Is GOP trying to sabotage economy to hurt Obama?

[Stratocaster]

No, the GOP is not trying to sabotage the economy. And the surgically precise, "there's only one way to interpret it" parsing of Mitch McConnell's statement is already tiresome, and (to me) a sure sign that the poster has no argument.

"Yes, if given the mutually exclusive choice between destroying an asteroid that would hit NYC and kill 8 million people, or keeping Obama from getting re-elected, the GOP would choose the latter. What else are we to infer from an off-the-cuff statement from a politician? It could not possibly be an awkwardly worded belief that a second term for Obama would be disastrous for the country. Nope. Read his words. Regardless of what else happens, if Obama is a one-termer, the GOP wants it. Bring on the bubonic plague, destroy the economy. It's all in play. Try to find a statement from a Dem saying they'd be okay with bubonic plague destroying America. Go ahead, I defy you. Right. You got nothing."

Seriously, do people actually believe that McConnell stupidly revealed the GOP evil plan, cooked up in their Bond villain lair, in a moment of weakness? Do you parse Democrats' statements so pedantically?

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Stratocaster

Seriously, do people actually believe that McConnell stupidly revealed the GOP evil plan, cooked up in their Bond villain lair, in a moment of weakness? Do you parse Democrats' statements so pedantically?

I think they are projecting. Those who would do or say almost literally anything to prevent a GOP victory are that much more willing to believe the same about the other side.

Another factor is magical thinking. Liberal ideas, and liberal politicians, are correct by definition and are always better for any situation. When those ideas are implemented, and they don't work, it cannot be because the ideas or the politicians are flawed. It must be because Evil Forces are at work, thwarting all that is decent and right (which always coincides with all that is liberal and Democratic). Anyone who voted against that which is decent and right must therefore be in cahoots with the Evil Forces.

QED, if one is gullible enough.

Regards,
Shodan

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Stratocaster

Seriously, do people actually believe that McConnell stupidly revealed the GOP evil plan, cooked up in their Bond villain lair, in a moment of weakness?

No, I think he did it deliberately, with the certainty that conservative values were the only way to save the country from the socialist destruction represented by Obama. McConnell, et al, are true believers that seriously believe the USA will cease to exist if Democrats are not thwarted, and any collateral damage is acceptable when the utter annihilation of freedom is the alternative.

Do you parse Democrats' statements so pedantically?

I take McConnell at his word: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” If any pedantic parsing is taking place, it is by those who want to minimize responsibility for the destruction caused by Republican single-mindedness. The debt limit debacle last summer, and the threat to repeat it again this year is exhibit A.

[Stratocaster]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

No, I think he did it deliberately, with the certainty that conservative values were the only way to save the country from the socialist destruction represented by Obama. McConnell, et al, are true believers that seriously believe the USA will cease to exist if Democrats are not thwarted, and any collateral damage is acceptable when the utter annihilation of freedom is the alternative.

I'm with you, brother. I have come to believe. The true believers would accept anything--and I mean anything--if Obama's defeat is the result.

I take McConnell at his word: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” If any pedantic parsing it taking place, it is by those who want to minimize responsibility for the destruction caused by Republican single-mindedness. The debt limit debacle last summer, and the threat to repeat it again this year is exhibit A.

Spoken like an unbiased, non-zealot speaker of truth. You want to make an argument that the GOP is sabotaging the economy? Have a go at it. But if your argument's foundation is McConnell's statement, it's just more lazy, partisan, echo chamber talking points. The endless introduction of McConnell's statement into these threads is so lazy and intellectually dishonest, that was my point. Your post is simultaneously a non sequitur and confirmation of my original point.

[The Second Stone]

Yes and no in my opinion.

Yes in that they would love for the economy to tank so that Romney gets the win in November.

No in that they policies that they advocate, with an exception below, are the ones that they would institute if they were able to do so, like the Ryan budget cuts. Things that help the middle class would go. Social security would be "privatized" so that the idiots on Wall Street could "invest" it and base their bonuses on those investments.

The exception is that they would drop all pretense of cutting the deficit, as they did during the Reagan and Bushes years and start spending wildly on stuff their constituents (the Koch brothers and their ilk) wanted.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Shodan

I think they are projecting. Those who would do or say almost literally anything to prevent a GOP victory are that much more willing to believe the same about the other side.

