Published: Wednesday, March 6 2013 9:45 a.m. MST
Yes, but President Obama doesn't want growth that is not Government growth.
In his mind, the only good growth is government growth, while the private
sector is evil. Any good socialist wants the control and "equity" the
government can bring . Why do you think he and "President" Chavez were
Obama wants the federal government to grow, not the economy! Only the Republican
House of Representatives stands in his way! His plan is to blame all our
suffering on those darn Republicans so voters will turn them out at the next
election and give Obama complete control of everything for the complete
socialism transformation that he dreams about!
... or the market has already temporarily adjusted for the sequestrian issue
which shows that we would have phenomenal growth if Congress would just get
their act together and balance the blasted budget.
The failure to reach an agreement was not in the best interests of our economy.
The people hoping the economy will go bad to effect presidential elections
missed the boat.
Clinton took office: DJIA around 3,310Clinton leaves office: DJIA around
10,900 (roughly tripled)Bush took office: DJIA around 10,900Bush
leaves office: DJIA around 7,950 (down about 30%)Obama took office: DJIA
around 7,950Today: DJIA 14,285 (roughly doubled).If the DJIA
is the most important economic index for measuring what is good for the economy
then we should never elect another conservative/republican in the White House
Nothing says growing an economy like firing a bunch of people... was this letter
written by a Bain executive?
Remember folks, what goes up always comes down and that is also true of the
stock market! It will come down because it corrects itself frequently. The trick
is to by low and sell high! When stocks become overvalued, they always self
correct and there is a self correction right around the corner!
The DOW is only one indicator of the health of the economy, and it only reflects
how strongly investors feel about the strength of business.The
effects of sequestration are going to take longer than a weekend to be sorted
out.This is a Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy argument.
"Sequestration is Pro-Growth"says the title.Does
that mean that all who suggested that sequestration was Obama's idea are
now supportive of it?"Obama wants the federal government to
grow, not the economy!"Do you realize how disconnected from reality
that statement is? Do you realize that Corporations are making record
profits?Why does everything you write have to be over-the-top (and
Well Looky here MtnMan.We agree. When you leave politics out of
your posts, you actually get some right. :).
Mountanman said: "Remember folks, what goes up always comes down"Except in the case of "trickle down economics" Then more and more keep
going up to the executives and never comes back down to the employees, but that
was the good ole' boys/executive/republican plan all along, and a trend
that doesn't seem to be "self correcting."
Tickle down economics is far better than Obama's trickle up poverty!
Checked in with shrinking the middle class since his election? What part of
Obama's whining for more taxes without ANY spending cuts don't you
I suspect the people losing jobs, like contract air traffic controllers will,
are more concerned about their well being than they are about how the stock
@Mountanman -- What part of the spending cuts we did last year don't you
understand (or apparently have any memory of)?
@ Wonder. Name one real spending cut! Not Obama's empty promise to cut but
name ONE that happened!
RE:SS Nice job on ignoring some of the facts - typical leftist ploy. DJ
tripled under Reagan also, and the high we hit this week, equals the high
reached under GWB. Personally I wouldn't use the DJ as an accurate
indication of economic health. Its been rising through all the past 5 years of
the Obama recession.
Trickle up poverty is the perfect name for it! Well stated Mountanman.Except it is happening much faster than a trickle now. The rise in food stamp
need and unemployment have not trickled up, they have jumped up. The number of
beggars on the off ramps has jumped up too. Incomes have trickled
down, and what is left is more heavily raided by taxes and inflation.And with rampant spending in the last few years we have made future
generations poor.That is more like an explosion than a trickle.
When I see "townhall.com" referenced, I am filled with confidence that
fiction is fact--or wait, should that be "fact is fiction?" Or maybe it
could be both, depending on what can be gained by the polemic?
The scariest part of this article is that we spend 7% of the budget on interest
on the National debt. That is with interest rates under 2%. When rates zoom up
as they did under Carter, they could surpass SS. costs. That is when it is all
HaHaHaHa - I wasn't ignoring facts; rather, I was making a tongue-in-cheek
reference by using the same method as the author of taking snapshots of a single
economic factor (the DJIA) to make overly broad statements about an extremely
complex economy. But, if you want to avoid ignoring facts, then
let's point these out:1 - The DJIA may have tripled under
Reagan but he also doubled the national debt in order to do so, Clinton reduced
it. Other Dems that reduced the debt: Carter, LBJ, Truman, and JFK. The last
four repubs (Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford) all increased the debt. Clearly,
Democratic presidents are more efficient. 2 - It's pretty
common knowledge that the recession technically ended in June 2009. Most of
the difficult times under Obama can be directly attributed to the fact that he
cut spending in 10 of his first 16 fiscal quarters in office, regardless there
is no recession.3 – There have only been two times in the last
100 years in which repubs have controlled the Executive and both houses in
Congress: 1921-31 and 2001-2006. What followed? The Great Depression and the
Great Recession. That is not a coincidence.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments