A tale of two surges by Laura Ingraham
Obama touting the success of his $787 billion stimulus package yesterday in Wisconsin:
The problem is it's hard to argue sometimes, things would have been a lot worse. Right? So people kind of say, yeah, but unemployment is still at 9.6. Yes, but it's not 12 or 13, or 15. People say, well, the stock market didn't fully recover. Yeah, but it's recovered more than people expected last year. So part of the challenge in delivering this message about all that the Recovery Act accomplished is that things are still tough, they just aren't as bad as they could have been. They could have been a catastrophe. In that sense, it worked.
Forget the fact that Obama said this in a city with an unemployment rate of 14.2%. Here's an inconvenient question: if the Iraq War surge had failed, could George W. Bush have credibly claimed it actually worked because things would have been a whole lot worse without it?
Doubtful. After all, Obama notoriously defended his anti-surge stand even after its success was completely obvious, and even went as far as crediting Iraqis for the success of our troops. (Go to original for links to these statements from Obama)
Obama's entire defense of the stimulus is a circular argument. As numerous commentators have pointed out since its passage, any evidence, including no evidence, was proof of porkulus' success. The administration finally seems to have put away its absurd "jobs saved" mantra, and now, in the face of the nonexistent recovery, is content to celebrate the fact that we aren't all living in total squalor. How comforting.
Meanwhile: jobless claims have risen, consumer confidence has dropped, the national debt will reach 62% of GDP, and the DOW lost 10% last quarter. Some "recovery summer," Mr. President.
https://www.lauraingraham.com/b/A-tale-of-two-surges/259668735021915956.html
No comments:
Post a Comment