GOP Stimulus Myths Exposed
Media Matters: It does a body good.
$220,000 per job? Try $70,000.
$30 million for the salt marsh harvest mouse? Not in the bill.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that full cost will reach $3.2 trillion by 2019? No, their estimate was $787,242,000.
$2/$4 billion for ACORN? Nope. $2 billion for ACORN-elligible community block grants? ACORN itself has stated that they are inelligible for the money and will not seek it.
The stimulus package allows the federal government to interfere with doctors’ treatment decisions? No such authority granted.
Frisbee golf course? The bill specifically prohibits using the funds for such a thing.
The package denies renovation money for schools that allow religious groups to meet on campus? False – it just says the money can’t be used to build a chapel or divinity department.
It’s spending, not stimulus? Not only false, but semantically a contradiction.
Tax cuts would be a more efficient way to spend the money? Completely false. Every single kind of government spending increase in the bill generates more GDP per dollar spent than any kind of tax cut. Check out the chart:
Now I see why Obama said the average tax cut yields $0.75 per dollar while spending yields $1.50 per dollar.
Undocumented immigrants without Social Security numbers would be eligible for the “Making Work Pay” tax credit? They are specifically prohibited.
Fiscal stimulus failed during Japan’s “lost decade”? It was working fine until Japan decided to reduce its deficit too soon.
Just for kicks and grins, find one other source except for Moody’s proprietary economic model (whose numbers and formulae they won’t release for examination) that provides those “Bang for the Buck” numbers. They all go back to Mark Zandi, and while they may be correct, it would be really nice to have some independent confirmation of them before we give them the same weight as, say, the law of gravity.
Serious question.
Mike castle said it would cost 230k per job….
Mark Zandi was an advisor to the McCain campaign. I’m just saying, he’s not a partisan source.
Steve, I’ll grant you that I couldn’t find another source, but on the other hand, I can’t find anyone to debunk Zandi either.
X–not suggesting he is a partisan source–just genuinely uncomfortable with everybody passing around a model as gospel that nobody outside Moody’s has ever verified. There are a lot of problems out there documented on what appear to be similar economic models, but literally nothing in the academic press or economic expert press on the Moody’s model.
Doesn’t it make anybody just a little nervous to wager so much money on an economic model that isn’t available for independent criticism?
Again, I’m not asserting the model is wrong. There’s some modeling information about the relative effects of stimulus vs tax cuts in the literature, but not much that comes near the quantitative “clarity” of the Moody’s model.
Or did I miss it somewhere?
Again–serious question.
I don’t disagree with your point, Steve, but my support for the stimulus is not dependent on Zandi’s analysis. I’m a Keynesian.
Find me a current analysis (by a PhD economist) arguing that tax cuts are more efficient than spending, and we can have a debate about that over on your blog. I’m of the opinion that GOP tax-cut arguments are more of a religion than a science.
Damn, I wanted a new disc golf course…
X–I don’t necessarily disagree that in terms of the current argument that if all you are considering is job creation that stimulus is more effective than tax cuts. In fact, I’ve never argued that point. What I’ve argued is that Keynesian economics fails to consider the economy as a complex nonlinear system, and presumes that X input reliably equates to Y output.
Lots and lots of evidence that it doesn’t work that predictably, because most models have been built on both a “rational consumer” model (that doesn’t track well againt reality) and without building in either “sensitive reliance on initial conditions” or allowance for external influences on their confidence indicators.
We simply don’t know how the Moody model treats these.
My meta-point is that without independent confirmation, what really separates reliance on this model from reliance on any other single economist’s opinion? Just ’cause it sounds like it makes sense.
PS yes, if you want me to I will admit that GOP talking points are based on ideology and not economics, but since (A) I’m not GOP and (b) I’ve never supported their position, that’s not a tough admission to make.
I’ll give Zandi one thing — he’s a hell of a lot better source than Media Matters.
The CBO was asked to estimate the cost of the bill if the 20 most prominent provisions were extended permanently. That’s where the 3 trillion came from.
ACORN has subsidiaries and partners (i.e. noprofits with shared administrators and office space) who will get that money. Count on it.
The field mouse thing was stupid, but its habitat will receive money.
The cost per job? I’d love to see the cost per “permanent” job, taking out all the temporary construction and IT positions. I’ll bet it’s more than 220K per.
Also, no one seems to want to take into account the huge administrative expense burden this bill will put on employers.
