Excerpt: "Think of it as a two-part strategy. First, obstruct any and all efforts to strengthen the economy, then exploit the economy's weakness for political gain. If this strategy sounds cynical, that's because it is. Yet it's the G.O.P.'s best chance for victory in November."
(photo: Fred R. Conrad/NYT) (photo: Fred R. Conrad/NYT)
Obstruct and Exploit
10 September 12
Does anyone remember the American Jobs Act? A year ago President Obama proposed boosting the economy with a combination of tax cuts and spending increases, aimed in particular at sustaining state and local government employment. Independent analysts reacted favorably. For example, the consulting firm Macroeconomic Advisers estimated that the act would add 1.3 million jobs by the end of 2012.
There were good reasons for these positive assessments. Although you'd never know it from political debate, worldwide experience since the financial crisis struck in 2008 has overwhelmingly confirmed the proposition that fiscal policy "works," that temporary increases in spending boost employment in a depressed economy (and that spending cuts increase unemployment). The Jobs Act would have been just what the doctor ordered.
But the bill went nowhere, of course, blocked by Republicans in Congress. And now, having prevented Mr. Obama from implementing any of his policies, those same Republicans are pointing to disappointing job numbers and declaring that the president's policies have failed.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
My guess is that most Republicans smoke way too much pot and are therefore suffering from short term memory loss and have a tendency to connect strands of thought into a single incoherent thesis. Back in the day we called them "Great Stoned Revelations", or GSRs for short.
Of course the Republicans support military spending as a means of job growth, it goes along with the pot theory. What they forget, which is easy for potheads to do during a stream of thought, is that a military job that is created, adds less churn per dollar than spending on infrastructure. I am using the term infrastructure very broadly. The less churn, the less that dollar spent by the government adds (stimulates) to the overall economy.
I guess we need to get those guys off the pot, have them sit down with a nice glass of bourbon, only enough to chill. Then we explain to them that thing that President Clinton calls Arithmetic.
Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked an "insourcing" bill from Democrats that would have ended tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas.
anonymous obstruction dies hard in the Senate. After keeping up appearances for five months, a GOP senator placed a secret hold last Friday on the nomination of Heather Higginbottom as the deputy budget director at the Office of Management and Budget. Democratic aides suggest that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) broke the pledge:
Your assessment is much too kind. I believe the actions of the "teapubican" Party are treasonous!
They never accepted the choice of the majority in '08 and, quickly planned to obstruct anything that the President wanted to accomplish during his watch.
That is why we must work to rid the Congress of these vermin.
To do that, we should vote for representatives who will work for a reelected President Obama.
I mean by that, vote out all "teapubicans"
And, if you work to get the vote out for more moderate and progressive representatives to Congress then, I believe the President will be able to accomplish much, much, more than he's been able to, thus far.
If the obstructionists are expelled, then to quote the "late" Ronald Reagan: "You ain't seen nothin' yet!!" is a fair prediction.
You are preaching to the choir regarding voting for Democrats.
Maybe I should have been more clear, my comments about Republicans was not directed at the Republicans in Congress, it was aimed at people that consistently vote Republican. The Republicans in Congress may not be technically guilty of treason, but they are 100% guilty of not doing their job. And for the rest of us, when that happens, we get fired; whether there is a Recession or not.
You seem to be well versed in the use of pot & GSRs.
Standard liberal approach to trying to make a point.
1. Make up a "fact" - in this case your guess that Republicans smoke pot.
2. Use the made up "fact" in future statements as you did in your next paragraph.
3. End with the "fact" now being put forth as a real fact as you did in your last paragraph. Mow your guess is no longer that they smoke pot - that is now presented as a fact & your new guess is we need to get them off it.
Liberal BS is so easy to see through if you just take a minute to actually read it.
Perhaps I have experienced the effect GSR's caused by inhaling an illegal substance or maybe I just observed the reaction in others.
In case you missed it, I stated that I was guessing about the Republicans smoking too much pot. That guess, for clarifications is based on the revelation I just made in the previous paragraph.
Having made a guess, or a "theory", I then proceed in subsequent paragraphs to provide arguments in support of my theory.
I never represented as fact that Republicans smoke too much pot, but only put that forth as an explanation of why they ignore facts.
Anyone who says there's no real difference between Obama and romney is either being dishonest or hasn't paid enough attention to be discussing politics.
Voting for a 3rd party won't fix this. As history shows (going back to at least 1968), it always makes things worse.
Repugs are just doing what they do. They made the exact same promise the day after President Clinton was elected. Their tactics are very old, but they'll continue using them until it bites them in the ass.
Obama supporters have been disappointed that he hasn't fought for the most important promises in his 2008 campaign. His constant "punting on first down" and his obvious shift to the right are what drove them away in 2010.
If you have any experience at all with politics, you can see that Obama is only marginally progressive on many issues and has continued many of the policies of GW Bush. Progressives aren't angry that they didn't get what they wanted: they're fed up because Obama hasn't fought for those things.
Obama is not a general for the working class, and never will be. At some point the left will have to reject the backstabbing of the Democratic Party and field its own candidates from its own political organization. The alternative is to continue begging at the feet of the ruling class.
Labor Party 2016.
If you have any political experience at all you can remember the elections of 1968, 1980, and 2000. All three are good examples of the left voting all over the place and losing big-time.
Was Gore as bad as baby bush? I got news for you. Even scaley-scalia couldn't have handed bush the Presidency if those 93,000 Nader voters in Florida had voted for Gore.
That should have special significance as I write this on 9/11.
When a 3rd party starts polling around 30% a few months before the election we'll discuss it. Until then, Obama is the only thing we have. We have to grow up and accept that. President Mittens WILL make things a WHOLE HELL OF A LOT WORSE.
Unless you think war with Iran, ending Social Security, ending all student aid, and ending Medicare are good ideas.
Obama doesn't.
Mittens DOES.
Which side are you on?
Elect a strong Senate and it won't matter who is president.
Vote in the Senate, but accept the fact that Obama is THE ONLY THING that will now be standing in the way of the repug agenda.
In the U.S., both parties are under the control of business, and the best people can do is to vote for the lesser evil. Democracy in America will be dead until working people have a party of their own to vote in.
Labor Party 2016.
I'm all for a Constitutional amendment.
It sounds to me like you're hedging your bet against the President.
I don't believe this is a very smart stance given the recent history and analysis of his decisions as President.
I wouldn't bet against this President, nor our fellow Americans anytime!
WRONG!
58 + 2 = 60 and filibuster proof! ( Al Franken July 2009 )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress
HE told us it was the worst economy since the Great Depression, now he says he did not know it was so bad! He is lying now or he was lying then...either way he IS a liar!
Now he just cries because the GOP won't help him...O-Blamer either lead or go back to Chicago!
He didn't have the job 4 years ago. How could he have known how bad it was. Did you expect President Bush II to a) care enough to know how bad it was; b) openly admit he had kept his perfect fiscal failure record intact; c)actually understand what was going on; or d) all of the above.
In the clear words of Secretary Rumsfield, there are things we know and there are things we don't know.
SIXTY Senators!
256 House Members!
You are a Cry Baby just like the Blamer!
Truman had a sign on his desk "The Buck Stops Here" the current occupant is pathetic!
FIX the F---ING problem you were hired to FIX!
Ah Grasshopper now you show some brains!
Truman was a LEADER, that is what LEADERS do...LEAD!
O-Blamer only blames, then goes golfing or fundraising...W here is the LEADERSHIP from this man?
When elected he WAS about the most popular President in many many years and he did not use it.
He squandered his good will not the GOP, it is not their job to pass everything he wants, it is to do the will of the people.
He never took command, he passed everything to Pelosi and Reid then went away.
C'mon, you are just tossing rhetoric around like a beat up old football. When The President used executive orders to get around a recalcitrant Republican led House and a Senate being held hostage by the Republicans, the righties accuse him of making law without Congressional approval. Of course, anyone with a lick of sense would realize that if the President was actually doing such a thing then he would be impeached. Have any Republicans even entered a resolution for an article of impeachment? The answer is the same as the number of job bills that have been introduced by Republicans. None. So in both cases, what Republicans are doing is purely rhetorical. Which is what your lack of leadership argument is; purely rhetorical. In the meantime, the President, while not perfect; hones his leadership skills, negotiates for agreement and compromise until he is faced with no choice since compromise is not even in the Republican vocabulary.
When half the symphony decides to play Mozart during a Beethoven concert, the blame has to go with the half that is not playing what the conductor is conducting. The American audience went to the polls and selected a Beethoven concert, the conductor is trying to play Beethoven. Republicans, either down your instruments and stop playing Mozart, please; the dissonance is killing me.
Blah, blah, blah!
LEADERSHIP means people FOLLOW you!
You know, like Teddy Roosevelt LEADING the charge up Kettle Hill!
