Lance's tapdance

Submitted by MartinOne on February 22, 2009 - 10:20am.

Lance's "moderate" "bipartisan" message somehow became blunted when it came to supporting a beneficial economics plan to produce jobs and jumpstart the green economy in this country. Lance could have taken a courageous, bipartisan stance in favor of Obama's economic stimulus plan, one that many economists say is in fact too small of an investment. Instead, we're left with Lance's lame excuses about his "No" vote on creating new jobs, yet he gladly takes credit for getting funds and does a photo-op with fellow Republicans for projecting funding he obstructed rather than helped procure.

Lance's facebook page....

Submitted by jrlassiter on February 22, 2009 - 11:26am.

.....pretty much shows him boasting of the stim funds AND promises of more come. http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaylassiter/3291390406/sizes/o/

How long has the Green

Submitted by bitaryo on February 22, 2009 - 11:38am.

Brook project been held up? Remember the wipe out?

Lance's lame excuses

Submitted by John C on February 22, 2009 - 12:02pm.

In an effort to defend his do-nothing, Hoover-like approach to the U.S. economy, Representative Leonard Lance (NJ-7) employs standard GOP talking points, semantic games, and outright deception.

Like his Republican House colleagues, Lance cares more about partisanship than actually doing something to spur an economic recovery. He is also clearly obsessed with tax cuts. This is what Nobel economist Paul Krugman wrote about tax cuts: "...Republicans rallied behind the idea that the appropriate response to the abject failure of the Bush Administration's tax cuts is more Bush-style tax cuts...the rhetorical response of conservatives to the stimulus plan...has bordered on the deranged...[Republicans] are oblivious to the grotesque failure of their doctrine in practice" (NY Times, Feb 13).

Lance's disingenuous parsing of the terms "spending" and "stimulus" is just silly GOP catechism. During a recession, most middle-class recipients of tax cuts will not run out and buy big things - they will save the money or pay off bills. The federal government is the only entity which can quickly inject billions of dollars into an ailing economy. According to Cornell economist Robert H. Frank, "Bizarrely...some Congressional critics have denounced the administration's stimulus proposals as 'mere spending programs.' Of course they're spending programs! More spending is exactly what we need" (NY Times, Feb 15).

Lance's claim that 80% of the stimulus money will be spent "over the next five to ten years" (after 2009) is a baldly deceptive sleight-of-hand. Lance's "next five to ten years" happens to include 2010, the year in which most of the spending will occur. The Congressional Budget Office projects that 74% of the money will be spent within 18months.

Perhaps Rep. Lance should hold some town-hall meetings and tell his 7th District constituents that about $6-7 billion will be provided to New Jersey, and why he said "no thanks."

$6-7 billion more

Submitted by MiddleClassSqueeze on February 22, 2009 - 12:41pm.

All we need is another $30 billion on top of that and then we will be dug out of the McGreevey/Codey/Corzine mess.
Lance may have voted against it, but just because there is a politician whose default position on any issue is to spend money does not mean that voters will punish him because of that.

If you're gonna vote NO ...

Submitted by Number 6 on February 22, 2009 - 5:51pm.

... then don't take the dough.

That's a little something the Duke of NY once told me before he moved to South Park, CO and became an elementary school cafeteria cook.

Snake Pliskin? I heard you were dead.

John C - WRONG!

Submitted by JoeSchilp on February 22, 2009 - 7:32pm.

John, Paul Krugman is a leftist who has economics all screwed up. As the following quote will tell you, gov't spending does NOT stimulate the economy: "We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work!" That statement was made by FDR's Treasure Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, in 1939, after 8 years of New Deal spending as an attempt to end the Great Depression.

Contrary to what you and Krugman espouse, tax CUTS are what stimulate the economy, even Democrat JFK knew this.

The latest proposal by Obama is to increase business tax and taxes on the wealthy to cut the deficit. Wanna bet on whether the market tanks or not this week? The DJIA has plummeted 20% since Election Day and 10% since Inauguration Day. Clearly, investors and economists know exactly what Obama & the Congressional Democrats are doing and they are responding by dumping stocks.

As for Lance, flood control is not economic stimulus any more than building that white elephant of an arena in Newark stimulated that city's economy. It's still a dump around the arena and the arena itself only created a couple dozen permanent full-time jobs.

Tax cuts work. It's been proven. That's why Lance voted against the Stimulus.

I've heard it called Obama's stimulus package but quite honestly, the only people stimulated by Obama's package seem to be the mainstream media! But then, they've been lusting after Obama since his '04 Convention speech.

Forget the DCCC, the NRCC

Submitted by Michael Illions on February 22, 2009 - 8:55pm.

Forget the DCCC, the NRCC should do an ad, questioning why on the first 5 important votes in the House, Lance voted WITH Nancy Pelosi 60% of the time (3 out of 5)

A disgraceful number to be sure, to most likely get worse, considering that Global Warming and Illegal Immigration Reform Bills are in the works. That's 2 MORE for Pelosi.

DJIA plummeting

Submitted by Number 6 on February 22, 2009 - 11:38pm.