Hope it works, because y’all have really screwed the pooch if it doesn’t.
Also, Zandi’s analysis seems to say that giving money to poor people is better for the economy than giving money to middle-class people. Any idea why?
Hope it works, because y’all have really screwed the pooch if it doesn’t.
Actually, we are trying to unscrew the pooch which was screwed by the guy you voted for twice.
You forgot Rick Jensen’s daily mantra: they wanted 200 million to re-sod the lawn at the National Mall. NOT.
I love that Jensen and sod are in the same sentence.
Dave, you’re stupid and you didn’t read the links. All the points I cover below are in the articles I linked to, you talking-point spewing idiot.
And the bill doesn’t extend those provisions, so the talking point is bullshit.
So? What the fuck does that have to do with ACORN? Bullshit talking point. And besides which, ACORN was completely absolved of any wrongdoing whatsoever, so who gives a fuck?
It’s habitat (ie coastal wetlands) could undergo protection and cleanup measures if the Army Corps of Engineers chooses to do so. It’s a shovel ready project that cleans up industrial salt ponds, moves levees, and helps protect important economic staples like the steelhead trout and salmon. But not one cent is directly allocated to such. If you don’t want wetlands reclamations jobs to be created, take it up with the Army, because the bill leaves it up to them.
If you take out all the temporary jobs, you also cut out all the money spent creating them, so the cost for the permanent jobs should be about the same. Also, since when do Republicans want the government to create more permanent jobs? I thought you guys would be happy such jobs would revert to the private sector when they are no longer needed.
That’s an easy one. Poor people can’t afford to save money. Every dollar you give them is going to go right back into the economy. By extension, giving money to the middle class is better for the economy than giving money to rich people or corporations. When you’re in a recession/depression, spending is good for the economy and saving is bad for the economy. Unfortunately, no one remembers to encourage savings when the economy is booming (helps fight inflation). Keep in mind that the best path in a recession is to give to both the poor and the middle class – never rely on only one tool in your financial toolkit.
There was originally $21 million to re-sod the National Mall, but that got removed from the bill. However, unlike many Republicans, I take pride in our country; I think the National Mall, one of our most visited and well-known landmarks, really needs some work. It’s really sad to visit DC and visit all these great monuments and then see the Mall looking like shit. Keep in mind tourist attractions bring extra money into the system from overseas, and that jobs are jobs, whether they build roads or parks.
Thanks for doing all the heavy lifting, X! I believe Christina Romer has produced an academic paper that shows that tax cuts are the least efficient form of stimulus. It won’t matter how many papers you show Republicans though, they never believe facts that don’t fit their beliefs.
ACORN is just the latest proxy for black and brown people getting money that should rightly be going to bank executives, I think.
ACORN will not be getting anywhere near the money this talking point claims. Because the thing that the ACORN bashers don’t know is that ACORN has alot of competition for services like theirs in alot of communities. In the City of Wilmington, I can think of at least 4 agencies who might be eligible for this money and there are probably more. What ACORN bashers don’t know is that ACORN certainly is not the dominant player (by a long shot) in direct housing issues across the US. Much of this money will be granted to local community organizations with track records of some success directly in their neighborhoods.
Also, no one seems to want to take into account the huge administrative expense burden this bill will put on employers.
Like what, exactly?
If you get a contract to build 2 EZ PASS lanes, you will do the same paperwork and oversight as if you had gotten the contract to add lanes to I-95. The real burden in the short-term is on the agencies that have to spend this money — there are USACE offices that may be doubling their contract activity for the next two years without additional staff (at least for now) to do it. That means 100% more procurement and contacting activity; 100% more QA and QC activity over many more contractors; 100% more spending review and so on. The first failure point for this thing is at the agencies — federal and local — who have to oversee all of this new work.
“Like what, exactly?”
Like having to administrate the COBRA subsidy so the government doesn’t have to.
“ACORN is just the latest proxy for black and brown people getting money that should rightly be going to bank executives, I think.”
This is why I don’t come here. Bye.
I’d love to see the cost per “permanent” job, taking out all the temporary construction and IT positions.
This question is something of a red herring. If the government contracts with you to add a lane to I-95, a contract employs people for the duration of that task. Construction work is meant to be temporary — you get to a job, you do a job, you move on to the next job. No one wants to live with perpetual renovation work on their kitchen or I-95. IT consulting work works the same way — except for the body shops outside of DC. You win a task, you do a task, you move on to the next task and hopefully leave behind a maintenance agreement.
If you are a project -oriented firm, you live (and create permanent jobs) by piecing together enough projects to keep people productive for 2080 hours a year.
You come here with the goddamn ACORN BS and what do you expect? Has ACORN been convicted of anything?
Have you met anyone from ACORN in DE? It is a friggin’ shoestring budget and does great work for the poorest of the people in our state.
The ACORN crap was just plain stupid when McCain’s people tried to demonize them (in exactly the same way you did here, FSP) and it doesn’t lose its stupidity with age.
If you come here spouting off with that kind of ignorant crap, you get called on it. Which you already knew.
Bye!
I find it kind of strange that Republicans are now arguing against creating jobs that may be temporary. Putting people to work is putting people to work. Working people stimulate the economy. How hard is that to understand? I feel like the Republicans are just being intentionally silly now, but for some reason they keep repeating the same crap and are not called on it.
anyone watching Countdown and catch how Cantor’s wife’s bank got bailout money? conflict of interests much?
Actually, I’d wager the fact that I just shot the fuck out of all your little talking points might have something to do with it. Adios!
You guys must be joking. Do the math. It comes out to around 220k per job. Math doesn’t lie, just your source which wants to call everyone liars. Your own link says as much but projects that the real cost will be 70K because of the net economic growth. This means that we will lose 70K per job created in economic benefit.
I don’t believe it can be that bad. If it is there is no way we should have passed this. When I look at the effect of the unemployment and food stamps which do not create jobs directly but do so indirectly, I think that we will have some stabilization.
The real problem with the bill is that it mistargeted the money. It should have gone to the hurting sectors not the Democrats favorite political payoffs. They cut housing, autos, small business, energy, and other hurting areas to toss money at education and healthcare which actually added jobs.
It was a bad bill and we will have to pass another multi hundred billion dollar housing bill and a huge auto bill, and a huge energy bill.
No matter how you try to put lipstick on a pig it is still a pig. I believe President Obama said something like that.
Peter Orzag made estimates of the effects of multiple stimulus strategies last year as Congress was working through the first round of stimulus. His is an order of magnitude assessment and shows no math or traditional multiplier.
An informative discussion of how multipliers are arrived at.
A discussion of another stimulus model, this one run by OECD, running their model on various types of stimulus with data from various countries. This does not provide data on the range of options that Zandi does, but does consider overall increased government spending, interest rate cuts, exchange rate depreciation. But it does give some inklings as to how complex the model is and the kind of data kept to differentiate between countries.
There are other large macroeconomic models out there, including one used by the Fed — and I strongly suspect that Zandi’s numbers aren’t challenged much (and you’d think that the Fed would have done that last year) because his numbers are unlikely to be too far off from those from the other established models.
I leave for a month for getting called things like “fatass piece of human garbage” every time I got anywhere in a debate.
I come back to try again to have a rational conversation.
Two posts into my return, I get called a racist.
TWO POSTS IN.
You all are worthless for any discussion that violates your echo chamber.
You’re right about one thing X. I’m stupid. Stupid for thinking that I could have a decent conversation here.
FSP, you never responded to the demolishment of your ACORN talking point. Nobody said YOU are racist- I don’t think you are – but you are endorsing a line of rhetoric that is most certainly racist in its subtext.
What is your non-racist defense of your ACORN talking point?
And you are worthless for any conversation that gets too far out of the lane of whatever your wingnut handlers tell you to believe. And you have been here long enough and often enough to know that when your premises are wrong, you will get called on that.
To wit — you already know that the ACORN stuff is just bunk. On top of that, you won’t even consider that in the business of housing assistance that ACORN is just not going to be the dominant player here because they are outnumbered and politically outgunned (on almost every local level) by many, many other organizations. But you just reach for whatever is on the shelf to to spew out there without even thinking about the provision enough to see if it has REAL problems. But you can’t just use ACORN as a proxy argument here — because it just won’t fly.
Which you knew.
Dave gets his ass handed to him a sulks off. Alert the media.
Cassandra — Are you saying that ACORN doesn’t do Democratic campaign work?
You are an idiot. That $70K goes into the pocket of the worker, who then spends it (which is the part that stimulates the economy, you fucking moron). Also, keep in mind that 70K for a job that last 2 years is 35K per year (this is after taxes, so that would be a 47K or so salary). Totally reasonable.
