Saturday, February 7, 2009

Stimulus

I am very entertained by the back and forth between parties regarding the stimulus plan Obama is trying to get passed. The GOP is raving about the money that is being spent stating that spending the money that adds to our outrageous deficit is unconscionable. But did we not rack up quite a bill in the last presidency? The GOP blaming Obama for spending is like criticizing someone for how they clean up a mess you made. Hmm, I need to find a better explanation, because I in no way believe the GOP was solely at fault for the mess we are in, though it was their president who oversaw the disaster.

I think the GOP has lost all credibility as we have watched the original bailout money go out and we all know how that ended up. Well, at least with some of it, since there wasn't a lot of accountability and there are millions (if not billions) of dollars that has gone missing.

The next time we just hand money out to greedy crooks, it should go more like this: "You give me your bills and I will write the checks for them. And because I am such a nice person, I will even pay for postage."

16 comments:

Katy said...

What do you think of Obama denying $$ to schools that practice religion in some form...like christian clubs etc?

EmperorDarTea said...

I see no actual proof anywhere that Obama has done anything of the sort. None! It's a bunch of bullshit stirred up (and then ditto-headed) to push ideas and a negative and deceitful political agenda. An agenda that serves only the small few that have decided to lie to try get what they want AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS.

Read the stimulus package, and then read the constitution of the United States, and you will see that the wording in the stimulus package accurately reflects the intent and wording of the constitution.

So what do I think of "Obama denying $$ to schools that practice religion in some form..like christian clubs etc? I think you need to show me proof of that." If you can, I'll happily eat my words. If you can't, you need to reveal where you heard such nonsense and why you bought into their lies. Fair?

EmperorDarTea said...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200902080007

...and the truth shall set you free!

Katy said...

First of all, I find it a bit ironic that you tell me to go to the stimulus package and the constitution, THEN give me a source like Media Matters and tell me proudly that “the truth will set me free.” The TRUTH, EmperorDarTea, is not in a liberal funded “watch dog” news source like Media Matters and it’s also not in a news source like Fox. I am aware of that. It is hard to find real truth in any news source these days. On that, I’m sure we can agree.

Moving on.I very much like sourcing the actual constitution and the stimulus package, so let’s do that.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."-US Constitution

(C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities --

(i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or

(ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission; or

The issue is that the wording contained in section (i) could easily be argued in a court of law to exclude any facility in which any of those things happen.

In section (ii), it expressly mentions “substantial portion” indicating the ability to use the facility for religious use by a student group without excluding the building from renovation using the supplied money. However, section (i) has no such “substantial portion” piece in the wording. It simply excludes any facility used for those purposes regardless of overall intent of the facility.

To the untrained eye this may seem innocuous, but it is in fact either extremely poorly worded, or a direct assault on the ability for those organizations to exist within any school that gets money. For example, a school that has a religious student group would now need to dedicate a building to that function, and no funding would be allowed for said building.

Katy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Katy said...

Cont...

Now, let’s compare the stimulus package to the constitution. You say “The wording in the stimulus package accurately reflects the intent and wording of the constitution.” I think it’s pretty ambiguous at best. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”


If you’re going to word a bill where half the country assumes he must be referring to the part of the constitution where it states “respecting an establishment of religion” ie: I’m not gong to give money to a school that practices religion because that would assume I’m favoring religion and therefore violating the separation between church and state, than you have to also word it where the other half of the country doesn’t automatically assume that it’s worded to “Prohibit the free exercise thereof.” Correct?

On a side note. I very much enjoy discussing topics such as these, but I very much don't like the holier than thou attitude you clearly take when you say "If you can't, you need to reveal where you heard such nonsense and why you bought into their lies." You're clearly suggesting I'm the type of person who is easily manipulated into believing what I hear on the news. That couldn't be further from the truth. I'm not Pro-Obama, I'm not a religious Christian right wing conservative, hell, I'm not even Christian and I'm not a bleading heart liberal either. I AM for keeping our president and our government in check. That's what my initial statement/question was all about.

witticism here said...

There is no money being shorted MPS and we have a Christian club, and other faith based clubs. MPS has never provided funds for the LDS seminary building.

Are you talking about religious schools like Catholic schools? They are usually privatized.

EmperorDarTea said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EmperorDarTea said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EmperorDarTea said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
parchedsongbird said...

Wow.

That was immature.

Katy said...

