Shuler Votes Against Stimulus and Recovery Package
ByOur Rep. Heath Shuler was one of twelve Democrats who joined with the entire Republican delegation to say no to the big stimulus. I haven’t read his reasoning, but I’m guessing it looks something like this:
“I’m'a Blue Dog! Not a socialist! I’m kind of like a Republican, only more mountainy because we have to help people who can’t help themselves unless it’s going to cost money.”
Congressman Shuler, in case you missed it – Barack Obama, your party leader, just won a national election by millions of votes. He even won a few counties in your district. Good thing there’s enough Democrats to support the stimulus without your help.
We’d rather you get on board with the new president instead of sticking with the guys who supported the last one.
Here are some Asheville projects that may end up getting funded despite Congressman Shuler’s disdain:
Solar power plant at Mills River water plant: $40 million.
Widening of Victoria Road: $15 million.
City buses: $4.4 million.
Hendersonville Road sidewalk: $4 million.
Infrastructure for business park: $4 million.
Building heating and cooling retrofitting: $4 million.
Underground utilities on Patton Avenue and College Street: $3.5 million.
53 Comments
January 28th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Is this a list of I’d-like-to-see’s, or are our leaders actually proactively preparing applications?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 28th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
I have been a strong Shuler supporter, but tonight I am extremely disappointed. Not only would the stimulus package put jobs on the street, it would help rebuild an infrastructure that our govt. has ignored for years. I am curious Heath, how do you propose to get us our of this downward spiral? Any jackass can tear down a barn, but it takes a skilled person to build one. I’m beginning to have my doubts about our man in Washington.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 28th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
No country has spent itself into prosperity for very long. Regardless of it’s politics.
Well, they haven’t.
Just sayin’
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 28th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Yeah, well, plenty of countries have spent themselves into the dustbin of history – mostly by spending on armaments and empire while shorting their own people and productivity.
Plenty of countries have spent themselves into greater prosperity. This one, for example. That goes for states, too. Like the one we live in.
The point really is that very few other avenues to prosperity are open to us now. Ever since the Great Depression we have mostly relied on monetary policy – adjustments in interest rates – to smooth out the boom-and-bust cycles that come along with capitalism. The problem is that we’re now in a serious downturn but our central bank can’t cut rates any more than they already have. So if we want any prosperity at all anytime soon, we’re going to have to spend some money for a little while.
Just sayin’.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 28th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Yeah, he needs to fall in line and do whatever the hell the president says to do!
There’s a tremendous amount of crap in this massive crap sandwich, and I respect Shuler’s hesitance to vote for it.
Here’s a complete rundown of what’s in the nearly 1 TRILLION dollar stimulus package. Yeah, it’s the WSJ.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 28th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Gratuitous,
As I understand it, these are the items that Mayor Bellamy worked to include in a package introduced by NC Mayors regarding a potential stimulus capital influx.
And, Bob, I hear you. I just wonder what Shuler supports if not this.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 28th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Before I respond to Bob, let me say to Representative Shuler: hey, good luck running in a statewide primary with this vote on your record.
So – a little Google search shows that this WSJ editorial (not a news item) is getting a lot of play on conservative blogs. But once you start taking it apart, it’s hard to see why. Here are most of their figures, with commentary:
$2 billion for child-care subsidies
$0.65 billion for digital TV conversion coupons
$36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
$20 billion for food stamps
$83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don’t pay income tax
$252 billion for income-transfer payments
Well, every “stimulus bill” – including the one passed and signed by Bush early last year – tends to include some means of putting money into the hands of people who might not have it to spend otherwise. The rationale is that you get more stimulus when you give money to people who have to spend nearly everything they get.
(I guess we could try giving money away to rich people – oh, wait. We did. We gave the wealthy $350 billion last year, and that worked so well we just approved another $350 billion for the same folks. I’m pretty sure you were against that, Bob – as was Our Congressman – but I wonder what the WSJ’s position was? And I like how the writer mentions “income-transfer payments,” but doesn’t explain whether or not that $252 billion he cites includes spending itemized elsewhere in the article.)
Oh, but Bob, I find it hard to believe that you have a problem with the earned income credit. Maybe the folks getting that money “don’t pay income tax,” but the EIC has always been about returning to workers the employee portion of their payroll taxes. I guess it doesn’t surprise me that the WSJ hasn’t managed to figure that out over the decades the program has enjoyed bipartisan support.
