"If we hadn't done what we did, it would have been WORSE than what it is now."
And I find it the weakest argument ever. Instead of admit failure, they brainwash the idiotic American public into actually believing that it would have been WORSE and they should be thankful our politicians failed. Alas, Obama is no different;
But, wait, let me guess, "It would have been EVEN WORSE than what they originally predicted?"
Morons.
ht
4 comments:
One can quibble with the graph (the points are monthly figures whereas the chart is fitted for quarterly figures), but the general idea is the same. This recession would have been severe by any standard, but the politicians, and their penchant to "do something", is going to make a long, protracted readjustment process turn into a permanent economic malaise. Everytime I see a chart of the unnecessary explosion in the federal deficit I shudder.
Time to pay off my debt and move to an island somewhere and be Tom Cruise in Cocktail.
Yes, where are those "300,000 jobs saved or created"?
This is what happens when you have a president who doesn't understand history and even basic economics.
But just pull a unverifiable number out of your a$$ and when you can't fudge the data, you blame Bush. Classy.
Hope and change is sounding a lot more like grab power and blame others.
Wait until the 1970's like stagflation hits.
How long will it be before the citizens of the US realized they've been had and start holding him accountable for anything.
It's a nice graph. You should slap on the estimates used for the "stress-tests" of American banks as well. Someone secretely told me that the dotted line is already a lot worse than their most adverse scenario ....
// hpx
Someone secretely told me that the dotted line is already a lot worse than their most adverse scenario
It's no secret. It just hasn't been well publicized by Obama's fart sniffers in the media.
If the parameters of the test already exceed the more adverse scenario, one should wonder whether the decision to allow banks to repay TARP funds is consistent with the policy.
I'm not saying they should not be allowed to repay them - the sooner the better. But if the policy was for a stated purpose and data is at odds with the policy, we must declare the policy either a failure or completely moot.
Post a Comment