Posted by
voice_of_reason on Sunday, February 08, 2009 11:57:03 AM
Of course, Mr. Obama's was a rhetorical question .. aimed at critics of the proposed 'spending'. The answer that he seeks is "Of course, a stimulus involves spending, duh!"
Our President might want to consult a dictionary. According to Webster, stim·u·lus : something that rouses or incites to activity.
Note to Mr. Obama: results matter. Having the intention to stimulate the economy isn't quite enough. Government spending takes money away from private enterprise -- either in the form of Taxes or Debt. This is the hidden "opportunity cost" of the Stimulus, as currently proposed. Govt spending will yield some benefit, which, no doubt, will be touted by a fawning media looking for a success story to credit Mr. Obama's presidency. However, it lacks the sustaining, multiplicative effect of individual and corporate investment.
Let's all agree that our economy could use a stimulus. The question is what is the best way to achieve an increase in activity. Does an increase in Govt funding, draining the public sector of much needed capital, rouse or incite Americans to activity? Hardly. Did it work in the US during the the 1930s, or in Japan's Lost Decade of the 1990s? This Stimulus plan is very likely to cost us a decade or two of prosperity.
In the liberal echo chamber, people get points for criticizing President Obama for caving in to Republicans (sometimes euphemistically caused 'the courageous Republicans'). But this bill is just plain wrong, despite the compromises offered to obtain the votes of a handful of Republicans (in name only). And, it was written by Pelosi, Reid et al. Bankrupt of any ideas but those that promote welfare-statism (disguised as do-gooder-ism), Democrats rail against "tax cuts for the rich" if anyone suggests that their plan leads to disaster.
Although Republicans have lost their credibility to some extent, blaming the Republicans for this masks (conveniently) the actual problem with the spend-o-rama.
It will not work. This 'solution' will make our current economic problems worse. And, for that reason, THE PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT!
We, the people (or at least 60% of us) realize that this is a boondoggle. President Obama's personal approval ratings notwithstanding, this bill is sinking in the public polls. Does this empower the Republicans (whose record on spending is far from good)? If it does, then is it the Republicans' fault?
Liberals do not understand how we - the American public - could elect a liberal demi-god as POTUS, but reject liberalism when it gapes at us from our widescreen TV sets and uncoils itself on our living room couches.
But why did a center-right electorate elect a Socialist? Perhaps it was the drumbeat of despair that the media inflicted upon us? The constant disparaging of right-leaning individuals, and glorification of left-leaning individuals in the media? In either case, the campaign was personality driven, not ideology driven -- and this is the problem.
Why? Because it is the 'poisoned fruits' of the ideology that we see now .. and 60% of us (including many who admire President Obama personally) are recoiling in horror.
This emperor's garments are spun from the transparent silk of socialism.