$0.6 billion for the federal government to buy new cars
$7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities
$6 billion to subsidize university building projects
$0.15 billion for the Smithsonian
Well, we’re looking for ways of (a) injecting money into the economy quickly, and (b) injecting the money through capital projects which offer some sort of return on the investment or lasting value. So – the money for the cars sounds like spending that would have happened anyway (in, say, McCain’s second term) but which has been moved up in order to provide stimulus now. Ditto for the Smithsonian. If the modernization makes federal buildings more energy-efficient, then that’s a good investment, right? The university building projects doesn’t seem that far removed from the other infrastructure projects. It will create jobs, which was the point of this exercise.
$1 billion for Amtrak
$6 billion mass transit
$40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects
$30 billion for fixing bridges or other highway projects
What boggles my mind is the way the WSJ seems satisfied with $30 billion for highways, but scoffs at Amtrak and mass transit for not making a profit. When did I-40 start making a profit? Or did I miss something? And the point, again, is to inject money into the economy and get something of lasting value in return. With peak oil, global warming, and other resource issues staring us in the face, I guess I’d say that more and better mass transit might be a good investment.
$81 billion for Medicaid
Another motive behind this package is helping states avoid budget cuts which would themselves act as a sort of anti-stimulus. One of the ways in which it accomplishes this is by having the federal government take on a greater share of the costs of Medicaid and relieving states of some of that burden.
That’s why the speaker of the NC House, Joe Hackney, is talking up this package, saying that it’s going to go a long way toward relieving the state’s current budget crisis. And it will. (As I say, Congressman, good luck in that statewide Senate primary!)
So that leaves:
$54 billion for programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as “ineffective” or unable to pass basic financial audits
$0.05 billion for the National Endowment for the Arts
$0.4 billion for global-warming research
Hm. $54.45 billion? That’s less than one tenth of the cost of the Iraq war so far. And that’s zero for explosives or other munitions that destroy themselves.
My point? Sure, there are plenty of reasons for Republicans to vote against this bill. But Heath Shuler isn’t a Republican, is he?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 28th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Way to go Heath. Job creation: Yes. Millions for arts endowment: No
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 28th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
I am glad Shular was against this. The Stimulus and Recovery Package is a bad idea. This thinking did not get America out of the depression when FDR provided money for make work programs and the building of infrastructure. The government has to realize that the biggest reason we are where we are is because spending got out of hand. Not just by prior administrations, but, more importantly, the populace itself.
Jody is right though. No country has spent itself into prosperity….for long! America was not in great shape in the 90′s because of Clinton. America was in great shape because of the ingenuity of the American entrepreneur and using a new item (the internet) to create new market streams.
Spending money we do not have is not the answer. Letting some companies that mismanaged their resources die on the vine is healthier for America than allowing them to exist and continue to be a further drain. Because of “stimulus and bailout” the government now has to serve a partners in bad businesses. Fannie and Freddie, AIG, the auto industry, and other didn’t need a bailout. They needed to be euthanized. It would hurt badly in the short term, but in the long term this dead weight would be trimmed and new business would spring up in their paths.
Creating tax benefits rather than giving handouts would encourage businesses and individuals to spend and save more. We are in this downward spiral because we have failed to be responsible (considering that all the average credit card debt is $4700.00 per American which includes my not quite 9 year old son), and can’t help but look to the government to fix all of our problems.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 28th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Mr. Gibson,
EIC doesn’t give back to the employee their payroll taxes. It gives them far, far more. As a one time business owner I had two employees that worked for me for $9.00 per hour and I was the only employer they had. They both got about 2 times the tax (and this includes FICA monies as well) they paid in given back to them (I know this because I used to file taxes for my employees for free). EIC might have originally been created to give back payroll taxes like the lottery was supposed to greatly support education (different topic…I will quit the ADHD topic shifting), but the government would not allow for rapid refund of EIC tax refunds because of how much money it was going to cost over and above what was paid in.
EIC is now nothing more than welfare for workers.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 28th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Doug,
That really ought to be its own post.
Unless, that is, you’re just trying to raise the bar on commenting around here…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 1:19 am
Well, I’m cutting Shuler some slack here and he is not really joining the Republicans. These Republicans who are wailing and moaning now about going into debt didn’t seem to have a problem with it when W was running the show. Everyone of them with the exception of Ron Paul and maybe some others of his ilk are nothing but bottom feeders and I hate to malign bottom feeders like that.
I was against the way the bank bailout was set up as well as the bailout of the big 3 gas guzzler automakers. I’m more in line with this stimulus package than those because there does seem to be more of a bottom up focus whereas the other bailouts seemed to fit in with the trickle down economics of the Reagan=Bush era.
