Is Dropping Taxpayer Funding for NPR Good for the Economy?

Ethel C. Fenig
On Friday the US Department of Commerce released its estimate of the GDP, gross domestic product which reflected "the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the US," for the first quarter of 2012 as 2.2%. This was a substantial drop from the previous quarter and well below estimates.

On cue, the public, tax payer financed National Public Radio (NPR), voice of the liberals working frantically to re elect Barack Obama (D) at all costs, disguised the information and tried to subtly blame...yes, George W. Bush (R) by actually posing the question "Is Slow Growth Actually Good For The Economy?"

Common sense says high growth rates are good and slower, more modest ones are not so good. But is that always the case? After all, the "irrational exuberance" of the early 2000s helped bring on the recession as people borrowed and spent their way to prosperity.

Oh.

After asking four economists their slow growth question--but not any of the 8.2% officially unemployed not to mention the many more who have dropped out or young people who are unable to begin working as expected--the Obama kewl NPR worshippers realized that hmmm, maybe slow growth is not so good and that the premise is actually silly. And so they answered their own question by removing it from their website replacing it with the euphemistically bland "Is Moderate Growth Good For The Economy?"

Irrational non exuberance anyone?

Here is a question for NPR to answer, "Is Dropping Taxpayer Funding Good for the Economy?" They might answer no but many will heartily respond affirmatively.

On Friday the US Department of Commerce released its estimate of the GDP, gross domestic product which reflected "the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the US," for the first quarter of 2012 as 2.2%. This was a substantial drop from the previous quarter and well below estimates.

On cue, the public, tax payer financed National Public Radio (NPR), voice of the liberals working frantically to re elect Barack Obama (D) at all costs, disguised the information and tried to subtly blame...yes, George W. Bush (R) by actually posing the question "Is Slow Growth Actually Good For The Economy?"

Common sense says high growth rates are good and slower, more modest ones are not so good. But is that always the case? After all, the "irrational exuberance" of the early 2000s helped bring on the recession as people borrowed and spent their way to prosperity.

Oh.

After asking four economists their slow growth question--but not any of the 8.2% officially unemployed not to mention the many more who have dropped out or young people who are unable to begin working as expected--the Obama kewl NPR worshippers realized that hmmm, maybe slow growth is not so good and that the premise is actually silly. And so they answered their own question by removing it from their website replacing it with the euphemistically bland "Is Moderate Growth Good For The Economy?"

Irrational non exuberance anyone?

Here is a question for NPR to answer, "Is Dropping Taxpayer Funding Good for the Economy?" They might answer no but many will heartily respond affirmatively.