Is GOP trying to sabotage economy to hurt Obama? Read more: http://www.newstimes.com

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by Iriemon, May 19, 2012.

  1. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is GOP trying to sabotage economy to hurt Obama?

    Read more: http://www.newstimes.com/news/artic...onomy-to-hurt-Obama-3570760.php#ixzz1vMfwEeqe

    I happened across the title of this article from google news and the first thing that crossed my mind was:

    Well, duh! Isn't it obvious?

    The "political brinksmanship" which was the Tea Party Republican debt ceiling extortion fiasco was a direct cause of the US credit downgrade last year as stated by the folks who did it.

    The Tea Party Republicans have lectured us for years on the dangers of uncertainty and so they knew exactly what they were doing when they created all that uncertainty about a US default, and they knew exactly what would be the result of their little extortion effort. They knew it would hurt the country, but did it because they calculated it would hurt Obama more. As their leaders have said, their goal is to get Obama out of office and one of their own in.

    And now we have round II coming up, when it is all to predictable they will do the same (*)(*)(*)(*) thing.

    We got to get these people out of office and put in folks who put the country ahead of their own partisan politics.
     
    Curmudgeon and (deleted member) like this.
  2. Kessy_Athena

    Kessy_Athena New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ya think?

    Let's not forget that one of the big things weighing down the economy right now are the massive government layoffs across all levels of government orchestrated by the Republicans. One of the big things the Recovery Act did was provide financial aid to state and local governments so that they wouldn't have to fire police, firefighters, teachers, and so on. Who's been blocking any further stimulus? Who's been saying no to any further federal aid? Who's been pushing drastic federal spending cuts? Who's used political gains in the 2010 elections to take over state governments all over the country and create a blizzard of pink slips? Republicans, that's who.

    It seems to me that the Republican argument in this election cycle is basically, "You should elect us because the Democrats failed to prevent us from sabotaging the economy."

    Incidentally, I'm rather expecting the thunderous silence from our conservative friends to continue on this subject. Personally, I take that as a sign of a guilty conscious.
     
  3. Woogs

    Woogs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    8,382
    Likes Received:
    2,556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, are you for more debt, more taxes, or both?

    The one thing I don't like about the Republican's efforts is that they are all for 'no new taxes', but don't really make an effort to actually cut spending (the Ryan plan is a joke). Without doing that, the debt ceiling debate will be replayed about every 6 months ad infinitum. In that regard, they are just as bad as the Dems.

    What the GOP is doing is political gamesmanship, but then Obama does the same thing. He throws out new 'revenue proposals' knowing they don't stand a chance. He would probably freak out if the 'Pubs 'reluctantly' went along with them.

    We're all being played by both parties. The debt constantly rises, the consequences of that debt become more ominous, and the window is closing on a solution.
     
  4. Phoebe Bump

    Phoebe Bump New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    26,347
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of that there can be no doubt. But it's gotta end because if Romney somehow wins in November, people like me are going to do every thing in our power to obstruct and make him a 1/2-term president.
     
  5. keymanjim

    keymanjim New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    10,351
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You mean like how the democrats destroyed the economy to hurt President Bush?
     
  6. Curmudgeon

    Curmudgeon New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This has been their plan from day 1. It became obvious to anyone paying attention after about 6 months that the entire focus of the Republicans in Congress was to keep the recession going and doing everything they could to prevent any of Obama's agenda passing.

    Their refusal to compromise on anything is frankly unamerican. Without compromise, there would have been no Constitution, no Bill of Rights, no United States.
     
  7. Phoebe Bump

    Phoebe Bump New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    26,347
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You mean like two wars and huge tax cuts that were in no way paid for HELPED the economy?
     
  8. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    sad but true, the GOP is putting party ahead of Country, they have stated their goals very clearly, to make Obama a one term president no mater what the cost

    by doing this they have failed their party and worst of all their country
     
  9. keymanjim

    keymanjim New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    10,351
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The amount of money spent on the two wars over the course of 11 years is less than obama added to the national debt last year alone.
    And, the tax cuts lowered unemployment numbers. They didn't go up again until the democrats raised the federal minimum wage three times.
     
  10. keymanjim

    keymanjim New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    10,351
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They're just trying to help obama out. He said that if he couldn't turn the economy around he would be a one term president. Apparently, even with almost complete control of the house and senate, he just couldn't pull it off.

    Buh-by barry.
     
  11. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,321
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So passing over 20 jobs bills and passing budgets are ways to keep a recession going? And since Obama's agenda did pass.........................?
    Compromise on what? The Senate Democrats refuse to bring into thing up for compromise.
     
  12. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,321
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You mean the tax cuts that produced a strong economy, full employment and a 44% increase in revenues that along with restrained spending had the deficit at $161 billion which Obama and the Democrats then increased to $1,600 billion?
     
