STIMULUS is one of those neutral, unexceptional words that is suddenly appropriated by politicians and debauched, so that ever after it will have connotations that are sinister, ironic and sleaze-ridden. Barack Obama's "stimulus" plan will be long remembered as the occasion when political euphemism triggered economic disaster.read more here (http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/comment/Gerald-Warner-Obama39s-pork-barrel.4982005.jp)
There is no terminology available to express adequately the appalling irresponsibility of this naked political banditry. To have squandered a fraction of the near-$1 trillion cost of Obama's pork barrel in days of prosperity would have been more than reprehensible; to do so at a time of financial crisis is unforgivable. Obama likes to pose as the heir of Abraham Lincoln: as this shameless bribery demonstrates, he is heir only to the Chicago Democrat political machine that spawned him.
Where is the stimulus to the economy from throwing $6bn at colleges and universities, many of which, unlike their British counterparts, already have billion-dollar endowments? Or in throwing $1bn at Amtrak, a railway re-enactment society that will appeal only to those nostalgic for the masochistic pleasures of British Railways? Or in the more modest $100m being squandered on reducing lead-based paint? ...
The plummeting support for Obama's confidence trick – down to 37% in one poll – suggests that they do care. They will care even more when they see this toxic package within the context of America's overall indebtedness. That context is what makes the difference between writing off the stimulus as a piece of irresponsible, but ultimately affordable, Keynesian self-indulgence and recognising it as a supreme act of folly.
Firstly, there is the poisoned heritage from the Republicans. The Bush administration, in its last six years, ratcheted up deficits totalling $3.35 trillion. No wonder these pseudo-conservatives were repudiated by their voters. All the more reason for Obama, the new broom, to shame their memory with a policy of fiscal frugality. Instead, he has committed himself to programmes that will record a cumulative budget deficit of $8.4 trillion by 2017.
Did Obama and the dems misread the electorate?
Voters rejected the GOP for its lapses AWAY from conservative economics, not because of conservative economic theory itself.I disagree. He is a painfully stupid man, away from his handlers and his teleprompter. He has some street clever, but that is about it.
Did Obama and the dems misread the electorate?
I don't think so because they ran on a campaign of eleminating wasteful spending, pork, etc. And we must admit, even if grudgingly, that Obama is not a stupid man.
That is what heightens my fears that this is not foolish spending but the prelude to a legislative coup of sorts. I see this episode as more sinister than naive.
why taint the image of the Bacon Explosion with a comparison to that steaming pile of legislation?