Next time, try typing "No, u"

It will prevent you from typing inanities like "almost literally"

[elucidator]

Well, truth be told, I'd be willing to do a lot to keep the GOP from ruining my country. But even I would tremble at the brink of being literal!

[toadspittle]

Originally Posted by Stratocaster

Yes, if given the mutually exclusive choice between destroying an asteroid that would hit NYC and kill 8 million people, or keeping Obama from getting re-elected, the GOP would choose the latter.

That's a false dilemma. If an asteroid hit NYC, you'd kill millions of Democratic voters.

WIN-WIN.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Shodan

I think they are projecting. Those who would do or say almost literally anything to prevent a GOP victory are that much more willing to believe the same about the other side.

Another factor is magical thinking. Liberal ideas, and liberal politicians, are correct by definition and are always better for any situation. When those ideas are implemented, and they don't work, it cannot be because the ideas or the politicians are flawed. It must be because Evil Forces are at work, thwarting all that is decent and right (which always coincides with all that is liberal and Democratic). Anyone who voted against that which is decent and right must therefore be in cahoots with the Evil Forces.

QED, if one is gullible enough.

Regards,
Shodan

Really, this is just too funny. Especially the incredible brazenness of working "projecting" into it!

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Enlightening Meditation

The Democrats often annoy me, but many of the Republicans are just blatantly insane.

[Fake Moderating]
We have Dopers who are blatantly insane. If you want to insult them by comparing them to Republicans, please do so in the Pit.

[BrainGlutton]

Story from The Guardian on the OP's topic.

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.

<snip>

Then again, it's a hard accusation to prove: after all, one person's economic sabotage is another person's principled anti-government conservatism.

Beyond McConnell's words, though, there is circumstantial evidence to make the case. 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.

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

one person's economic sabotage is another person's principled anti-government conservatism.

I would be fine with the latter as an explanation... if only, as the article points out, Republicans were not voting against things they formerly embraced. Obama, for all his faults, has hardly been some dictator who ignores those on the other side of the aisle and the concerns had by those Americans who vote for them. He listens and he compromises - to a fault, says this Liberal-leaning dude.

But even when he employs traditionally Republican ideas and traditionally Republican solutions and typically Republican policies, the Republicans in Congress raise a stink over it, sometimes having to be forced into complying due to public pressure.

And things that were never an issue - raising the debt ceiling is a perfect example - they fabricate outrage and use that outrage to get something else they want. How can one be called "principled" if they abandon their principles for trinkets or applause?

How anyone can see this and not see obstructionism is beyond me. But it takes a lot of cognitive dissonance to be a Republican these days... I see it in the real world and on this board.

[gunnergoz]

In re OP: Yes, absolutely: I think the GOP on the whole does not care what damage is done to the American economy while they go all out for the Presidency in 2012. After all, most of them are already wealthy and established, and as such, they are the best equipped of all Americans to ride out any temporary economic upheaval in the country. In their minds, they can pick up the pieces afterwards with great potential profit because everyone knows that there are bargain basement opportunities to buy anything worth having after an economic crash - if you have the cash to do it with. These folks have most of the cash as it is.

In re: "Democrat" vs "Democratic" Party, this IMO is a tried and true GOP trolling tactic, designed to disrespect their political opponents while pretending that they are being polite and not calling the Democrats the names they think Democrats really deserve, like "Commie", "Fascist", "Socialist", etc. It is part of the Kabuki Theater of American politics which has evolved since Rove and Gingrich got their hands on the GOP steering wheel and began to deliberately crank up the divisive and uncivil behavior by their Republican peers towards any who dare oppose them.

[nate]

Originally Posted by yorick73

I don't think you do. The rates ARE correct even counting the stimulus as Obama's. That's the point. All of that one-time spending in 2009 is now considered the budget baseline. So, it is now like we are spending the stimulus, TARP, auto bailout etc. year-after-year but, since the budget baseline from 2009 was so much higher than normal, it appears that federal spending has not increased from 2009 to 2010.

Are you sure the one-time spending in 2009 was even a part of the proposed 2009 budget? I'm not so sure it was, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. I've never heard that TARP or the stimulus was part of any budget but were special spending bills passed by congress... kind of like the funding for the SW Asia wars.

[yorick73]

Originally Posted by nate

Are you sure the one-time spending in 2009 was even a part of the proposed 2009 budget? I'm not so sure it was, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. I've never heard that TARP or the stimulus was part of any budget but were special spending bills passed by congress... kind of like the funding for the SW Asia wars.

