If Obama is Socialist

[SwingVoter]

then why is the stock market doing better under him than it did under Bush?

 

[Modbert]

He's painting the town red.

ZING!

 

[Elutherian]

Because he's a Fascist. Private Profits and Socialized Losses...

Like I said when he got in, they put a black face on the same white man's government.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

then why is the stock market doing better under him than it did under Bush?

DOW is back over 14,000? Wow I need to buy Puts, pronto!

 

[Old Rocks]

The fat lady ain't sung yet, and the employment figures are still negative. Just a few markers are beginning to move up, but that is much better than the dive done last winter. We seem to be backing away from the Second Great Republican Depression.

 

[Andrew2382]

Pretty sure the Market was over 14k with Bush...and the stock market doesn't represent the economy you blithering idiot.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yeah, but Obama won a Noble Prize and Bush didn't! Nyah Nyah nyah nyahhhhhh

 

[Dr.House]

Liberal Logic for 2009:

Stock Market rises = 0bama deserves the credit
Stock Market falls = Booooosh is to blame

 

[mdn2000]

If obama is so great why is unemployment higher under obama than bush?

If obama is so great why did he hire a rockefeller/kissinger/big oil/big banker.

Bottom line is the governernment is out of control, both parties.

thank god this generation is getting a good dose of great democrat politics, they just best hope there is a morning after, I expect starvation and famine is coming to america. Hope and change

 

[PatekPhilippe]

then why is the stock market doing better under him than it did under Bush?

I had no idea 3 year olds could vote and type.

 

[eagleseven]

then why is the stock market doing better under him than it did under Bush?

Because he hasn't passed any part of his economy-destroying agenda.

Cap-and-Trade? Nope.
Nationalized Healthcare? Nope.
Union Power/Card Check? Nope.
Restructuring Wallstreet? Nope.
Protectionism? Working on it...
Inflation? Working on it...

Each one of these policies has the potential to serious hurt the economy, but if they are all passed at once, it'll cripple the economy, plunging us into a decade-long great recession. Yet, this is what Obama promises to do...

 

[Gunny]

then why is the stock market doing better under him than it did under Bush?

it isn't. Next ....

 

[Catbert]

Relax, it's only been a year since it lowered, and this is temporary at best.

Dow closes above 10,000 for 1st time in a year
By TIM PARADIS (AP Business Writer)
From Associated Press
October 14, 2009 9:16 PM EDT

<snip>
So where does the market go from here?

Some market watchers see 10,000 as an illusion because there are still lingering threats to an economic recovery - rising unemployment, weak consumer spending and a battered housing market.

The investors who have driven stocks higher since March are the pros: hedge funds and institutions whose furious selling hastened the collapse of the market in the first place.

EarthLink - Top News

 

[Bern80]

then why is the stock market doing better under him than it did under Bush?

Because contrary to popular opinion, the party or President in power at the time has very little to do with the eb and flow of the markets at the same time.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Thanks to bern80, for having some sense while some of you liberals run like headless chickens over the brink into the abysmal chasm that is your own idiocy.

Even when the economy and the stock market do recover it most likely won't be because of what the president or congress does.

 

[Shorebreak]

Obama isn't a socialist. What he's done is to further combine business and government - as opposed to taking over businesses.

Elutherian pointed out that what's happening is that all profits remain private, but all losses are covered by us via our taxes.

If anyone's wondering how this could happen, keep in mind that for over 30 years, almost every single White House appointee (and there have been thousands of them) to government positions have been from Wall Street. Especially the key cabinet positions. Like the US Treasury.

Keep in mind that the voters have been asking for this for a long time. In the past they called it privatization. That's when a corporation is able to lobby (or bribe and blackmail) officials into granting control of government functions to them, thereby gaurunteeing a steady income source that is funded through our taxes.

What we have now is an evolution of privatization. It's called the merger. Over the last several years, the Wall Street appointees who have been placed in key positions have transformed processes that were designed to serve the needs of taxpayers into processes that are designed to meet the needs of business. It's been sold to the people as a means to create efficiency, and the voters have applauded it and demanded it.

As things have progressed we can now look back and see that this foundation is being used to make an easy transition into integration of Wall Street and government. Government has not become cheaper and easier. It's become larger, more expensive, and more complex, contrary to the selling points that were used to lure us into supporting the efforts. Economists in mainstream media will applaud the increasing Dow but they don't mention that this is the result of trillions of dollars in taxpayer costs that were taken directly from our pockets (and therefore from Main Street) and placed into those corporations that aligned with the integration process.

What we ultimately have now is a system where Wall Street bankers have been given the keys to the castle for several decades as apointees who run poor government. They've collapsed our economy via poor policies in partnership with their finance companies. They then turn to the media and declare that private finance has failed and cannot stand alone - we must help them. Part of the solution is to grant partial control of these Wall Street companies to government officials like Geithner, or Paulson before him. Who came directly from the organizations in question.

Any assumption that the economy is improving or that things are getting better because the Dow is increasing is naive. There is very little connection with Dow performance and real employment figures and income levels for the average American.

 

[SwingVoter]

Even when the economy and the stock market do recover it most likely won't be because of what the president or congress does.

No, it's because of what Pres and Congress DON'T do. Under Clinton, we had tremendous econ growth, because we had very limited gov't, thanks to Newt Gingrich and gridlock. Under Bush, we had a trillion dollar socialized medicine bill - Medicare Drug - passed by a GOP Congress, and spending increases more than double the rate of Clinton.

With Pres and Congress fighting more than ever, the hope for more gridlock, and therefore more econ growth looks good. We need gov't to do less, but with Bush it did a lot more.

 

[SwingVoter]

Weekly unemployment claims fall to nine-month low - USATODAY.com

Weekly unemployment claims and continuing claims at lowest levels of the year

 

[SwingVoter]

the stock market doesn't represent the economy

but job growth does, under 8 years of Bush, private sector employment increased zero, total employment about 3 million, all of which was with gov't, under Clinton, private sector employment increased by 20 million jobs, total 22 million

I like limited gov't as much as any GOPer, just don't think Republicans have any idea how to actually hold gov't back.

 

[xsited1]

then why is the stock market doing better under him than it did under Bush?

Congress controls spending. Look at the stock market according to who controls Congress.