Back during the 1990s, President Clinton cleverly began to refer to his spending initiatives as “investments.” He obviously hoped that voters could somehow be tricked into supporting bigger government by playing a bait-and-switch game with words.
Since the burden of federal spending fell significantly during the Clinton years, I’m not sure he was successful in his efforts.
But he did win reelection in 1996, and that may be why President Obama has adopted the same tactic, using some derivation of “invest” about ten times in his big speech last week.
If that sounds like overkill, the good news is that he didn’t use the term as much as he did in 2011. He was so repetitive that year that Chuck Asay produced this cartoon. Needless to say, it is equally funny when applied to this year’s speech.
I’ve stated before that Chuck Asay is a great cartoonist. If you want to see more of his work, click here, here and here.
[…] Copying Obama and referring to subsidies and handouts as being an “investment” doesn’t make bigger government a wise use of other people’s money. […]
[…] particularly since politicians are talking about the need for more “investment,” which is a common rhetorical trick used by politicians who want to squander more […]
[…] since politicians are talking about the need for more “investment,” which is a common rhetorical trick used by politicians who want to squander more […]
[…] you want to see more of Chuck Asay’s great cartoons, click here, here, here, […]
[…] Some Belated State-of-the-Union Humor […]
[…] via:Some Belated State-of-the-Union Humor « International Liberty Top Links var _CI = _CI || {}; (function() { var script = document.createElement('script'); ref = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; _CI.counter = (_CI.counter) ? _CI.counter + 1 : 1; document.write(''); script.type = 'text/javascript'; script.src = 'http://widget.crowdignite.com/widgets/3047?_ci_wid=_CI_widget_'+_CI.counter; script.async = true; ref.parentNode.insertBefore(script, ref); })(); Powered by Crowd Ignite (function(){function a(){var s=document.createElement("script");s.type="text/javascript";s.async=true;s.src="http://contentwidgets.net/widget/9HoP3J";var x=document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0];x.parentNode.insertBefore(s,x);}a();})(); Blog this! Bookmark on Delicious Digg this post Recommend on Facebook Share on fark Share on Linkedin share via Reddit Share with Stumblers Share on technorati Tumblr it Tweet about it Buzz it up Subscribe to the comments on this post Print for later Bookmark in Browser Tell a friend Share this:EmailPrintShareStumbleUponFacebookDiggReddit […]
[…] you want to see more of Chuck Asay’s great cartoons, click here, here, here, […]
“These are not the droids you’re looking for”. This is not the economy that your senses tell you it is. Come to the dark side.
There is little doubt that the U.S. and coalition presence in Afghanistan have inflated the cost of goods and services there. Much of the fiscal planning in Afghanistan assumes that once the U.S. leaves, a resulting decrease in the price of goods and services will make the foreign aid dollars we provide stretch much further than they ever would with the U.S. in the country. This seems like a double-edged sword as rapid deflation can crush an economy better than anything. Can you post some analysis and prognostication on this situation? Maybe then I’ll forgive the Dawgs for whipping my Gators last October. . . then again. . .