"Teach Democrats a lesson" = very bad idea per historical record

[eridani]

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/101510.html

If my e-mail inbox is any indication, many American progressives plan to use the Nov. 2 election as an opportunity to “teach the Democrats a lesson” by either not voting or casting ballots for third parties, even if this contributes to the expected Republican (and Tea Party) landslide.

The thinking seems to be that the loss of the congressional majorities will punish the Democrats for accepting half-measures and compromises on issues from health care and financial reform to job stimulus and war. The Left’s hope apparently is that the chastened Democrats will then shift toward more progressive positions and be more assertive.

However, modern American political history tells us that this strategy never works. After the four key elections in which many progressives abandoned the governing Democrats – in 1968, 1980, 1994 and 2000 – not only did Republicans take U.S. politics further to the right, but the surviving Democrats tacked more to the center and grew more timid.

All four elections also were marred by GOP dirty tricks that drew little or no reaction from either the governing Democrats or the progressives, emboldening the slash-and-burn Republicans to operate in an ever more audacious style.

Tragically, too, the Left’s sideline-sitting contributed to the unnecessary deaths of millions of people in wars from Vietnam and Central America to Iraq and Afghanistan. Arguably even worse, U.S. inaction on global warming – a neglect surely to be continued if Republicans and Tea Partiers are victorious in Election 2010 – may doom the future of a livable planet.

<snip>

In other words, the Left’s notion of “teaching the Democrats a lesson” is a myth. It may make some progressives feel morally pure, but it doesn’t work. And, the results of the last 42 years should make clear that the idea is not only folly but it is dangerous.

If the pundits are correct and the Democrats go down to a crushing defeat on Nov. 2, the result will not be more progressive legislation but even less; not more spending on green jobs and a rebuilt infrastructure but more neglect; not a strengthening of the middle class but even starker financial inequities and enhanced corporate power; not a reordering of priorities away from the military-industrial complex but more tough-guy foreign policies.

Indeed, some of the more extreme Tea Party-backed candidates have made clear that their ultimate goal is the total repeal of FDR's New Deal. For both governing Democrats and disaffected progressives, the results of Election 2010 could well prove catastrophic.

[JamesA1102]

1. Excellent Analysis! nt

[Pirate Smile]

2. Anyone who thinks the reaction by Democrats to losing the House or the Senate would be to go further

left is delusional. The message will be - they went too far ... they tried too much and nothing remotely as big or progressive as what we ACTUALLY GOT PASSED through Congress will be tried again for decades.

If you want more progress then you better work your asses off to prove that Democrats wont end up being destroyed at the next election.

Does that sound too melodramatic? I don't think so.

[young but wise]

3. +1

Anyone that think the opposite will happen is crazy.

[Spazito]

49. Yep, you nailed it n/t

[wisteria]

4. Any Democrat who stays home or votes for someone other than a Democrat is no Democrat

and will hand our country over to a bunch of thugs and corporate power brokers. Then you really will have reason to complain, because you won't even see compromises on Democrat ideals.

[SwampG8r]

14. so all these duers calling

for the election of crist over meek in florida are not democrats?

[CakeGrrl]

5. Questions to ask the "punishers":

While the chastened congressional Democrats and the shameful Dem President are left reeling and ruminating and wondering what happened, who's going to be in charge and calling the shots?

And what do you think will be happening to all the nearest, dearest Progressive causes while the Democrats are sidelined?

Someone will be in charge. If it's not these displaced Dems, then who is it, and how will your lives improve as a result?

[hulka38]

6. The blame for what happens on Nov. 2

falls squarely at the feet of the Democratic leadership. No one else.

[wisteria]

7. No, the blame will be placed on those who would try and squash any progress because it wasn't the

progress they wanted.

[hulka38]

9. Don't trip over the bar you set.

[Hekate]

17. Staying home, are you?

[hulka38]

39. Your assumption is based on nothing.

[CakeGrrl]

21. No, the blame is at least shared by a passive constituency

If people think the Republican agenda will move us out of Afghanistan, or get us to universal health coverage, or repeal DOMA/DADT, or overhaul the education system any faster or better than the course that's set, then they deserve to give the Republicans a go with their sit-on-their-ass/stick it to the Dems attitude.

The Dem politicians aren't REALLY going to be the ones who are screwed when power shifts further to the Republicans. The Republicans will do their level best to finish off the middle class, and the passive ignoramuses who don't exercise their right to vote will help them do it.

[hulka38]

33. Who were the ignoramuses who declared they were ushering in a new are of bipartisanship?

It was ridiculous from the beginning. You passively accept what you're told: we have to surge in Afghanistan a few years before we begin withdrawal; we did our best on HCR, there were no deals with pharma and insurance, we really fought for the PO; after nearly destroying the economy then extorting us for hundreds of billions, the climate on Wall Street is finally changing and people are being held to account. We didn't know the Republicans wouldn't cooperate. Our majorities aren't large enough yet to fight for anything. It's bullshit. It's bullshit no matter who says it. I actively reject it. You passively accept it. The administration and congress have done some nice things but the Democrats have handled these multi trillion dollar issues poorly and dishonestly. In spite of this, nearly all of the lefties here are going to vote which is another thing you've got wrong.

