Politically oppose the president - of course.
But don’t sabotage the economy. I suspect the February reports are going to be the best for a long time. The sequester will start to drag things down.
We need fiscal stimulus, but that just is not going to happen with the teahadists in control of the house.
“It’s great things are going well even if no one is exactly sure why, but essentially they don’t share my core values.”
It’s that simple.
And how do we define sensible reasons? The Republicans have serious problems with Obama’s stance on spending, taxation, economic stimulus, and a variety of other issues. All I’ve seen Boehner say so far is he’s glad about recent good economic news, but we’re still behind the curve versus where we were when Obama was elected. That is actually true, a healthy economy is going to grow consistently over time, and even if certain indicators are back where they were over 4 years ago, that doesn’t mean they’re where they would have been with healthy economic growth.
Now, I don’t really blame Obama for the economy, but Democrats and Republicans always blame the other party for the economy. I blame a classic asset bubble along with fiscal mismanagement in the financial sector with the stock and housing market crashes, subsequent recession and anemic growth ever since. I blame Obama in part for a poorly execute stimulus and lack of appreciation for the free market but those are relatively minor issues compared to the core reasons for the economic malaise. But I’m not going to put Boehner on a cross for bashing Obama for the economy as long as Democrats keep bashing Bush for the economy.
Who is confusing the stock market with the economy? :dubious: I said that the economy, and by extension the stock market and labor markets move cyclically regardless of who is President. That’s not confusing the entire economy with two markets. What it is noting is that the labor market and the publicly traded stock markets represent significant indicators for the overall economy and they fluctuate just as the economy itself does.
While this is undoubtedly true, I know that you, me, Boehner and everyone else with a functioning cerebral cortex knows the economic situation that Obama inherited in January 2009. The economy is now heading in a positive direction. All you and Boehner are saying is that Obama did not fix the screw-ups of the previous administration fast enough for you.
Additionally, the point I’m trying to make is that it’s not just that the Republicans are simply critical of the speed of economic recovery, but they seem to be actually trying to *get in the way *of economic recovery.
Yes, the stimulus could have been better done… If the Republicans had not tried to hamper it.
Yes, the economy could be doing better… If the Republicans had not played games with the Debt Ceiling, and made noises about refusing to pay for a budget that they had already approved, leading to lowered confidence.
Yes, Obama could be doing a better job… If he was not continually hampered by Republicans in Congress who seem to be focused on either anti-abortion measures, Bills to ensure that the defunct, defunded ACORN will not get any money (even though it has ceased to exist), and idiotic statements from Republicans about how shutting down the entire government is preferable to having a health care plan for citizens.
I mean, if Republican leaders are NOT actively trying to destroy the economy, they are doing a pretty accurate simulation of it anyway.
I guess he means the trillion dollar stimulus that everybody voted for, right? Also, he’s completely wrong about the debt. Debt has shrunk at a rate that exceeds anything in the history of the country. We’re not in positive territory yet, but it’s getting there. They just keep spouting the same lies, which fewer and fewer people believe or even listen to. Debt and deficit charts.
This has obviously degenerated into a disjointed partisan screed. There’s no evidence I’ve seen that the stimulus “would have been better if not for the Republicans!” When we were signing random blank checks I don’t really remember Obama not getting pretty much everything he wanted. Interestingly a large portion of the stimulus didn’t even go to traditional stimulus activity (basically funneling money to things that raises economic output through money going to private companies to do work for government projects, construction projects, etc.) Instead a lot of the stimulus went to both stabilizing and basically gifting large financial institutions (some degree of stabilization was necessary, but I don’t believe we performed a great or effective oversight of the ways in which our money was used to prop up the big banks and insurance companies.)
How does the Republican opposition to Obamacare in the past have anything to do with this thread? How does it link to the facetious idea that Republicans have a problem with lower unemployment and a higher stock market? You do know the Speaker has said “Obamacare is the law of the land.” That’s old news and has nothing to do with this topic.
As for the ACORN stuff, um, no. That has nothing to do with Obama’s ability to govern. Political opposition in Congress always dwells on stuff you wouldn’t want them to, but that’s not been any part of the reason Obama hasn’t been able to get stuff done. Obama hasn’t gotten nearly as much done as he’s wanted because he squandered his time controlling both Houses of congress and has almost never deigned to negotiate honestly since. His style of negotiating is calling Congressional leaders to the White House to bitch at them and then campaigning.
Recently it appears he’s taken a more conciliatory tone with Senate Republicans, and maybe that’s a sign that Obama is finally ready to be a grown up Democratic politician in the mold of Bill Clinton.