Not even sure what you’re talking about here.
There’s also a bunch in there for job retraining.
cassandra,
Orzag’s work contradicts Zandi’s model (even without math) by suggesting that lump-sum rebates would have a “large” effect, while support payments to State governments would only have a “medium” effect and investing in public works (the term he uses instead of infrastructure) would have a “small” effect….
The “several last observations” in your second source are interesting, but if you read carefully this is not a discussion of the Moody model in particular; there is a better but lengthier discussion here
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3416721/A-Guide-to-FRB-US-A-Macroeconomic-Model-of-the
It indicates a number of issues with the internal assumptions of any given model including key problem of modeling chaotic responses by consumers. Again, however, it does not discuss the Moody’s model.
Your third document is interesting, but not specifically applicable to the type model Moody is using, and doesn’t consider differentiations in types of government spending.
cassandra, I have looked at half a dozen models available in the public domain and none of them even attempt to provide the specific claims that Moody’s does for such a clearly defined multiplier effect.
So far, then, my original point still stands: the model that predicts specific multipliers for specific types of government spending depends on exactly one model, a proprietary private model, which does not share its key modeling equations and therefore cannot be verified.
It does, of course, produce “data” that Keynesians would like, without that niggling necessity of placing the model into public academic scrutiny for non-Keynesian economists.
In the meantime, everyone from columnists to government officials are quoting the Moody’s model as if it were received wisdom.
It isn’t, and in the way it is being used–as if it were established fact–when even Zandi admits that many of the inferences drawn from either Japan or the US in the 1990s are suggestive rather than conclusive–is only one step removed from … a talking point.
I reiterate: the Moody model may be 100% correct, but placing such gigantic confidence in it without objective assessment of its validity is problematic.
When did we start talking about Democratic campaigns?
I am saying that for this provision of the bill:
“for neighborhood stabilization activities related to emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes as authorized under division B, title III of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.”
–the one that you claim ACORN will get most of the money from — is wrong. And I am trying to explain why it is wrong.
Dave, no one believes you’re smart enough to see the subtext behind the ACORN attacks. Cassandra was calling the source of your bullshit talking points racist, not you yourself. Can the hypersensitivity, douchebag.
I debunked the shit out of you, Dave, so I’d say we’re invaluable for properly translating your bullshit into reality.
Decent conversation includes honesty. Speaking for myself only, I promise not to call you “human garbage”, but I reserve the right to call you an idiot or a douchebag every time you act like one.
ACORN does, in fact, register poor people to vote, and advocates on behalf of poor people. And presto, we’ve once again revealed that GOP talking points are all about fucking over the poor.
This is not a debunking:
“So? What the fuck does that have to do with ACORN? Bullshit talking point. And besides which, ACORN was completely absolved of any wrongdoing whatsoever, so who gives a fuck?”
And ACORN was not absolved, nor were they convicted. More like the whole thing was dropped after the election.
What you did was use one economist’s opinion delivered by a talking points machine to debunk claims that you are defining to suit your purposes.
“ACORN does, in fact, register poor people to vote, and advocates on behalf of poor people. And presto, we’ve once again revealed that GOP talking points are all about fucking over the poor.”
You didn’t answer the question. Does ACORN conduct campaign activities for Democratic candidates?
Why are we answering this question? Campaign activities certainly are not the subject of this post. Everyone here is responding your claim, thus:
ACORN has subsidiaries and partners (i.e. noprofits with shared administrators and office space) who will get that money. Count on it.
Everything else is changing the subject.
“The CBO was asked to estimate the cost of the bill if the 20 most prominent provisions were extended permanently. That’s where the 3 trillion came from.”
In other words, using the opposite set of assumptions from the one the Bush administration used to calculate and sell the cost of its tax cuts.
“Hope it works, because y’all have really screwed the pooch if it doesn’t.”
Better the pooch than the people, eh?
“Also, Zandi’s analysis seems to say that giving money to poor people is better for the economy than giving money to middle-class people. Any idea why?”
Yes. Because poor people, by necessity, save nothing and spend everything they get.
Absolutely – in the primaries. They endorse the Democratic candidate who will do the most to help the poor, and get out the vote for that candidate in primaries. The candidates pay them to do this – that money does not come from community grants. They don’t do that for the general election. They’d do the same in Republican primaries, except that Republicans do not court poor voters. ACORN lobbies at both party’s conventions and will happily support Republicans as soon as one actually gives a shit about the poor.
