Another Liberal is disappointed.

Chris Martenson has analysed the cost of "rescuing" the economy by the Obamabots and the FED:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/162110-the-recovery-was-too-expensive?source=email

Martenson calculates the cost of restoring the economy to a 3.0% growth. On a 14 trillion economy, a 3% annual growth amounts to 420 billion dollars. Its cost? By Martenson's reckoning the cost of getting us out of the recession is about 1.7 Trllion dollars. Three trillion has been pledged to pump up the financial system and 1.2 Trillion has been printed as funny money. We are risking heavy inflation, a dethroning of the dollar as the reserve currency of the world and Obama has taken the first step to start a trade war with China.

Martenson makes noises like he is a Liberal economist (all for government intervention), though he finds the Obamanomic approach inefficient. He says this: "Of course, I wouldn't have poured a single dime of that money into any of the black holes masquerading as banks that are now, regrettably, even larger than too-big-to-fail. Instead I would have poured the money into farms, communities, new forms of transportation, energy infrastructure and the like." Standard litany of a Liberal.

What is interesting is that Liberals are beginning to voice disappointment with Obama. What they have not discovered is that Obamanomics is not about the rescue of the economy any more than ObamaCare is about reform of medical care. The Obamabots want control of everything to impose their form of Socialism. They do not want growth, they want us to think smaller, to withdraw from the world, to give in to Islam, to become more dependent on government. They will continue their Munchhausen by proxy doings and pretend to fix what they had broken in the first place.