[pscot]

50. Amen

[Vincardog]

53. This Lefty already votes in spite of the BS

[CakeGrrl]

55. How do you know what I accept, and whether it's done "passively"?

:wtf:

[Milo_Bloom]

46. +1000

[Vincardog]

52. The blame falls squarely at the feet of the Democratic leadership. No one else.

[Ozymanithrax]

8. If Democrats lose the the lesson they will learn is they were not conservative enough...

and progressives will teach them that.

There is irony in their somewhere.

It is a pity we will have to use Feingold to learn that Democrats are not conservative enough.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

12. The Cons are going full speed to the extreme right leaving a vacuum in the middle.

Democrats will court them, leaving the unreliable left out in the cold.

[4lbs]

10. I would like anyone who plans to "punish Democrats" next month show that the resulting make up of

Congress will cause more progressive legislation to be enacted.

How is YOUR Progressive agenda going to be served with FEWER Democrats in Congress because so many will have lost because of pouting voters?

We've seen how difficult it's been the past few years getting any fully good legislation passed with both a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress, with 58 Democrats in the Senate, and 255 Democrats in the House.

So, how exactly will that Progressive agenda be served if we have just 52 Democrats in the Senate and maybe 215 in the House after next month? How will it be helped with the loss of 6 Senate seats and 40 or so House seats?

Won't the remaining Democrats actually be forced to make a huge number of compromises with the Repukes just to get anything passed? That means they'll have to go right, not left, doesn't it?

Do you actually think that a Congress that loses 6 Democratic Senators and 40 House Democrats will actually care about LGBT issues? That they'll actually care about poor people? That they'll actually care about the unemployed? That they'll actually care about minorities?

Nope, that Congress, full of more Repukes and Teabaggers will care only about Repuke issues. They'll want to get rid of the minimum wage.
They'll want to keep the tax cuts for the rich.
They'll want to pay for the deficit by cutting Social Security and Medicare, while keeping defense spending at an all time high.
They'll want to repeal the HCR bill and allow insurance companies to continue to deny coverage for anyone they don't like.
They'll want to remove as many regulations on industry and corporations as they can.
They'll want to remove all forms of public education.

Yay, I'm sure looking forward to that. :sarcasm:

But, hey, the voters (or non-voters) that try to 'punish' Democratic candidates, can sure point to their principles, since that's all they'll have for two years. Nothing will be done by Congress from January 2011 to January 2013 that's for sure. At least nothing that we'll like.

[CakeGrrl]

24. Apparently, these people think the Republicans will just sit idly by

while the Democrats reflect and come to their senses. And then the Republicans will easily be defeated after the resurgent Dems decide they want to do what's right.

The Republicans with greater control wouldn't dream of doing anything to set Progressive causes back, would they? They wouldn't think of capitalizing on the opportunity some angry, reactionary, stay-at-home Left voters would hand them by default, would they?

No, that won't happen. And Santa still comes down the chimney and eats the milk and cookies I leave him every Christmas Eve.

[Exilednight]

26. How did the repugs push a conservative agenda ...............

while holding minorities in both chambers and losing the presidency?

[treestar]

38. +1

Just shows how they are not really dedicated to progressives causes, but to personal grudges.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

11. Sadly, I know many liberals who are staying home because they truly believe

that if they don't vote, then somehow the Democrats will become "more left." It's the most ignorant, asinine illogical theory that I've ever heard.

[eridani]

29. Democrats become more left if you get more left Democrats elected in primary elections n/t

[Kind of Blue]

13. An exceptional analysis.

I was immediately impressed by Parry's dates. I've been wondering for a while exactly when was it that the party that brought about evolutionary social changes forgot how much time those changes take. '68, I guess and shortly before, is a good place to start deeper probing.
But one thing is clear to me, Dems must not continue cleaning up and sweeping thuggery under the rug with absolutely no accountability for the thugs.

Thanks. KnR.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. Enough people "punish" Democrats this year and we get...

Speaker Boehner.

Won't that just teach 'em?

[Hekate]

18. Wise and sad and all too true

[Azathoth]

19. And thus the Professional Left will once again shoot themselves, and the country, in the foot

The Right treat general elections as scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners warfare.
The Left treat them as opportunities to throw self-righteous, "hey look at me!" temper tantrums.

[CakeGrrl]

22. But unifying to defeat Republicans would be too "lockstep", wouldn't it?

Who cares if it's an election cycle? People need to stick to principles, and if that means letting the Republicans take over again because it was too distasteful to cast a vote for those non-Progressive Dems, then so be it.

