RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
read more of todays top articles

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)
(photo: Fred R. Conrad/NYT) (photo: Fred R. Conrad/NYT)

Obstruct and Exploit

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times

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.

go to original article your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+45 # BradFromSalem 2012-09-10 09:32
Not only do I hear over and over that the President had control of Congress for his first 2 years, but I also am hearing now that the Republicans have passed 30 jobs bills in the House. Those bills then died in the Senate, therefore it is the Democrats to blame for our economic malaise and only the fiscally responsible Republicans can save us.

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.
+9 # Vardoz 2012-09-10 15:26
But Republicans were using many tactics in the Senate to block legislation like the Secret hold.

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:
+8 # Suavane 2012-09-10 21:59
Dear Brad,

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.
+3 # BradFromSalem 2012-09-11 06:43

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.
-8 # JackB 2012-09-11 20:59
If the Republicans oppose a Democrat proposal it is obstruction. If the Democrats oppose a Republican proposal it is the right & proper thing to do. To a liberal that policy is called working together to solve the country's problems.

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.
+4 # BradFromSalem 2012-09-12 08:19

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.
+40 # Billy Bob 2012-09-10 09:39
What's worse is when liberals buy into the repug strategy and start saying there's no reason to keep the President in office. Afterall, he "hasn't done anything" to fix the problem.

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.
+15 # mjc 2012-09-10 12:00
Don't be blaming the "liberals". Think there are many, including myself, that understand the problems with the Teapublicans in Congress and the economy and we have been saying for a long time that it was wonderful Americans like Mitch McConnel who decided that the main item of their party agenda would be making Obama a one-term president. They followed this criteria to a "tea"...blockin g better health care proposals, stimulus, or the jobs bill presently, now more than a year old with no sign of passage showing. Romney is a flip-flopper, blowin' in the wind opportunist which his primary rivals all know an the Paul Ryans of the world are the doctrinaire, liars who try to make this presidency possible.
+15 # Billy Bob 2012-09-10 12:39
I'm not blaming liberals. I'm a liberal. I'm blaming people for self-defeating strategy and an unwillingness to look at the big picture because they can't get everything they want.

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.
+9 # BradFromSalem 2012-09-10 13:58
Actually, they refined their tactics and escalated it to another level.
+3 # engelbach 2012-09-11 02:04
Using the cliché that progressives who demand better performance from their leaders are complaining because they "can't get everything they want" is just a way of avoiding the real problem.

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.
+6 # Billy Bob 2012-09-11 14:01
Where were you a year ago when I was commenting about Obama not being liberal enough?

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?
+27 # tswhiskers 2012-09-10 09:46
In 2009 the Reps. vowed to do anything they could to make Obama a 1 term president; if the president was for it, the Reps. were against it. It was that simple. Damn government for the good of the country! What matters is party and big money. And trust that the American public's memory is as long as a 3-year old's. I have based hopes for Obama on 2 things; that a Rep. White House and Congress would be disastrous for the vast majority of us and that given the freedom of a 2d term, Obama will spread his wings and take on the Reps. and big business regardless of the political consequences. I don't know how much real courage he possesses, tho. He has accomplished a great deal, more than most of us really know, but he has also made mistakes. I now suspect that he will not take the risks needed to bring Big Business and Reps. to heel and to straighten out the economy. Of course much depends on the # of Reps. that can be thrown out of the House, but I fear that Obama may also be risk-averse and would remain so even if he had a lifetime appt. to the presidency.
+27 # Onterryo 2012-09-10 10:55
Do not forget, despite the increased focus on jobs and the economy, that the #1 reason to get Obama elected is the likelihood that in the next four years two Supreme Court justices will be appointed. It will be disastrous for democracy and the rights of American citizens that a Republican would be the one to make those appointments. The economy, jobs, inflation..all those things matter but democracy matters the most. Yes, we have some problems with Obama but that is nothing compared to what could happen with an overwhelmingly conservative, Republican friendly SCOTUS. Abortion? No more. Women's rights? No more. I could cite a long list of "No more!", but think about this...a demonstration starts in LA, or NY or NO and people are beaten and killed. The President calls in the military...not the National Guard...the Supreme Court agrees with the President that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 did not limit his actions and a Republican House and Senate confirmed his actions. Meanwhile, the demonstrators, on contrived evidence, are classified as terrorists and any journalist telling their story is deemed to be supporting the terrorists and thrown into detention. All of them are held for months/years without trial. Lawyers, afraid of the consequences, shy away from the cases. It can happen here and some states are already proceeding down that path (see "Industrial terrorists" aka whistle blowers in the meat processing industries!).
-3 # engelbach 2012-09-11 02:05
Once and for all, the president doesn't absolutely "appoint" Justices to the Supreme Court. Nominees have to be approved by the Senate -- which has rejected many of them in the past.