So you’re freely admitting that ACORN gets paid to work for Democratic candidates. Got it.
ACORN conducts campaign activities for Dem candidates in about the same way that the Chamber of Commerce or ABC conducts campaign activities for R candidates. Their audiences are different, and their vectors of support are different but they are all out there supporting their guy or girl.
But none of that has anything to do with your claim.
That is bullshit Dave — X did not say anything about being paid.
Are you ready to defend your claim yet? Or are you just going to sit here and make up even more stuff?
I did a bunch of research, and got my facts straight. ACORN is an umbrella group. So yes, Democratic candidates can pay ACORN affiliate CSI – which is NOT an non-profit group although they work on a non-profit basis – to canvass voters. Republicans can do the same if they actually care about getting poor people to vote for them. However, money that goes to one of ACORN’s non-profit community development groups is not shared with CSI or any other affiliate. Several lawsuits have alleged that such money is shared, and every one of them was laughed out of court due to a complete lack of evidence. Such claims are, of course, politically motivated in an attempt to suppress voter registration.
In any case, ACORN is not elligible for the funds you wingnuts claim it is.
Again, I’m not asserting the model is wrong. There’s some modeling information about the relative effects of stimulus vs tax cuts in the literature, but not much that comes near the quantitative “clarity” of the Moody’s model.
Cass: “That is bullshit Dave — X did not say anything about being paid.”
X: “The candidates pay them to do this – that money does not come from community grants. “
“I did a bunch of research, and got my facts straight. ACORN is an umbrella group. So yes, Democratic candidates can pay ACORN affiliate CSI – which is NOT an non-profit group although they work on a non-profit basis – to canvass voters.”
CSI, which is in the same building and has largely the same staff, but is, on paper, not ACORN. The question is this: where does the money go when it’s shipped back to the individual communities? There’s no CSI in Delaware. Where did the money go when it was shipped back to Delaware?
I’ll refer back to the link in #39.
And we’ll have to wait and see if any of the ACORN affiliate groups get any stimulus money. Or we probably won’t see, because they’re REAL good at moving money around.
A normal person would think it awry that a group who gets taxpayer money does partisan campaign work.
And using the “Oh, but it’s not THAT money” excuse makes you sound like a TARP bank justifying bonus money.
OK — so we get that your only argument here is that ACORN took money to register some voters. Well, you can just go back and look at your argument here to see why people no longer find your party credible. You’ve plainly dodged your own faulty claim in order to just try to impeach ACORN for something that has not one thing to do with the bit of the stimulus package that is under discussion.
You really would be better off here just saying that you can’t defend your claim. Everyone here would at least respect you for that. I don’t think that the ACORN dodge is especially worthy of you, but hey, you are the one who has to live with the fact that you plainly can’t defend your own claim. Which ought to tell you something about relying on what your handlers tell you.
There are plenty of CDCs even down where you are. You should do yourself a favor and talk to one of them sometime.
And we’ll have to wait and see if any of the ACORN affiliate groups get any stimulus money.
If they qualify, why not?
A normal person would think it awry that a group who gets taxpayer money does partisan campaign work.
By this theory the US can never make a payment to any corporation that employs lobbyists or is affiliated with a PAC.
I ignored this, initially, because the Pittburgh Tribune is the notorious mouthpiece of Richard Mellon Scaife, and has a very long history of telling lies. But OK. Project Vote has hired CSI to do non-partisan work, whereas Obama hired CSI to do partisan work. None of the money is going to Project Vote, so this is just innuendo. Let’s also remember that lots of money will end up going to corporations that have PACs or are members of lobbying groups like the National Association of Manufacturers, which usually donate to, endorse, and campaign for Republicans. How is money going to a lower-income housing grant non-profit different from money going to a corporation that contracts for construction work?
Hey X — it just dawned on me that I didn’t congratulate you on this awesome post! You did an excellent job of breaking down the GOP talking points and did it in a way that leaves its opponents resurrecting that ACORN boogeyman.
And no matter what they say — just remember that Ann Coulter is the current winner in the voter fraud sweepstakes with issues in Florida AND in Connecticut.
“How is money going to a lower-income housing grant non-profit different from money going to a corporation that contracts for construction work?”