:sarcasm:

Way to make sure that Progressive causes are advanced. Not.

[Exilednight]

27. " Way to make sure that Progressive causes are advanced. Not."

When Democrats hold all the power, they still do no advance progressive causes.

Just saying.

[treestar]

36. Not doing it fast enough for you is not the same as no progress at all

We live in a country with lots of mean conservatives. We can do the best we can. Complaining about that is just denial. And it is false that the Democrats don't do more than conservatives. Rs would have done NOTHING on HCR. Even if it was not enough for you, Rs would do NOTHING and even try to scale back what there is.

They would get us into more wars. Even if the Dems are not stopping these wars fast enough for you, it's better than getting into more of them.

It's just the way it is in this country today. Republicans exist, they own the M$M, and they are tireless and utterly full of self righteousness and gall.

[CakeGrrl]

56. Democrats aren't going to dismantle what's been done. You think Republicans WON'T? n/t

[Exilednight]

59. They won't? Anyone remember NAFTA? n/t

[treestar]

34. It proves they are not truly dedicated to those causes

More dedicated to being "right" and "principled" than actually getting anywhere on these causes.

As Obama said in his RS interview, they would reveal they were not really serious about it.

[shotten99]

20. +10000000000000000000000

Those who cannot remmeber the past...

[LonePirate]

23. As a liberal, I wish I had something to vote for instead of something to vote against.

I voted for the positive message back in 2008 and it resulted in watered down reform that's minimally better than no reform. True progressive legislation was whittled down to garner bipartisan support which never materialized and everyone knew beforehand it would never materialize.

I'm sorry but a choice between a center-right party and an extremist, off the rails right wing party hardly inspires passion in me. Neither party will enact anything I want so I am stuck with choosing the lesser of two distasteful evils. Give me something to vote for instead of giving me something to vote against.

[eridani]

28. How about learning how to turf out centrists in primary elections?

If we don't learn how to do that, we aren't ever going to get progressive legislation.

[treestar]

35. That's just not reality

whenever I see this meme, I am amazed at the denial. If you have nothing to vote "for" then at least vote "against" the evil that is out there. It makes no sense to do otherwise. You live in this country. It has a lot of mean, evil right wingers in it. They won't just go away. They are something that must be voted "against." There's no point in complaining about that.

[cornermouse]

25. Another fallacy but knock yourselves out.

And while you're beating up the left yet again, consider the possibility that its as simple as voters looking at what the party is supporting on its march to the right and looking at the issues which they, themselves, consider to be important to society and their family. This isn't about "winning". Its about the issues and where the candidates position themselves on the issues.

[treestar]

37. LOL. And the Republicans win.

Then it's about "winning."

Your post proves you don't care what happens, so long as you can feel self righteously "right."

Tea Partiers don't do that. They get out and vote for the Repukes, even though the Repukes do not do for them nearly enough.

[denimgirly]

30. WRONG!

This article misses one major point...the growing influence that lobbyists have over both parties. Even if Liberals were to have voted in those prior years the Democrats would have have tacked more to the center and grown more timid. The reason is because of campaign cash. Although democrats dont want to admit it they too are very much influenced by those special interests but unlike republicans they cant just come out and admit it and so they will use excuses like "republicans bipartisan didnt happen" or "we need 60 votes".

Democrats will continue to go more to move right of center (becoming the new center) as the right will go further right primarily because there is no respectable Campaign Finance control in place. And now with that Citizen United case having a dramatic affect during even this cycle things arent bright.

At least temporarily since most of this blood money is going to republicans, democrats are finally acting progressive and doign their job. They are doign this because they have nothing to lose since these corporations arent backing them at the moment. But like any cycle this cash will return and democrats, like republicans, will restart the corruption machine once again.

So Liberals arent the ones to blame...its the system itself. It's broken.

Right now the only way to have the country to finally move left and put the center at its real center is for a dramatic, disastrous national event that affects middle-class and rich alike....this is why the Great Depression was a boon for democrats for decades. Because of the weak ass financial reform there will be another financial collapse within 5-10 years, no question, and so in a way here is hoping it does finally put America into a great depression...it is only then that Liberals will be taken seriously and democrats will finally act for the people and not special interests.

[JamesA1102]

60. True the system is broken

but sitting out the election won't help fix it.

[Umbral]

31. Yeah, that's the ticket, keep on punching those hippies till they leave The Party!

That's sure to get them back in line.... Umm, or something like that?

[mikekohr]

32. Here Is The Economic Record of the Last 70 Years in Graph and Text, -it's all Democrat all the time-

70 Years of Democratic Economic Success Versus 70 yrs of Republican Fubar
cached at: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/...


Republicans come in a distant second to Democratic economic accomplishment see: http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/eco ...
and lay claim to being economic wizards.

Republicans explode the National Debt. see:http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/nat ...
and lay claim to being fiscally responsible.

Republicans CRUSH job creation see: http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/job ...
and claim to understand how to control the business cycle.

Republicans have been in charge when 9 of the last 10 recession have occurred see: http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/his ...
and claim to be experts on the economy

Democrats have the record, the facts and history on our side. Republicans have self discipline and unity on theirs. So far they are winning. And when they win, working people lose. And that's how they like it.

mike kohr
Bureau County Democrats
http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com

Democratic "Bubble Up Economic" policy outperforms Republican "Tinkle Down Economics" in every segment of the population

?


From "The Rachael Maddow Show http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010... ...






70 YEARS OF DELIVERING FUBAR, FAILURE, AND "F"-UP" BUT WE KNEW WE COULD DEPEND ON YOU!!!!
?
?
?

We took 8 years to really jam it up,
and you took 20 months to give it back?
Really? You guys are such a bunch of
SUCKERS!

9 of the last 10 recessions occurred under Republican economic policy, including todays George W. Bush’s “Great Recession,” the deepest economic downturn since Hoover’s “Great Depression” of 1929. President Obama has not only halted the staggering job loss of over 780,000 per month he inherited from George W. Bush but President Obama’s “Bubble Up Economic” policies has reached positive increase in monthly job creation with unmatched speed.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mHSyEv8vBt4/TIKJmVIq8xI/AAAAAAAAAFI/AInWHvWVIxA/s400/New+Picture.jpg?

Source: Chris Isidore from CNNMoney.com


The economic pain being felt today is a result of the depth of the hole that was dug by the Republican “Trickle Down” policies of the Republican Party. The nation suffered a stunning loss of 8.4 million jobs, or 7% of all jobs in George W. Bush’s “Great Recession.” This compares with a loss of 3.1% of all jobs lost during George W. Bush’s first recession of March–November of 2001, and 1.9% of all jobs lost during George H.W. Bush’s recession of July 1990-March of 1991. -The deeper the hole, the longer the climb out of it- If Americans wish to avoid the pain of recovery from recession, we need to quit electing the people digging the holes.


Monthly Job Creation Graph By President and Party

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mHSyEv8vBt4/S6Zvl-nui8I/AAAAAAAAACQ/3j0wUSj78mk/s640/Job+growth+graph.jpg?

Many Americans are aware that George W. Bush has had the worst job creation record since the government began tracking these figures in 1939. But Bush's colossal failure to manage the economy overshadows a much larger story.


The record shows two unmistakable patterns:
Every time a Republican succeeds a Democrat in the White House, the job creation rate plummets.
Every time a Democrat succeeds a Republican in the White House, the job growth rate soars. Every time! No exceptions!


Over the last seventy years, the decrease in monthly job creation when a Republican succeeds a Democrat is 68,913

Considering the steady growth in population of the United States during this time frame the job creation rate should steadily increase each month (currently it must grow by 138,000 per month to keep up with population growth). This trend only manifests itself when examining Democratic administrations:

Listed below is the average job growth increase for all terms served:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mHSyEv8vBt4/S6Z6xo0qSnI/AAAAAAAAACY/p8SkoEnN5dw/s640/job+creation+by+president.jpg?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_ ...

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09 /... /

By: mike kohr Graphics by: Bonny Kohr
Bureau County/Depue Democrats
http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/2010 /...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-Why Does Republican Economic Policy ALWAYS Expand the National Debt?-
The answer is simple mathematics: "INCREASED SPENDING + decreased revenue ='s increased yearly deficits.



?


click on this link to view expanded view of above graph:
http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm



The two biggest promises of "Trickle Down Economics" are it's greatest failings. Proponents of "Trickle Down Economics” claim that tax cuts, skewed to the rich, will create jobs and increase tax revenues. The graph above disproves the latter claim.

Job creation plummets under "Trickle Down Economics see http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/job ...

And nine of the last ten recessions have occurred under Republican leadership see http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/his ...

Two things are certain to grow when a Republican is in the White House, unemployment and the National Debt.

By contrast, "Bubble Up" economnic priciples practiced by Democratic Administrations put people to work, rev up the economy, and balance the Nation's ledger books. Every time. No exceptions.

THE LAST 3 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR NEARLY 100% OF OUR INCREASE IN THE DEBT SINCE 1981


Every President, from Truman to Nixon, steadily paid down the staggering debt that was run up in our fight against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. That pattern came to a screeching halt with Reagan/Bush and Bush. Clinton’s fiscal policy was a brief respite during this orgy of deficit spending.

Clinton balanced 5 budgets, which is 5 times as many balanced budgets as the last 5 Republican presidents combined.


President Obama, like President Clinton, inherited a sea of red ink and a recession from his predecessor. He, like President Clinton, recognizes the importance of getting America back to work and then getting our fiscal house in order.


?

See National Debt Graph @: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




“THE PARTY WITH THE BEST RECORD OF SERVING REPUBLICAN ECONOMIC VALUES IS THE DEMOCRATS, AND IT ISN’T EVEN CLOSE!” -Michael Kingsley-


1). FEDERAL SPENDING: since 1960 Republicans increased Federal Spending by 71% more than have Democrats

2). FEDERAL DEBT: since 1960 Republicans have increased the National debt by 100% more per year than have Democrats.

3). GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT: since 1921, adjusted for inflation, Democrats out-produce Republicans by 43% . Starting in 1940 the Democratic advantage is 23% better.

4). REAL PER CAPITA INCOME: since 1960 Democrats have outperformed Republicans by 30%. (This is perhaps the most important economic statistic of all)

5). INFLATION: since 1960, Democrats outperform Republicans 3.13% to 3.89%

6). UNEMPLOYMENT: since 1960 it decreases in an average Democratic year by 0.3% to 5.33%, and increases in average Republican year by 1.1% to 6.38%.

7). JOB CREATION: from 1945 to 2003, Democrats produced 174,200 jobs per month, Republicans have only produced 60,600 per month. Every time a Democrat succeeds a Republican, job creation soars. Every time a Republican succeeds a Democrat job creation plummets. NO EXCEPTIONS!

8). DOW JONES AVERAGE: since 1921 the DOW has increased by 52% more under Democratic administrations

9). THE BOND MARKET: since 1940 the value of 10 year Treasury bonds rose 1.2% under Democrats and fell 0.5% under Republicans


SOURCES-Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic Policy Institute, Christian Science Monitor, “The Los Angles Times -Michael Kingsley-

RESULTS MATTER, VOTE DEMOCRATIC!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A HISTORY OF RECESSION IN THE UNITED STATES 1950 TO 2008
Written by: mike kohr 2/12/2008

Criminologists look for patterns to solve and prevent crimes. And in the comparison of the economic records of Democrat and Republican administrations there is a glaring pattern all but ignored by the corporate media. Nine of the last ten recessions have occurred under the direction of Republican economic policy. And proving that history does repeat itself, examine the three greatest slowdowns in US economic history, 1929*, 1982, 2007, all three were attributed to poor economic and tight credit policy, all three featured deregulation and lack of oversight of the financial markets, and all three were presided over by a Republican President.

Recession of 2007-present George W. Bush(R) Greatest downturn since 1929, blamed on lack of regulation of financial markets and collapse of credit markets

Recession of 2001 George W. Bush(R) Began in April of 2001, marked the beginning of greatest deficit spending in all of recorded human history

Recession of 1990-1991 George H.W. Bush(R) Deregulation of Savings and Loan industry led to a collapse and panic, which led to election of Bill Clinton, who produced the greatest increase in jobs and wealth in all of recorded human history

Recession of 1981-1982 Ronald Reagan(R) At the time, the most severe contraction of economy since the Great Depression, massive deficit spending/deregulation of markets, and tight fiscal policy in an effort to kill inflation were blamed for this downturn **

Recession of 1980 2nd & 3rd quarters Jimmy Carter (D) Shortest and least severe slow down, generally attributed to Iranian Revolution and increase in oil prices, led to the election of Ronald Reagan

Recession of 1973-1975 Richard M Nixon(R) OPEC’s increase in oil prices and massive spending in the escalation of war in Vietnam led to stagflation, the second economic crash of Nixon’s administration

Recession of 1969-1970 Richard M. Nixon(R) Credited to Nixon’s escalation of and massive spending in Vietnam War and OPEC’s increase in price of oil

Recession of 1960 -1961 Dwight D. Eisenhower(R) Noted for high unemployment, low GDP, high inflation JFK ended the recession by stimulating the economy 10 days after taking office

Recession of 1957-1958 Dwight D. Eisenhower(R) Eisenhower achieved the dubious distinction of achieving a second economic downturn on his watch, a record later matched by Richard M. Nixon, and George W. Bush

Recession of 1953 Dwight D. Eisenhower(R) Increased outlays to National defense and restrictive credit policies blamed for this downturn.

There are few things that are certain in life but this economic record of the last 58 years provides one. When a Republican is elected to the White House, there is a 100% chance that the economy will slide into a recession and a 50% chance that two or more recessions will occur.

With an unbroken record of fubar, failure and foul up one would expect Republicans to have a (FU) after their names instead of a (R). A (no) would be more appropriate. Not a single Republican member of Congress voted for President Obama’s 2009 Economic Stimulus plan. The “Know Nothing” Republican Party has a long history of saying no. They said no to the creation of the Social Security System, and the creation of Medicare, the two most successful poverty reduction programs in US history. That’s not all they said no to.