But the fact of the matter is that we all want this to succeed and I’m certainly keeping my fingers crossed that the Obama crew will be able to make it work. We all have to know that if it doesn’t work…well, let’s not even go there.
I
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 6:38 am
Thanks, Doug. You saved me the trouble.
I watched Boehner claim last night that the GOP alternative would create twice as many jobs at half the cost.
Right.
That would be the same free-lunch bunch with policies that were so successful at creating jobs during the Bush administration? The GOP was obviously just getting warmed for the last eight years. Now they’re ready to lead.
And just you wait, Doug. When Rep. Shuler gets done proving how tough he is on waste and profligate spending, boy howdy, unemployed people already moving out of this district are really gonna see something stimulative.
BTW: Elizabeth Warren and the Congressional Oversight Panel are in The Hill this morning saying the crisis could have been prevented:
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Congratulations Rep. Shuler for keeping your hands off this dirty, politically-motivated spending bill that will drive the economy further into the ground by interfering with the economy.
Perhaps you understand that the government cannot create jobs. At least I hope you do. Again, thanks.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 9:41 am
From AC-T: “The legislation before the House today contained too much additional spending in areas that will not offer immediate economic stimulus,” Shuler, D-Waynesville, said.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 9:50 am
I.O.U.S.A. — the movie
Free showing
Asheville Pizza & Brewery, Merrimon
Thursday, January 29, 2008, 9:30 PM
Panel discussion to follow
Flier: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11472571/iousa-flier
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Down with Tyranny has a post up on this: “HEATH SHULER IS PART OF THE GOP PLAN TO DEFEAT DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF CONGRESS– NICE GOIN’, EMANUEL”
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Actually Germany did that after WWII and again in the 70′s, just saying.
However no country ever created prosperity for the wast amount of citizens by tax cuts for the top 5% and the idea of “trickling down” wealth. (I still have the bucket sat aside for the Reagan trickle down wealth, let me check …. yap still empty!)
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 11:17 am
What does Shuler’s immigration bill have to do with this?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Sandwich Guy,
Thanks for your polite correction. I did a little research, and I see that I owe Bob and the WSJ an apology – the
EICEITC is meant as a poverty-reduction program, and is not tied to a worker’s payroll taxes.In my defense, the WSJ is setting up a straw man by saying that the EITC is a tax refund for people who don’t pay income tax. The EITC is delivered through refunds because to get it you have to work and file a tax return. As such, it could be thought of as in part a refund of payroll taxes – and sales taxes, and property taxes, and all the other ways our tax system eats up a disproportionate amount of workers’ incomes. And there’s no question that the EITC has enjoyed bipartisan support for all of its existence.
To Bob, I’m saying that the WSJ article has nothing to add to the debate – all of its points are strictly ideological, and most of them (for example, AMTRAK versus interstates) break down under scrutiny.
For the rest, my point is that disagreements over this bill break down along the classic lines that divide Republicans from Democrats. I’m having trouble figuring out which side Rep. Shuler stands on.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
It seems he is on the side of the R’s considering his vote.
What strikes me as odd is that Republicans had no problem spending a trillion on a mismanaged war and corporate bailouts with no oversight on either (no-bit contracts for Haliburton and like 18 billions for bonus pay to executives etc) but the moment we want to spend money on health, education, infrastructure, unemployment etc. we are told that this is irresponsible fiscal policy
call me crazy but if you give money either directly or indirectly by lowering health + education cost or providing access to loans to those that don’t have enough chances are high they spend it which ahmm stimulates the economy
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Just because Amity Shlaes and the WSJ editorial board says so, doesn’t make it true.
And I suppose it’s easy to be a deficit hawk when you’re a millionaire of very little brain. I’m reminded of what Bill Hicks said about people who pontificate about the need to tighten your belts.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Ahem, care to remind me, actually in my case educate me – who the hell is that Hicks person anyway?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Kai – click the “Bill Hicks” link on our Honorary Hooligans page. He’s one of our heroes.
I think the bit in question involved tightening our belts “around Jesse Helms’ scrawny little chicken neck,” if memory serves…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Nice discussion folks. This is a great example of why this blog is important. I’ve wanted to mention this for days. The Cox Ave greenway heads up and the corn syrup alert are two recent examples of why this is my first stop of the day after the news.
