Did Republicans deliberately crash the US economy? The Guardian

[Botany]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/09/did-republicans-deliberately-crash-us-economy

Did Republicans deliberately crash the US economy?
Be it ideology or stratagem, the GOP has blocked pro-growth
policy and backed job-killing austerity – all while blaming Obama


Why has job creation in America slowed to a crawl? Why, after several months of economic hope, are things suddenly turning sour? The culprits might seem obvious – uncertainty in Europe, an uneven economic recovery, fiscal and monetary policymakers immobilized and incapable of acting. But increasingly, Democrats are making the argument that the real culprit for the country's economic woes lies in a more discrete location: with the Republican Party.

In recent days, Democrats have started coming out and saying publicly what many have been mumbling privately for years – Republicans are so intent on defeating President Obama for re-election that they are purposely sabotaging the country's economic recovery. These charges are now being levied by Democrats such as Senate majority leader Harry Reid and Obama's key political adviser, David Axelrod.

For Democrats, perhaps the most obvious piece of evidence of GOP premeditated malice is the 2010 quote from Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell:

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

[Fire Walk With Me]

1. Smash-and-grab, disaster capitalism.

They did it to Carter, they did it to Gray Davis in California (Ahnold/Enron).

[MrSlayer]

2. Why is everyone so late to this party?

It has been obvious from the second the man took office that they had absolutely no intention of helping fix the disaster they created.

[kenny blankenship]

3. I'm amazed

Last edited Wed Jun 13, 2012, 07:08 AM - Edit history (1)

After we all witnessed how the Republican Party behaved when Clinton was President, how they attempted to set up a one party rule under Bush and Delay when they had all branches of government in hand - not hearing Democratic witnesses in committees, demanding lobbyists talk and deal only with Republicans, not letting Democrats see legislation until the voting began much less offer amendments and so on, not to mention how they launched wars ahead of every election and brazenly cheated in Florida and Ohio - how could anyone could have possibly been expecting anything different from them?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

48. It boggles my mind, too, especially hearing liberals/Democrats unknowingly buy into

wingnut rhetoric by blaming Obama FIRST, not understanding how governing works. The man is not King George III. Our Constitution is set up to prevent that!

[Sherman A1]

4. Simple Answer.

Yes!

[KansDem]

5. This should be shouted from the rooftops

Last edited Wed Jun 13, 2012, 09:51 PM - Edit history (1)

There's no question now the Republicans are anti-American, and they've hid behind this fervor by projecting "American patriotism." They're masters at this deception.

They want us all stepping and fetching for the "Master Race": the One Percenters.

My next protest sign will read:

[center]Republicanism:
Bad for Workers
Bad for Seniors
Bad for Families
Bad for America[/center]

I'd be shouting this from the rooftops if I didn't think the cops would be out to tase me...

[malaise]

6. Yes and they stated it publicly

from they started plotting on the night of Obama's inauguration

[libtodeath]

7. From raygun on they have been treasonous criminals

[bupkus]

8. Why is the title posed as a question?

When it's a fact.

Republicans deliberately crashed the American economy.

The question should be; Why are so many Americans too fucking stupid to realize it?

[raps]

9. I don't care for republicans in the slightest

but at the same time I do not believe they are trying to ruin the economy on purpose. They just have a false view of how to fix things. Taking it to this level of accusation is a stretch and Reid and Axelrod taking it there does nothing but show desperation. The democrats need to stick with the facts, stop the accusations, and just be fucking honest and good and the people will speak with their support.

[Shankapotomus]

11. The evidence supports deliberate sabatage

In addition to the economy, observe Republicans are trying to roll back long settled policies on basic womens and workers rights. And rolling back state and federal programs and institutions like social security and government jobs. Why? So Democrats have to refight that ground all over again with Republicans, giving the Republican party more time to survive. Because when these problems are eventually solved, the Republican party becomes irrelevant and dies. So refighting these old political battles is the only way Republicans can extend the life of their party.

So yes, clearly it is intentional. You have to be very forgiving to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt here.

[raps]

12. not giving them anything

I'm being realistic. All the things they are doing have been long standing conservative policy issues. They are doing nothing new right now. They just have more power in congress than they have had in a long time and are trying to keep riding the wave from the tea party bull that increased support for their ideology.

[Shankapotomus]

13. Privatizing social security

is a long standing republican policy? Rolling back contraception access? An aggressive and critical relationship with all other countries? I don't think there is a continent or country that Republicans can't find fault with. They are on a war-footing with anything not America. Insulting and alienating allies.

This is not business-as-usual for Republicans.

"It's a neurological problem we're dealing with."

[raps]

17. I think even Clinton looked into semi privitization

To be fair, contraception access isn't being limited any more than it already was. If the religious institutions didn't provide it before, fighting against having to provide it doesn't roll anything back. It just keeps it like it was.

