Opinion: No deficit of hypocrisy

(AP)

You can never take the hypocrisy out of politics — without at least a little bit of hypocrisy, the conduct of politics would become impossible. But what is tolerable, even necessary in small doses can become downright toxic when administered on today’s scale.

Here’s what I mean:

Think back to the early days of 2009, and try to remember the sense of near-panic that engulfed the country.

We were losing 800,000 jobs a month. The stock market was in the midst of an historic collapse, with the Dow falling from a peak of 14000 in October of 2007 to 6600 by March of ’09. Nobody knew where the bottom might be. The housing market was an even bigger disaster — millions of American families were being kicked out of their homes due to foreclosure, and economists of all stripes were warning that another great depression might be looming.

So President Obama did what every previous president since FDR had done when faced with economic trouble, what every economics textbook in the nation would have advised. To calm the panic and put money back into the economy, he proposed a $787 billion stimulus package that would put Americans back to work, extend long-term jobless benefits to those who could not find work, and cut taxes to increase spending power.

Yet Republicans refused to support his plan, even in the midst of the greatest economic emergency since the Great Depression. As House Minority Leader John Boehner explained it, they opposed the bill because it added to the deficit, calling it “an act of generational theft that our children and grandchildren will be paying for far into the future.”

The bill still passed the House with a vote of 247-183, but not a single Republican voted for it. It passed 60-38 in the Senate, with just three GOP senators voting in favor, just enough to get it past the filibuster, and it was signed into law by Obama.

Since then, things have gotten a lot better. We just marked the 85th consecutive month of job growth, the unemployment rate is 4.1 percent, and corporate after-tax profits and the stock market have never been higher. We still face economic challenges, but they are largely distributional in nature, with the working and middle class not fully sharing in the prosperity. Overall, though, the difference from eight years ago could not be more stark.

Something else is starkly different as well. Remember the Republican Party, which claimed that it could not bring itself to support a badly needed stimulus bill because of what it would do to the national debt? Remember the party that preached to us so solemnly about “generational theft,” that clung to the purity of its position even in the midst of a dire economic emergency, that refused to cooperate with a newly elected Democratic president because their cooperation might help him politically?

Those very same people are now championing a tax-cut bill that will add another $1.4 trillion to the debt, on the theory that it will “stimulate” an already booming economy. They are advocating “generational theft” on a truly massive scale, borrowing from our children and grandchildren without their permission. And why? They are doing so not to rescue a collapsing economy, not to pay extended jobless benefits to millions of Americans who were laid off, but to put hundreds of billions of dollars into the already stuffed pockets of corporations and wealthy GOP donors.

Like I said, a little hypocrisy is an absolute necessity in politics.  But this? This is utterly shameless.

 

 

Reader Comments 0

1660 comments
Peachs
Peachs

The first thing we need to do is demand honesty. Stop denying your sexual abuses, and then we go from there.

Infraredguy
Infraredguy

The next shoe to fall may come in the US House 5th district of Georgia, where reports of a payoff to a staffer have been around for years 

Peachs
Peachs

For years just like Hillary. These FBI guys all seem to go in Republicans,wonder what happens to them that they can’t see these crimes you speak of, but are fired by a Republican president for mishandling a Democrat presidential candidate.

Kamchak
Kamchak

Interesting that Rebbie-poo wants to vilify Matt Lauer -- a journalist that no on here has posted about -- yet he lionizes the oxy riddled Limbaugh -- a skeevy perv pedophile who goes on sexcations to Central America just to diddle little boys.

TYPICAL foxbot hypocrisy.

Brosephus
Brosephus

JohnnyReb 42 minutes ago

Remember when all the talk was impeach Trump?

How that has faded away with only the die hard Progs still bringing it up, and oh yea, the rich guy running TV ads.

I remember me wanting Trump to remain in office for all 4 years to ensure this bullshiattery currently referred to as conservative ideology dies the most horrible death imaginable.

I want every albatross possible to hang around the necks of every single elected Republican until they cannot wipe the stench of this crap off them.

My view won't fade, and I am not the one sponsoring the ads either 



StraightNoChaser
StraightNoChaser

Infraredguy 11 minutes ago

@StraightNoChaser or Bill Clinton

I didn't vote for Bill Clinton. So there's that, now shut up talking about sexual misconduct since you did vote for Trump. You're welcome 😊

bringdecencytopolitics
bringdecencytopolitics

 Reza Zarrab, 34, a fantastically wealthy and politically connected gold trader with dual Turkish-Iranian citizenship, will complete his transformation from lead defendant to star witness when he takes the stand in federal court on Wednesday.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/reza-zarrab-taking-stand-trial-straining-u-s-turkish-ties-n824751

The reason I put this here is that this dude might say something about Mike Flynn.  That is what peeked Mueller's interest.  The prosecutor has really put the screws on him and he might be singing.

Peachs
Peachs

Been saying that since Flynn wasn’t in that dragnet that indicted Manafort and that crowd.

Paul42
Paul42

Visual_Cortex posted: "I've heard several conservatives posting here and at Kyle's who have brought that up as a primary reason for why they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Doug Jones.

