Response to WSJ- Opinion: Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow

ARTICLE: http://online.wsj.com/wsjgate?subURI=%2Farticle%2FSB123629969453946717-email.html&nonsubURI=%2Farticle_email%2FSB123629969453946717-lMyQjAxMDI5MzA2OTIwOTk5Wj.html

I agree with a great deal of what the author says but the fact that he says that he thinks we need "more financial rescue" tells me he is no different than Obama. When did we become a population who's financial success is so intimately intertwined with government?? Well, Jan 20 would be somewhere on that timeline...

Here is the most important sentence: "Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society."

When the founding fathers authored out Constitution, government was theretofore designed to exist solely for the protection of our rights to life, liberty, and property. Obama has made a RADICAL change, that we know and is indisputable. But the change is much more than spending a lot more money than usual and perhaps even sinister. Obama has rewritten the role of our government from a protector to a provider.

It is essential that you realize Obama has no incentive to watch the market rise. That is not his goal. The ultimate goal of the democratic party is to create a permanent voter base. How do they do this? By making the American people further dependent on government. The equation is simple- The worse the economy gets, the more people are in need (perceived). The more people are in need, the more dependent people are on government. This is where the 3.6 trillion comes into play- you create handout programs and get people hooked.

So its time for election. The economy is still crap and you are dependent on government for existence. Here comes the republican party who wants to take away these programs (decrease the size of government- as it was intended...). Even if the economy is horrible it isn't going to matter. For the dems, the worse the better. An individual dependent on government for food, clothing, health ins, shelter, etc is not going to vote republican. Why? Because to do so would mean to cut themselves off from sustenance. A child doesn't voluntarily forfeit breast feeding.
So you see, the author says that Obama is bad for the market. He is right. But what many don't realize is that a bad market means the expansion of the democratic voter base. Why? Not unlike a pimp who keeps his girls close and loyal by getting them hooked on cocaine, Obama has instituted a program to make Americans and American businesses dependent on a Democrat-controlled house, senate, and executive branch and this dependence can only develop and augment when the economy is in the tank. When the economy is good, it inevitably leads to smaller government. Why? Because people have jobs and are keeping them. People and businesses are buying. Right now, the economy sucks. A population of democratic voters has been born and it is time for breast feeding.