Bookeristas are wondering why liberals are touting the Obama administration's anemic two percent economic growth:
Herman Cain, a conservative Republican businessman and former presidential candidate, writes: "We learned [yesterday] morning that economic growth for the third quarter
was only 2 percent. That’s half what the Obama Administration predicted a
year ago that it would be by this time. Obama and his media allies
might still try to portray it as 'good news for the president' because
it’s better than the horrendous 1.3 percent we saw in the second
quarter, but don’t let anyone fool you. 2 percent is terrible. We would
need growth of between 4 and 5 percent to really start driving down the
unemployment rate toward the 5 percent level we saw throughout most of
the Bush Administration."
More: "But if you look inside the numbers, you’ll see that what meager
growth we had was not driven by things we want. Federal spending rose by
more than 9 percent in the third quarter. Democrats will say this
proves that federal spending drives economic growth. In fact, it proves
the opposite. When you have such a massive increase in government
spending – all of which is borrowed and all of which therefore adds to
the national debt – and you still can only achieve growth of 2 percent,
what that proves is that government spending absolutely does not drive
growth, and what we need are policies that support growth driven by the
private sector, not by government."
Samuel Gonzalez, a conservative Republican blogger in New York, opines about the report: "The imbeciles at MSNBC starting with charlatan Al Sharpton are trying to sell a dismal 2% growth as something to crow about. Reagan’s recovery saw 6% and 8% GDP growth. That’s what a robust recovery looked like instead of these putrid Obama numbers."
Bookeristas Criticize USA's Weak Economic Growth Under The Obama Administration