It's because he "supports abortion."

I have never, in all my years here, recalled one single anti-abortion conservative clearly state what they mean by 'supports abortion."

They wander around with sound bites and pejoratives, which intensifies as one attempts to pin them down and get a clear answer.

'Supports abortion' is a topic like any other culture war topic for our cons.  They know what they hate, they just do not know why, how to explain it or give any indication they have a clue what they're talking about.

Paul42
Paul42

I'm guessing JohnnyReb's going to be a one-post wonder on this.

Please, JR, prove me wrong.

honested
honested

@Paul42 

Well of 'coarse', they are 'pro-life'.

Meaning, they want to execute anyone who participates in any abortion.

duh!

JohnnyReb
JohnnyReb

@Paul42

"Supports abortion" means killing a person in the woman's womb for convenience.

Now, you can't state that you have never heard a Con explain it.

Paul42
Paul42

@JohnnyReb
Why do you put the qualifier "for convenience" in there?  (We'll just ignore the 'person' reference for now).

So your explanation means you support abortion when it's not done 'for convenience" correct?

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@Paul42

Oh, they run for the hills when you start pinning them down on how they'd actually implement their insane desire to prevent women from terminating pregnancies, to force women to carry virtually* every pregnancy to term at gunpoint.

They make Usain Bolt look like a slowpoke. 


--

* I'm being kind with the "virtually."

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@JohnnyReb @Paul42

oh, do go on, tell us all just how you would adjudicate what you call "convenience." 

Does the woman have have reported, say, a rape--a LEGITIMATE RAPE, remember!--else she can't get herself no Borshun when she finds out she's preggers a few weeks later?

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@JohnnyReb @Paul42

Maybe there could be a Morality Court when a woman could plead her case, and make y'all conservatives happy by crying and saying "it's not for 'convenience,' I promise, pinkie-swear, cross my sinnin' heart, hope to die!"

Kamchak
Kamchak

@JohnnyReb

 "Supports abortion" means killing a person in the woman's womb for convenience.

Abortion is a legal procedure and the motivation doesn't have to be justified to anyone, least of all you. 

Paul42
Paul42

@Visual_Cortex
Our cons could look to their ideological brothers for that:  Taliban, ISIS, any of the extremists.

RufusATL
RufusATL

@Paul42 @JohnnyReb  Reb made 2 giant leaps here in support of ignorance:  Embryo = "a human or animal in the early stages of development before it is born, hatched, etc."  Therefore, NOT a "person."  The "convenience" part was used because, well, it was sanctimoniously "convenient."


Corey
Corey

@Visual_Cortex @JohnnyReb @Paul42  A friend of mine said emphatically he does not believe in abortion under any circumstance. I asked him about rape? He replied perhaps it was God's intention that the woman get pregnant via rape. I am convinced that some people use their religious beliefs as excuses to stop thinking.

Corey
Corey

@Visual_Cortex @Paul42  Governments, governing policies, and religions are imagined realities. They are manifested through practices and rituals. They are fragile and require constant hard work to keep in place. Often those who seriously inquire about and or suggest that maybe we should look at these imagined realities differently or change them, risk loss of life and limb. Remember, Jesus challenged the religious and governing authorities in his day which resulted in his execution.

Peachs
Peachs

Keep getting in the weeds with innocent babies, and a distain for anybody over, say 16..

straker
straker

Johnny - "impeach Trump.......has faded away"  Oh no, Johnny boy, it has NOT faded away at all. So, just go sit in the corner, have a good cry, and you will feel soooooo much better.

honested
honested

@straker 

Hey, they are convinced there is 'nothing to the russia thing' as well.......

As always, Ignorance Is Strength.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@straker

Pelosi would like it to fade away, though, at least until the midterms are done. She thinks it's a distraction, and she's probably right.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@skydog12 @straker

I think a 25th Amendment removal is a pipe dream. Trump will remain a Useful Idiot for those who need to redistribute money upward for the time at hand.

(I hope that's what you meant by a "swifter measure.")

JohnnyReb
JohnnyReb

@straker

I did state all but die hard Progs which of course includes you straker.

Your leadership does not talk about it anymore and the only reason they have not brought you to reality is your balloon is almost flat already.

honested
honested

@Visual_Cortex @skydog12 @straker 

As was suggested a day or so ago, ryan and mcconnell have him by the short hairs now.

Either he supports whatever the heck they want to do (like the idiot tax plan) or they move quickly to impeachment.

honested
honested

@JohnnyReb @straker 

Why talk about it before the final Mueller report is released.

Let's just hope that happens before next November.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@honested @Visual_Cortex @skydog12 @straker

eh, it's been said before that Trump would support and sign a Chinese take-out menu if it had "Obamacare repeal" or "Tax Cut Cut Cut" scribbled in Sharpie at the top.

He doesn't care what he signs. He just likes to sign his name and get credit for the deal.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex


@JohnnyReb @straker

Your leadership does not talk about it anymore 

When are you going to admit that the leadership NEVER supported it?

You're just making stuff up.