No, it was not part of the proposed 2009 budget. The stimulus increased spending in virtually all parts of the federal government. The point is not whether the spending was formally part of a budget but that total spending increased due to these one-time expenditures. Since then we have been spending at the same level or higher. So, the budget plus all the one-time expenditures is the new baseline. When we spend at the same level or only slightly higher it appears that government growth is slowing when, in reality, all of that one-time spending has been folded into a new baseline.

[elucidator]

Did this baseline change when we went off to war in Iraq, and put it all on the credit card? IIRC, the Bushiviks bent over backwards to keep the Iraq War expenditures off the actual "budget", but went ahead and spent the money anyway.

[yorick73]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Did this baseline change when we went off to war in Iraq, and put it all on the credit card? IIRC, the Bushiviks bent over backwards to keep the Iraq War expenditures off the actual "budget", but went ahead and spent the money anyway.

Yes, and Obama and the Dems have bent over backwards to keep all expenditures off the actual "budget" since he came into office.

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Liberal ideas, and liberal politicians, are correct by definition and are always better for any situation. When those ideas are implemented, and they don't work, it cannot be because the ideas or the politicians are flawed.

Which explains the multitude of Republican ideas that Obama has incorporated. Ezra Klein goes so far as to call Obama a Republican:

President Obama, if you look closely at his positions, is a moderate Republican of the early 1990s. And the Republican Party he’s facing has abandoned many of its best ideas in its effort to oppose him.

If you put aside the emergency measures required by the financial crisis, three major policy ideas have dominated American politics in recent years: a plan that uses an individual mandate and tax subsidies to achieve near-universal health care; a cap-and-trade plan that attempts to raise the prices of environmental pollutants to better account for their costs; and bringing tax rates up from their Bush-era lows as part of a bid to reduce the deficit. In each case, the position that Obama and the Democrats have staked out is the very position that moderate Republicans have staked out before.

This White House has shown a strong preference for policies with demonstrated Republican support, but that’s been obscured by the Republican Party adopting a stance of unified, and occasionally hysterical, opposition (remember “death panels”?) — not to mention a flood of paranoia about the president’s “true” agenda and background.

The Washington Post

Although I happen to think that the dramatic shift right from the GOP is more relevant in Klein's piece, the fact is that Obama is fine with compromising on a great many things (and it's one of the reasons real lefties are also not as enamored with him) and does incorporate Republican ideas into what he espouses. So your "Liberal" boogieman doesn't really hold water.

[BlinkingDuck]

I've stated this before. I was someone who voted Republican in the past...more than 50-50 in fact.

I will never vote Republican again until I see firm evidence of change and an apology. Their behavior last year was atrocious and, in my opinion, treasonous. If it isn't technically treason, it should be.

I imagine this year will be the same.

So, to answer the OP...hell yes! and this from someone tending toward Republican in the past.

[BlinkingDuck]

Originally Posted by Acid Lamp

Tribalism is no doubt in play here, but I don't think that can be the sole driving factor. This strategy just doesn't make sense numerically. Despite party sniping, I don't believe that the majority of Republican representatives are simply stupid or evil.

No. The Republican behavior last year was so reprehensible that every Republican with and honor should have left the party. I am not being 'dramatic'...I firmly believe this. If a Republican still identifies with a party that engaged in such behavior, they are just as guilty. I will not 'cherrypick' Republicans to vote for...they are all scum after last year.

Ok, they would't have to leave the party...but they should have came out and strongly condemned this behavior. They didn't.

Screw the treasonous bastards.

[/blood still boiling from last year]

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by yorick73

No, it was not part of the proposed 2009 budget. The stimulus increased spending in virtually all parts of the federal government. The point is not whether the spending was formally part of a budget but that total spending increased due to these one-time expenditures. Since then we have been spending at the same level or higher. So, the budget plus all the one-time expenditures is the new baseline. When we spend at the same level or only slightly higher it appears that government growth is slowing when, in reality, all of that one-time spending has been folded into a new baseline.

If you establish a new baseline, and hold spending at that level (or close to it) you will eventually come out ahead of (that is, below) the old pre-baseline growth of 5%/year (or whatever the real number is). Has anyone done that analysis; what would the budget be if we'd just followed pre-2009 trends, and when would that line cross over the trend we're on now?