  13. Badmutha

    Badmutha New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,463
    Likes Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Unemployment Rate Since Democrats Took Over Congress--2007
    [​IMG]

    Well good thing that wasnt intentional.......
    .
    .
    .
     
  14. keymanjim

    keymanjim New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    10,351
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have no reason to think that it wasn't intentional.

    [​IMG]
     
  15. toddwv

    toddwv Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    30,444
    Likes Received:
    6,429
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) Aren't the Bush tax cuts still in effect?

    2) We're just supposed to forget the empty economy created by the housing bubble?

    [​IMG]

    When did that little bubble start to pop? 2006? Someone remind which party had control of BOTH houses of Congress AND the White House...

    Did the Democrats take over in 2004? Just curious...

    [​IMG]

    And finally for everyone's enjoyment, the Republicans attempting to stack the deck against the US economy:

    [​IMG]
     
  16. Kessy_Athena

    Kessy_Athena New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    (Headdesk) What is so frakking hard to understand about, "You run a deficit during economic downturns and balance the budget when the economy is doing well"?? Honestly, people only care about the deficit when the economy's bad, which is exactly when we need to run a deficit! And then you take, "Well, if we keep running deficits like this for a few decades, we'll have a problem," to mean that we have to balance the budget right this very instant or the sky will fall! What is wrong with this country, is somebody putting liquid stupid in the drinking water or something?

    Let me make this as simple as I possibly can. The debt is a long term problem. It is not an immediate crisis. The US simply is not going to exceed it's ability to borrow from the market any time soon. The only real immediate danger from the debt is if the Republicans manage to convince the markets that Washington has been taken over by crazy people who want to blow up the economy.

    The stagnant economy is an immediate problem. It's wrecking people's lives right now. People are without work right now. And the longer this goes on, the more people are going to wind up never being able to get back into employment. We have a cadre of college graduates who are going to be saddled the rest of their lives with a resume that shows years of running cash registers and flipping burgers when they should be starting their careers.

    The immediate problem requires an immediate solution. We need to get people back to work right now. We need to keep taxes low for right now. We need to do a lot of stimulus spending right now. Yes, that means taking on more debt right now. No, that's not an especially bad thing. For one thing, we can do capital improvements (you know, like fixing the bridges that are about to fall down?) and finance them at extremely low interest rates. This is a good thing.

    The long term problem requires a long term solution. Balancing the budget in the long term will require spending cuts (both domestic and defense), broad based tax increases, and entitlement reform. Anyone who says otherwise is either being idiotic or is simply lying. So is anyone who tells you that balancing the budget right now will create jobs or stimulate the economy. That's simply flat Earth territory. "We firmly believe that cutting spending will create jobs," is so stupid it makes my teeth hurt.

    And I hate to break it to you, but cutting spending during a downturn makes the deficit worse, not better. Don't believe me? Ask the Europeans where austerity has gotten them. In case you're wondering, large parts of Europe are still in recession - they don't even have a weak recovery.

    As for political gamesmanship, Obama would be overjoyed if the Republicans reluctantly went along with anything at all. The Democrats have shown a consistent willingness to compromise and make concessions in order to get things done. The Republicans are the ones who have flat out refused to even consider any reasonable proposal. The Republicans are the ones who refuse to vote for necessary legislation even when they get virtually everything their own way. The Republicans are the ones saying things like, "Let's balance the budget by cutting taxes on the wealthy!" No, the Dems are not saints. But they are at least trying to govern. The Republicans aren't.

    I'm sorry if I'm ranting, but I've had it up to here with "Up is down, black is white," kinds of arguments. Republicans need to get a grip and face reality. The longer they keep living in fantasy land, the more people they are going to convince that Republicans simply are not fit to hold office, period. I used to vote for moderate Republicans - with all of this going on, I simply can't. I hate the idea of voting strictly on party lines, but I simply cannot in good conscience vote for a party that's been taken over by crazy people and people who find it acceptable to blow up the economy if it gains them political advantage.
     
  17. toddwv

    toddwv Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    30,444
    Likes Received:
    6,429
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Strong economies don't end with deep recession.
     
  18. toddwv

    toddwv Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    30,444
    Likes Received:
    6,429
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This post bears repeating.
     
  19. toddwv

    toddwv Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    30,444
    Likes Received:
    6,429
    Trophy Points:
    113

    “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

    Mitch McTurtle:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  20. Woogs

    Woogs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    8,382
    Likes Received:
    2,556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Running *a* deficit is one thing. Running a Trillion + deficit year after year is quite another. And, since the 'stimulus' has brought about a joke of a recovery, just how much more do you want to throw into the hole? Would $2 Trillion in deficit do it? $3 trillion?

    At what point does the debt become an 'immediate' problem? Is it when buyers for our debt dry up? Or is it when the economy heats back up and interest rates rise? Last FY we spent $450+ Billion on interest payments alone. Deficits = debt = higher interest payments = a perpetual drag on the economy. Watch for the inevitable rise in interest rates that will accompany any real recovery bite us in the ass due to our astronomical debt. To add to that debt, knowing what the consequences will be down the road, is lunacy. It's junkie logic.

    The only reason we haven't yet suffered major consequences due to our debt is the USD's status as world reserve currency. Our interventions in Iraq and Libya were a direct result of our enforcing economic hegemony on those countries. Our saber rattling against Iran has the same basis. We WILL use military force to protect the dollar. It's a fool's errand though. The wars are only dragging us further into debt and we don't have an answer for China's ability to circumvent the dollar in its trading with Russia and Iran. How will more government spending building a few bridges solve that? The writing is on the wall. The US is losing its grip on the world's economic nutsack and running up our debt is no way to prepare for that eventuality.

    It's a very narrow view to think that our deficits/debt are an entirely domestic problem. Having a $30 trillion debt (which is on the horizon given our present course) when the USD no longer reigns supreme will be a catastrophe. There is no easy way out of this. We have to manage this now.
     
  21. reckoning

    reckoning New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2012
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Divide and conquer...its all i see..

    Dems blame the useless GOP..the GOP blames the dems..

    When in reality BOTH parties are too blame for this mess...
     
  22. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree. Balancing a budget during an economic downturn never yields good results. The notion is a horrible approach to economic growth based upon the tinfoil hat theory entitled Expansionary Fiscal Contraction, or austerity equals growth. There is one instance where ECF bears some veracity to it, Denmark 1982-1985. This case study is largely discredited by most economists.

    Republicans forward a better approach. Spending cuts and tax cuts are more of a growth solution than ECF. The problem is for there to be a net increase in real gross domestic product, a tax cut must be much greater in dollars and cents than the decrease in spending. If there is a $100 billion dollar decrease in government spending, with a 0.5 marginal propensity to consume, the decrease in real GDP will be $200 billion. A tax cut will have to render a $201 billion dollar increase in real GDP for there to be a net increase. This means a tax cut in this case will have to be worth $201 billion dollars. This is not "bang for the buck" economic stimulus, but a direct appeal to the power elite.
     
  23. Kessy_Athena

    Kessy_Athena New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Uh-huh. The fire extinguisher didn't completely put out the fire, so you want to throw gasoline on it instead. Yeah, reeeeaaaal good strategy there, Woogs. Stimulus increases growth and spurs job creation. That is just a fact. Austerity stunts growth and destroys jobs. That is also just a fact. You may as well claim that you can defy gravity and fly by wishing and using pixie dust as try to deny that. Big spending cuts right now will reduce growth and increase unemployment, probably sending us back into recession. This is not up for debate. This is not a question of ideology or politics or point of view. This is not something that can be wished away.

    You also can't wish away the fact that a bad economy drastically cuts tax revenues, making the deficit worse, not better. This is a big part of where the current deficit is coming from. If the Republicans got the spending cuts they've been pushing for, the result would be an anemic economy at best for years if not decades into the future, very high unemployment, and continued large deficits. the Republican agenda will not help the economy or balance the budget, it is about the worst thing you could do if you're trying to revive the economy and bring down unemployment. The only thing it would accomplish is to dismantle the social safety net. which means the people pushing that agenda are either too stupid to live, or know full well they'll destroy the economy to further their ideology and just don't care.

    "The stimulus failed! The stimulus failed!" Bullcrap. Complete, utter, and unmitigated bullcrap. Do you or do you not remember a few years ago when the news was full of this or that major corporation laying off X thousands of workers? When was the last time you saw a headline like that, hmmmm? And I've actually been seeing "help wanted" signs in the windows of shops around town for the last year or so. Not to mention 1 - 3 million jobs saved directly because of the Recovery Act. What was it Hitler used to say about if you repeat a big lie often enough, people will start to believe it? The Recovery Act worked - it gave a big boost to the economy and got us out of recession. The economy has been stumbling since then because Republicans are deliberately trying to trip it up.

    Tell me something, Woogs, if the deficit is such a huge and immediate threat, why is it that it all of a sudden it became an issue the day Obama took office? Hmmmm? Coincidence? After a decade of irresponsible tax cuts and spending giving us huge deficits while the economy was doing well it just happened to occur to you that this might be a problem on 20 January 2009? No, I'm not saying it's all Bush's fault. No, I'm not denying the deficits of the last few years. What I am saying is that your sudden overwhelming concern for fiscal discipline is about as genuine as a $3 bill. It is purely a political attack on the President, and nothing more. Furthermore, I'll go so far as to predict that this panic about the deficit will disappear like a paper swimsuit the second there's a Republican in the White House. Conservatives only care about deficits when Democrats are in power. You're full of crap, I'm sick of listening to it, and I'm calling you on it.

    And tinfoiler ravings about Iraq and Libya being about protecting the USD don't even deserve a response. Conspiracy theories about them being completely about oil are bad enough, but at least those are somewhat in touch with reality.
     
  24. Woogs

    Woogs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    8,382
    Likes Received:
    2,556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As I've learned in earlier threads, brevity is not your strong suit.

    Aside from completely mis-representing my post (you outright put words in my mouth), you presume to know me and to know that I have this 'sudden overwhelming concern for fiscal discipline' that must be driven by an anti-Obama bias. Bull(*)(*)(*)(*)!! The fact is that I don't support either Obama's or the Establishment GOP's economic ideas.

    I don't share your view that the stimulus was the driving force for any growth we may have seen. When an economy bottoms out the way ours did, there's only one way to go and that's up. Yet you want to attribute any positive news as an endorsement for more government spending. Step out of the Keynesian bubble for a minute and come up for air.

    The CBO report you incorrectly cite shows a range of 500,000 to 3.3 million jobs created by an $800 Billion stimulus. A real testament to certainty and precision there! On the low end of that estimate, each job cost ONLY $1,600,000. On the high end of the estimate, each job cost $242,424.24. If the correct figure is somewhere in the middle, each job cost around $900,000. What a bargain! Let's do it again.

    I see that in your none too brief reply that you completely ignored the larger future economic implications of our debt and how it is driving our foreign policy today. Is that beyond your ability to connect the dots? Why am I not surprised?

    BTW, gross debt to GDP ratio is now over 103%.

    http://www.usdebtclock.org/
     
  25. Kessy_Athena

    Kessy_Athena New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Everybody ready? All together now in 3... 2... 1...
    "I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

    So, since you're living in a delusional self serving fantasy world, will you paying less taxes mean my poop will be magically replaced with cotton candy? Perhaps there will be a rainbow unicorn outside my door in the morning?

    The economy was better in the 90's then the 00's, and unemployment significantly lower. Average unemployment from 1997 - 2000 was 4.4% with a low of 3.8%, and from 2004 - 2007 was 5.0% with a low of 4.4%. So no, the claim that the Bush tax cuts strengthened the economy is blatantly false.
    http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

    The tax cuts increased revenues by 44%? LOL, do I even have to bother showing how completely ridiculous this is? In constant FY 2005 dollars, tax revenues in 2001 were $2.2 trillion. It should be noted that 2001 was a recession year, so receipts were down from $2.3 trillion in 2000. In 2002, the economy started growing again and the tax cuts went into effect, resulting in a dramatic drop in revenues, hitting a low of $1.9 trillion in 2003. Revenues didn't recover to 2001 levels until 2006. Making revenues go down at all when the economy is growing is rather extraordinary in itself. If we assume that revenues for 2002 - 2005 would have been the same as 2001 without the tax cuts, that's $830 billion in debt thanks to the tax cut. The real figure is, of course, much larger.
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf

    And since you seem to have forgotten, Clinton's last budget (2001) had a surplus of $142.7 billion. Bush's last budget (2009) had a deficit of $1,274 billion.

    No, facts are.

    Did you support Bush in 2000? anyone with ahlf a brain could see the tax cuts he was promising would take us back to deficit spending. A vote for Bush was a vote for large chronic deficits, period.

    You don't get to make up your economics to suit your political agenda. Neither does the GOP.

    It's not a view, it's a fact.

    Wrong. Or perhaps you've forgotten that we were facing the very real possibility of a second great depression? That would have meant unemployment around 25%, not 10%. Which, incidentally, is exactly where Spain is right now thanks to spending cuts. We didn't hit bottom, we were teetering on the brink of a vast chasm.

    Translation: step out of the real world and come up for some cloud cuckooland koolaide. Thanks, but no thanks. Perhaps next you're going to suggest stepping out of the Newtonian bubble and realizing that gravity is due to object's natural desire to go down? Or maybe you have a nice perpetual motion machine to solve our energy problems?

    The correct citation is here: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21671
    At its greatest effect, the Recovery Act increased the number of people employed by 1.4 - 3.3 million.

    You used 5,000,000 gallons of water fighting that wildfire! That's 5,000 gallons per structure. What a bargain, let's do it again! Get your priorities straight and your head out of your butt.

    Sorry, but if you need someone to explain to you why there's no such thing as the New World Order or the Illuminati, find someone else. I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with tinfoiler babbling. The level of debt we have right now is neither extraordinary nor unmanageable. Of course I'd like to see it a lot lower - that doesn't mean the sky is going to fall any second now. There's a difference between a concern and a crisis. The debt is a concern, the stagnant economy is a crisis.
     

Share This Page