Joe Schilp is exactly right. The economy was in great shape when George Bush turned over the keys to the kingdom to Barack Obama.

There were no deficits, the dollar was strong, china wasn't buying our debt, we didn't spend a trillion dollars on a pointless war, jobs were being created hand over fist, housing prices were booming, deregulation of Wall Street allowed the best and the brightest to create unprecedented wealth not just for themselves but for the common man and ...

... the Tooth Fairy married the Easter Bunny and they lived happily ever after. Yes Joe. It's all Obama's fault.

Snake Pliskin? I heard you were dead.

Snake, Snake, Snake.

Submitted by JoeSchilp on February 22, 2009 - 11:56pm.

I never said things were hunky dory under Bush. Then again, things were pretty damend good until the Dem's took over Congress in 2006, but that's not the issue. The problem now is that Obama is pursuing a course of action that has already failed America back in the 1930s.

Tax cuts, on the other hand, have been used successfully by JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush to get America out of recessions.

Seems to me like you, Snake, don't know jack about economics.

"We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work!"
- FDR's Treasure Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, in 1939, on 8 years of New Deal spending as an attempt to end the Great Depression.

Actually, Joe ...

Submitted by Number 6 on February 23, 2009 - 7:51am.

I never said I'm against tax cuts. I never said I'm a fan of the stimulus package either. In fact, I never even opined about economics (although I did initially write something of substance but realized it would just go over your head and deleted it). My point was rather clear and you even seemed to agree with it at the outset of your post.

I did, however, speak with Santa Claus the other day and he told me you've been a good boy this year. So you'll be getting this years Club for Growth swimsuit edition calendar in your stocking. I hear that Grover Norquist is going full frontal as Mr. July ....

n/t

Submitted by Number 6 on February 23, 2009 - 7:47am.

n/t

Your point. . .

Submitted by JoeSchilp on February 23, 2009 - 8:22am.

Your point, Snake, is that Lance shouldn't take the dough because he voted no. Only problem is, the bill passed and the money will be spent, I'd rather see it go to flood relief than to ACORN, so I understand why Lance voted no, but will take the money anyway.

Lance's point obviously sailed over your head.

"We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work!"
- FDR's Treasure Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, in 1939, on 8 years of New Deal spending as an attempt to end the Great Depression.

Bipartisan

Submitted by the oc on February 23, 2009 - 9:39am.

Martin aka Alice in Wonderland has the gall to claim it would have been "bipartisan" of Lance to support the trillion gorilla placed on the backs of our children and grandchildren? When did it become bipartisan? No House Republican was allowed to be involved in the negotiations - or the crafting of the bill. It was all done in the Speaker's Office and did not go through regular proceedure. Yet that is somehow bipartisan? What a joke your comments have become. You keep falling further and further into that hole of yours.

Ah Joe, you're just so full of Schilp

Submitted by Number 6 on February 24, 2009 - 8:13am.

I'm still waiting for you to explain your intellectually incontinent response to my post titled "DJIA Plummeting." In your response you made the altogether bizarre claim that somehow I didn't know "jack" about economics because tax cuts are the key to solving our financial crisis. As I pointed out previously, I never mentioned anything about tax cuts in the post to which you responded. Thus, your caustic diatribe about tax cuts and my alleged lack of economic aptitude was a complete non sequitur.

For your edification, I'll provide the text of my above-referenced post:

"Joe Schilp is exactly right. The economy was in great shape when George Bush turned over the keys to the kingdom to Barack Obama. There were no deficits, the dollar was strong, china wasn't buying our debt, we didn't spend a trillion dollars on a pointless war, jobs were being created hand over fist, housing prices were booming, deregulation of Wall Street allowed the best and the brightest to create unprecedented wealth not just for themselves but for the common man and ... ... the Tooth Fairy married the Easter Bunny and they lived happily ever after. Yes Joe. It's all Obama's fault." (*sarcasm noted for Joe's sake).

So Joe Schilp, where do I mention tax cuts or that I'm somehow against them? If anything the fact that I specifically left the Bush tax cuts off my littany of malfeasance should have clued you in that I wasn't in the least anathema to such things. It's disturbing to see an adult evidence that he lacks the most basic ability to comprehend written English. I'll be charitable and assume that years of listening to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have taken their toll on your ability to think independently. You've evidently become conditioned like Pavlov's dog to reflexively hurl canned accusations at people with whom you think you disagree, regardless of their patent irrelevance. Is that what they teach you at those Americans for Prosperity workshops you frequent?

As for the "point" that you reference in your most recent post referencing my phrase"taking the dough," nothing sailed over my head. Anyone with an IQ above their hat size would realize the word "taking" is employed as a figurative device, not a literal one (then again, that's a fairly weighty concept for someone such as yourself to grasp). As a matter of principle, no legislator should "take" credit for something they voted against or publicly opposed. Republicans of conscience like Barbour, Jindal and Sanford understand this. I would venture to guess your man Lonegan does too. Sadly, that leaves you all by your lonesome out in the cold cruel world panhandling for scraps from Dems.

Snake Pliskin? I heard you were dead.

PolitickerNJ.com

Search