Originally Posted by BlinkingDuck

I will never vote Republican again until I see firm evidence of change and an apology. Their behavior last year was atrocious and, in my opinion, treasonous. If it isn't technically treason, it should be.

I imagine this year will be the same.

You think so? I expect it to be much worse.

[BigAppleBucky]

Originally Posted by gunnergoz

In re OP: Yes, absolutely: I think the GOP on the whole does not care what damage is done to the American economy while they go all out for the Presidency in 2012. After all, most of them are already wealthy and established, and as such, they are the best equipped of all Americans to ride out any temporary economic upheaval in the country. In their minds, they can pick up the pieces afterwards with great potential profit because everyone knows that there are bargain basement opportunities to buy anything worth having after an economic crash - if you have the cash to do it with. These folks have most of the cash as it is.

In re: "Democrat" vs "Democratic" Party, this IMO is a tried and true GOP trolling tactic, designed to disrespect their political opponents while pretending that they are being polite and not calling the Democrats the names they think Democrats really deserve, like "Commie", "Fascist", "Socialist", etc. It is part of the Kabuki Theater of American politics which has evolved since Rove and Gingrich got their hands on the GOP steering wheel and began to deliberately crank up the divisive and uncivil behavior by their Republican peers towards any who dare oppose them.

Yep.

As we know, GOP leaders met on January 20, 2009 and agreed to block Obama at each and every turn. Sabotaging the economy is just part of that. They could not possibly care less about any suffering caused.

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

They could not possibly care less about any suffering caused.

It's scarier to me if they do care. That would mean they really believe all their own rhetoric about Obama being evil (and even worse, a Socialist) and all the rest. The callous and the unfeeling can only cause so much harm before they run out of steam. It's the zealots you have to watch out for.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by BlinkingDuck

No. The Republican behavior last year was so reprehensible that every Republican with and honor should have left the party. I am not being 'dramatic'...I firmly believe this. If a Republican still identifies with a party that engaged in such behavior, they are just as guilty. I will not 'cherrypick' Republicans to vote for...they are all scum after last year.

Ok, they would't have to leave the party...but they should have came out and strongly condemned this behavior. They didn't.

Screw the treasonous bastards.

[/blood still boiling from last year]

I'm reluctant to use "treason" to describe opposing the President's policies. The Republicans used it LIBERALLY when Bush was President, and it was obnoxious.

I totally agree that the current Republican Party is completely lacking in any moral principles. That they would deliberately harm the economy seems OBVIOUS to me after last years' debt ceiling debacle. They HAVE deliberately harmed the economy. The term "stop at nothing" comes to mind. I will save treason for things like coups and military takeovers. Though I would argue that Republican attempts to cage votes and suppress votes borders on treason, as it is a deliberate attempt to subvert the democratic process. They just don't happen to be using guns.

[nate]

Originally Posted by yorick73

No, it was not part of the proposed 2009 budget. The stimulus increased spending in virtually all parts of the federal government. The point is not whether the spending was formally part of a budget but that total spending increased due to these one-time expenditures. Since then we have been spending at the same level or higher. So, the budget plus all the one-time expenditures is the new baseline. When we spend at the same level or only slightly higher it appears that government growth is slowing when, in reality, all of that one-time spending has been folded into a new baseline.

I'm still confused. The proposed budget for 2009 was a huge jump from 2008, right? But it didn't include the stimulus, it was just increased spending for whatever reason. So this higher budget baseline really doesn't have anything to do with the stimulus, it was something Bush's budget started for FY 2009 and has continued since. So Obama, relatively speaking, hasn't really added any spending to the baseline budget, but has continued the trend.

Or are you saying ignore the submitted budget and look at the actual spending? Are you saying that the baseline spending is x% above the budget and has been since Obama has been in charge and this is different from the previous president?

[yorick73]

Originally Posted by nate

I'm still confused. The proposed budget for 2009 was a huge jump from 2008, right? But it didn't include the stimulus, it was just increased spending for whatever reason. So this higher budget baseline really doesn't have anything to do with the stimulus, it was something Bush's budget started for FY 2009 and has continued since. So Obama, relatively speaking, hasn't really added any spending to the baseline budget, but has continued the trend.

Or are you saying ignore the submitted budget and look at the actual spending? Are you saying that the baseline spending is x% above the budget and has been since Obama has been in charge and this is different from the previous president?

