Filed under: Economy, Liberalism, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear, Politics, The Constitution | Tags: Liberal lies, Taxes
And here we have President Barack Obama pushing a bright economic future and recommending the stock market that he has pushed down to disastrous levels — in the long term. Here’s Rich Lowry in the New York Post:
When President Barack Obama wanted to push an $800 billion “stimulus” or “recovery” bill through Congress a few weeks ago; he thought an atmosphere of economic crisis helped his cause. So he repeatedly warned of “catastrophe,” of “a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.”
Only a week later, Obama moved on to his next priority. He proposed a vast federal budget that will spend $3,600,000,000,000 next year and $5,300,000,000,000 more in the next 10 years than the Congressional Budget Office was projecting just last year.
To get the money for this huge explosion of the budget, Obama makes the assumption that the economy will be recovering at a nice clip next year, at a 3.2 percent annual rate. Rich Lowry asks:
What happened to the looming cataclysm?
The “recovery package” passed, and its passage has suddenly brightened the future of the economy. Isn’t that wonderful?
But how can an extra $220 billion in extra government spending in 2010 make the difference between irreversible catastrophe and comfortable growth in a $14 trillion economy? Of course, it can’t. Obama was exaggerating the crisis two weeks ago so he could get more spending, and now he’s exaggerating the upside, so he can get more spending. The object is a vastly expanded government, and spending is more important to him than either recovery or financial health.
I write these numbers out with all their zeroes just to impress you. I hope that they do.
P.S. Did you notice that our mathematically challenged President referred to the “Profit – Earnings relationship?” Can we say price-earnings ratio?
1 Comment so far
Leave a comment