All countries have problems and our problems interact with their problems. It's the way of the world. Always has been and always will be. I'm not defending negative action against other nations I'm just laying out the truth of the world. No matter who is in charge of any nation there will be disagreements with others. Things one nation may do that will negatively affect yours and vice versa. It is business as usual. It's the way the world works. Disagreeing with someone doesn't equate to them being stupid or having a mental disorder. They just have a alternative view which they are more than welcome to have. It is that diversity of views that make the US a great place and keep things interesting.

[Shankapotomus]

23. Contraception access IS being limited

when that religious institution is an employer. And it is unprecidented for an employer to dictate an employee's medical care access based on religion. Under the garb of religion, they are trying to undermine a worker's access to the health care they want. That is an outrage and a clearly cynical attempt to break the system for quality health care access even further than it is already broken. They will not stop at contraception.

[raps]

29. What medical procedure

will religion take next?

Again, if it was never offered by the employer before how can it be eliminated now?

[fasttense]

18. These are NOT long standing conservative policies.

My father was a Republican and he would have never supported them today. He believed in honesty and he supported the impeachment of Nixon. This RepubliCON party is not your father's RepubliCON party anymore. They are of, by and for the uber rich only and against anything that helps the middle class or poor. They take dirty tricks to a new level of corruption.

It was a Republican that founded the first National parks and supported the conservation movement. Now all RepubliCONS are climate deniers.

Just doing the right thing and expecting the voters to notice does NOT work in politics. If it did, then we would never have had the bush as President. The Dems need to fight and accusations that are based in fact is part of fighting back.

[Voltaire]

21. I'm sorry, Republicans are not ONLY stupid and have mental disorders

But they are flat out fucking evil and need to be done away with ASAP

[Shankapotomus]

25. +++1

Stake. Heart. Republicans.

[raps]

26. Elimination of opposing viewpoints

Is something I cannot agree with. It is those opposing viewpoints and the ability for people to have them and proclaim them freely and openly that makes our country such a great place to live. Even without economic prosperity we still have the freedom to speak our minds. Don't seek to silence others for their beliefs. If their beliefs are truly wrong they will expose the flaws themselves and will be rejected. Sometimes it's better to let someone shoot themselves in the foot by letting them have the gun than to try and take the gun away before they do.

[tanyev]

15. Rubbish. They were willing to let the country default to try and score a few political points

on a very routine operation of raising the debt ceiling.

[raps]

20. They tried to use it to

force their economic ideology. It led to an odd compromise that didn't solve the problem.

[tanyev]

24. They never took it that far before.

"Destroy Obama" trumps every other issue for them now.

[raps]

28. Economy

hasn't been this bad in 80 years. The economic situation is causing everyone to feel desperation and seek the now now now speedy fix.

[tanyev]

35. Oh, they're desperate alright.

Desperate to extend the tax cuts that caused this economic situation.

[raps]

36. It wasn't the tax cuts

It was 9/11 followed by the war and the housing bubble. The tax cuts I believe were timed correctly to be effective at helping a little. It was other policies that brought us down. Raising and cutting taxes both can be beneficial in the proper situation and time. Maybe one day both sides will get over their strict adherence to one over the other no matter the economic situation at the time.

[tanyev]

37. Uh-huh.

Bear in mind that President Bush inherited perhaps the strongest federal balance sheet in postwar history. There were record-high surpluses, debt was at around 30 percent of GDP and falling, and the Congressional Budget Office projected that the federal government would be debt free by 2009. The country was in great fiscal shape to deal with any crises or emergencies coming down the road, and it was even ready to deal with the coming retirement of the baby boom generation.

But rather than follow President Bill Clinton’s successful lead, President Bush handed out gigantic tax cuts, with people at the top of the income ladder getting the biggest breaks. Those “supply-side” tax cuts were a complete failure as economic policy, and now, instead of being debt free and well prepared to care for an aging population, our debt-to-GDP ratio is almost 70 percent. If those tax cuts are extended—instead of being allowed to expire on schedule at the end of 2012—it will approach 100 percent by 2021.

Of course, other factors contributed to the federal budget’s deterioration: the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; the subsequent recession; the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; President Bush’s domestic spending programs; and the onset of the Great Recession at the end of 2007, which led to massively reduced tax collections as incomes plummeted.

But even with all of that, when one adds back the foregone revenue from the Bush tax cuts to the actual revenue collections over the past 10 years, the debt picture suddenly becomes markedly better. That additional revenue would have meant lower deficits in each year and therefore lower overall debt. And lower debt means lower interest payments on that debt, further reducing deficits. In the “no Bush tax cuts” alternate universe, our debt-to-GDP ratio would be less than 50 percent this year even after all the other fiscal shocks of the past 10 years.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/bushtaxcuts_anniversary.html

[raps]

38. Using

assumed tax receipts from an assumed perfect economic outlook that doesn't factor in the very same things I listed as a cause for decline and comparing that to actual tax receipts with all that factored in doesn't really work. I've done a lot of research on the tax issue in the past and looking at the numbers there was a fairly significant increase in receipts following the cuts, particularly when you look at receipts specific to capital gains. When the capital gains tax was cut, receipts skyrocketed. This may be because of the investment boom and the money to be made at the time and probably contributed to the housing burst by fueling those risky bad investments. The cuts were probably a good move at the time but the success of them was overshadowed by the other things straining the economy.