No, the 2009 budget was not a huge increase (relatively speaking). The 2009 budget was 3.1 trillion...an increase of 200 billion from 2008. This is about the same increase from 2007 to 2008. 3.5 trillion was actually spent. This included the Bush stimulus and bailouts and, as I understand it, the Obama stimulus. So, the Bush stimulus, TARP, Obama stimulus, etc. are all appropriations and should have been one-time spending to save the economy. 3.1 trillion is the 2009 budget minus all the one-time expenditures.

The problem is that we have been spending at the same level since then. All the one-time spending has not been removed from the budget baseline and we have continued spending as though all those one-time expenditures are just part of the yearly budget. So, yes, growth has slowed since 2009 but it should have actually decreased because we are not funding a stimulus, TARP, etc.

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by yorick73

The problem is that we have been spending at the same level since then. All the one-time spending has not been removed from the budget baseline and we have continued spending as though all those one-time expenditures are just part of the yearly budget. So, yes, growth has slowed since 2009 but it should have actually decreased because we are not funding a stimulus, TARP, etc.

If the numbers you're using reflect actual spending, not just the regular budget process, then we need to know whether the entire 2009 stimulus was spent in a single year. I can't find any cites online, but I don't think it was. You seem to be claiming that the stimulus is reflected in the 2009 numbers only, and that the regular budget climbed to match that from 2010 onward, representing a spending increase concealed (so to speak) by the new baseline of 2009.

Prove to me that that's the case. The stimuli and bailouts were one-time events, but your argument is missing the data about how much was spent because of it in each succeeding year.

[yorick73]

Originally Posted by Robot Arm

If the numbers you're using reflect actual spending, not just the regular budget process, then we need to know whether the entire 2009 stimulus was spent in a single year. I can't find any cites online, but I don't think it was. You seem to be claiming that the stimulus is reflected in the 2009 numbers only, and that the regular budget climbed to match that from 2010 onward, representing a spending increase concealed (so to speak) by the new baseline of 2009.

Prove to me that that's the case. The stimuli and bailouts were one-time events, but your argument is missing the data about how much was spent because of it in each succeeding year.

When the money is spent is meaningless. The entire stimulus was appropriated in FY2009 so, even if the money is not spent, the entire thing shows up as FY2009 spending. You can find this on page 2 of the act here (warning large PDF)

Here is the relevant point:

Originally Posted by From Link

DIVISION A—APPROPRIATIONS
PROVISIONS
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, namely:

And it goes on to name each and every department that received funds.

[New Deal Democrat]

June 12th, 2012 4:14 pm

According to a new Daily Kos/SEIU poll, nearly half of voters believe that Republicans are intentionally stalling efforts to jump start the economy to ensure that President Barack Obama is not re-elected.

49 percent of respondents to the poll say that Republicans are intentionally stalling the economy, compared to 40 percent who say they are not. 11 percent replied “not sure.” Among independents, 50 percent said that Republicans are stalling the recovery compared to 40 percent who said they are not, and 61 percent of self-described moderates said they are compared to just 40 percent who said they are not.

Although 41 percent of voters believe that last week’s jobs report was bad news for the president (compared to 40 percent who said that it will have no effect on him, and 14 percent who said it was good news,) they seem to be primarily blaming the Republican party for the mess. In addition to the numbers above, only 34 percent have a favorable opinion of the GOP, compared to 55 percent who view the party unfavorably. In comparison, 44 percent view the Democratic party favorably while 45 percent have an unfavorable opinion.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/poll-plu...ging-recovery/

[septimus]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

According to a new Daily Kos/SEIU poll, nearly half of voters believe that Republicans are intentionally stalling efforts to jump start the economy to ensure that President Barack Obama is not re-elected.

Shouldn't there have been a follow-up question:
"So, are you going to hope for Romney's election so they will stop doing that?"

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

I posted this in the OP but in response to the previous post, I think it bears repeating:

I had the following exchange with someone who was dissatisfied with Obama:

Him: So if a car salesman talked me in to buying something that FAILED, what rationale would I have to buy something from him again?

Me: To make your analogy work, you have a car that failed because the guys who made the engine refused to listen to the car manufactuer and gave the car a crappy engine that always broke down.

You seem to think that it would be a much better outcome to have the people who made the engine now put in charge of the whole damn car.

