Eske Esquire wrote:
Aye. I don't see an issue here. He was most likely using the term to express that he viewed such spending as a means of gaining a future return. Doesn't the usage of "investment" do a better job of conveying that idea than "spending" does? You can't convey the same idea by saying "spending" unless you elaborate to say "I think that spending money now will help our economy in the future." And then you're right back to saying "invest", except less succinctly.
Sure. Remember, my original point was that I was amused to see the buzz on the right about the use of the word "investment" and the comparison to the meaning of "spending", when I've been making that same observation for years (long before Obama came on the scene, so this isn't specific to him at all). Obama does seem to double down on its use though.
Obviously, the use of the word is going to be subjective, but I guess the question is whether someone is applying the use of the word investment to something because it's an investment, or is applying it because he wants people to view it as an investment instead of regular old spending. My broader observation is that Democrats tend to do the latter a whole lot. Everything becomes an investment. And to be fair, you *can* view almost any government expense as an investment, if you want to.
But then that begs the question I asked earlier: What then is the distinction? If every dollar spent on education, or infrastructure, or energy, or medical research, or darn near anything is an "investment in our future", then doesn't the word just lose meaning? Hence, the analogy to the boy who cried wolf. If you call everything an investment, then at some point people stop seeing an "investment" as anything special. At least when you say it.
Quote:
I mean, yeah, it's obvious that he's trying to lean on the positive connotation of the word. But he's trying to sell an idea that he honestly believes will benefit the country. That's a large, accepted portion of politics. So why harp about his usage?
/shrug
It's subjective, but I honestly don't think he believes that the spending will benefit the country in the traditional meaning of an "investment". I suspect that he believes the spending will benefit the country in other ways, but not that one. Or perhaps the better way to phrase it is that the return on the investment that he expects isn't the same one that most Americans assume. Americans assume that an investment will mean that there will be increased productivity potential down the line as a result of the initial spending, which will in turn bring about greater economic prosperity. But in many cases, the objective of the spending that Obama supports isn't to return greater economic prosperity, but to achieve some other goal like reduce carbon emissions, or equalize economic outcomes across the population, or equalize medical care, or change people's views on various subjects such that his party will be more successful in the future.
Those are likely not the same returns most people want. From a Conservative perspective at least, spending on social programs primarily returns dependence on social programs. That's what you are investing in really. I have nothing against government spending on science, and usable infrastructure, but it's amazing how often that science research lately gets funneled into politically sensitive areas (like global warming or sociology), and how often infrastructure doesn't mean things that will make future industry more productive, but magically happen to push a model of population management that fits into socialist models (like promising high speed rail availability for 80% of the population).
It's not just about the word choice. It goes well beyond that IMO.
Quote:
All of these concerns of yours would exist regardless of the terms that he used to describe them. You can perfectly well disagree with his beliefs and policies, but your issue with his word usage is unfounded.
The terms make the disagreement worse though. It's like if you hate tacos, so your parents talk you into eating "ethnically diverse meals" on the grounds that you should be exposed to more types of foods, but every time they do this, you get served tacos. At some point, you realize that when you parents say that they really mean "tacos", and don't really want you to experience diversity at all.
It's kinda like that. Yeah. I went with a food analogy. Kill me! :)
Quote:
Quote:
The public has become sick of "investments" into things they don't want...
Who doesn't want infrastructure, education, energy, and research?
People who have realized that when Obama talks about infrastructure, he means high speed rails which no one wants. And when he talks about education, he means putting more money into the hands of teachers unions, and political organizations which "educate" the public, but don't have anything to do with making our children more able to obtain jobs (like all the money he spent on the CAC). And when he talks about energy, he really means putting money into boondoggles like carbon sequestration, and subsidies for alternative energies that can't compete with the ones we have. And when he talks about research, he means yet more scientists on the government payroll to tell us that we need cap and trade systems to fight global warming.
Those are the people who have become sick of hearing those words.