I worked hundreds of hours to help elect Heath the first time. Less so the second, but still actively engaged. Third time? I’m looking for a new primary contender to give considerable time and a few thousand dollars to.
This has to stop. The whole Blue Dog fetish is cute, but at a crucial time in the President’s early tenure, I would like to think that my Representative would have the intelligence and forethought to decide to be on the right side of history and not let his own early legacy be defined as Democrat in name only. We can do better and it is with great disappointment that I now pledge to work very, very hard to see him replaced with a Democrat that does not align so slavishly with the Republican party.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Hooray for Doug! What a succinct comment on the subsidies that build, pave, and maintain our roads, including the much debated I26 connector.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Bob Falls
I like a lot of what you are saying Bob. I’m sorry to say I can’t agree with the above though, and I say that with a heavy heart as an American and a veteran. I don’t think the far right, ergo, the Republican party, wants this to succeed at all, in any way. They (the leadership led by Rush Limbaugh, etc.) would much rather take the country to it’s knees than give up their ideology of racism, greed and power at all cost. Disregarding the rule of law is their manifesto and the common good just isn’t in their lexicon. In my opinion.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
I’m curious, Randall – did you volunteer those hundreds of hours because you were completely on board with Shuler’s issue positions, or were you doing whatever you could to send Charles Taylor’s corrupt ass back to the tree farm? Or were you, like me, willing to give him the benefit of the doubt despite his obvious shortcomings as a candidate?
As far as finding a progressive that will win “West of the Balsams”, we need all the help we can get. Unless Shuler gets caught raping a puppy, he’ll defeat all comers in the 2010 NC-11 primary. And what Doug said earlier is spot-on – if he tries to run for Senate, he’ll have to run as far away from his own voting record as possible.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
First of all, it’s not a fetish. It’s a stupid name given to center left Democrats. Center left.
Your rep didn’t align himself with Republicans for the sake of pissing in anyone’s cheerios, it’s because he didn’t think it was the right way to stimulate the economy. His legacy with liberals has always been and will always be as a DINO or pseudo-republican, simply because he’s not a liberal.
But please, feel free to attempt to get a liberal as this districts representative. You’ll get a republican instead.
My argument isn’t so much against the stimulus bill, although I still feel it’s too much too hastily. It’s with the sliming of Shuler as some lapdog for the GOP.
Post partisan my ass.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Bad Apple Theory is what I call a variety of “the forest for the trees” fallacy. Find fault with something small in something big and flog it for all it’s worth to discredit the whole, no matter what its merits. But it only applies to the other guys’ enthusiasms:
They don’t care about what works or about what helps people. They care about what props up their careers. Point is, as Krugman pointed out, critics like Boehner are arguing in bad faith – the only kind they know. Their philosophy is discredited, their theories bankrupt, and their fortunes teetering. They’ve run out of material. Even former Bush supporters see these Johnny One-Notes for the mountebanks they are.
I know. I work beside many of them. Not that they’re prepared to change sides yet.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Started out as get rid of the chain saw and then saw favorable merit in him. Favorable enough to feel good about him. I even defended him from some folks when Markos came to town and some people in the audience called Heath a dumb shit. He’s also a nice guy and I like him and that’s why I commented that I do this with a heavy heart.
I also don’t think he deserves a shot at running for Senate. But then again, what do I know? I didn’t think John Edwards deserved a shot at Pres/VP. Then again, the possibility of running a conservative Democrat and beating Richard Burr combined with the ascension of a progressive Democrat to the Eleventh is a future I could find comfort in. Deserving is in the mind of the observer after all.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Bob,
Post Partisan? You know me better than that. I’m the guy that wants to reach across the aisle so I can slap them remember? It’s about getting the votes and passing the legislation against the will of the minority.
Sorry to be so blunt, but after eight years of letting these criminals run wild, someone has to step in and be the Sheriff. The whole right wing mindset, from Rush to his overly tanned surrogate in the Senate, has to be marginalized for the sake of the nation.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Bob, just caught this. CENTER LEFT? Whaaaat?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
The question is why would he side with the GOP? Maybe because this is a REALLY bad piece of legislation. If we are truly looking to stimulate the economy, then why would you ever want to pass this? None of the effect of this legislation would be seen until the money starts to go out in 2010.
America needs relief now! Frankly I have very little faith that these New Deal-esque make work measures will right the ship just like it didn’t in the 1930′s.
It is the job of the private sector to prop up the public sector never the other way around. The job of the public sector is to make sure there is an even playing field, and then to get out of the way.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Bob,
If we don’t like what Shuler does, should we just be quiet about it?