[HMS Irruncible]

If you were faced by the fact of an Antichrist, of Satan himself sitting in the oval office, then the rational choice would be to do anything and everything to eliminate him. The Achilles heel of any president is the economy, so you'd exploit that by any means necessary.

Current Republican rhetoric states that the Obama presidency and the Democratic party are unmitigated evil, a generational crisis, and an existential threat. Facing such a horror, would any sane person NOT torpedo the economy?

So, the only conclusions remaining are that they're sabotaging the economy, or they're vastly overstating how badly they think of Obama. Since they have systematically engaged in a pattern of action that most economists say is tantamount to fiscal suicide, and the hysterical hatred of Obama is an evident fact, I think they must be strategically trying to delay the economic recovery. Nothing else makes sense.

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Typical "But Everybody does it!" bullshit, unless you can cite an equivalent statement by a prominent Democrat in power during the Bush administration.

Harry Reid back in 2003. “The filibuster is far from a procedural gimmick. It’s part of the fabric of this institution we call the Senate.”

Purposeful Obstruction, whether it be for judicial appointment as when the above comment was made, or for political positioning has been a part of politics since.... well since politics. Just because someone doesnt verbalize it, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. This sort of rebuttal shows a glaring purposeful denial of reality.

Political wrangling of this sort is politics as usual.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by septimus

Shouldn't there have been a follow-up question:
"So, are you going to hope for Romney's election so they will stop doing that?"

Presumably they would stop if Obama were re-elected -- wouldn't they? Since at that point there's no more hope of making him a one-termer?

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by septimus

Shouldn't there have been a follow-up question:
"So, are you going to hope for Romney's election so they will stop doing that?"

Shouldnt your italicized statement be


"So, are you going to hope for Robamaney's election so they will stop doing that?"

[nate]

Originally Posted by yorick73

No, the 2009 budget was not a huge increase (relatively speaking). The 2009 budget was 3.1 trillion...an increase of 200 billion from 2008. This is about the same increase from 2007 to 2008. 3.5 trillion was actually spent. This included the Bush stimulus and bailouts and, as I understand it, the Obama stimulus. So, the Bush stimulus, TARP, Obama stimulus, etc. are all appropriations and should have been one-time spending to save the economy. 3.1 trillion is the 2009 budget minus all the one-time expenditures.

The problem is that we have been spending at the same level since then. All the one-time spending has not been removed from the budget baseline and we have continued spending as though all those one-time expenditures are just part of the yearly budget. So, yes, growth has slowed since 2009 but it should have actually decreased because we are not funding a stimulus, TARP, etc.

Are you saying that congress has essentially passed a stimulus bill every year since 2009 that is not part of the budget? I don't see where you are going from a stimulus in 2009 to it being a part of the baseline budget in 2010. Are you saying congress increased the discretional spending budgets budgets by an amount equal to the 2009 off-budget spending? How does that work?

[yorick73]

Originally Posted by nate

Are you saying that congress has essentially passed a stimulus bill every year since 2009 that is not part of the budget? I don't see where you are going from a stimulus in 2009 to it being a part of the baseline budget in 2010. Are you saying congress increased the discretional spending budgets budgets by an amount equal to the 2009 off-budget spending? How does that work?

There has not been a budget since 2009. The stimulus increased spending in a lot of government departments. The continuing resolutions we have had since then mainly just continue spending at the same rate.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

Shouldnt your italicized statement be


"So, are you going to hope for Robamaney's election so they will stop doing that?"

WTF are you talking about?

[John DiFool]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Relief

If you were faced by the fact of an Antichrist, of Satan himself sitting in the oval office, then the rational choice would be to do anything and everything to eliminate him. The Achilles heel of any president is the economy, so you'd exploit that by any means necessary.

Current Republican rhetoric states that the Obama presidency and the Democratic party are unmitigated evil, a generational crisis, and an existential threat. Facing such a horror, would any sane person NOT torpedo the economy?

So, the only conclusions remaining are that they're sabotaging the economy, or they're vastly overstating how badly they think of Obama. Since they have systematically engaged in a pattern of action that most economists say is tantamount to fiscal suicide, and the hysterical hatred of Obama is an evident fact, I think they must be strategically trying to delay the economic recovery. Nothing else makes sense.

That's the propaganda, not the actual (deeper) rationale (as such).

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

This was just published today and I found it relevant to this thread:

Why I gave up on being a Republican

I'm a life-long Republican. My political affiliation has been woven intrinsically into the very fabric of my being.

