The DJIA has now regained all of the ground lost during the recession, and then some.
How will Republicans spin this good economic news? They can’t for a moment admit that things are getting better - this gets in the way of their desire to show that everything is going to hell in a handcart. It seems that that’s all they’ve got at the moment, so will they stick with the refrain? “Ignore what is actually going on, everything is terrible, terrible, terrible”.
I’m sure you are sensible, but take a listen to your elected (R) representatives and your (R) party spokespeople over the next few days. I am predicting not much joy from them.
Nah, my hypothesis “See - the markets want us to cut spending. The DJIA is soaring thanks to the sequester, and the reining in of uncontrolled government spending. Now we need to cut more.”
[QUOTE=John Boehner]
Any job creation is positive news, but the fact is unemployment in America is still way above the levels the Obama White House projected when the trillion-dollar stimulus spending bill was enacted, and the federal government’s ongoing spending binge has resulted in a debt that exceeds the size of our entire economy.
[/QUOTE]
Well, he’s the highest ranking leader of the President’s opposition. Should he not oppose the President? I don’t know many Republicans that are saying “damn, we hate the stock and labor markets doing well.” That doesn’t erase our problems with President Obama nor should it.
Something Democrats will never understand is the President doesn’t control the economy. The economy and by extension the stock and labor markets are going to hit new high water marks, have bad years of extreme loss, and all over again regardless of what party the President is affiliated with. This will continue til the end of our lives and beyond.
Given the number of times that I heard that Mitt Romney would be better for the economy than Obama, I think this may be something that republicans may not understand either.
You might not. But it’s pretty funny to see Fox News go from “the market hates Obama” and “this is not a recovery” to “it’s not all bad, the market is doing great!” without missing a beat.
Perhaps if he opposed the president for sensible reasons rather than its own sake, he’d have a little more credibility.
And let’s please not confuse the stock market with the economy. That’s a bad idea no matter who the president is. The market has done very well for itself lately, but the economy is not nearly as good. It’ll get better faster if the government can stop having a fiscal crisis every four to six weeks.
I never really understood that line of thinking. Even when we were embarking on our glorious nation-building wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, my opinion was basically “I think this is a huge mistake, but I hope I’m wrong and that this really does lead to long-term stability in the region.”
I guess I’m not in the business of being elected above all else.
“I hope the economy does not do well between now and the election season of summer 2016, because that will make our ® chances of winning the office of president that much easier.”
And
"How can we spin the news to make it look like the economy is actually doing poorly, when all the indicators are positive?
To finally:
“How can we deliberately screw up the economy and then pin the blame on the sitting president in order to improve our chances of regaining the Oval Office?”
I think the R’s are hovering right now between option #2 and #3.
This saddens me enormously. Once upon a time, both Republicans and Democrats wanted what’s best for the country, rather than what’s best for their party. They might have had different ways of trying to get there, but their focus was on the big picture. The country was founded on principles of compromise, rather than constant fighting over everything.
… it’s not like economics was a precise science. They can BOTH be right (and both be wrong) at the same time.
Fighting over everything is democracy, so long as the fighting is between equals. A civil fight is nice, but a fair fight is whats important. Beware the siren song of High Broderism, with its sweet seduction saying you don’t really have to choose.
So… was that when we refused to compromise with the British about autonomy, when we refused to compromise with the Native Americans about land rights, refused to compromise with the British about the status of our sailors, or when we had to constitutionally delay any form of attempt at compromise over the slave trade until 1808?