Bill Clinton’s economic stimulus plan of 1993 produced the greatest wealth and job creation in all of recorded human history. Clinton’s economic plan reduced the National Debt by $587 billion, and balanced 5 budgets, exactly 5 times as many balanced budgets as produced by the last five Republican presidents -combined-.
Not a single Republican House member voted for it.

Here’s what they had to say about Clinton’s Stimulus plan of 1993:
From the Files by David Waldman
(Congress Matters, February 15, 2009)

Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), CNN, 8/2/93:
“Clearly this is a job killer in the short run…The deficit will be worse,...”

Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), GOP Press Conference, House TV Gallery, 8/5/93:
“I believe this will lead to a recession next year.”

Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH), 5/27/93:
“(This) will lead to more taxes, higher inflation, and slower economic growth.”

Rep. Jim Bunning (R-KY), 8/5/93:
"It will not create jobs."

This from the same know nothing crowd that gave us 9 of the last 10 recessions.

There has been a crime of economic ineptitude perpetrated on the American people. No one seems to see the pattern nor is anyone confronting the stumblebums responsible for it. And they are so easy to spot. They are the one’s saying no.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*The Great Depression of 1929 Herbert Hoover(R) Lasted for 10 years, blamed on Hoover’s economic policy and lack of regulation of financial markets
** “The Reagan Recession” which ran from the 4th quarter of 1981 thru the 1st quarter of 1982 is often categorized as starting under Carter’s watch during the 2nd & 3rd quarters of 1980. By the end of the 3rd quarter of 1980 that brief recession had rebounded. Starting in the 4th quarter of 1980, 3 of the next 4 quarters produced increased GDP. Reagan’s tight fiscal policy and massive deficit spending contracted the economy again in late 1981, producing unemployment of 10.8% and prime interest rates that hovered between 15% and 20.5%

http://recession.org/history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reces ...
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/rec198 ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_hist ...


mike kohr

[Kind of Blue]

51. Good Lord, this should be an OP.

Excellent work, Mike Kohr . Keeping this for reference. Thanks!

[Aramchek]

40. sadly, many Progressives have no clue how real progress is achieved

Despite their constant complaints abouts spineless Democrats,
it it actually they who don't have the spine to do what it takes to achieve real lasting change.

They have already given up after less than 2 years.
It's really disappointing.

[ibegurpard]

43. It's not achieved by sitting back and saying "that's the best we can hope for"

"shut up and count your blessings"
:puke:

[Aramchek]

47. it's definitely not achieved by saying "If I don't get exactlywhat I want then nobody gets nothing!"

[ibegurpard]

41. Okay then

Solution to party establishment interfering in primaries (arkansas and colorado anyone?)
Solution to pressure from the left being characterized as whining, disruption, abuse, hatred, etc?
What do you suggest?

[mikekohr]

42. Results Matter

The seventy year economic record is clear what the results will be EVERY time. Working people and the nation prosper when Democratic economic principles are in place. When Republican economic principles are in place working people and the nation will suffer EVERY time. No exceptions. Not one. Not one in seventy years. That should count for something.

mike kohr
Bureau County Democrats
http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com

[ibegurpard]

44. and when Democrats abandon their traditional principles?

we quietly support them anyway?
Is that what you're suggesting?

[mikekohr]

48. The Positive Results We Have Produced In the Past Are Being Repeated Now

It took FDR 5 years to end Hoover's "Great Depression." It took President Obama 16 months to end Bush's "Great Recession." We have acheived a beginning to health care reform. We have regained our standing in the court of world opinion. We are winding down the two wars Bush gifted us with. We have passed the most substantial financial reform since the 1930's. Working people are paying the lowest tax rates since the 1950's. In President Obama's first year he has reduced the yearly debt, repeating President Clinton's path to fiscal respopnsibility.

?

We are repeating our past record of success. Is it all I wanted? No. But I'll take forward momentum over the rocket paced backsliding of Reagan/Bush/Bush every time.

mike kohr
Bureau County Democrats
http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com

[Milo_Bloom]

54. A lot of spin in that assesment.

"We have acheived a beginning to health care reform" - Through a solution which involves mandating citizens to contract with nearly criminal organizations with no real price controls. It is not a solution.. it actually ADDS to the problem

"We are winding down the two wars Bush gifted us with." - We de-escalated one and escalated the other.

"We have passed the most substantial financial reform since the 1930's." - the ONLY financial reform - which didn't address the actual problem in the system. It leaves us just as vulnerable as before to the same collapse and at the mercy of the same organizations.

"Working people are paying the lowest tax rates since the 1950's." Not REALLY. This is one of those fun games we play when spinning something. It ignores state taxes, payroll taxes, sales tax, etc. and actually gives bush more credit than he ever deserves, since it is that irresponsible tax cut which made it happen.

"In President Obama's first year he has reduced the yearly debt, repeating President Clinton's path to fiscal respopnsibility." This is only true if you completely ignore the stimulus and the omnibus bill of 2009, which is so incredibly dishonest as to make it even beyond spinning. It is just lying.


