September 17, 2009

Signs, Signs, Everywhere A Sign…

…at the taxpayer’s expense, wherein the Democrats are misleading the American people (not a bad deal, bullshit people and make them pay for it!) about how the “Stimulus” is working.

They’re spending hundreds of billions of dollars to stimulate the economy, so Senate Democrats said Wednesday they might as well spend millions putting up signs to highlight where the money is being spent.

The road signs, which let motorists know the paving and construction projects they see are being paid for by the $787 billion economic stimulus program, have popped up across the country. In a 52-45 vote, the Senate decided the signs should stay.

Sure, why not? It’s just the taxpayer’s money, right? “Spend, spend, spend!” as the liberal credo goes.

“Why on earth would you want to hide from the American people the fact that the recovery package we passed is putting people to work?” asked Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, who took the lead in defending the expenditure. She said stimulus spending is beginning to improve the economy and charged that Republicans and Democrats who voted to strip out the funds are angry about that success.

“It’s my sense that there’s a frustration by the people who voted ‘no’ on the economic recovery act, the stimulus bill, there’s a frustration that it’s working. They predicted gloom and doom,” Mrs. Boxer said.

Campaigning at the expense of working Americans seems to be an institution that has really gained traction among Democrats of late, but then, it seems that the Obama Administration has set the stage for a new kind of government — kind of like one that can bill us for their spam and junk mail, a “we will like it!”

But Sen. Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican who tried to excise the funds, called his amendment a no-brainer. He said it’s common sense to get rid of tens of millions of dollars in spending.

“These are self-congratulatory signs; they’re political signs. They’re so that lawmakers can pat themselves on the back,” he said. “But these signs cost money. Actually, when you add them all up, they cost a lot of money.”

Some localities have objected to the signs, arguing that they would rather spend the money on more projects. But Mr. Gregg said one community in New Hampshire was told no sign, no money for their original project.

Emphasis mine.

In the states’ rights department,

Also Wednesday, senators voted against allowing states to determine their own transportation funding priorities, such as repairing deficient bridges. A day earlier, the Senate voted against an effort by Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, to drop all of the pork-barrel earmark projects from the $67.7 billion transportation and housing spending bill and use the $1.7 billion slated for earmarks to modernize the nation’s air traffic control system instead.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, thanks largely to the liberals on the Hill, this country has come full circle, back to the same state of affairs good men died kicking out of here back in the 1770s.


Mr. Gregg acknowledged that this effort was as much a message as a cost-saving move. His amendment to the annual transportation spending bill would have banned putting up physical signs to tout stimulus transportation projects.

Five Democrats — Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Charles E. Schumer of New York — voted with all 40 Republicans to try to strip the money, but their support was not enough.

With typical dumbass, idiotic, mares-eat-oats, shallowbrained, downright stupid, aimed-at-the-gullible liberal reasoning,

Mrs. Boxer called the effort “anti-jobs” and said the signs are an example of government transparency.

Methinks this is time, once again, to recall a quote by a commenter at a blog I used to visit about 6 years ago: “Arguing with a liberal is like standing in a bucket and trying to pick yourself up by the handle.”

Trackback URL for this post:

6 Responses to “Signs, Signs, Everywhere A Sign…”

  1. The Gray Monk Says:

    Interesting. It is now generally recognised that the “Spend our way out of the Depression” policies of the 1930’s actually prolonged the agony by introducing inflationary pressure and raising taxes to pay for the bureaucracy that it brought with it.

    To argue with a Liberal you have to be prepared to accept that “Black” is “white” and morality is whatever the current prejudice of the Liberal in question is.

  2. Seth Says:

    Gray Monk –

    The political left in this country is bound and determined to spend us into oblivion, the majority of their spending of the taxpayer’s hard earned money spent almost entirely on political agendas rather than on things that will be of any actual benefit to said taxpayers.

    The liberals whose goal it is to force this on us, that is, the ones who are actually in the position to make anything happen, are all financially situated so that what they impose on the rest of us need not effect them in any way — of course, their gullible constituents, followers and fans, in lemminglike manner, recite their bumper-sticker mantras and vote accordingly, not having a clue as to what they are bringing upon themselves as well as the rest of us.

    Talk about irresponsible voters…

    If it were up to me, we would ship all those liberals off to France, where they belong! :-)

  3. BB-Idaho Says:

    Now, Seth…La Gaulle doit être meilleure que le côté de murkey de la grande pomme. :)

  4. Seth Says:

    BB –

    French (spit!)

    My frog’s limited, but I tried my best with this, and I was not able to figure out more than half of it, so I then tried an online French (spit!) - English dictionary, and the result made even less sense.

    No wonder there are no French military victories in modern history, dag nabbit! Those surrenderists over there can’t even string a decent sentence together!

    In fact, in three different dictionaries,

    Le mot Gaulle n’a pas été trouvé. :-(

  5. NH Meri Wido Says:

    BB I’m not sure just what it means (I must be the not-to-bright red-headed step child) but after running the foriegn phrase through (no less then 4) translation sites kept coming up with the following…”Gaulle must be better than the side of murkey of large apple”…please enlighten me as to it’s meaning/reference/or whatever in relation to the commentary….thanks bunches!

  6. Seth Says:

    NH Meri Wido –

    Somehow the translation didn’t come out right when BB tried the transformation using on-line computerized means, a typical case of “Man vs Computer”. I think the ‘e’ added in “murky” kind of confused the durn contraption as well.

    How I long for the days of rotary dial phones, when the only place we saw computers was in a Sci-Fi movie!