Skip to content

Stimulus That Doesn’t Stimulate, Avoiding Bankruptcy By Going Bankrupt, and Other Things That Accomplish Goals By Not Accomplishing Goals

July 17, 2009

The latest buzz out of the Ministry of Truth is enough to make any sane person’s head explode, which is probably why liberals dig it so much.

It seems that stimulus wasn’t really intended to “stimulate” anything at all.  As it turns out, we really might have been better off putting the money in a pile an burning it for warmth–except that wouldn’t have grown bureaucracy and pandered to special interest groups.  Here’s a taste of what Obama said in January about the dire state of the economy and the desperate need for porkulus:

I don’t believe it’s too late to change course, but it will be if we don’t take dramatic action as soon as possible.  If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years.  The unemployment rate could reach double digits. [Author’s note: we’re just about there.]  Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity, which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four.  We could lose a generation of potential and promise, as more young Americans are forced to forgo dreams of college or the chance to train for the jobs of the future.  And our nation could lose the competitive edge that has served as a foundation for our strength and standing in the world…

There is no doubt that the cost of this plan will be considerable.  It will certainly add to the budget deficit in the short-term.  But equally certain are the consequences of doing too little or nothing at all, for that will lead to an even greater deficit of jobs, incomes, and confidence in our economy.  It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe.  Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy – where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit.

So at least at some point in time–before the Obama administration began trying to wash their failure down the memory hole–stimulus spending was indeed called “stimulus spending”.

Vice President Biden clearly elucidated the brilliant reasoning behind crippling deficit spending earlier in the day.  In the “How in the Hell Does That Work, Exactly?” category, Biden explained how bankruptcy could cure bankruptcy thus:

“And folks look, AARP knows and the people with me here today know, the president knows, and I know, that the status quo is simply not acceptable,” Biden said at the event on Thursday in Alexandria, Va. “It’s totally unacceptable. And it’s completely unsustainable. Even if we wanted to keep it the way we have it now. It can’t do it financially.”

“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.

“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that’s what I’m telling you.”

Actually, people look at you and think, “Which circus did this guy escape from?”.  But I digress.

So impressed am I with this Wittgenstein’s logic that I have enough legislative initiative ideas in the hopper to create a virtual cottage industry out of similarly inspired conclusions, such as my “Smoke More to Avoid Lung Cancer” initiative, or my “Have More Unprotected Sex to Cure STDs” plan.  I’m fairly certain that–following the Veep’s logic–these are surefire ideas.

Isn’t it odd that the same people who donned sackcloth and sprinkled ashes on their heads over Bush’s deficit spending now seem perfectly content to let President Obama spend us into debilitating hyperinflation and ultimately, bankruptcy?  It raises the intriguing possibility that maybe it was never deficit spending at issue; rather, liberals were incensed about who was doing the deficit spending.  Bush’s deficits weren’t designed to pander to groups historically loyal to Democrats, hence they were eeeeeevil.  President Obama’s…not so much.

Perhaps maybe one day we can get liberals on record stating as much.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: