Are Republicans dragging their feet on the economy?

[RandomGuy]

Pretty simple premise. I wish I could say I wasn't so cynical as to find it implausible that Republican politicians are actually playing games with the economy for the sole purpose of winning the presidential/national elections next fall.

I find it not only plausible, but downright probable.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The GOP is always in election mode. The are tremendous campaigners as evidenced by Baker but very porous when it comes to policy. Your question assumes that they have a priority other than maintaining incumbency and I do not believe that they do for the most part.

[silverblk mystix]

All politicians are whores to money.

Why is everyone here still surprised? This is the system that we have approved for two hundred plus years...and it is based on the rich getting richer and the rest of the people scrambling for crumbs.

It will only change (not in our lifetime) when the have- nots finally say "fuck this" and revolt and decide to burn this whole place to the ground and take what is theirs,too.

Anything other than this and we are all just simply being played...the system is genius from the perspective of the haves....it is working exactly according to plan.

For the have nots....it is just scrambling around fighting for crumbs and pointing fingers at each other and continuing to play the game of electing different whores/politicians to keep playing this game according to the script already laid out.

Why can't everyone see this clearly?

[RandomGuy]

Only 9 votes?

Surely more of you have an opinion?

[DMX7]

Oh, it was an actual question?

I just assumed it was rhetorical.

[Nbadan]

True, if RG wanted a better response the choices should have been more akin to

1. Are republican politicians actually playing games with the economy for the sole purpose of winning the presidential/national elections next fall?

or

2. Is Obama a money-sucking Marxist ,socialist.. and taking over the Senate and keeping the house, our political saviors from this American-hating demagogue?

I think that would have been much more reasonable....

[boutons_deux]

Absolutely no doubt that the Repugs want the max people in the max pain and the economy as weak as they can make it, block everything that could help the economy, and blame it all on Obama. Enough Americans are fucking stupid enough to believe them.

McConnell said the Repugs' primary goal is to defeat Obama, and no president has ever been re-elected with unemployment at 9%.

Repugs have presented nothing but pro-cyclical bills (make the down cycle worse). Deficit reduction/cutting spending in a deep recession will make the economy worse and kick millions more out of jobs. Their silly balanced budget amendment, no hope in hell of passing 38 states even if it got out of Congress, has been estimated to produce 15M more jobless.

[Proxy]

The intentions of the GOP should be obvious when looking at the candidates running in the republican primaries. Some people even fall for the 'left' facade that Ron Paul tries to use.

[Parker2112]

Confidence in the US economy is in the gutter. Our credit rating has been downgraded for the first time ever.

Could it be that confidence is down because we are printing money like there is no tomorrow in order to finance wars in the middle east?

Could it be that ending the wars could bring confidence back into the US economy and the US dollar?
...
Could ending our imperial policies abroad move capital to begin flowing through our economy again, creating jobs and bringing an end to this depression?

You're damn right it would.... And it is not an option for either major political party.

Senator Obama pointed this out...BEFORE he was elected President.


http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5468746#post5468746

[Parker2112]

stupid ass OP/supporter of tweedle dee party name calling and finger pointing tweedle dum party.

[Wild Cobra]

So ironic that this post title even exists. Right now, it's the democrtas derailing what republicans want to do.

You guys can't have it both ways. Republicans control the house, where bills originate. Democrats control the senate, which is where we are now having problems.

[scott]

Even if they were, would it be a surprise or outrage?

The GOP told us their #1 Goal was to make sure Obama was a one-term president. Their #1 Goal isn't to protect America, or fix the economy. It's to make sure Obama is a one-term president.

[ElNono]

So ironic that this post title even exists. Right now, it's the democrtas derailing what republicans want to do.

You guys can't have it both ways. Republicans control the house, where bills originate. Democrats control the senate, which is where we are now having problems.

dumb

[ElNono]

Even if they were, would it be a surprise or outrage?

The GOP told us their #1 Goal was to make sure Obama was a one-term president. Their #1 Goal isn't to protect America, or fix the economy. It's to make sure Obama is a one-term president.

No surprise at all. Such is the sad state of politics in America.

[Wild Cobra]

It's too bad politics has become so polarizing.

[Stringer_Bell]

No.

And as an American, I don't appreciate you insinuating that Republican members of Congress are consciously trying to create a negative economic atmosphere in order to make it difficult for Barry Obama to be re-elected. If anything, the GOP is trying to make policies that give job creators confidence to hire more people...the trickle down would trickle down if the Demonrats allowed it to. But no, they just want to tax the hardest working people in our economy. How ungrateful. How...un-American!

[RandomGuy]

No.

And as an American, I don't appreciate you insinuating that Republican members of Congress are consciously trying to create a negative economic atmosphere in order to make it difficult for Barry Obama to be re-elected. If anything, the GOP is trying to make policies that give job creators confidence to hire more people...the trickle down would trickle down if the Demonrats allowed it to. But no, they just want to tax the hardest working people in our economy. How ungrateful. How...un-American!

You are my favorite troll, bar none. Most, like say, Parker, and even myself a couple of times, don't even know they have been suckered in.

Well played, sir.
:toast

[RandomGuy]

stupid ass OP/supporter of tweedle dee party name calling and finger pointing tweedle dum party.

Democrats have their foibles.

But the party is where the moderates have been moving to, and despite its failings and own fuck ups still seems to be at least vaguely sane.

There is a difference, and we don't think that magic courts and lawsuits will be a working substitute for good, accountable government.

[Parker2112]

Democrats have their foibles.

But the party is where the moderates have been moving to, and despite its failings and own fuck ups still seems to be at least vaguely sane.

There is a difference, and we don't think that magic courts and lawsuits will be a working substitute for good, accountable government.

#1. Dont delude yourself. People are moving away from die-hard alliegances to the two parties. People's confidence in government and the two party system is at an all time low.

#2. You are blatantly insinuating that "good accountable government" is more desireable than the rule of law, which you attempt to slight as fanciful ("magic"). This is downright laughable, for more reasons than I care to count out loud.

3. How can you generalize Democrats as being more sane than Republicans? Because of the clowns who frequent this board and call themselves Republicans, but are really just Fox parrots? How can you expect to be taken seriously when you make statements like this...statements rivaling WC's best punchline material?

[RandomGuy]

#1. Dont delude yourself. People are moving away from die-hard alliegances to the two parties. People's confidence in government and the two party system is at an all time low.

#2. You are blatantly insinuating that "good accountable government" is more desireable than the rule of law, which you attempt to slight as fanciful ("magic"). This is downright laughable, for more reasons than I care to count out loud.

3. How can you generalize Democrats as being more sane than Republicans? Because of the clowns who frequent this board and call themselves Republicans, but are really just Fox parrots? How can you expect to be taken seriously when you make statements like this...statements rivaling WC's best punchline material?

You say that, but all I see is:

"Bla bla bla, chestthumping bla bla bla chemtrails and flouride bla bla bla"

Well past my bedtime. Your particular brand of stupidity is all starting to blur together. Time for this old man to roll home.

[AFBlue]

No, it's principled objection. But, I won't deny that they're taking a harder line because they don't like the record of the current president.

[ChuckD]

Fuck yes. It's been blatantly obvious for at least two years.

[boutons_deux]

"democrtas derailing what republicans want to do"

Dems didn't derail affirming "In God We Trust"

Dems will certainly derail the hopeless stupidity of the destructive Balanced Budget Constitutional amendment.

Repugs put forth abortion bills nearly 20 times.

What Repug plans for the jobs and economy, assuming there have been any, have the Dems derailed?

[boutons_deux]

"GOP is trying to make policies that give job creators confidence to hire more people"

What bullshit. The job creators, sitting on $Ts in cash as are the banks, don't see any consumer demand worth hiring for.

"I don't appreciate you insinuating that Republican members of Congress are consciously trying to create a negative economic atmosphere in order to make it difficult for Barry Obama to be re-elected."

what you don't appreciate, probably willfully lying to yourself, is that is EXACTLY what the Repugs doing, while proposing absoluting nothing that creates jobs or eases the foreclosure crisis.

[ChuckD]

democrtas derailing what republicans want to do

Dems didn't derail affirmig "In God We Trust"

Dems will certainly derail the hopeless stupidity of the destructive Balanced Budget Constitutional amendment.

Repugs put forth abortion bills nearly 20 times.

What Repug plans for the jobs and economy, assuming there have been any, have the Dems derailed?

:lol It's funny that the relig-iots never catch on that they only do that shit when they are in the minority position. They had the House, Senate, POTUS, and stacked SCOTUS for six years, and no abortion bill passed.

If you have a bunch of one issue voters and you solve their issue, they go away.

[boutons_deux]

and no immigration bill under dubya.

Illegal immigration is Repug bait only for campaigning for the racist xenophobes, not a Repug governing policy.

TX Repug businessmen, who profit from cheap labor, actually had JimmyRicky back off/not go hardline on illegal immigrants.

[Winehole23]

No, it's principled objection. But, I won't deny that they're taking a harder line because they don't like the record of the current president.You mean principled objection to ideas hatched in conservative think tanks and recently propounded by the likes of Newt Gingrich, like mandates for health insurance and cap and trade?

[Jacob1983]

Obama can use the race card when he goes up against Mitt. What can Mitt do? Use the Mormon card? Obama can and will use his half blackness to his advantage.
I'm just curious to see what Obama is going to run on to get re-elected. I mean he has done so many things similar to Bush. And he was the one that told us that if we voted for McCain, that we would be voting for another term of Bush. What is Obama going to do? Blame it on Bush again? Will Obama ever take responsibility for the bad stuff that has happened under his watch? I know the Republicans suck ass and have tried cock block him on everything but when you think about it's Obama fault. If he had done a better job, Democrats wouldn't have lost their power in congress because voters would have had more confidence in them and would have voted to keep them in congress.

[Wild Cobra]

What did I miss.

Is Cain out of it?

[boutons_deux]

Cain'tDeliverIn30Minutes is out of it.

[Wild Cobra]

Cain'tDeliverIn30Minutes is out of it.
Too bad.

I think he would make a better president than anyone else in the race.

[z0sa]

lol. like either side wont do what it takes to win. they already get huge conventions worth tens of millions on the taxpayers; that's fair. and then how much do these campaigns get collectively? Jesus. like amiercans even care who wins. it's either my guy wins or america goes to shit. well guess what, america is quickly becoming shit. and to me, it feels like it happened overnight.

[Winehole23]

double post

[Winehole23]

@AFBlue: btw, where was the principled obstruction of GOP lawmakers during the runaway spending and deficits of 2001-2008?

[Winehole23]

Or did principles bow to expediency during that period?

[Winehole23]

lol rediscovering core principles only when the other party takes power

[hater]

is not called the party of no for no reason

[boutons_deux]

"it's principled objection."

the principle being that non-Repugs are to be eliminated, obstructed as illegitimate.

"But, I won't deny that they're taking a harder line because they don't like the record of the current president."

total bullshit. They want to him to fail, and cause millions to remain in deeper pain, for purely political purposes.

They certainly don't like his record that he got OBL, and helped get Khadafi.

[Winehole23]

lol boutons touts the Obama war machine. VRWC indeed.

[boutons_deux]

I'm not touting the Obama war machine, which pretty much runs on MIC/military orders, no WH orders, and is unstoppable, not under control by civilians like the Exec.

Obama's "murder anybody anywhere" policy is one of his great disappointments.

[101A]

stupid ass OP/supporter of tweedle dee party name calling and finger pointing tweedle dum party.

This

[101A]

Democrats have their foibles.

But the party is where the moderates have been moving to, and despite its failings and own fuck ups still seems to be at least vaguely sane.

There is a difference, and we don't think that magic courts and lawsuits will be a working substitute for good, accountable government.

Bullshit.

Blue. Tinted. Goggles. You are delusional. Do I need to even list the number of issues liberals have used the courts to fight for throughout the years. The hyperbole of Biden in the mid nineties claiming Republicans want old people to eat dog food to survive? The list could be endless. Republicans Suck. Democrats Suck. Read my sig quote from Boutons years ago; it sums it up. Don't be sheeple, you're better than that. Be left wing; don't be a Democrat shill.

[Winehole23]

I'm not touting the Obama war machine, which pretty much runs on MIC/military orders, no WH orders, and is unstoppable, not under control by civilians like the Exec.This is literally wrong but I suppose it serves well enough to illustrate the degree to which you remain ideologically blinkered.

[boutons_deux]

Do you really think Obama does more than OK what the military/CIA dreams up and proposes (when they even bother to tell him) to keep their funding going and their careers padded with make-work?.

Do you think Obama takes the initiative to dream up and push hard for planet-wide military invasions to murder people?

[Winehole23]

Upstream you said "no orders from the WH," suggesting Obama has no role in military matters and indeed, is not even kept in the loop.

Still, thanks for admitting the president is both Commander in Chief of the military and head of the executive branch and that his ok might be more than a mere formality.

[Winehole23]

You can't give him credit for killing OBL and ousting Qaddafi, and then say the military functions without his authorization and input.

[TeyshaBlue]

lolz

[Winehole23]

(well, you can say it, but it's plainly illogical)

[boutons_deux]

I'm saying Obama rubberstamps what the MIC dreams up, rather than taking initiative to direct MIC into new (mis)adventures.

dubya/dickhead, otoh, blatantly pushed the MIC into invading Iraq (disaster) thereby starving Afghanistan of resources (disaster).

I'm not defending the very disappointing Obama, but his Exec is certainly not the exact copy of dubya/dickhead's Exec.

[AFBlue]

You mean principled objection to ideas hatched in conservative think tanks and recently propounded by the likes of Newt Gingrich, like mandates for health insurance and cap and trade?

Negative economic impact.

[AFBlue]

@AFBlue: btw, where was the principled obstruction of GOP lawmakers during the runaway spending and deficits of 2001-2008?

Non-existent, which is why they lost so many seats in 2008 and why a more fiscally conservative group of Republicans came to power in 2010.

[boutons_deux]

"why a more fiscally conservative group of Republicans came to power in 2010"

The were elected to produce policies for jobs and the economy ("Obama, What About the Jobs" slogan), NOT because they were fiscally conservative (which they aren't, the bogus deficit crisis is proved bogus by them "addressing" it by making tax revenues and the deficit much worse proposing big tax cuts for the wealthy and corps).

[EVAY]

Non-existent, which is why they lost so many seats in 2008 and why a more fiscally conservative group of Republicans came to power in 2010.

You are right that there was zero fiscal restraint under the Bush presidency, but there wasn't a complete turnover among republican personnel in congress either.

Boehner et.al act as though they have been the voice of fiscal restraint since the get-go, when in fact they made sure that the two wars and the Medicaid expansion under the Bush Presidency not only passed without corresponding
cuts in other areas of the budget, they didn't even allow the wars and the medicaid part D to be included in the budgets. Now they scream that Obama has 'busted the budget' when in fact, what he has done, and SAID he was going to do, was include everything in the budget so we could all see just how bad it really is. Now Boehner and his cronies suggest that Obama's spending is responsible for the ballooning budget deficit.

The two wars, the Medicaid expansion, the cost of TARP and the cost of the two tax cuts under Bush were all put into the budget by Obama. Obama added the stimulus package, 40% of which was tax cuts, and the Republicans act as though they have no responsibility for any of it at all, and have always been pure.

Nonsense.

[EVAY]

Obama has PLENTY to be sorry for in this administration, but the fiscal debacle and the debt debacle are not primarily his.

He is responsible for the poorest possible response to the housing crisis, I believe. That thing has been a total failure since the get-go.

It is true that Obama didn't create this mess...it is equally true that his measures to address it have been woefully inadequate.

He has to accept the responsibility of a leadership failure, I believe.

[AFBlue]

You are right that there was zero fiscal restraint under the Bush presidency, but there wasn't a complete turnover among republican personnel in congress either.

Boehner et.al act as though they have been the voice of fiscal restraint since the get-go, when in fact they made sure that the two wars and the Medicaid expansion under the Bush Presidency not only passed without corresponding
cuts in other areas of the budget, they didn't even allow the wars and the medicaid part D to be included in the budgets. Now they scream that Obama has 'busted the budget' when in fact, what he has done, and SAID he was going to do, was include everything in the budget so we could all see just how bad it really is. Now Boehner and his cronies suggest that Obama's spending is responsible for the ballooning budget deficit.

The two wars, the Medicaid expansion, the cost of TARP and the cost of the two tax cuts under Bush were all put into the budget by Obama. Obama added the stimulus package, 40% of which was tax cuts, and the Republicans act as though they have no responsibility for any of it at all, and have always been pure.

Nonsense.

I agree there are career politicians still within the party for which the word "principal" should not apply. I guess my answer would then be sort of, instead of no. I think there are principled Republicans that have opposed the kind of fiscal irresponsibility conducted by both this administration and the last administration, but I admit there are certainly those who only look for the political advantage in every situation.

[EVAY]

I agree there are career politicians still within the party for which the word "principal" should not apply. I guess my answer would then be sort of, instead of no. I think there are principled Republicans that have opposed the kind of fiscal irresponsibility conducted by both this administration and the last administration, but I admit there are certainly those who only look for the political advantage in every situation.

Well, I think you are right that there are principled Republicans. But they keep getting tossed out of the party as RINO's imho. We need to remember also that McCain and Palin were also supportive of TARP and the bailouts at the time they were occurring.

Sometimes decent politicians do things that are not quite in line with the extreme version of the party platform, because the country's needs don't always allow a strict adherence to the party line. But the current Republican base is so far to the right that they don't seem to want to ever hear anything except 'purism'.

I haven't seen an example of statesmanlike behavior by any of the presidential candidates to date, with the possible exception of Huntsman, but he has about as much chance of getting the Republican nomination as I do.

[AFBlue]

Well, I think you are right that there are principled Republicans. But they keep getting tossed out of the party as RINO's imho. We need to remember also that McCain and Palin were also supportive of TARP and the bailouts at the time they were occurring.

Sometimes decent politicians do things that are not quite in line with the extreme version of the party platform, because the country's needs don't always allow a strict adherence to the party line. But the current Republican base is so far to the right that they don't seem to want to ever hear anything except 'purism'.

I haven't seen an example of statesmanlike behavior by any of the presidential candidates to date, with the possible exception of Huntsman, but he has about as much chance of getting the Republican nomination as I do.

I'd throw Romney in with Huntsman as being statesman-like. One of the reasons I think there's so much enthusiasm on Anyone But Romney (ABR) is because Romney is mostly staying above the fray and not pandering to the base with tough-talking rhetoric. His policies, especially fiscally, seem to be right in line with the conservative base of the party.

[EVAY]

I'd throw Romney in with Huntsman as being statesman-like. One of the reasons I think there's so much enthusiasm on Anyone But Romney (ABR) is because Romney is mostly staying above the fray and not pandering to the base with tough-talking rhetoric. His policies, especially fiscally, seem to be right in line with the conservative base of the party.

Agreed. And when he says hard-line things like he did last night on Foreign Policy I am attributing it to mostly to his attempts to gain some strength with the far-right base.

In actuality, if he were to become President, he wouldn't be able to do much more than anyone else can do, mostly because the geo-political facts don't conform to the party talking points of either side. I have some concerns about whether or not he will be able to get the tea partiers in Congress to follow him. Remember how McCAin tried to lead the Republican members of Congress on the TARP and bailout things and failed? And then when the markets tanked worldwide the Republicans finally agreed to vote to allow the TARP and the bailouts?

Right now I think the country needs some moderates to get things moving in some direction. I think Romney could do that. I think Hunstman could do it. The question is whether or not they will be allowed to do it...either get the nomination or govern once they are in, if they can win.

[boutons_deux]

In classic Repug smash-govt style, Willard proposes to break (VA) what's not broken, enriching the greedy health-sector.

Mitt Romney May Consider Privatizing The Veterans Health Care System

“Sometimes you wonder if there would be some way to introduce some private-sector competition, somebody else that could come in and say, you know, that each soldier gets X thousand dollars attributed to them, and then they can choose whether they want to go in the government system or in a private system with the money that follows them,” said Romney. “Like what happens with schools in Florida, where people have a voucher that goes with them. Who knows?”