Seriously – why shouldn’t we be openly critical? And for those of us who are Democrats and who have spent hours and hours of our time building the party and helping its candidates, it’s hardly unfair for us to accuse Shuler of disloyalty. He was one of only eleven Democrats to vote against this bill, and the only one from North Carolina.
Mike freakin’ McIntyre voted for the stimulus bill. John McCain is saying that it needs more spending on infrastructure. So why should we give Shuler a pass? Why shouldn’t we expect him to come out and say exactly what bothered him? And how can we expect him to explain himself unless we let him know we aren’t happy about his vote?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 29th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
I get schooled by hope, reason and Lieber.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 30th, 2009 at 7:48 am
Fair enough. You’re not alone. And yes, he is a nice guy, very personable and friendly with a winning smile and a handshake that’ll dislocate your shoulder if you’re not careful (which was refreshing after the dead fish handshake I got from Taylor once). Initially, my ideological disagreements were tempered by nuance – for example, his pro-life stance extends to opposing the death penalty, which certainly sets him apart from most conservatives (and even a few of his Democratic colleagues).
As to him being a dumbshit… well, dumbshits don’t go back to school after their NFL careers wash out and get degrees in psychology or start successful businesses, Wonderlic scores notwithstanding.
Anyone who qualifies constitutionally (at least 30 years old, US resident for 9 years, current resident of the state you’re seeking office in) deserves a shot at running for Senate. Whether they stand a chance or not is a different matter altogether. Personally, I don’t think Shuler does. But NC-11 could be his for as long as he wants it, provided that he keeps up his “Blue Dog Fetish” to appease the fiscal conservatives, and provided that the GOP keeps finding Carl Mumpowers to run against him.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 30th, 2009 at 11:45 am
As long as we’re talking Blue Dogs, it needs to be pointed out that there are 47 of them, according to their website.
Only eleven Democratic congressmen voted against this bill. I don’t know if they were all Blue Dogs, but even assuming they were, that puts Rep. Shuler in a superminority even among the self-proclaimed fiscal hawks.
And our beef isn’t just with this vote. What about SCHIP? On these fiscal issues, I get the feeling that Shuler’s gut instinct is that if the government is spending money, that’s bad, and the arguments that these are investments or that these are ways we can address the structural injustices of capitalism don’t carry much weight with him. On the other hand, though, his frugal principles didn’t seem to apply to Iraq War spending. Whether he votes to fund them or not, he has no problem with the government sponsoring programs in his district.
So he’s not a mainstream Democrat. Fine. But judging by this vote he’s not a mainstream Blue Dog, either. And I think we’re all wondering why, here at the beginning of his second term, having trounced his opponent in November, he can’t try to move a little toward the mainstream of his own party.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 30th, 2009 at 11:55 am
I have to strongly disagree with the idea that the Blue Dogs are center left – not even close. Even Obama is center right. Take a look at this:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
Of cause if you keep redefining the center then even Rush Limbaugh is “center left” which would put me somewhere over the rainbow.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 30th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Arratik, Doug, Kai, thanks for your comments, all well reasoned and smart. And thanks x 10 for correcting bob’s mistake about BD’s being center-left in any way whatsoever. And yes, Obama’s right leaning agenda is what kept me from supporting him until deep in the process.
And speaking of Rush, I think Obama used a calculated strategy by calling him out. On one hand it gave the far right wing extremist element in the country something to rally around. On the other hand, it let mainstream Americans know that the gloves are off when addressing the reality of the racist based hate mongering that he and his Fox News ilk specialize in.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 30th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
So let me get this straight, Obama is center right? Has anyone actually read any of his opinions? I don’t care what the chart says, he’s more liberal than anything IMO, but I digress.
randallt, so you’re saying that the main reason the “extreme right” oppose Obama is because they’re racists?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 30th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
bob, no, not the main reason. The main reason is that they are extremists.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 30th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
yes he is more liberal then the last 4 but that still does not put him left of center – especially if compared to the world – In Germany Obama most likely would be in the CDU and not in the SPD, never mind Die Linke or Bundniss90 – I guess what I am saying is it’s relative
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 30th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
This plan seems preferable to a plan whereby the government mails everybody a check for $500 (or any similar amount).
When the government sent me my Bush check, I wondered: when a family goes and spends the money on clothes, does the clothing store hire more workers as a result? No. Well, the family might buy a TV. Does Best Buy hire more workers? No. A set of tires might go on the car. Does the tire store boss have to hire another man? No.
