It's no secret that there is no intellectual integrity on the Left, but it's still hard not to be a bit shocked by liberals' reaction to the budget proposal that Barack Obama unleashed yesterday. Let's take the example of the New York Times, probably the most prominent voice of the Far Left in the U.S. Throughout the George W. Bush administration, the Times' editorial board waxed eloquent about the terrible consequences to be expected from the Bush deficits. Let's cite just a few examples. April 16, 2003:
It is incredible to see a wartime president demanding a tax cut that would, in an instant, require a record $984 billion increase in the national debt, to $7.384 trillion, with annual deficits of $400 billion and more under a Republican Party that once bragged of budgetary rectitude.
Obama's budget contemplates a $1.75 trillion deficit in its first year, and does not even aspire to a deficit as small as $400 billion at any time in the future.
|
I'll take both of the above for $400 (trillion).
Which reminds me, if government spending and the Keynesian "multiplier" works so well, why don't we just up the plans from a few trillion to a hundred trillion or so? Then we could all retire and be done with it -- no? ... (crickets chirping) ... No?
Posts
