At a campaign stop yesterday in Appleton, Wisconsin, likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney said that President Obama wanted to create a "government centered society."
How is that exactly?
The stock market just had its best first quarter in 14 years. The surge has sent Wall Street analysts, some of whose forecasts seemed too sunny three months ago, scrambling to raise their estimates for the year.
"That it's up isn't surprising. It's the magnitude," says Robert Doll, the chief equity investment manager at BlackRock, the world's biggest money manager.
Doll says stocks could rise 10 percent more before the end of the year. That would be enough to push the Dow Jones industrial average to an all-time high and the Standard & Poor's 500 close to a record.
Funny. I thought that President Obama was destroying free enterprise. Ah well, I guess it's back to tapping into the ol' inner rage, ignoring facts, and making things up again.
Get ready for the gun grabbing Obamabots!!
10 comments:
No caricatures necessary M, you clearly believe in a govt centered society. Damn near every political point you consider calls for a govt solution in your view.
You can belittle people that don't think that way, but you certainly won't convince them.
So Mittens makes an observation about Obama's preferred policies tending towards big government, and your rebuttal is that the stock market is doing well in the last quarter? Huh? Are you really saying that stock market up = not government centered society, while stock market down would = well, what exactly? I think, o reflective one, that it isn't quite so black and white as that. I'm surprised you'd push back against that criticism anyway - your preference is clearly a government centered society, so why would it bother you if your hero believes the same?
Issue for Mittens - its pretty hard for the owner of Romneycare to claim that he's different from Obama when it comes to wanting a government centered society. Would make for a funny debate though.
Obama: You're just like me!
Romney: No I'm not!
>gun grabbing
I'm curious why you use this so much and think its meaningful. (Well, ok, to be fair, I think that about most everything you say.) Obama, it seems to me, has made it pretty clear that he's pretty much your standard issue Democrat on the issue of guns - he'd be in favor of a fair bit more gun control, including all the usual silly season stuff like bans on scary looking guns, and closing "loopholes" whereby one person can sell a gun to another without telling the feds. He's simply said he can't do any of that stuff because the political environment won't allow it right now. .. That doesn't mean the political environment won't change however, in fact, you yourself are trying to change said political environment in that direction, even if guns aren't your primary driver for doing so. Despite all this, you think gun owners are being irrational for thinking that Obama isn't exactly their friend, and might try to get his freak on given the right political environment? I know its hard for you to follow reasoning that isn't your own brand of crazy, but this isn't too hard dude.
Nice to see you back, Hap.
Huh?
I'm saying that the stock market being up is one of many examples that shows that the president is not out to destroy free enterprise and create a government centered society. Where's the socialism, Hap? It only exists in a paranoid mind.
Your issues list on Mitt is very accurate and quite funny!
He's simply said he can't do any of that stuff because the political environment won't allow it right now
I don't think he cares to be honest. With violence continuing downward, gun control advocates have no leg to stand on whatsoever. It's not simply a bad political environment. The issue is resolved in my view and likely his.
Yet, it seems that some gun rights advocates and others on the right need their boogeyman and that's why I continue to point out their silliness. So why can't they enjoy their victory?
>I'm saying that the stock market being up is one of many examples that shows that the president is not out to destroy free enterprise and create a government centered society.
Pretty sure the stock market can go up in a "government centered society" just as easily as it can go up in a non "government centered society", no?
>Where's the socialism, Hap?
I dunno, where did Mittens or I say socialism? I think what he means by "government centered society" is not socialism, he just means statism. Someone who thinks that the state should have a big role in most everything. By any reasonable measure, both Obama and you are statists. Though again, Mittens is a statist too, so its pretty hard to criticize Obama from that angle. Maybe he'll pull it off, I dunno.
>The issue is resolved in my view and likely his.
Ok, but where has he said that?
Pretty sure the stock market can go up in a "government centered society" just as easily as it can go up in a non "government centered society", no?
Unfortunately, this is where the right's sensitivity (see: bamboo under the fingernails) comes into play. The president, most Democrats and me think that the government has a necessary role in our economy and our society at large. This differs from little or no role as is the case with most conservatives these days.
If the government were exerting as much control on the economy as the right claims it is, wouldn't there be a lot of that uncertainty that we heard so much about a while back ? It seems to me that people are getting excited about investing again and looking towards a good year, as the article illustrates. I don't see how that is possible with the heavy government involvement we hear that we have.
And let's be clear that "government centered society" means centrally planned economy which means socialism. Yet another dog whistle...
Someone who thinks that the state should have a big role in most everything
Our definition of "big" is the issue here. BTW, I think that Mitt and you are pretty far apart as I think he doesn't really believe what he is saying and would govern in a very similar way to President Obama, as you note.
By any reasonable measure, both Obama and you are statists.
See, here's the problem, Hap. Demonizing the words "liberal" and "socialist" hasn't really worked out very well for you guys. So now it's on to statism. It sounds all scary and stuff (it actually makes me think of Darth Vader and the Emperor but that's the point, right?) and certainly will frighten folks but it's those same people that wholeheartedly embrace a hearty role for government in our culture (social security, medicare, taxes).
I guess I find it frustrating and an enormous disservice to be that dishonest with people that clearly are benefiting from government's role in our culture.
Ok, but where has he said that?
I think his silence speaks volumes. That, along with his hands off approach which has allowed states to do what they want, says it all. Aren't actions (or, in this case, inaction) more important? I believe it was Kevin who said that benign neglect was his central wish for our federal government. I'd say this is a great example of that.
I think his silence speaks volumes.
Really? I think what his DoJ and BATFE have been doing speaks far more loudly than any honeyed words, let alone silence, on his part.
Our definition of "big" is the issue here.
Indeed. Not once have you said "that is something the govt shouldn't do". You seem to think "big" means infinite. No wonder you find Mittens a reasonable candidate; heck even Santorum wants a govt just as big and intrusive as you favor - though in somewhat different vectors.
Not once have you said "that is something the govt shouldn't do".
Perhaps you had trouble reading when I have stated repeatedly that governments shouldn't centrally plan economies, restrict trade, or engage in any sort of protectionism or mercantilism.
Ok, my bad, there are at least some things you don't think govt should do. Though I'm willing to bet that I could craft a smallish proposal that you would support that violates one of your constraints - as long as it doesn't sound too intrusive.
Perhaps you had trouble reading when I have stated repeatedly that governments shouldn't centrally plan economies, restrict trade, or engage in any sort of protectionism or mercantilism.
Except in the case of protectionism where GM is involved or solar industry, or.....
You're going to have to elaborate more on what you mean, 6Kings, if you want me to comment.
Post a Comment