Can a Liberal Politicain Accurately Define 'Economic Stimulus?

Define ‘Economic Stimulus’

Once again the liberal politicians are showing their ignorance. They don’t seem to understand the meaning behind passing a bill that is supposed to stimulate the economy. They are still interested mostly in spending money on pet projects, most of which have nothing to do with stimulating the economy.
Here’s a good example.

Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, pointed out that money to monitor volcanoes has nothing to do with stimulating the economy.
The Mayor of Vancouver Washington is insulted, apparently believing that Jindal doesn’t understand the stress of living near a volcano.
I live pretty close to Vancouver’s volcano, Mt. St. Helens. I don’t find it stressful at all. The mountain pretty much did its best in 1984. Since then it has been a tourist attraction that has brought the state millions.
However, that is not the point. The point is that in order to really stimulate the economy, real jobs have to be created. That means jobs that put something into the economy. Real jobs are not continually funded by tax payer money.
Volcano watching will not stimulate the economy; so, it does not belong in the stimulus package.
This does not mean that the volcano should not be watched.
It does mean it shouldn’t be watched with money that is supposed to create jobs that help the economy grow.
How volcano watching is funded should be an entirely separate issue.

This is just an example of the democrats funding anything and everything and calling it ‘economy stimulus’. They are taking their focus off the economy and putting it onto whatever seems like a worthwhile or useful project from their liberal world view.

Their pet projects are placed above the welfare of the nation. A nation of people without jobs really doesn’t care what Mt. St. Helens does. If they take the time to think about it at all, they probably wish the people of the area safety and a job that gives them a way to support their families.

Keep in mind that volcano watching and tourists visiting the area are just spending money that is already in the economy. They are not creating any real wealth. This kind of spending does not stimulate the economy. It is like a silly woman I once knew who, when facing a months worth of bills without money to pay them, went out and spent a small fortune on having her hair and nails done, a new outfit, and a nice dinner out. She felt so much better about herself after that. Of course, all her ‘good feelings’, and ‘positive affirmations’, came to nothing when her electricity was cut off and her car was repossessed. She still didn’t get it. She eventually had to move back home and live with a very difficult mother for a while. I think she got it then.

The thing is, the liberal congress is doing exactly the same thing. They are making a bad situation worse by adding luxuries and unnecessary items onto the so called stimulus package. The package is probably doomed to failure anyway, but why makes it worse? Why drag it out longer than necessary by selfish actions right now?

These spending addicts are trying to change the focus of the voters from the real problem and onto something else. They want to change the voters perception of the problem to something that suits their personal agenda better than actually doing something that stimulates the economy.

In truth, the only thing stimulated by this democrat/rhino spending bill is the tax and spend addiction of the democrats and rhino republicans.

Like all addicts, the best way to overcome an addiction is to stay away from the item to which they are addicted.
An alcoholic should not work in a bar.
A drug addict should not work in a meth lab.
A politician should not work in politics. I know, that sounds like an oxymoron. But think about it. The people we want in politics are people who just tell the truth and do the right thing according to the ten commandments. (And, Yes, it is that simple.) I think that pretty much rules out 95% of the politicians in Washington and high levels of state politics. And that isn’t even taking global politicians into consideration.

Like all addicts, politicians addicted to spending money do not understand that they have a problem.
They need an intervention.
This intervention should be in the form of an election.
All voters who really care about their spending addict politicians should do the right thing for the addicts and vote them out of office.
This requires that the friends and cohorts of the spending addict also admit there is a problem.
Whatever political party you belong too, open your eyes and see the mess the politicians have made. If you want to blame Bush for this economic mess, what do you have to say about the democrat controlled senate and house?
I say no matter what party the politician belongs to, vote against them every chance you get. We need at least 90% new politicians to help the politicians understand that we are fed up with them spending money like they have no accountability.

Whether they win re-election or not, they need to remember that there is a final Judge from whom no one will escape.