Ultimately, we haven't moved forward.. we have moved sideways. Instituted some fixes without addressing the underlying problems.

[mikekohr]

63. Criticism of your Criticism and inaccurate factoids:

Health Care Reform: explain your sourness to the millions of people able to keep their children on their insurances until the age of 26, the millions whose pre-existing conditions are now covered.

Execution of Wars: We will be deep into withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan by next August. Bush let this war fester for 7 years and let Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora. President Obama has directed more disruption and extermination of Taliban and Al-Quada leadership in 18 months than Bush did in 84 months.

Financial Reform: Perfect? No. But the most expansive in 70 years. Better than any president, Democrat or Republican. Results matter.

Federal Taxes: President gave tax cuts to 95% of Americans, -the lower 95%-. And he is proposing allowing the irresponsible Bush-era tax give-a-ways to the rich expire, which will dramatically reduce the yearly debt.

The yearly debt in fiscal year 2009-2010 was 1,651,994,027,818.04 (Obama)
fiscal year 2008-2009 was 1,885,104,106,599.26 (Bush)
see: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

I know that $1.651 trillion is less than $1.885 trillion and that's a reduction. I'm not going to call you a liar, like you called me. I will however question your math skills. They seem flawed.

[Milo_Bloom]

64. Nothing even remotely inaccurate.

"Health Care Reform: explain your sourness to the millions of people able to keep their children on their insurances until the age of 26, the millions whose pre-existing conditions are now covered. "

Happily. Since their costs are currently skyrocketing far in excess of what they had before AND I can also explain it to those people who used to be able to get children ONLY policies, but cannot anymore. Again, as I said, it failed to address THE PROBLEM or CONTROL COSTS.


"Execution of Wars: We will be deep into withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan by next August. Bush let this war fester for 7 years and let Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora. President Obama has directed more disruption and extermination of Taliban and Al-Quada leadership in 18 months than Bush did in 84 months."

Riiiight. So I guess we will just leave 50K "helper bees" in Afghanistan as well? And no, Obama has no more disrupted Al-Quada leadership than bush did, since they are spread out all over the world. It is just a continuation of a failed policy that Obama is executing to pretend he is "tough".

"Financial Reform: Perfect? No. But the most expansive in 70 years. Better than any president, Democrat or Republican. Results matter."

Again.. not the most expansive.. the ONLY. Unfortunately it doesn't actually accomplish anything.. so I guess it is nice that they did something, but they kinda forgot to address the ACTUAL PROBLEM.

"The yearly debt in fiscal year 2009-2010 was 1,651,994,027,818.04 (Obama)
fiscal year 2008-2009 was 1,885,104,106,599.26 (Bush) "

This is just a plain old lie. You are forgetting that nearly 600 billion of FY 2008-09 was OBAMA, part to the stimulus (200 billion charged to FY 09) and part to the omnibus bill passed in March 2009 (400 billion). So, again to say that Obama has reduced the deficit is just a plain old lie. It has actually increased.. which is fine.. we need to defecit spend right now, but why lie and say it has been reduced when it hasn't??

[mikekohr]

66. Dr. Stephen Bloch of Aldephi University agrees with me, President Obama HAS REDUCED the yearly debt

here are numbers complied by Dr. Stephen Bloch from the Math and Computer Science Department od Adelphi University. He agrees with my stand on the reduction in the yearly debt by President Obama over President Bush's last year in office. In fact if you look at the chart President Obama IS replicating almost exactly the path of President Clinton, the most fiscally responsible president since Harry S Truman.

from http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

Comments on Table 1:
The 2008-2009 fiscal year that spanned the Bush-Obama transition (which, for consistency, I attribute to the outgoing administration) had an unprecedented deficit of $879 billion (in 1983 dollars). 2009-2010, the first fiscal year that fell entirely into Obama's administration, was $120 billion smaller, at $758 billion (in 1983 dollars), but still the second-highest annual deficit on record. The third-highest was 2007-2008, at $472 billion in 1983 dollars, and the fourth-highest was 1942-43, at $372 billion in 1983 dollars.

click to view chart
http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

mike kohr
Bureau County Democrats
http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com

[Milo_Bloom]

67. WOW. Now THAT's amazing spin.

So.. let me get this straight.

So long as you look at everything 1983 dollars.

AND.. don't count the omnibus bill

AND.. don't count the stimulus spending in 09

THEN.. AND ONLY THEN can you prove that Obama has the second highest defecit on record???

This is why there is an enthusiasm gap. Because spin is easily debunked.

[mikekohr]

70. MIlo, obviously you have greater qualifications and expertise than Doctor Bloch

Would you mind sharing these qualification, and experiences, with us? Or minus any of these can you supply us with sources upon which you have built your opinions?

mike kohr
Bureau County Democrats
http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com

[Milo_Bloom]

71. Yes.

I use actual facts.

Here is where the article falls apart.

"The 2008-2009 fiscal year that spanned the Bush-Obama transition (which, for consistency, I attribute to the outgoing administration) had an unprecedented deficit of $879 billion (in 1983 dollars)"

Now, as for sources. You need to look up the appropriations counted against the 09 budget PASSED IN 09 under the new administration

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app09.html



First you have the Omnibus bill which was 410 billion dollars counted toward FY 09.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1105/show

"This bill totals about $410 billion and covers funding for fiscal year 2009 for the nine federal agencies that were not funded under the regular appropriations process last year."

this bill, counting against FY 09, was introduced, debated, voted on and signed all within the Obama administration... It included 7.7 BILLION in earmarks


Second you have the Stimulus, which added 185 billion to the FY 09 budget.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1/show

"Lawmakers had estimated the cost of the final package to be $789 billion, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the plan would cost a total of $787 billion and increase the federal deficit by $185 billion this year and by $399 billion next year."


Then you have further additional appropriations against 09, such as the 2 billion additional for cash for clunkers... you can find more in the original link above.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3435/show

"
Official SummaryThis bill currently has no wiki summary. Create Summary

8/7/2009--Public Law. (This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.) Makes emergency supplemental appropriations of $2 billion for FY2009 and FY2010 to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the Department "


All in all, when you add it up, it is about 600 BILLION in additional spending added to FY 09 during Obama's first year. Now, I don't have an issue with this spending at all. I think we should have spent MORE. However, claiming that Obama reduced the deficit by looking at FY09 vs FY10 is as incredibly dishonest as the heritage foundation trying to claim that Obama is solely responsible for FY09

When you try to claim that Obama is a fiscal conservative, it blows up in your face, because the claim simply isn't true and then it undermines anything else you are trying to claim.

[TreasonousBastard]

58. What "traditional principles"? When I grew up there were two types of Democrats...

southern segregationists and urban machines. Republicans were the good guys.

Don't confuse a few more or less liberal Presidents with what was going on in the rest of the country.

Over the years a lot of this changed and the Republicans became the calcified assholes you see now with the Democrats being the good guys-- most of the time.

I've been registered as a Democrat since I first voted-- against Nixon. That's when the parties started to change and I was seeing reform urban Democrats.

[rbilancia]

62. No, you should stay home in protest and help the RePUKES. Now there's a plan.

[Milo_Bloom]

45. So.. Damned if you do... Damned if you don't.

[Whisp]

57. there are far less of them than is portrayed.

and I'm not sure if some of them are 'really' progressive or just shit stirring incognitos.

they will make no difference, the ball is rolling and that enthusiasm gap all the rightwingers and whiners are breathlessly lipping (with saliva drippiing down their greedy chins) lately is a bunch of media bullshit.

so to all those who proclaim they really are dems or progs or whatever, and threaten to note vote - you of course are free to do as you like, and I am free to say go fuck yourself

[rbilancia]

61. What "lesson"? That anything short of ideological purity means sitting home thus helping RePUKES?

[JoePhilly]

65. Bingo ... what they learn is that we won't be there when they need us!

They learn that the left will ABANDON them after any vote, even if they make progress.

The right does not suffer from this. Their BASE remains solid, and if the can get an inch, they cheer, a foot they cheer, and mile they cheer.

We on the left won't cheer unless we get a 10 miles ...

[CakeGrrl]

68. *2 YEARS* after taking on a cesspool of problems, but it's not fast enough or good enough

'He's had a whole half a term dealing with Republicans who won't work with him, and all the problems of this country aren't solved. I'm staying home!'

:eyes:

[LWolf]

72. I think that's what we learn when we vote for neoliberals. nt

[BootinUp]

69. Yep. nt

[Proud Liberal Dem]

73. Yup

I agree with most of your assessment. Refusing to vote for Democrats when they're not progressive enough is still important, not only to help keep the Democrats at least in the numerical majority so that some progress can be achieved, as well as to block the Republican Tea Party from torching the building but it's also psychologically important for the public and the corporate media to know that we're all not just going to roll over and play dead for the Republican Tea Party and that the country is NOT moving in the direction of the Republican Tea Party and its destructive *agenda*. Furthermore, if progressives don't vote for the Democrats, the Democrats are going to HAVE to move to the center/right in order to win votes, which is going to make most of them LESS progressive not more progressive. Progressives and, indeed all of us, certainly shouldn't blindly follow the leadership and, yes, we need to hold them accountable for not following through with supporting the Democratic Party platform, including primarying some of them when necessary, however, after the primaries are over and Election Day rolls around, we all need to come together to vote for the Democrats even when they're not perfect because the alternative is much, much worse. I know that might seem like a "scare tactic" but it's also the truth.