I had an initial statement about Obama's stimulus package and the wording of it. I'm not saying that any money HAS been shorted to schools who have christian clubs. It was advertised that that's what the stim. package was announcing which created an uproar. I'm in no way endorsing that message or saying it's wrong or right. I believe the problem is the poor wording. One side is going to take it one way and the other, the opposite way. I hope for the sake of everyone that no money is shorted to any school that has a religious club of any sort meet on campus. I'm not talking about Seminary buildings or any institution seperate from the school system. Those are private and I believe in no way associated with the school itself.

I'm aware I "went off" a bit. I just took offense to the fact that someone basicly told me that I believe a bunch of bullshit, told me that the truth would set me free, pointed me to a bias website etc. Call it immature if you like. I'll own a little bit of that :)

I had a passionate response. I'll try to limit those rants in the future if it makes everyone more comfortable.

witticism here said...

(Get your cringes ready for a cliched moment)

These are tough times and people are really worked up and rightly so. When it comes down to it, our government is in uncharted territory...the blind leading the blind.

I am pleased when people engage in conversations regarding social and political issues because it means involvement, something most are lacking. However, let's not get involved with taking each other down.

EmperorDarTea said...

I will only say that I took exception to Katy's original comment. There is no evidence that President Obama has ever suggested denying monies to schools that practice religion in some form. Laying this (false) claim at his feet is highly partisan and directly taken from the GOP talking points -- the same points Fox News spews in an effort to discredit a President that is actually taking steps to help our country amidst a sea of Republicans hell bent on doing nothing but obstructing his efforts. The GOP exploits the convoluted nature of how legislation is written in order to concoct a horror story based on blatant misrepresentation about what it actually says, then send out a press release claiming Christian victimization and threatening to sue, the story gets picked up by right-wing news sites like Fox, and eventually garners support from the Religious Right's allies on Capitol Hill who do their bidding.


Obama did not author the stimulus package, he did not sponsor the package, he did none of those things. Moreover, the language in the stimulus package Katy refers to is standard boilerplate language that has been included in many bills since 1972 when the supreme court interpreted the constitution to mean exactly what the language in the bill says.

Ironic that in the past few days Obama went the other way and signed an executive order that creates a religious advisory group, funded by the government, to ostensibly provide input to the government in policy making. I don't agree he has a right to do so and would argue that action vehemently too.

Again Katy...I see no actual proof that Obama is even suggesting we deny money to schools that practice religion in some form like christian clubs. I do see plenty of proof that FoxNews thinks he is doing so...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,489264,00.html

Either you are a dittohead as I asserted, or you are independently (and equally) harmful. Either way...show me the money.

"Obama denying $$ to schools that practice religion in some form...like christian clubs etc.?" PROVE IT OR RETRACT IT.

EmperorDarTea said...

Jim Demint (Republican, SC) actually said the following on the floor of the Senate about the provisions we are arguing about.

This is a provision "that would make sure students could never talk openly and honestly about their faith ... what this means is that students can't meet together in their dorms if that dorm has been repaired with federal money and have a prayer group or a Bible study. They can't get together in their student centers. They can't have a commencement service where a speaker talks about their personal faith." ... Student groups would be banned and "classes on world religions and religious history, academic studies of religious texts could be banned ... Someone is so hostile to religion that they are willing to stand in the schoolhouse door, like the infamous George Wallace, to deny people of faith from entering into any campus building renovated by this bill. This cannot stand!"

Here are two new questions. Can we ALL agree that you cannot interpret the language in the stimulus package to mean anything of the sort? Can we ALL agree that the fact that not one Senator stood in opposition to such crap is absolutely pathetic. In fact, when DeMint introduced a bill to strip the language from the bill, ALL 37 REPUBLICANS, voted in agreement with this nut case. NOT ONE REPUBLICAN DISAGREED WITH HIS CLAIMS? UNBELIEVABLE.

Look...I don't have any issues with ideological differences...I even think it is good and healthy. What disturbs me the most about politics today is twofold.

First, I absolutely abhor the intentionally spreading of falsehoods and outright lies to achieve a political goal. Don't tell me you are an American if you cannot rely on the actual truth to push your agenda.

Second, I am very concerned that the GOP has united behind an obstructionist agenda. No GOP support for anything Obama suggests cannot be attributed 100% to ideological differences...things are not that black and white. I personally believe that the GOP needs to stand for something more than stopping the Democrats -- maybe they can stand for their constituents? The GOP is gambling everything on the failure of Obama and they do so at great risk. It is a mistake to underestimate this man.

EmperorDarTea said...

can be attributed* is what I should have said...oops

you see Katy, I can be wrong too ;-)