They don’t plan on it, they expect it, they regard it as inevitable. Guess who’s fault it is?
Of course, they don’t want to see suffering, but the American worker is wildly overpaid and pampered, spoiled by years of socialistic labor bosses throwing thier weight around. A corrective is inevitable, bound to happen. And that will be painful in the short term, but in the longer run it means that the working class will regain a sensible and prudent set of expectations. Those of us who think differently are not as hard-headed and realilstic as they are, don’t understand the cold equations of the Free Market, blessings and peace be upon its Name.
And if they need to fib a little, here and there, maybe cut a corner or two, well, they are obliged to do so, if it will save their beloved country from the evils of Obamanation! Why, when you look at it from a realistic perspective, it is their duty to do so!
I don’t think you are using the same definition of Leninist strategy that I am. A Leninist strategy is when you increase public discontentment, suffering and misery so you can channel it into political goals you have. That is what the OP is describing (letting the economy fail so you can use the discontentment for political capital). But I think the democrats wishy/washy attitude about the Iraq war in 2007 and 2008 was also a leninist strategy, they didn’t want to stop the war in a meaningful way because they wanted to use it to win elections in 2008. My view is both parties engage in Leninist strategies.
Republicans know what they are doing. In 2012 Barack Obama and the Democratic Party will be evaluated by the unemployment rate. Nevertheless, Republicans in Congress are trying to reduce government spending and government employment. At worst that will increase the unemployment rate. At best it will interfere with job creation.
Obama and the Democrats will also be evaluated by the size of the deficit. Republican efforts to oppose tax increases on the well to do, and if possible to cut their taxes will raise the deficit.
Since 1980 the leaders of the Republican Party have been playing lower income white Republicans for suckers, and getting away with it. First Republican politicians say that tax cuts will generate prosperity. When those tax cuts generate budget deficits, they use those deficits to reduce domestic spending. Starving the public sector of the economy reinforces the suspicion by white working class Republicans that the government can’t do anything well. The GOP benefits when white blue collar workers think, “The Democrats never did me any good. At least the Republicans won’t take my guns.”
Franklin Roosevelt would know how to out maneuver the Republicans on this, but Barack Obama seems stymied.
True, it does take quite a bit of imagination to reach the position you have taken. Pity that such a powerful imagination is indistinguishable from mere weaseling to us lesser minds.
Your failure to mention that it has been laughed out of many more is, no doubt, merely an oversight on your part.
Mmmm, ignorance and profanity. Keith Stone, you’re so smooth.
Geez, read a paper once in a while. Coburn has been on a crusade against condoms for years. The Bush Admin pushed abstinence-only sex ed for years. McCain voted against requiring health insurance that covered prescription drugs to include birth control pills. Boehner’s first criticism of Obama’s stimulus bill was that it included funding for contraception. And on and on.
So you admit you’re just making shit up then, and aren’t basing your assumptions on anything real. Just making things up in your imagination. So you just fill in the gaps of history and imagine this into reality?
[
[QUOTE=Health Equity and Access Reform Act of 1993]
SEC. 1501. REQUIREMENT OF COVERAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL- Effective January 1, 2005, each individual who is a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States shall be covered under--
(1) a qualified health plan, or
(2) an equivalent health care program (as defined in section 1601(7)).
(b) EXCEPTION- Subsection (a) shall not apply in the case of an individual who is opposed for religious reasons to health plan coverage, including an individual who declines health plan coverage due to a reliance on healing using spiritual means through prayer alone.
[/QUOTE]
](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:S.1770:)
Cosponsors:
Sen Bennett, Robert F. [UT] - 11/22/1993
Sen Bond, Christopher S. [MO] - 11/22/1993
Sen Boren, David L. [OK] - 5/17/1994
Sen Cohen, William S. [ME] - 11/22/1993
Sen Danforth, John C. [MO] - 11/22/1993
Sen Dole, Robert J. [KS] - 11/22/1993
Sen Domenici, Pete V. [NM] - 11/22/1993
Sen Durenberger, Dave [MN] - 11/22/1993
Sen Faircloth, Lauch [NC] - 11/22/1993
Sen Gorton, Slade [WA] - 11/22/1993
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 11/22/1993
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 11/22/1993
Sen Hatfield, Mark O. [OR] - 11/22/1993
Sen Kassebaum, Nancy Landon [KS] - 11/22/1993
Sen Kerrey, J. Robert [NE] - 5/17/1994
Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN] - 11/22/1993
Sen Simpson, Alan K. [WY] - 11/22/1993
Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] - 11/22/1993
Sen Stevens, Ted [AK] - 11/22/1993
Sen Warner, John [VA] - 11/22/1993
Sen Brown, Hank [CO] - 11/22/1993(withdrawn - 10/4/1994)
Cyberhawk, didn’t you read? Despite evidence to the contrary, we’re supposed to use our imagination and come up with a path that leads these legislators to find this type of legislation evil.
And to remember what great shape the economy was in when Obama and the Dems inherited it from the Bushies…ah, golden days. Why, I can remember John McClain proudly proclaiming the strength of the economy during the election like it was yesterday…
I know this has moved on, but the answer to the ‘moral’ failings of the GOP boils down to simple ‘betrayal’. It isn’t more complicated than that. The fact that they won’t play ball at all could be construed as ‘dereliction of duty’, but I don’t know if that can be applied to congresspeople.
Criminally, I wonder if threatening to harm the US credit rating in order to drive up rates and then cash in while soaking the middle and lower classes could be considered ‘conspiracy to commit fraud’? It certainly would be fraudulent to manipulate things in this way, as from a hard-headed realist’s perspective the US at this point has no trouble meeting its obligations.
That’s fine, but it was you that put your imagination – and its limits – into play. I don’t mean to be insulting, but if your imagination cannot capture a basic concept that has been widely publicized, perhaps the problem is not me.
The OP presents a set of facts and asks us to infer a motivation from them – saying, in effect, that the interpretation he urges is the only possible one to draw.
To rebut that, it’s absolutely appropriate to propose other possible motivations.
How else would someone rebut the allegations in the OP?
The OP offers what he regards as the most probable explanation. To support your premise, the OP would have had to catgorically state that this is the only possible explanation. Only in that instance would your rebuttal be dispositive.