OBAMA'S TERRIBLE JUDGEMENT: IT'S NOT 'TERRIBLE' IF IT'S INTENTIONAL. IS OBAMA INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO COLLAPSE THE US ECONOMY?

Obamanomics: Naive, Or Intentionally Destructive? Why are three of the WORST economists in America ADVISING Obama?!? Paul Krugman, Jeffrey Immelt and Larry Summers can only equal disaster for the economy.

Lawrence Summers is the head of Obama's National Economic Council, and as such oversees much of Obama's economic policy.

Summers has a reputation in developing countries for being a nasty guy, having said - as chief economist for the World Bank - that third world countries were "underpolluted".

But more importantly, Summers is the guy responsible for:

•Allowing the banks to carry extraordinary levels of debt, thirty-to-one fractional reserve banking margins
•Ensuring that derivatives were not regulated, and that AIG could operate as a giant hedge fund
•Repealing New Deal era legislation which separated investment banks from commercial banks, insurers and stock brokers, and which kept companies from becoming "too big to fail"

Jeffrey Immelt was voted the worst CEO in America, but is on Obama's economic advisory board. Why you ask? See video below.



Paul Krugman in a dishonest NY Times columnist. Already, he has zero credibility since he works for the NY Times and Paul Krugman has never created a job, yet he was at Obama's job expo giving advice on the economy and job creating (don't laugh, we're serious) Top successful economist's and business people AND the U.S Chamber of Commerce were NOT invited! WTF you might ask?

Does President Obama want the U.S. economy to decline further? Or is he just simply naïve about what is required to make the economy grow, and about the differences between “good“ and “bad“ economic policy?

I’ve pondered these questions several times since January 20th, not only in the column I write here for this publication, but on talk radio, and in columns published elsewhere. And in light of the President’s behavior within the past ten days, the questions are worth reviewing again.

Back in February and March I began stating - - in writing and on talk radio - - that this President has no intention or desire to grow the U.S. economy, but rather, wishes only to grow U.S. dependency. In my remarks, I defined “U.S. dependency” to mean a dependency on government welfare by U.S. citizens, and, ultimately, a dependency of our entire nation on China and other nations abroad.

“That’s ridiculous” I would hear in response, “why would any U.S. President want to weaken the country?” “Because in the American liberal mindset, economics is a zero-sum game” I would explain. “Other nations are economically weak, because America has become the world’s economic superpower. Weakening America economically - - even just a little bit - - will allow other nations to be a little bit stronger, or so goes the theory, and if Obama can achieve this, he will have made the entire world a more ‘fair’ place.”

It all sounds so absurd and sinister, doesn’t it? “Settle down” I was told back in March by a friend who is a mergers and acquisitions lawyer in Boston. “It’s not like he’s a closet socialist, Austin, he’s just a bit naïve about business and finance. But he’ll figure it out, and we’ll be fine.” READ MORE...

Related- The Passionate Politics of Paul Krugman’s Apolitical Economics

Five Worst Non-Financial-Crisis-Related CEOs of 2008 Announced by the Free Enterprise Action Fund Jeffrey Immelt

Larry Summers- Fox Guarding the Henhouse