[tanyev]

39. Uh-huh. Well thanks so much for coming here to edumacate us all.

Good luck with that.

[ProfessorGAC]

46. Simplistic and Sophomoric

You don't understand economics the way you think you do. You also don't understand the concept of overcontrol.

There was nothing to fix when the tax cuts were fostered. And as soon as 9/11 happened, and a war was at hand, the very same administration should have returned to the prior policies.

The latter isn't even a macroeconomic construct. It's a well-established and respected process control dictum.

As the macroeconomic aspect, the premise was that the government "shouldn't run surpluses". No reason was ever given. That's because there IS NO GOOD REASON for that sentiment. Of course, the government should run surpluses if the excess revenues are not impinging on economic growth, job creation, and real wage increases.

Tax cuts may, in fact, be stimulative but not if they're directed at those for whom the extra money is not discretionary. Someone who makes a million dollars isn't actually going to spend the extra 35,000 they get from a the tax break because they're already extremely comfortable at $40k per month. So, it was not even a well applied stimulus. It was just foolilsh and based in a two dimensional economic philosophy that you seem to embrace.

They were a terrible idea then, they continue to be a failure, and should have been rescinded as soon as expenditures were going to have to rise to support the overseas ventures.

You need to think your position all the way through, before you post.

[Shankapotomus]

27. In other words,

they almost intentionally broke the country, which is what you are erroneously challenging in this thread.

[raps]

32. congress

not an individual political party. When both sides put their foot down on an issue both sides are to blame when nothing comes of it. Just because you back one over the other does not relieve your side of blame.

[GOTV]

16. How do you account for the fact that the last 3 republican presidents all ...

... increased public sector employment in response to economic downturns they faced but the GOP is now preventing Obama from doing the same? Whatever their "false view" maybe be it included public sector hiring at least. Why prevent Obama from doing that unless the goal is to stall the economy.

[raps]

22. The republicans

are trying to force Obama to do it the way they believed worked for those presidents. By cutting taxes and social programs. Is that what led to employment before? You seem to be involuntarily supporting that idea.

[eaglesfanintn]

31. Nope

During the last three GOP Presidential administrations, the government grew. They added thousands of jobs. They increased spending and they ballooned the deficit and debt.
They did try to cut social programs, that's true and Bush Jr. used up a lot of political capital to try to privatize Social Security, but they in no way decreased spending or the size of the government under those three.

[raps]

34. No they didn't decrease spending

Never said they did. They increased it like every president has before and since.

[ieoeja]

40. You just claimed that employment INCREASED under those Republican presidents!

"Un"employment has increased under every Republican president since WW-II and decreased under every Democratic president in that time.

[kenny blankenship]

47. Republicans are capable of smashing everything until they get their way

they've tried it before - govt. shutdown in Clinton's first term, endless attempts to "get Clinton" on something- anything - then hold impeachment hearings against him an effort which stretched from his first months in office (Travelgate! Paula Jones! the "Murder" of Vince Foster! Overbilling at the Rose Law Firm! White Water! Paula Jones Again! Whitewater! Monica Lewinsky!) and continued through the eventual Senate Trial of Citizen William Jefferson Clinton, concluding only in nineteen fucking ninety-nine, the year before the election to replace him.

[Shankapotomus]

10. If Republicans don't break America

that means the Democrats will be able to fix it. And if Democrats are able to fix America there is nothing to argue over and the Republican party becomes irrelevant and dies. If the Republican party wants to stay alive they need to break America so they can stick around to pretend to fix it.

Very simple.

[Octafish]

14. ''I hope Obama fails.''

General Blowhard Flushbo McLimpnuts, (Draft Dodger -- Warmonger)

[Volaris]

19. The real laugh is going to be if The Pres. wins re-election...

I will be sending Sen. McConnell's office a 3 word e-mail on the night of the second inaugural.

[Shankapotomus]

33. What's the three words? (nt)

[Volaris]

42. "Fuck you, Mitch."

[Shankapotomus]

44. LOL

I guessed close! I thought it would be "GFY".

[Volaris]

45. That would work, too.

Maybe we should start a web-wide campaign, all of us liberals can give Senator "One-Term President" a nice, big electronic middle finger at midnight of the first day of the next term (if it works out in our favor, which I think it will.)

Think of it, MILLIONS of 3 word emails, all to his inbox. Won't that feel nice?

Think his staff can handle PR of it?

[Meg_Griffin_1]

30. Why should we have to ask such a question?

A BIG YES!!

[laundry_queen]

41. From the book of DUH! nt

[YellowRubberDuckie]

43. When the people who wrecked the economy are the ones who come out the best in it...

...I'm going to say PROBABLY.