Alright, with the serious talks of fiscal cliffs and treachery in Benghazi, I think it’s
time for a little levity. While we still have important issues to discuss, the rambling nonsense that has been coming out of Georgia Democratic Congressman Hank Johnson is always good for a laugh.
Yesterday was a big day for the Congressman who once famously claimed that he was concerned that Guam would “tip over” and capsize. Though he seemed to have only the slightest, tenuous grasp on economics, Johnson described the value of “circulating” money to help the poor and also entertained us as he gave a rambling speech about his previous use of the “M-word” in a manner that seethed with the coherency of thought only normally found in a discussion between Ozzy Osbourne and Gary Busey.
In an animated fashion, Johnson explained,
“We all do better when the money is circulating. Those up on the top end they’re going to continue to make money. But those who are just working people and those who aspire for the middle class when that money is circulating then we can all collectively become more wealthy and we will all spend more dollars. And that means more goods and services that have to be produced and that means that you have to have people employed to service the needs of the wealthy.”
Alright, I can’t honestly confess to understand his point entirely, but from what I can gather, the man seemed to indicate that we shouldn’t worry about the rich- they’re fine. That we should make sure we circulate money.
I agree. We shouldn’t encourage people to sit on their money, we should encourage business expansion that creates jobs that puts money in the pockets of workers that buy things from companies. However, in order to do that, Democrats have to stop looking to punish success. How we “circulate” that money is by allowing businesses to grow, not by taking that money to give to others.
But wait, there’s more Hank to come…
After first arguing that right-to-work laws are, in fact, “crush the union” legislation, Johnson discussed the ever-changing American acceptance of vernacular and lamented his own “ignorance” in using the “M-word.” What is the “M-word,” you ask? Fair question. Based on the long, odd description, it seems Johnson is upset for having said, “midgets.”
“Just within the last twelve hours or so, I have found that the use of the midget, excuse me, the use of the m-word is no longer socially acceptable. Now, the m-word refers to a group of people–the little people.
But when we say little people, I am not talking about the Leona Helmsley little people. I am not talking about the 47 percent. I’m not talking about the takers instead of the makers, as some would describe them. I am not talking about the middle class, working people, poor people, working poor people. That is not what is meant by the little people term.
It really refers to a medical condition. Dwarfism is the name of that medical condition. Sometimes, I guess, one can even say abnormally small people, abnormally small people, which to me is, I like that term better than dwarfism. So, I wanted to say to all of those who may have been offended by my use of the term–the ‘m-word’–I want you to know that it was out of ignorance and not spite or hatred that I used that term.”
I… I truly don’t know what to say to that. But, hearing this meandering nonsense does make it a little more clear as to why there’s not much getting done in Congress in terms of our economy. They’re too busy discussing the emotional odyssey of coming to terms with understanding and embracing the preferred terms of little people.