For those of you just joining this blog, I have to let you know that I am having an ongoing love affair with John Stossel.
OK, never mind that the affair is completely one-sided, and if John actually knew the extent of my obsession, he would probably shoot me on sight for being a stalker. Luckily for me, I know better than to stake out his home in hopes of catching a glimpse of him. So I have relegated myself to my imaginary love affair from far, far away… like, the Interwebz far.
This basically means that when a particular piece John has written strikes me, I have made a commitment to posting it, because John dares ask the questions that no one else wants to address – that are politically incorrect in an age when it’s gauche to criticize Teh One ™ or imply in any way, shape or form that Bush and his pals were not the only ones responsible for the economic mess we’re in.
For instance, I have written what seems like volumes about the lunacy that is the “stimulus” spending spree. Meanwhile, John Stossel went directly to the horse and pulled answers out of its mouth by asking simple, clear questions. In this case, the horses are House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who upon hearing any criticism of the pork spending spree, pulls out the “every economist in the friggin’ multiverse agrees that stimulus is the way to go” card, and Maxine Waters of the House Finance Committee.
Hoyer conceded that he “overstated the case” when he said every economist endorsed government action.
(translation: he lied like a hog in slop)Wasn’t the bubble caused by too much debt? I asked.
“No doubt about it.”
So the answer is more debt?
“Most economists believe that’s the case.”
This stimulus spending is this going to work?
“I hope so.”
Might it cause hyperinflation?
“We hope it doesn’t. “
Well, I don’t know about you all, but I’m feeling oodles better about the stimulus now! With that kind of confidence, how could I not? Shiny!
“Government can’t sit and just twiddle its fingers,” Rep.
Waters told me. “We have got to interject money into these banks and
these systems that help this economy work.”
How are you going to pay for it?
“We have borrowed money before. We continue to borrow money, but we pay it back.”
We pay it back, eh? As of today, the national debt is $10,959,094,124,678.82. That’s TRILLIONS. Yeah, we’re paying it back alright! And rabid monkeys might fly out of my ass on national television.
No, the more accurate statement is that generations upon generations of our (great x 1000) grandchildren will be paying interest on this debt. Plus the Fed will be printing more money, injecting worthless paper into circulation and diluting the value of our earnings, thereby reducing our purchasing power.
Hey, aren’t you glad you elected these assclowns to run our country?
Mar 11, 2009 @ 16:34:03
Guess what happens when the GDP of the entire country isn’t enough to pay off just the interest on the debt? It’ll be very “exciting.” Maxine Waters – “do something!” politician. The worst kind.
Mar 11, 2009 @ 19:18:32
I’m still trying to find ‘do something’ clause in the Constitution. So far I got nothing.There’s a reason we don’t let children play with matches. The same reasoning needs to be applied to congress and OUR MONEY!
Mar 11, 2009 @ 22:22:49
That clause is implied in the “general welfare” clause which the libtards use to justify every piece of shitty socialist spending, and which really doesn’t mean WELFARE SPENDING!
Mar 12, 2009 @ 01:04:28
“Maxine Waters of the House Finance Committee.”I was going to comment on this post, but my head exploded when I saw this phrase and I’m laying on the floor bleeding to death.
Mar 12, 2009 @ 11:20:04
Dear Annie – I apologize for making your head go “BOOM!” May I offer you a Band-Aid?
Mar 12, 2009 @ 20:25:16
Is there a good way to properly explain that clause and why it absolutely does NOT mean *anything* that they think it does? How do you usually explain what it DOES mean? Perhaps because it’s in the preamble, which merely states the *goals* and the *reason* for the following document, the presice methods of which (providing for the defense, promoting the welfare and securing liberty) are clearly delineated within the document itself?
Mar 12, 2009 @ 20:27:58
Ok, add a belt of whiskey and we’re on.I do also love John Stossell – when he took over 20/20 I was gobsmacked…HOW WERE THEY LETTING HIM DO THAT? No wonder Baba Wawa ran crying with her apron over her head and took refuge on the View set. Who could stand before that guy and keep spouting leftism?I would be totally in love with him myself but he looks a little too much like a 70s porn star, which gives me pause lol.