If you can’t answer that question for yourself, then there’s no point continuing on.
Like I said earlier, a normal person would think it awry that a group who gets taxpayer money does paid partisan campaign work.
“You’ve plainly dodged your own faulty claim in order to just try to impeach ACORN for something that has not one thing to do with the bit of the stimulus package that is under discussion.”
What was my claim, again? And please try not to call me a racist again.
“There are plenty of CDCs even down where you are. You should do yourself a favor and talk to one of them sometime.”
You don’t know what I do, so don’t pretend that you do.
Ann Coulter is the current winner in the voter fraud sweepstakes
Republicans have a readymade defense for this:
“Ann Coulter isn’t really a Republican”
I jest, but keep waiting for it to become real.
“Cassandra — Are you saying that ACORN doesn’t do Democratic campaign work?
See, if the GOP cared about all citizens exercising their right to vote, then they’d be doing the GOP’s work as well.
You might be the most dishonest (I hope it’s dishonesty, otherwise it would be stupidity) hack I’ve ever come across in the internets! Seriously – The Eddie Haskell of politics. Be nice, then lie, talk about others, deny, deny, claim misunderstanding, lie, lie, nice, act incredulous.
I’m at work, and I have officially run out of time to dedicate to this until tonight, schedule permitting. Dave keeps shifting the goalposts and giving me new BS to debunk, and it’s a lot easier for him to make up shit than for me to carefully research and blow up his lies and distortions.
Signing off for now,
X
“See, if the GOP cared about all citizens exercising their right to vote, then they’d be doing the GOP’s work as well.”
Genius, to catch you up, ACORN does paid campaign work on behalf of Democratic candidates. Democratic candidates pay them to help win elections.
I’m not talking about registration.
“it’s a lot easier for him to make up shit than for me to carefully research and blow up his lies and distortions.”
Let me edit that for accuracy.
“it’s a lot easier for him to use facts than for me to cite unconfirmed economists and lefty talking point machines.”
I gotta run, too.
It’s not their charter….ACORN knows which party depends on disenfranchisement for electoral success.
If the party roles were reversed, they’d be working against the Dems.
See, what you are doing is a classic case of taking the effect and making it the cause.
It is a bit rich for you to be claiming facts when you’ve not only NOT presented any, but you aren’t even defend the claims you started making in the first place.
And do pay attention to what you’ve written, Dave — you made this claim in comment 10:
ACORN has subsidiaries and partners (i.e. noprofits with shared administrators and office space) who will get that money. Count on it.
And just claiming that it is true is an automatic FAIL.
It’s real simple. The republican party is going to be against everything and anything regardless of its merits. It will stoop to propaganda, distortion and outright lies to regain power.
Think about it. In 8 years, The GOP did nothing for deficit reduction, energy independence, health care reform, infrastructure spending, the environment, regulating or enforcing Wall Street or the housing market, sold us on a bogus war and now they DEMAND transparancy and accountability. You gotta laugh.
The GOP is a joke. Their fiscal policies are a proven failure that benefit a small fraction of the population. Like the Great Depression, it’s up to the democrats to fix the failed economic policies of republican economic policy. It will take time.
As for transparancey, the bush admin was the most secretive since Nixon. Secret energy meetings, secret emails, secret prison camps. It was, after all, Obama who led the charge for transparancy in the federal government.
The GOP has only one chance to get back into office. Lie. And they are good at that.
Claiming that a trillion dollar piece of legislation largely aimed at poor people would contain money for one of the largest anti-poverty nonprofits in the nation is not a FAIL.
But thanks for offering your opinion without calling me a racist again.
“The republican party is going to be against everything and anything regardless of its merits. ”
Can we not be against size and scope without being branded as “against everything and anything?” Seriously.
If that’s not the case, then you must have a real problem with the President using phrases like “this is a much better bill now…”. Just because he’s THERE and Repubs are not, should not be construed as “against everything and anything”
Claiming that a trillion dollar piece of legislation largely aimed at poor people would contain money for one of the largest anti-poverty nonprofits in the nation is not a FAIL.
Which, of course, is not what I said.
But that would have presumed that you would have actually read what I did write. Multiple times. And I actually do know better than to expect that. Silly me for giving you the benefit of the doubt.
“Like the Great Depression, it’s up to the democrats to fix the failed economic policies of republican economic policy.”
We’re going to have another World War?
