Not Optimal, Indeed

Jon Stewart asked President Barack Hussein “kill list” Obama about the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack. Obama’s response: “If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.”

Not optimal, indeed! But that isn’t the only “not optimal” situation Obama has created.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009: It’s better known as the “stimulus.” It’s sole purpose, according to Paul Krugman, was to reduce unemployment. This is the same Paul Krugman, who in June 2012, said one way to cure America’s economic woes was to prepare for an alien invasion.

So, anyway, the only way to get unemployment below 8 percent was to “cook the books.” With respect to the stimulus, Krugman, and unemployment, Obama’s situation is not optimal.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA): It’s better known as ObamaCare, and it was supposed to reduce healthcare insurance premiums while increasing healthcare and hospital access. But guess what! It has done just the opposite of everything Obama said it would do. Certainly not optimal. And what future surprises await us?

“Green Energy” schemes: Almost everyone has heard of the Solyndra debacle, and how it cost us taxpayers about $529 million. And now we have A123 Systems, receiver of 249 million taxpayer dollars, filing, on October 16, 2012, for bankruptcy. About A123, Obama said, “[it] is about the birth of an entire new industry in America – an industry that’s going to be central to the next generation of cars.” The total cost of the entire green energy scheme has been $24 billion, not optimal.

But there is one area in which Obama’s performance has been “optimal,” coming at the expense of us taxpayers: government dependancy. Did you know that welfare was, in 2011, the largest budget item, at $1.03 trillion (with a “T”). That is optimal for Obama since he uses welfare to buy votes.

But that’s just my opinion.

Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.