Today, however, I am a registered Republican no longer.

As a local GOP official after President Obama's election, I had a front-row seat as it became infected by a dangerous and virulent form of political rabies.

In the grip of this contagion, the Republican Party has come unhinged. Its fevered hallucinations involve threats from imaginary communists and socialists who, seemingly, lurk around every corner. Climate change- a reality recognized by every single significant scientific body and academy in the world- is a liberal conspiracy conjured up by Al Gore and other leftists who want to destroy America. Large numbers of Republicans- the notorious birthers- believe that the President was not born in the United States. Even worse, few figures in the GOP have the courage to confront them.

Republican economic policies are also indefensible. The GOP constantly claims its opponents are engaged in "class warfare," but this is an exercise in projection. In Republican proposals, the wealthy win, and the rest of us lose- one only has to look at Rep. Paul Ryan's budget to see that.

As Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein have written, "the Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition." Its reckless behavior helps drive the political dysfunction crippling our nation.

In the end, it offers a dystopian vision of our future- a harsher, crueler and more merciless America starkly divided between the riders, and the ridden.

Ultimately, leaving the GOP was necessary in order to maintain my own integrity. Leaving is also a public act of personal protest. I am under no illusions about its broader significance- it will have no impact on the trajectory of the political narrative in this nation. But that does not make it futile. On the contrary, as the shadows lengthen, such minor individual acts of defiance and dissent are more critical now than ever before.

NJ.com

Yes, the author doesn't specifically state that the Republicans in Congress are sabotaging the economy to help avoid Obama winning a second term... Instead he says they've been sabotaging things all along, as well as other Republicans not in Congress. So there's that...

[yorick73]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

Yep.

As we know, GOP leaders met on January 20, 2009 and agreed to block Obama at each and every turn. Sabotaging the economy is just part of that. They could not possibly care less about any suffering caused.

Remember Dems had control of the White House and Congress for two years. What did they do? They passed Obamacare and didn't give a thought to jobs. Remember Obama's first address to congress in 2009 promising to focus on jobs? How many times did Obama claim he was going to "pivot" to jobs? Did they care about the suffering caused?

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by yorick73

Remember Dems had control of the White House and Congress for two years.

No, they didn't. They need 60 votes to control the Senate, and I think they had that for about two months.

[yorick73]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

No, they didn't. They need 60 votes to control the Senate, and I think they had that for about two months.

Oh, so the GOP had control of the Senate? Got it. I wonder why they made Harry Reid their Majority leader?

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by yorick73

Oh, so the GOP had control of the Senate? Got it. I wonder why they made Harry Reid their Majority leader?

Yes, the Republicans controlled the Senate by the childish use of the filibuster. Don't pretend otherwise.

The Senate is not controlled by the majority party.

[yorick73]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Yes, the Republicans controlled the Senate by the childish use of the filibuster. Don't pretend otherwise.

The Senate is not controlled by the majority party.

The word you are looking for is supermajority. Dems had it for almost 5 months. What did they do with it? Oh yeah, they crammed Obamacare down our throats.

The use of the filibuster is hardly controlling the Senate. Don't pretend otherwise.

[Evil Captor]

Obama may have a D after his name but he governs like a Reagan Republican. He clearly does not care about jobs or the middle class. Sorry, it's true. That said, his benign indifference beats the hell out of the active malignance of current Republicans toward the middle class.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by yorick73

The word you are looking for is supermajority. Dems had it for almost 5 months.

Gee, that's practically two years.

[yorick73]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Gee, that's practically two years.

Ummm...I said control, not supermajority. Supermajority seems to be your definition of control.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by yorick73

The word you are looking for is supermajority. Dems had it for almost 5 months.

Not with Kennedy on sick leave, and Lieberman being Lieberman, they didn't.

What did they do with it? Oh yeah, they crammed Obamacare down our throats.

What's with the obsession about having things crammed down your throat?

The use of the filibuster is hardly controlling the Senate. Don't pretend otherwise.

If it can be used to defeat anything, then yes, it is. By what reasoning do you arrive at any other conclusion?

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by yorick73

Supermajority seems to be your definition of control.

Your definition of control seems to be a super majority as well, since you are holding Democrats responsible for not doing anything but Obamacare for two years. Without a super majority, nothing gets done. That is the very meaning of no control.