“Which, of course, is not what I said. ”
No, Cassandra. It is YOU who didn’t read what I said. I said that ACORN’s affiliates would get some money. You took off with the sweeping assumptions from there.
Show me where I said something different.
Dave,
We all know what a great economic stimulus you think war is from your comments over at Tommywonk.
The refrence was to The New Deal. Google it.
Sorry Dave — all of my comments are right here for everyone to see and here are yours:
1.ACORN has subsidiaries and partners (i.e. noprofits with shared administrators and office space) who will get that money. Count on it. No proof of that, of course and a willful bit of stupidity about the entire CDC business which I was trying to explain. If you didn’t want to hear it, then you should have said that.
2. Claiming that a trillion dollar piece of legislation largely aimed at poor people you are the only one making this claim and again not backing it up. The text of the bill details neighborhood stabilization activities. Which I gather you don’t know what that entails. But alot of that is going to be done in places where ACORN wouldn’t be in — like the massive darn near empty developments in NV, AZ, CA and FL. Not the kind of neighborhoods where poor people show up.
3. And I guess I shouldn’t expect that you wouldn’t know the difference between sweeping assumptions and a recitation of the facts on the ground. I’m not kidding, Dave — Interfaith Community Housing of Delaware definitely does yeoman’s work in your neck of the woods too and you should go visit with them. They are the kind of people who will be eligible for these funds.
But I note that you need to characterize this provision as being pointed at poor people. Even though that isn’t true, it is interesting that somehow it is a bad thing that poor people may be getting some help.
But you aren’t really going to read this or be accountable for your own words, so why bother?
“But I note that you need to characterize this provision as being pointed at poor people. Even though that isn’t true, it is interesting that somehow it is a bad thing that poor people may be getting some help.”
What color is the sky in your pretend world?
I pointed out that the BILL, not the provision, was largely aimed at poor people, and I did so because it naturally explained why I would predict that ACORN would receive funding. Plus, part of the discussion was about Zandi’s claim that money to the poor would work better than money to the middle class.
I never once mentioned the provision. Show me where I did.
“I’m not kidding, Dave — Interfaith Community Housing of Delaware definitely does yeoman’s work in your neck of the woods too and you should go visit with them. They are the kind of people who will be eligible for these funds.”
I know what they do. We did a house with them when I was on the Board of Habitat for Humanity. Stop assuming you know jack shit about me.
Okay, time for you to read things into what I said that aren’t there, and then rebut them. Ready, set, go!
Shorter Burrass:
I’m sure pedophiles will be beneficiaries of the stimulus package…’cause you know one of those construction guys working on a shovel-ready project is a peder-ass!
This is Burrass’ argument. Trickle down until it hits something he can deride against and then call the whole thing into question.
Bullocks!
Only if big parts of the bill were aimed at pedophiles and the pedophile in question was the most prolific pedophile in America who also conveniently was paid to help elect the ruling party.
But there is nothing in the stimulus allocated to or for ACORN….even ACORN released a statement saying as much. ACORN is not a Dem org. You may believe it is. But as I stated before, if your party wasn’t the standard bearer for voter disenfranchisement, you’d have no issue with ACORN or any other group trying to get out the vote.
Again, you are taking the effect and making it the cause.
“ACORN is not a Dem org.”
ACORN gets paid by Democratic candidates for campaign work. Not registration. Campaign work. This is not disputed.
Actually he is now here trying to claim that he was specifically speaking about the entire bill, when Xstryker’s comment was pointed at a real provision in the bill and Dave’s response quite obviously responded to Xstryker’s comment.
And even the new dance about talking about the entire bill is transparently desperate.
But keep pretending I can’t read. And remember this exchange when you start whinging about how badly people treat you here. What you’ve just done is make it pretty clear that there is no percentage in anything else. But that was my mistake, and I won’t be doing it again.
And if you know about ICH, then you’ve been hugely dishonest (surprise) in insisting that ACORN will be getting all of this money, because you already know better.
You aren’t in much position to redeem yourself here, but help yourself to the last word.
Yes, because Dems fight for its cause. If the GOP had the same position, ACORN would promote them as well.
That’s the point. ACORN has a mandate and it uses what’s available in order to fulfill it.
Using your line of reasoning, you’d want the Anti-Defamation League to admit Nazis into its caucus….
This is at the bottom of ACORN web pages:
“ACORN is a non-profit, non-partisan social justice organization with national headquarters in New York, New Orleans and Washington, D.C.”
