Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

The success of the failed stimulus explained, sort of

luvleedvillemami photobucket

The New York Times editorial has proclaimed Obama's stimulus a success to no ones surprise and to most people who live in the real world, amusement. It's been a long time since anyone has taken this page seriously, but not of course the unthinking cult that is now the state of American liberalism. The paper is simply a shill for the administration that doesn't vary, not only in its distorted reasoning, but from the very words it uses to describe its nonsense.

And when it made it's proclamation about the stimulus' success it didn't even do that right. For one thing the stimulus "fell short of its goals". That's right. The stimulus fell short of its goals yet somehow it worked just fine. And since it fell short it was...

...roundly ridiculed by Republicans and inadequately defended by Democrats, who should have trumpeted its success, the president’s stimulus plan is now widely considered a stumble.

Let's do a tiny bit of reasoning here. We all experience the economy. So if the stimulus were a success, we ought to know it from experience, right? Stay with me liberals, I'm trying to help you out here. Are people so incredibly dumb that they could "widely consider" the thing a failure in spite of what they are seeing in their day-to-day lives? Are Republicans that influential, or are you guys going to backtrack on another meme in that the Republicans are discredited by the general public?

Yet the Times editorial, just like the tortured logic of liberalism in general, can't promote the idea without getting in its own way. The stimulus "fell short of its goals", "widely considered a stumble", and best of all admits that the "post-stimulus" economy went sour but that's the Republicans fault:

This enabled Republicans to champion an austerity policy that produced deep reductions in discretionary spending, undoing many of the gains begun in 2009. The result has been a post-stimulus recovery that remains weak and struggling, undermining an economic legacy that should be seen as a remarkable accomplishment.

Yea that's right, the Republicans with their austerity, it hurt the economy. What austerity? Okay, you're a lib reading this. What, don't look to the Internet, right off the top of your head, tell yourself what austerity measures that were passed by the congress and signed by the president (which would make him a co-conspirator)? Don't bother, the answer is none. You should have picked that up when they said the Republicans "champion"ed austerity, they didn't pass it.

So what does this silly little paper point to when it comes to success? Well, they just repeat what the administration had to say about it. The usual unfalsifiable huckster points that it "saved jobs" and that it "prevented a second recession". Another point is that it created, oh, and "saved" 1.6 million jobs in 4 years. This paper hated Reagan when he created that many in one month. But such is the thinking of a cult pretending to be an ideology. I feel sorry for the dead fish that have to wrapped in this thing tomorrow.

Report this ad