Now, I’ve said many times the GOP House the last few years has behaved abysmally. But that doesn’t absolve Obama, and in truth, after the stinging defeat of Romney and the subsequent strategy meetings anyone evaluating the situation without bias would note the current GOP House is far more conciliatory and reasonable than they’ve been at any point in Obama’s presidency.
Are either of those things not true?
Martin Hyde I thought you’d do better than this.
Revisionism…not to mention “random blank checks” is certainly in the sphere of disjointed partisan nonsense meant to argue a side (not even a point, just your damn side) with no relation to what actually happened.
You’re going to point out that half of it was tax cuts right?
TARP was under Bush and QE1-infinity aren’t close enough for you to have meant them. Either way totally not “The Stimulus 
.”
0/10
Yes, it is difficult to be less conciliatory than ‘flaming batshit crazy’.
Well, I’m going to bump that 0/10 to a 4/10. Did make me respond after all. I’ll try to do better next time.
This is hilarious. If things would have gone worse and worse, the democrats would be shouting about how it was republican obstructionism that was ruining the country. But now that things are better… the republicans don’t get any credit for all their obstructionism? Silly.
I’m no fan of republicans but the logic in this thread hurts. It’s just like the people who praise God when good things happen and then say he works in mysterious ways when bad things happen.
I don’t know, ask the idiotic Republicans Rubio and Cruz, who brought up Obamacare in the context of why it’s fine to shut the government down. I know it’s stupid and unrelated. Republican leaders brought it up - I didn’t. For some unknown reason, they seem to think that removal of Obamacare is more important than running the government.
Again… I know that. You know that. But Republicans IN A BUDGET PROPOSAL seem to think that it is of critical importance to defund an already defunded and defunct organization.
They are not just useless. They are getting in the way.
This is sorta sad, when a .1% drop in the unemployment rate, which is still at 7.7%, is meant to be exciting news. Yeah, it’s better than a poke in the eye, but I don’t see any reason to celebrate such a high unemployment rate.
So, it looks like the sequester is just what the economy needs, right? 
Recession? Tax cuts! Depression? Tax cuts! Headache, neuritis, neuralgia? Oh, you better believe that’s a tax cut!
No clue, and I don’t really care. The original question was “how are Republicans going to spin the good news?”.
The first prediction was basically “by largely ignoring it and focusing on the deficit and debt”, and that’s what happened.
Whether or not the response was true, false, valid, invalid, rational, or insane, the Republicans are indeed working spin control by (attempting to) focus attention on the debt/deficit.
Actually, not so silly. December/January was the first time that Obama made the Republicans blink first. Every other time, he’s caved to at least some of their silly damn demands. This time he didn’t. 2 months later, economy is doing better. Funny how that works, huh?*
Go back and read your own quote. They didn’t “largely ignore it”, since they addressed it in the very first phrase of that sentence.
Besides, as I noted later, it’s a 0.1% drop. Why should that get any particular acclaim to begin with?
Is it fair, though to characterize it as merely a “0.1% drop?” Apparently, it’s another 0.1% drop.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate peaked at 10.0% in 2009. We’re at nearly 2.5 percentage points of improvement since then, and I don’t think that’s too shabby.
You think the thing that happened on March 1st caused the economy to improve in February?
So someone gets shot in the leg. They’re bleeding profusely and things are looking grim. But they have someone with them. They ask this person to go grab a tourniquette in the first aid kit. But the person says no way, I’m not letting you get a single thing you want. I’m not going to help you.
So the wounded person barely managed to drag themself to the first aid kit and applies the tourniquette, and things get under control and start looking better.
The wounded man says “you refused to help me! I almost died!”
The other man says “oh, so if you’d have bled to death, you’d have blamed me for it… but you’ve survived, and now you still blame me!? You’re not going to give me credit for doing what I did, considering that you survived?”
Is it really “hilarious” to you, idiot? Because you try to obstruct something, and it comes to be anyway in some sort of weakened form that was dampened by your obstructionism, you don’t get to claim victory because someone managed to get a half-positive response from the half-effort they were able to slip by your attempt at obstruction. Your assumption that anything good that happened should be credited to republicans is post hoc ergo propter hoc, or, in English, you’re an idiot.
*Ante hoc ergo propter hoc, * Its like if you go back in time and your grandfather shoots you, he still has to fuck your grandmother, even though you will not exist.
SenorBeef, I didn’t make any such claim. It’s just silly politics at play in this country with regards to the unemployment. As I mentioned, I am no friend of the republicans nor their obstructionism. I don’t think that anything good that happened should be credited to republicans. But I also don’t think that anything good that happened should be credited to the democrats, either.