WHEN IN HOLE - DIG DEEPER!
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 07:53AM I see that Obama, just like Gordon Brown (Saviour of the Universe), has decided that when in a borrowing crisis the best way forward is to borrow much more!
"President-Elect Barack Obama has promised to spend his way out of the looming recession with a massive construction programme for roads, schools, bridges and energy. Obama has refused to put an estimate of the cost, but Larry Summers, the new chairman of the national economic council, has suggested it would need to be as large as $700 billion – in addition to the bail-out of the same amount agreed by Congress last month. With help already provided for ailing financial institutions, spending on rescuing the economy could approach $2 trillion."
Here's the point. How is the Obama plan any different to the Bush-Paulson bail out plan? I oppose the latter and so I am being consistent in saying that I will also oppose the former. But I wonder how do those more liberal members of our commentariat here support Obama in his proposals but damn Bush for his since the strategy being followed is essentially the same?
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (2)
Obama has refused to put an estimate of the cost
Or a timescale.
Does he think 'roads, schools and bridges' can be built in months? This recession could be a two-year thing, we hear. In two years these Great Public Works won't even be designed, the land won't be assembled and the funding won't be in place.
Putting aside the proven idiocy of government spending, if Obama thinks these schemes can help the American people, he's delusional.
Or he knows history will repeat itself, government meddling will cause and sustain a depression and building his roads and bridges (which are suddenly needed, strangely) will occupy the unemployed in a decade.
Or, can he just not resist spouting vague tosh like every other dreary numbskull politician?