Originally Posted by DrNo

Giving the bailout money to companies that AREN'T failing? I don't agree with the bailouts in the first place, but I don't think there's a chance it isn't going to happen. So, why would you give taxpayer money to companies that have already shown they are unable to stay in business? This is the exact sort of behavior that led to the problem in the first place, only on a much larger scale. Is this a stupid idea?

There you go again, making sense.

Rewarding Failure and Punishing Success seems to be the M.O. nowadays!

Originally Posted by CUNxTime

Rewarding Failure and Punishing Success seems to be the M.O. nowadays!

Well then if your Congresscritter voted against the stimulus package, let him/her tell his/her constituents that, in the name of consistency, (s)he will refuse any aid for his/her district.

Originally Posted by chester

Well then if your Congresscritter voted against the stimulus package, let him/her tell his/her constituents that, in the name of consistency, (s)he will refuse any aid for his/her district.

A congressman isn't the one that actually handles the money of a district (ie can't accept nor reject money)...in fact, a district consists of many governments (normally) such as a town, city, school board...etc. So what are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

A congressman isn't the one that actually handles the money of a district (ie can't accept nor reject money)...in fact, a district consists of many governments (normally) such as a town, city, school board...etc. So what are you talking about?

I'm talking about hypocrisy such as I see in my home state where the same Rebuttlickan Congresscritter who spoke out so vociferously against the stimulus package now wants over 60% of the funds going to our state directed to his District.

This makes me want to hurl.

And, BTW, the comment about "A congressman isn't the one that actually handles the money of a district" is simply a straw man.