"Most socialists are not about economic prosperity. Oh, they'll use Keynesian theory that deficit spending stimulates economic growth to justify their demand for more government expenditures. But in the end, Obama's 'stimulus' package wasn't even fair to John Maynard Keynes. Don't get me wrong; the obscene forced federal expenditures wouldn't have succeeded in stimulating the economy even if Obama had used them for that purpose. But he didn't, and it is pretty hard to deny in hindsight that he never intended to. Before he commandeered the $868 billion, he assured us it would go to shovel-ready jobs and get people back to work again. It was only after the fact that he cynically laughed in our faces about the unavailability of such jobs. (He's doing the same thing all over again with his latest jobs bill.) Despite his promise that he would strictly account for this money and watchdog against its waste, he threw gobs of it away to locations with phantom ZIP codes, to ACORN-like political allies, to unions and to corrupt environmental wastelands, such as Solyndra. There was no private-sector economic multiplier effect for any of Obama's stimulus expenditures. The only multiplier effect in this and his other spending bills was in the public sector. Obama furtively tucked into these bills many perpetually sustaining federal programs that would remain with us, continue to grow and further choke the private sector. Thus, if you measure Obama's promise of hope and change against his true intention, he might well be succeeding. As one who believes that America's free market is unfair, he has gone a long way toward shaking up that structure -- and he's not even close to being finished." --columnist David Limbaugh <http://patriotpost.us/opinion/david-limbaugh/2011/09/23/obamas-hope-and-change-promise-reconsidered>
"As its own contribution to the end of the world as we know it, the Obama administration has just released a document called 'Living Within Our Means And Investing In The Future: The President's Plan For Economic Growth And Deficit Reduction.' If you're curious about the first part of the title -- 'Living Within Our Means' -- Veronique de Rugy pointed out at National Review that under this plan debt held by the public will grow from just over $10 trillion to $17.7 trillion by 2021. In other words, the president's definition of 'Living Within Our Means' is to burn through the equivalent of the entire German, French and British economies in new debt between now and the end of the decade. You can try this yourself next time your bank manager politely suggests you should try 'living within your means': tell him you've got an ingenious plan to get your spending under control by near doubling your present debt in the course of a mere decade. He's sure to be impressed." --columnist Mark Steyn <http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/278213/global-bust-mark-steyn>
Read more: http://patriotpost.us/edition/2011/09/26/brief/
No comments:
Post a Comment