of his quoted position that "Government spending doesn't increase revenue and doesn't increase jobs".
Cantor's a Keynesian? :icon_eek:
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,826
18,547
513
Kingdom of Charis
#17
Wow, now you're really reaching. Even if he believed that it could work, but it won't because of how it's being done, why accept money to do something that you believe won't happen?
Well, I wasn't really arguing that point, but since Mayr quoted him, I figured it might be relevant. I agree with Whiskeyguy though. Just see my point about the Bush tax cuts. Every single rich person who opposed them is still silently reaping their benefits. Cantor's job is to help his district any way he can. He doesn't think that this method is good for creating jobs, but a high speed railway would be good for his district even if it didn't. He would be negligent to not use every method available to help his district. Is it shady behavior? Yes. But that's politics. At least he's trying to create a situation in which he couldn't ask for that money even if he wanted to.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,574
22,233
398
Northern California
#18
I'm looking at it the way the Conservative Stimulus Hater Brigade on Wackbag told me to look at it. You're missing the point I'm making. It's one thing if all Cantor did was earmark some money that was eventually provided to his district since it would be a "return" on tax money paid by his constituents. But Cantor ACTIVELY requested funding for a specific purpose, and he used the reasoning/justification for the earmarked project that spending the money in a stimulus fashion on his pet project would lead to an increase in jobs. This is a complete reversal of his quoted position that "Government spending doesn't increase revenue and doesn't increase jobs".
Government doesn't create the right type of jobs. As I stated before, sure the government can take money and create a position. No one on earth will dispute it. However they are not the right type of jobs to build our economy. For one, government jobs take more money out of the budget then they put in. Most government positions are a negative cost to taxpayers. They don't create more wealth (value) than they spend. This includes both employees of the government and private sector jobs supported by taxpayer money.

Second, government jobs generally are extremely inefficient. For example, if you have an accountant for the government, and one for a private business, all other things being equal the accountant that works for the government probably costs more to employ for possibly less work received.

Finally, taxpayer supported jobs cannot usually last without further support. For example, you can spend $1 trillion to employ 2,000 people to build a 200 mile railroad... but what happens when that railroad is completed? Those jobs were not created in the natural market and thus cannot be sustained without artificial input in the form of taxpayer funds. Ideal employment is allowing pure growth with little or no outside influence, so that it can be sustained in the natural market... simply because it is meeting a real market demand rather than an artificial one.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,674
8,843
693
Loveland, CO
#19
Finally, taxpayer supported jobs cannot usually last without further support. For example, you can spend $1 trillion to employ 2,000 people to build a 200 mile railroad... but what happens when that railroad is completed? Those jobs were not created in the natural market and thus cannot be sustained without artificial input in the form of taxpayer funds. Ideal employment is allowing pure growth with little or no outside influence, so that it can be sustained in the natural market... simply because it is meeting a real market demand rather than an artificial one.
With any luck the railroad will connect two key points, maybe a port and a large distribution center, and spur private investment to increase shipments of goods, putting more people to work, and people will need housing and shopping and schools to live in. The only government spending that earns us zero return is the one Conservatives love the most and that is dropping bombs on countries. No one is saying build railroads just for the hell of it. There are plenty of opportunities for smart investments by the government, for works that are too risky or beyond the realm of a private investor, that will undoubtedly lead to more production and employment in the future.

I could think of a hundred examples, but let's start with one. Hoover Dam. Without it, would Las Vegas even be there? Did the Government spend millions on a concrete monolith and walk away, with no further return on that investment?
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#20
I could think of a hundred examples, but let's start with one. Hoover Dam.
If you can think of a hundred examples, why did you use the same one communists always use when they claim that government can produce something of value? It's ALWAYS the Hoover Dam.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#22
So going by Cantor's philosophy, Solyndra was totally justified lobbying for tax dollars up for grabs that had already been appropriated.

:trollol:
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,574
22,233
398
Northern California
#23
So going by Cantor's philosophy, Solyndra was totally justified lobbying for tax dollars up for grabs that had already been appropriated.

:trollol:
Sure. It was the government who was in the wrong by actually giving it to them without any type of due diligence or protection clause attached.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#24
Wow. First, Whiskeyguy and NeonTaster are totally right. A representative has every obligation to return some of the funds that his district has payed out AFTER they have been appropriated. If he was just earmarking general funds for his district, that would be hypocrisy. About the alleged hypocrisy of applying for stimulus funds on the premise that this high speed rail project will create jobs, how the fuck else is he supposed to get the funds approved? By saying "please give us money for a project that we think will not really create any permanent jobs"? Sometimes you have to play the game and talk the talk.

Second, no one has mentioned that high speed rail is a terrible investment and the fact that THIS is what he was lobbying for is why he should be getting roasted.
http://dailymail.com/Opinion/rsamuelson/201102130679?page=1&build=cache
http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/01/breaking-california-high-speed
http://stevenbirnspeaks.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/amtrak-high-speed-rail-a-giant-waste-of-money/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/19/california-high-speed-rail-lawsuits_n_970652.html


Nevermind, I figured out why he was trying to get high speed rail:

When incoming Govs. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and John Kasich of Ohio canceled high-speed rail projects, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood refused to let them spend the dollars on other forms of transportation and sent the funds instead to California and other states.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/polit...l-fast-way-waste-taxpayer-money#ixzz1cVwV5jpM

(CNN) -- Rail riders along the California coast and the Boston-Washington "Northeast Corridor" are set to reap much of the benefits from $2 billion that Florida policymakers had earlier rejected for high-speed rail development.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/09/lahood.rail/index.html
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#25
Would you prefer the Tennesee Valley Authority?
One such considered above criticism, sacred as motherhood, is TVA. This program started as a flood control project; the Tennessee Valley was periodically ravaged by destructive floods. The Army Engineers set out to solve this problem. They said that it was possible that once in 500 years there could be a total capacity flood that would inundate some 600,000 acres (2,400 km2). Well, the engineers fixed that. They made a permanent lake which inundated a million acres (4,000 km²). This solved the problem of floods, but the annual interest on the TVA debt is five times as great as the annual flood damage they sought to correct. Of course, you will point out that TVA gets electric power from the impounded waters, and this is true, but today 85 percent of TVA's electricity is generated in coal burning steam plants. Now perhaps you'll charge that I'm overlooking the navigable waterway that was created, providing cheap barge traffic, but the bulk of the freight barged on that waterway is coal being shipped to the TVA steam plants, and the cost of maintaining that channel each year would pay for shipping all of the coal by rail, and there would be money left over.
-Ronald Reagan