Why aren't Republicans being taken to task for trying to wreck the recovery???

[99th_Monkey]

Why aren't Republicans being taken to task for trying to wreck the recovery?
WED OCT 24, 2012 AT 12:37 PM PDT * by Lefty Coaster (at Kos)

On January 20, 2009 Republicans gathered with Frank Lutz and agreed to do their utmost to wreck all efforts to foster an economic recovery under President Obama. Republicans put Party over Country in the most cynical political ploy this country has ever seen. Mich McConnell laid out his party's cynical strategy like this: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Why isn't Republican economic sabotage the number one issue of this election? Like it deserves to be!

The British Press has done a much better job of covering this important story than the recalcitrant US Press. This comes from the Guardian:

Did Republicans deliberately crash the US economy?
By Michael Cohen

Republicans have opposed a lion's share of stimulus measures that once they supported, such as a payroll tax break, which they grudgingly embraced earlier this year. Even unemployment insurance, a relatively uncontroversial tool for helping those in an economic downturn, has been consistently held up by Republicans or used as a bargaining chip for more tax cuts. Ten years ago, prominent conservatives were loudly making the case for fiscal stimulus to get the economy going; today, they treat such ideas like they're the plague.

Traditionally, during economic recessions, Republicans have been supportive of loose monetary policy. Not this time. Rather, Republicans have upbraided Ben Bernanke, head of the Federal Reserve, for even considering policies that focus on growing the economy and creating jobs.

And then, there is the fact that since the original stimulus bill passed in February of 2009, Republicans have made practically no effort to draft comprehensive job creation legislation. Instead, they continue to pursue austerity policies, which reams of historical data suggest harms economic recovery and does little to create jobs. In fact, since taking control of the House of Representatives in 2011, Republicans have proposed hardly a single major jobs bill that didn't revolve, in some way, around their one-stop solution for all the nation's economic problems: more tax cuts.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/24/1149511/-Why-aren-t-Republicans-being-taken-to-task-for-trying-to-wreck-the-recovery

_____________________________________________________________________________

THIS QUESTION HAS HAUNTED ME THE ENTIRE CAMPAIGN. IT SEEMS LIKE SUCH A NO-BRAINER.

THOUGHTS?

[Politicalboi]

1. Because to some

It's tinfoil territory. Even though they themselves have said that is what they were going to do. This needs to be brought up more these last few weeks. But then again, we have union car workers who are still voting for Rmoney. So I don't know what these people need to be shown they are working against themselves and the rest of us when they vote Repuke.

[99th_Monkey]

5. Most "inconvenient" truths necessarily started out as "conspiracy theories".

In which cases, I wear my tinfoil hat with an unmistakable sense of pride & dignity.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. Someone needs to call Republicans out

note the discrepancy between Ryan and romney

[question everything]

2. They don't hire

I am certain that the reason why so many business owners do not hire, but sit on pile of cash, is that they want to keep the number of unemployed high and thus defeat Obama.

In the Wall St. Journal, where the news dept is supposed to be separate from the editorial board, whenever there is a report of good economic news, there is always a subtle "however.."

[99th_Monkey]

4. Yeah, that too. Totally.

If Dems don't turn the lights on, to expose these lying & cheating charlatans,
who will?

[Cosmocat]

10. There is no doubt about this, at all

I have been to chamber of commerce functions, and they are literally republican party events.

they hate democrats in general, and this president like nothing you can imagine.

[lib2DaBone]

3. I think any recovery is over for the time being....

All stimulas spending enacted by Obama has expired.. and CONgress (sic) has gone on vacation until after Jan 1st. The shop is closed.

I have talked to many in my neighborhood who have been laid off.. hours cut.. unemployment compensation is gone ...thanks to the Tea Baggers.

My job has been cut to one day a week. Can't pay much on 1 day a week.

Its going to be a lean holiday season.. as our elected leaders JUST DON'T CARE... they got their fat-easy pay check.. and to hell with American workers.

God help us if Romney gets in.. outsourcing the last of our jobs to China.. tax cuts for the wealthy, slash all social security and food stamps... it's gonna be ugly.

[99th_Monkey]

7. But this enimic "recovery" has been brought to you

BY THE FREAKING GOP OBSTRUCTIONISTS in Congress, not Obama!

Did you miss that part?

[amborin]

6. blocking bill after bill...jobs bill for Veterans, transportation, etc...holding the US hostage

[99th_Monkey]

8. Yes, yes. Precisely.

Apparently some on DU are not even clear on this point, judging from
at least one response above to the OP.

[lib2DaBone]

9. No.. ...I get it...... not to worry.....

I know the blockage is caused by Boehner and Mitch McConnell.

But at the same time.. I am not ecstatic about the performance of Harry Reid and other Dems.

I think the Dems could have fought a lot harder for the people.. but they didn't want to get their hands dirty. (JMHO)

[amborin]

11. it's been ongoingly decried in the ny times...both articles and editorials...they abuse the US

populace in their evil attempt to make Obama a one-term prez

[99th_Monkey]

14. That's good to know, re: the NYTimes calling GOP on this

Still, it would have been good to have this as part of at least one of
the debates, and on either Obama ads, or one of his Super-PAC
ads.

I think this because what they did, and may still do, as far as obstructing
perfectly good legislation for our ailing economy and nation, just to make
the POTUS "look bad" borders on treason (as in "enemies domestic&quot ,
and at a minimum makes their oath of office a joke.

Perhaps even more important, it would make the House T-baggers look
REALLY bad, and could likely have made a huge difference in getting
Dem majorities in both Houses of Congress. IMHO.

[amborin]

21. since i'm in CA, I don't see any ads

I can only hope they are good enough to trump the ghastly rovian ones.

Here are some, of many, of ny times editorials:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/republicans-vs-veterans-jobs.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/opinion/a-terrible-transportation-bill.html

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/republicans-block-bill-to-aid-small-business/

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/who-could-oppose-a-jobs-bill-for-veterans/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/us/politics/new-senate-battle-over-obamas-jobs-bill-now-piecemeal.html

[Cosmocat]

12. it isn't just DC - they have done A LOT of damage at the state level

in the name of balancing budgets of course.

But, Pa lost 28,000 public school jobs in 2011 due to budgetary cuts.

And, a win/win for republicans, who take more money from charter school vampires than even the natural gas industry in Pennsylvania. Directly attacking public education to syphon tax payer dollars from public education into charters.

Any state with R control at the governor/legislature level have visciously attacked public sector employees over the last four years.

We would in the 6s, easy, with unemployment if they had not done this.

And, best part, some of the people have the unemployed, their family and spouses, will end up voting for these scumbags.

[lib2DaBone]

13. Well. a recent poll showed that uninformed voters always vote against their own best interst....

CNN..FOX....NBC.... The goal of Corporate Controlled MSM is to keep the voters dumbed down.

You will not hear one mention of issues on any MSM.. you will only hear "Horse Race".

Candidate A is ahead 2%... undecided voters... etc.etc...

No One is talking about $40 BILLION per month flushed down the piss hole in Afghanistan?

$40 BILLION per month... can anyone imagine how many schools, roads and hospitals $40 Billion per month could build?

It boggels the mind...how screwed up this couintry is....

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

16. The Blame Game, with corperate media help

Most of our problems now come from a complicit media, owned by the same conservative corporations that back the GOP. Fox News isn't going to call the GOP on stonewalling. Neither is NBC, ABC or CBS. CNN used to be good, but after Ted Turner sold it, it became just another corporate outlet.

The GOP gets away with crap like this because nobody but the New York Times and a few other independent outlets call them on it. The web is great, but it doesn't reach Joe Republican driving to the job site in his pickup truck.

[jonpaulprime]

17. Would not surprise me at all; here's my conspiracy theory

I happen to believe the Republicans were responsible for precipitating the housing crash. Doing the bidding of greedy real estate men who thought Fannie Mae was getting way too big a piece of the housing market pie. So they set out to destroy Fannie (their ultimate goal being to privatize it.... as far back as the Reagan Administration this is something they wanted to do). They failed, but as Franklin Raines (scapegoat!) pointed out before it happened, attacking Fannie would have disastrous ramifications for the entire economy. Strong Fannie equaled strong housing market. Weak, enfeebled Fannie equaled.... well, you see where I'm going with this? Look into it. It's one of the great untold stories IMO. And keep this in mind, things didn't start to go downhill for Fannie until the official investigation was launched into their accounting practices. The Bush White House pulled its people out of Fannie Mae's boardroom prior to launching the investigation. Coincidence? I doubt it.

Long story short, they didn't want to tear Fannie down because Fannie was "too big to fail". They wanted to tear Fannie down because they felt Fannie had an unfair advantage in the housing market. And indeed, Fannie did. But that unfair advantage had become an integral part of our economy, to the detriment of absolutely no one EXCEPT.... real estate men who wanted a bigger piece of the action. But anyway. Nutty theory, I know.

[99th_Monkey]

18. Not so nutty really

I have an old friend I reconnected with at our HS reunion, who surprisingly was a Tea-bagger
type, his whole mentality, scary.. and a key part of his mantra about the big economic crash
was to BLAME Fannie Mae, was "all their fault" in his words.

So I know there is some truth to what you are saying.

[jonpaulprime]

19. And

as your experience indicates, Fannie has made an absolutely spectacular scapegoat. It's all Fannie's fault, and Franklin Raine's fault (a lie Sean Hannity loves to perpetuate)

What they fail to mention is.... had they not made a concerted effort to HURT Fannie Mae (the Enron Scandal provided them with an opportunity to go after FM with a vengeance, something certain real estate men had been waiting to do for a long long time), the resulting disaster would not have occurred. It certainly wouldn't have occurred the way it ultimately did. But their efforts to wound Fannie worked all too well.

[99th_Monkey]

24. I forgot to tell you

that this "old friend" was a banker for much of his professional life.

so his 'talking points' were finely honed and delivered as tho he was an "authority"
on the subject, "having been there and seen it", blah blah.

We don't talk much anymore. sigh.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

31. +1

[Proud Liberal Dem]

20. My guess

is that it's a bit too complicated and long-winded to try to explain the machinations of how Congress works and how the Republicans manipulated Senate rules to block a lot of stuff for the past 4 years and all of the p. Plus, most people think that Congress, whether controlled by Democrats or by Republicans is always dysfunctional ("both sides do it&quot and that the President should just be able to wave a magical wand and do what he wants anyway, which, of course, isn't accurate but most people just don't pay attention to politics and have even less understanding of how the Federal Government operates in general.

[99th_Monkey]

26. Much of what you say I agree with

esp. how easily such discussions can slip into "they both do it" territory,
which I find quite vexing. We need to start teaching our children about
the error of "false equivalency" and how to recognize it, and name it.

But we won't be teaching our children much of anything worthwhile if
Mittens takes the steering wheel in Jan. destroying our Dept of Educ.

The part I don't totally agree with is that you say it's "too complicated"
for average voters to get. This is true with some votes but not so much
with others: take the Veterans Jobs Bill, for instance, that the House
Republicans killed in broad daylight just a few weeks ago. This was NOT
complicated or difficult to understand. Rather, it was a very straight
forward case of blatant obstruction politicizing the vote along party lines.

The GOP was basically screaming "fuck our Veterans. We must get this
black man out of the White House" at the top of their lungs. THIS
vote should NOT have gone down quietly IMHO. HUGE missed
opportunity for Obama to champion our veterans, to stand with them,
and for a stronger economy; and to gain votes hand over fist in doing so.

This one is the main issue I had in mind with my post.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

36. I agree with what you are saying

I've been fuming about what's been going on for the past 4 years. I've been following politics since 1992 and I've never seen the kind of obstructionism from any Congress since then. Even the Republican-controlled Congress that Clinton had to deal with for most of his two terms wasn't even this bad (which is saying a LOT). What frustrates me the most is that things aren't even being allowed to be brought up for a vote. If a majority of Senators, Congressmen vote against something I support, that's one thing but what we've been seeing is stuff not even being allowed to be DEBATED let alone given an up-or-down majority vote. The problem that rears its ugly head is that most people believe that when things are blocked/filibustered it really means that the Senate defeated it, which isn't the case. Oftentimes, things are getting clear majority votes for opening debate on stuff but if they can't get to 60 votes, it just doesn't get anywhere and that's NOT how it is supposed to work. The news media plays along with it by saying that something was "defeated" when all that was actually defeated is an up-or-down vote that we could have won had it been allowed to be debated/voted on. Also, because the Senate has been controlled by Democrats for the past 4 years, most people just wring their hands and wonder why the Democrats in the Senate can't get their act together and pass stuff.

[Grammy23]

22. I, too, have wondered where were the ads put out by the Dems really taking the

Repubs to task for their secret meeting and the plans they made in Jan. 2009. I fully expected them to blast them with that and really expose them for what they did and have continued to do.

Then I noticed that it was barely mentioned, with just a nod to it at the Dem. Convention. I finally concluded that maybe one reason they didn't go after them was that it might remind people of the gridlock and without a massive shift in the House, the gridlock could continue into a second term.....if they re-elect President Obama. If anyone was paying any attention at all they know that a lot of what the President proposed got blocked or never made it to discussion, much less a vote. In spite of that, the President got a lot done, but many people believe the hype that he is a failure and "didn't work with Congress".

So I think they left the subject alone for fear that people would not want to re-elect Obama thinking that we'd just get more of the same.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

29. +1

[budkin]

23. Because its all Obama's fault

OBAMACARE!!!

[ProgressiveEconomist]

25. Don't worry; this will be high on the POST-election agenda

If it's pushed too far now, Republican sabotage of the economy could hurt re-election chances. Republicans would argue that blocking economic recovery would continue unless a Republican President is elected, and many voters might agree with them.

The real culprit here is gerrymandering of Congressional districts by Republican state legislatures, making it very unlikely that Nancy Pelosi will assume the Speakership next year. It will be necessary for Democrats to denounce Republican sabotage openly and often, citing details of BLS jobs reports that show abysmal job growth in construction, K-12 teaching, and other government-funded employment that traditionally has had enthusiastic bipartisan support.

Occasionally, President Obama has touched upon this issue, predicting that "the fever will break" among Republicans after he is re-elected. I hope he focuses full attention on "breaking the fever" in the course of dealing with the fiscal cliff during the lame duck session of Congress. But for now, IMO, this is an issue better left alone for the next two weeks.

[99th_Monkey]

28. But the GOP is ALREADY doing that, so what is there to lose?

GOP are already claiming "Obama just can't reach across the isle, can't bring people
together, blah blah "... and then claiming that Rmoney WAS able "to work with
Democrats in Mass" while he was Governor. I've heard this mentioned by both
Rmoney and RAyan during debates in no uncertain terms.

So I don't see why it isn't fair game for Dems, is all I'm saying. Esp that recent
vote when the House Republicans killed the Veterans Jobs Bill. That was an atrocious
vote that should not have gone down as quietly as it did; but rather should have
been brought up over and over during debates, but wasn't.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

33. The election is a contest against Romney, not Congress.

It's not like 1948, when Harry Truman could run successfully against a "do-nothing Congress". That was before state-level gerrymandering after every year that ends in "0" ensured the cpntinuing success of incumbents, especially in states controlled by Republicans. Running against Congress is a game the President cannot win. And failure at that game would help the real election foe, Willard Mitt Romney.

I hope the President wins in a landslide with coattails big enough to keep the Senate AND retake the House. But I wouldn't bet the White House on running against the economic saboteurs in the House.

[99th_Monkey]

35. Yes, Obama is running against Rmoney, not Congress. No duh.

And one of the favorite talking points of this slime-ball Rmoney (who Obama is running against)
is that Obama is a "do nothing President" on the economic recovery and jobs. The more Rmoney
is allowed to get away with this insinuation unchallenged, the more likely voters are to buy his lie
hook line & sinker.

How many more "dead bodies on the beach" will it take, before the House GOP is held responsible?

[ProudProgressiveNow]

27. Working on a video on this subject.

Hope to have it done sometime tomorrow.

[99th_Monkey]

30. Whoa! This is fantastic news. Love to see it when it's done.

would you please be so kind as to msg me or somehow let me know,
so I don't miss it? ... that would be peachy.

[McCamy Taylor]

32. The bankers were involved too. I remember one who said that anyone

who did anything to help create jobs under Obama was a traitor to his class.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

34. It's a fine line....

If the Obama campaign bangs that drum too hard, it makes it sound as though Obama can't work with Congress. If the post-convention bounce had not faded and the race tightened, I think you would have seen Obama campaigning in a lot of House districts. If the current surge continues, I hope that will still be the case.

Obama needs a Democratic House of Representatives. If he doesn't get one this year, watch for lots of barn-storming against the "Do Nothing Congress" in 2014.