“The Independent Budget,” the groups argued:

– “The VA’s specialized health-care programs…would suffer irreparable impact by the loss of veterans from those programs.”

– “The VA’s medical and prosthetic research program…would lose focus and purpose were service-connected and other enrolled veterans no longer present in VA health care.”

– If veterans turned to private practice, “they would lose the many safeguards built into the VA system through its patient safety program, evidence-based medicine, electronic medical records and bar code medication administration,” resulting in “lower quality of care for those who deserve it most.”

Indeed, the fully integrated veterans’ health care structure of doctors and hospitals provides veterans with benefits that are the envy of the rest of the health care system. A study by the RAND Corporation found that “VA patients were more likely to receive recommended care” and “received consistently better care across the board, including screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow up. Rather than taking veterans out of a system that consistently delivers “higher quality of care,” Romney should expand its services and improve access.

The RAND study concludes, “if other health care providers followed the VA’s lead, it would be a major step toward improving the quality of care across the U.S. health care system.” And Paul Krugman writes today, “the V.H.A. is a huge policy success story, which offers important lessons for future health reform.”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/11/14/367586/mitt-romney-may-consider-privatizing-the-veterans-health-care-system/

VA receives higher patient satisfaction ratings than the for-profit "competitive" health care sector.

[RandomGuy]

#1. Dont delude yourself. People are moving away from die-hard alliegances to the two parties. People's confidence in government and the two party system is at an all time low.

#2. You are blatantly insinuating that "good accountable government" is more desireable than the rule of law, which you attempt to slight as fanciful ("magic"). This is downright laughable, for more reasons than I care to count out loud.

3. How can you generalize Democrats as being more sane than Republicans? Because of the clowns who frequent this board and call themselves Republicans, but are really just Fox parrots? How can you expect to be taken seriously when you make statements like this...statements rivaling WC's best punchline material?

"You are blatantly insinuating that "good accountable government" is more desireable than the rule of law"

You get that strawman. Let me know how it goes, you should be ok, as it probably won't fight back.

When you get around to my actual argument, let me know, boy.

My actual argument wasn't that anything was more desirable than the rule of law. The rule of law is one of the foundations for our society, including good accountable government.

Sometimes you need governments to intercede and do things that collectively we can't do, like stand up to large corporations when they release, say, toxic levels of benzine into poor neighborhoods for decades.
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/10/142189390/tonawanda-provides-lessons-for-fighting-toxic-air
http://www.npr.org/series/142000896/poisoned-places-toxic-air-neglected-communities

I still find it risible that you think that any gorup of concerned citizens would stand a chance against billion dollar+ companies with armies of lawyers, barring an empowered governmental agency capable of shutting down that corporation if necessary.

Libertarianism has no solution to information/resource asymetry. You have yet to provide a specific framework that would protect individuals from predatory groups or corporations.

[RandomGuy]

What Repug plans for the jobs and economy, assuming there have been any, have the Dems derailed?

A couple, but the GOP attached some poison pills to them that they knew would be unacceptable to Democrats, for the sole reason that they could get Dems on record as having voted against something the tea party finds desirable.

They also seem to have found time for a vote re-affirming our national motto. :rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

To the surprise of nobody, the Congressional Supercommittee tasked with coming up with $1.2 trillion in deficit-cutting measures has completely failed.

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, then Washington is officially bonkers. The entirely predictable face-plant of the Supercommittee came on the heels of the highly predictable failure of the Simpson-Bowles Commission and the Obama-Boehner grand bargain talks.

You don't have to have a Ph.d. in political science to grasp the dynamic at work. The White House has a set of preferences, which it has laid out here. But it doesn't spend a lot of time campaigning for them, and it doesn't believe that getting intensely involved in the negotiations will help move the ball. Democrats aren't entirely sure what they want, though they insist any large deficit reduction deal must include significant tax increases, preferably on higher-income earners and companies. Otherwise, they won't consider significant changes in entitlements that their forebears created, like Social Security and Medicare. As for Republicans, there are two things they aren't interested in: (1) raising taxes; and (2) doing a large deal with President Obama that will give him an achievement going into the next election ..

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/superfail-why-d-c-fiscal-clown-show-may-133350281.html