Look for McClintock in This Nasty Bit of Propaganda

Below is the trailer for a new movie about to be released, called “I Want Your Money.”

Apparently it wants your brain too, or assumes it already has it, because — if you can believe Josh Marchall’s Talking Points Memo, which has done an advanced screening — it won’t stand up to much fact-checking:

The most egregious omission is failing to mention that Ronald Reagan, who is depicted as a fiscal hero in the film, raised taxes.

An animated Reagan lectures Obama through most of the film, as the president is portrayed as arrogant and unwilling to entertain anything other than a socialist vision of government. At one point, Reagan offers Obama a snack but Obama puts his feet up on his Oval Office desk and lights up a cigarette.

Look for our own Tom McClintock at aboout 1 min 30 seconds into this trailer. He says: “We all know from our own experience that if you live beyond your means today, by necessity you’ll have to live below your means tomorrow.”

As usual, ideologue McClintock ignores the difference between personal and national finance, and ignores the lesson of the role of government spending in lifting the US out of the depression/recession of the 1930s, a classic example of a Keynesian stimulus …  needed now more than ever.

Here’s the trailer. Watch it so you don’t have to watch the movie:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


5 Responses to “Look for McClintock in This Nasty Bit of Propaganda”
  1. RL Crabb says:

    This is just one more indication that our freshman congressman is becoming a rock star in the conservative sphere. Looks as if his stature will only grow if the Repubs gain control of the House in January. Better stock up on Tums, he’ll be giving liberals ulcers for years to come.

  2. Jeff Pelline says:

    Thanks Don. It’s an LOL squared!

  3. Anna Haynes says:

    > “[Tom McClintock said] if you live beyond your means today, by necessity you’ll have to live below your means tomorrow.”

    Ecologically speaking, he’s right. It’s called “overshoot”.

  4. Don Pelton says:

    Anna said:
    >Ecologically speaking, he’s right. It’s called “overshoot”.

    As I see it, “overshoot” in the ecological realm is not like “debt” in the economic realm, which can be carried for a while then paid back (as in the WWII war spending that helped lift us from the Depression, then got repaid in subsequent boom times).

    “Overshoot” generally refers to some element of an ecosystem that overdraws its sustainable share of resources (as when a population explodes … you might say the current human population on earth is a case of overshoot).

    I don’t find “overshoot” analogous to a fiscal stimulus that helps lift an economy out of a recession, then gets paid back through the natural course of subsequent increased economic activity.

    So, I’d say, “economically speaking” — and he was speaking economically, not ecologically — McClintock was wrong.

  5. Anna Haynes says:

    Yes, you have a point; I was just hoping that if McClintock could grasp this concept in the economic realm, perhaps he’d be able to grasp it in the ecological realm.

Speak Your Mind (You Must Use Your Real Name)

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!