But… couldn’t Republicans pay them as well? Isn’t this more a choice by Republicans than by ACORN?
Good point, P!
Like many GOP reps’ sexual preference, it goes both ways….though they’d like to keep that on the down low, of course. 😉
“And if you know about ICH, then you’ve been hugely dishonest (surprise) in insisting that ACORN will be getting all of this money, because you already know better.”
You are again claiming that I somewhere said that ACORN will be getting “all of this money.” I said they will get that money. Somewhere, the money in the bill will make it to ACORN. It would be silly for them not to get some.
I don’t care what X said or what you said or what you said X said. I was talking about the entire bill.
“Yes, because Dems fight for its cause. If the GOP had the same position, ACORN would promote them as well.”
Again, paid. P-A-I-D. Thousands and thousands of dollars. Not supporting a cause. Supporting themselves.
My question (#79) still stands.
In my experience, Republicans rarely pay for people to do campaign work. And I don’t know of any situation where Republicans paid a nonprofit for campaign work. They rely on volunteers. Plus, you know that the alliance between ACORN and the Democratic Party is quite strong. So while you make a good point, it’s not based in the reality of the situation.
Preferably, nonprofit agencies that receive federal money should not be participating in paid partisan campaign activities.
If we can’t agree on that, then I don’t know what to say.
the alliance between ACORN and the Democratic Party is quite strong
Is this because ACORN works with poor people?
Oh gawd….that was obfuscation at its worst.
I guess all that work done over the years by the NAACP would be considered to be “paid-partisan activities”.
I guess all that work done over the years by the NAACP would be considered to be “paid-partisan activities”.
Not anymore, the Republicans got some black people now. 😉
“I guess all that work done over the years by the NAACP would be considered to be “paid-partisan activities”.”
I don’t know. Do candidates write checks to the NAACP around election time for GOTV work? I don’t think so. So that’s not an apt comparison.
Yeah, the NAACP has never worked to get certain politicians elected! {/snark}
Don’t act naive.
boo I’m Acorn!
boogity boogity
That’s not what I asked. Do they get paid to do campaign work or not?
To the right, ACORN is just a euphemism for ‘non-white’.
If you don’t believe so, then YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION…PAYING ATTENTION…PAYING ATTENTION.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/17/michele-bachmann-were-run_n_167650.html
This has a nifty list of wingnut talking points.
By the way, Dave, ACORN has a political PAC which is separate from ACORN. Don’t keep pretending there is no difference.
NO, they don’t get paid to do political work. They advocate and lobby for their interests though.
Paid? Of course, that’s what they do.
They support candidates who support its work.
In my experience, Republicans rarely pay for people to do campaign work.
*
I call bullshit. Jason sat next to a paid GOP poll worker during the special election after Vaughn died.
#94 con’t: the PAC that is…
thx JD! forgot about the two separate entities.
“I call bullshit. Jason sat next to a paid GOP poll worker during the special election after Vaughn died.”
I said rarely. That was the only time I’ve ever been involved in an election where anyone got paid to work. (And they were kids, not a registered nonprofit that gets government grant money).
“ACORN has a political PAC which is separate from ACORN.”
Technically, you’re right.
And technically, banks don’t pay executive bonuses out of government money. Technically, OJ didn’t do it. Technically, W won the 2000 election.
It is what it is.
And answer me this. After the Democratic politician sends money to the CSI in Lousiana (which, by the way is located inside ACORN HQ and staffed by ACORN staffers and is ACORN’s biggest client), what happens to it then? There’s not a CSI chapter in every state. But there is an ACORN chapter.
Where does the Delaware money go? Does it go through Delaware ACORN? And who does the paid GOTV work? Do Delaware ACORN members do that work? Do they get paid?
In my experience, Republicans rarely pay for people to do campaign work.
True, I can vouch.
What Jason did was work at a poll, INSIDE the poll. Checker-challenger is NOT GOTV work so much as it is verifying (or at least attempting to) that someone didn’t previously vote. Those are two different things being discussed here.
And answer me this. After the Democratic politician sends money to the CSI in Lousiana (which, by the way is located inside ACORN HQ and staffed by ACORN staffers and is ACORN’s biggest client), what happens to it then? There’s not a CSI chapter in every state. But there is an ACORN chapter.
Linkee?
Linkee for which part?