If it were Obama the picture would show Obama at the top by HIMSELF!
A Leader LEADS and people FOLLOW!
WORDS have meanings, please look up the word LEADER, you clearly do not know its meaning!!!
Wow! Words have meaning? I just thought it was a random bunch of letters, who knew?
You are still using rhetorical misdirection to to make irrelevant points. Where did you want President Obama to lead us? If you did not like where he would go, would you follow? People, in a free society, follow who they want to follow. Teddy Roosevelt led the charge in a military capacity, which by necessity is a temporary dictatorship, during battle.
I have many issues with President Obama's presidency, but for me to complain that he did not lead because he went in a different direction than I would have preferred is not an indictment of his leadership skills.
Every response you make on this point you sound more and more like a person that will attach any negative to President Obama. Any negative. Why? Did you apply those same negatives to Bill Clinton? What if Hillary was elected? She would not have been a major difference in economic policy, does she get the same negatives?
You are a Cry Baby just like the Blamer!
Not exactly what I'd call a 'convincing argument.'
bmiluski's rebuttal is much more convincing. Quote: "130 Republican filibusters." [end of quote] And did you miss the comments on 'secret holds'? Even I'd already heard about those.
Just another name calling, fact free post. I think Fox news could create a new serious called the "The Walking Brain Dead" it describes their veiwers perfectly.
He did not LEAD!
He did not use the Bully Pulpit to convince the public.
FACT: He went golfing more in 3 years than Bush did in 8!
FACT: While the Military waited for his answers on a "surge" in Afghanistan he took months to decide and went on several Late Night TV shows!
Too bad you did not read the previous post... talk about brain dead!
These are totally disconnected points, or are you so consumed by your hatred of Barack Obama, first legally elected President of the United States since 2000, that you will grasp at any straw of negativity?
That is absolutely stupid!
@004 Bush got more than 50% of the vote, Clinton NEVER got over 50%
One hopes that money spent building weapons is only defense and will not need to be used. With our defense spending equaling the total spent by the rest of the world our defense should be strong enough to protect us with little future investment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/nasa-gets-military-spy-telescopes-for-astronomy/2012/06/04/gJQAsT6UDV_story.html
"MSJGermantown, MD
Paul - I'm bothered the most by the fact that facts don't matter to almost 50% of the electorate." and:
"signmeupNYC
So, is Bill Clinton the only Dem that can manage to get a simple yet accurate message out about the Republican war on America?"
Dr. Krugman fortunately is another who can get a reasonably simple message out too.
"Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act" (in addition to everything else, the Act has an annoying, redundant title) will very nearly legalize fraud in the stock market.
"In fact, one could say this law is not just a sweeping piece of deregulation that will have an increase in securities fraud as an accidental, ancillary consequence. No, this law actually appears to have been specifically written to encourage fraud in the stock markets."
This article was on RSN and appeared in Rolling Stone magazine titled, "Why Obama's JOBS Act Couldn't Suck Worse."
I have no idea from your posts where you stand. My criticisms are from the left of Obama. Are yours?
What strikes me as an important aspect as well: the slogans, one of which ("Obstruct and Exploit") is just so concise and factual, that of course this would never be the *official* slogan. It's too factual. ("We don't want no stinkin' fact checkers" ? )
RMoney's preference and message continues to be "repeal and replace". Can we start with the sycophants, liars, thieves, and propagandists, like Mitch McSour (Senate GOP obstructionist- in-chief? SCOTUS? The 8-year legacy of George W?
Greatest hits of sloganeering continue to feature 3-4 word gems which can be chanted and repeated until hard-wired into the base (and I do mean base) mentality of the lowest common denominator.
Possible counter-slogans ? "Save our country's founding principles"? "People are humans", "We the People", "Just the facts"... In the end, I think "Obstruct and Exploit" is just about perfect for the GOP. I'd still go for "yes, we can", if We is We the People, en masse. Meanwhile we'll be swimming in a sea of wholesale lies and the insidious 1%/Tea/R&R crusade to acquire the deed to the US Treasury and citizenry -- all while Romney withholds his own deeds.
"Yes we can" have an impact if we don't give up hope, and IF we emerge as a huge mass of "We the People" - those who breath, pay taxes -- to preserve our society.
They are blocking anything that would help us just to kick out Obama at any cost to anything.
A threat then obviously as well as now.RSN is a valuable tool to inform and it seems most of us are outraged at the audacity of our representatives . We need measurable results, real change.
RSS feed for comments to this post