There maybe is a small increase in retail activity for a little while, but stores aren’t going to hire workers because there are government checks headed our way.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 30th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
I’m with you Ken. I caught up on late bills. No jobs there. In fact, they may have had to lay off that lady that kept calling me twice a day!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 30th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Oh, I must have misunderstood this.
Silly me.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 30th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
One thing to consider is how Shuler perceived public opinion in this district. Apparently calls to congressional offices are running almost 100% against the stimulus bill.
Folks reading this who are unhappy with Shuler’s vote might want to call his office to let him know. I just got off the phone with one of his staffers who estimated that calls to his office were running roughly 75% in opposition. The bill will probably have to be voted on again once it comes out of conference, so there’s time to ask the congressman to change his position.
Heath Shuler’s DC office: (202) 225-6401. Congressional switchboard: (800) 828-0498.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 30th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Bob, that’s not silly, I do believe the right is racist and extreme. I’m just not sure their racism trumps their extremism, but that is neither here or there. So yeah, I’ll bite, they hate him because he is black. That’s who they are. You don’t think Rush is a racist?
Here is an interesting piece from yesterday that ties the two concepts together nicely and blames Fox/NPR’s Juan Williams for much of the pandering. I couldn’t agree more, in fact, as I’ve said here before, Mr. Williams is one of the right’s greatest propagandists. Skilled, smooth and dangerous, the man is a master of lies and twisting the truth.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 31st, 2009 at 12:13 am
What an extraordinary twisting of words and usage of non-facts that article was. You really should be embarrassed you even used that. I haven’t seen such presumption and vitriol since the last time I read Media Matters.
So, Juan Williams and Michael Steele = Uncle Tom. Got it.
They don’t like him because of liberal policies (some of which I agree with, but I digress), not because he’s black.
Become what you hate.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 31st, 2009 at 11:38 am
Morning bob, hope this lovely day is treating you well. I thought it was an interesting piece, sorry you disliked it so much.
I thought we were getting somewhere. So I’ll recap. I think the right wing of the political spectrum is grounded in racism and hate. That’s all I was trying to say, sorry if you find that uncomfortable.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 31st, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Actually, I’ve come to think that the GOP far right is only tactically racist, while strategically classist. That is to say, the far right is no longer simply racist (it’s not the ’50′s anymore) but behaves in a racist fashion where the racism supports classism (New Orleans, for example). The underclass is still somewhat more non-white than the middle and upper classes, so classism often aligns with racism; but the far right will now accept any ethnicity in their inner circle as long as the Black/Hispanic/Eskimo/etc. individual is rich enough and Machiavellian enough to be a good fit.
It’s useful to remember there are other dualities in politics other than right/left. A very, very important one is open/closed. The open/closed spectrum explains handily why liberalism is, in certain ways, the direct opposite of far-right monarchism/nationalism/fascism as well as far-left communist dictatorships. The liberal polity is ideally completely open where the dictatorships of right and left are closed.
Liberalism at its best has few secrets, many avenues for the will of the individual and the many alike, freedom of speech, thought, movement and association, democratic decision-making and decentralization of power. The liberal society is open in every way its citizens can make it.
Closed societies of the right and left have many secrets, and much is centralized and monopolized. The few, whether because they are rich or Party members, favorites of the king, or leaders of the church, have most of the control in a closed society. The few will tend to hold monopolies in all things: money, land, speech in the media, freedom to travel, control of the army, and even decent food and water. In open societies taxes tend to be spent on the welfare of the many; in closed societies taxes are levied on the many to fill the coffers of the few.
Look at the United States and ask yourself this: did our nation become more open or closed under the GOP? Did it become more open or closed ten days ago?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 31st, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Thanks for that illuminating post Tom, there is much to chew on there. Riddle me this: If the far right is willing to accept the caucasianly challenged into the inner circle as long as they fit the bill, are there any checks or quotas in their formula that restrict enrollment or are they just not that worried because they figure the numbers will always be on their side?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
February 1st, 2009 at 10:58 am
Randall, I think, in the final analysis, the far right (in the US) are merely an alliance of society’s sociopaths against the rest of us. Seen this way, skin color doesn’t matter to the inner circle; sociopaths of different ethnicity are more like each other than they are like the majority. They are a minority unto themselves. Mental health professionals will tell you sociopaths constitute somewhere between 1 and 4 per cent of the general population. Most of them are far right here because that’s where the power is; in North Korea they would be Communists.
Rate this comment:
0 
0