Elect a strong Senate and it won't matter who is president.
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-09-11 14:03
We have no choice who's elected outside our district. Right now, the repugs WILL control the Senate after this election, UNLESS about three of them are caught eating babies.

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.
+7 # Sandy G 2012-09-10 14:01
OK, except that some of us are too old to have to wait 'til the Republicans self-destruct (which they inevitably will). By then, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and ACA will be either repealed, or bent so badly out of shape (Voucher'd) as to be useless.
+3 # Sandy G 2012-09-10 14:09
A 'Veto-Proof', one-party Congress is one of the most dangerous thing a Democracy can allow to occur. Don't believe it?? Just look at the Reichstag of 1930s NAZI Germany.
-3 # engelbach 2012-09-11 02:09
A two-party system is meaningless if one party is totally under the control of an oligarchic minority and only the other party really represents the majority.

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.
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-09-11 14:05
Unless we change to process of electing, a two-party system is what we will always have. If we had general jungle primaries, and an automatic run-off, we'd have a multi-party system. Short of that, this is what we're stuck with.

I'm all for a Constitutional amendment.
+3 # Suavane 2012-09-10 22:10
Quoting tswhiskers:
I don't know how much real courage he possesses, tho. He has accomplished a great deal, more than most of us really know, but he has also made mistakes. I now suspect that he will not take the risks needed to bring Big Business and Reps. to heel and to straighten out the economy. Of course much depends on the # of Reps. that can be thrown out of the House, but I fear that Obama may also be risk-averse and would remain so even if he had a lifetime appt. to the presidency.

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!
+27 # Onterryo 2012-09-10 10:31
As a Canadian, I was amazed that so few Americans seemed to understand there is a huge difference between having a majority and having control in the Senate. I have commented in here and elsewhere for many months and responded to Republicans and their supporters who cite Obama's inabiilty to "get anything done" in those first two years as to why he had to go. The Democrats only had 57 Senators plus two Independents and one of them was Lieberman who could not be relied upon given his support for McCain in 2008. This lack of control also made it difficult for Obama to get posts filled in his Administration as well as appoint lower level judges due to the need for Senate confirmation in many cases. Even the use of Presidential Orders, usually done during recesses of Congress, were often stymied by the Republicans. Bottom line: It's like a sprinter being given a backpack filled with bricks and then being asked "what took you so long" when crossing the finish line 40 seconds later.
+7 # Mark Leonard 2012-09-10 14:55
Perhaps the threat of Ryanomics will unite the Democrats. I agree with Deval Patrick, the Dems need to grow a backbone. In general they have been all too willing to compromise. When was the last time you heard a Democrat proudly call himself a liberal instead of dancing around it like it's a disease?
+1 # engelbach 2012-09-11 02:10
Good post. But backbone is not the problem. Too many Dems are, like the Repubs, in bed with the ruling class.
-3 # edge 2012-09-11 10:49
Quoting Onterryo:
... The Democrats only had 57 Senators plus two Independents and one of them was Lieberman ...


58 + 2 = 60 and filibuster proof! ( Al Franken July 2009 )
-64 # edge 2012-09-10 10:37
O-Blamer went golfing and on the Late Night TV circuit instead of fixing Jobs!

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!
+18 # BradFromSalem 2012-09-10 11:23
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.
+22 # Billy Bob 2012-09-10 11:27
Apparently you didn't read the article, huh? It's pretty hard for a President to "fix jobs" without cooperation from Congress, since Congress has the power of the purse.
-37 # edge 2012-09-10 12:31
Quoting Billy Bob:
Apparently you didn't read the article, huh? It's pretty hard for a President to "fix jobs" without cooperation from Congress, since Congress has the power of the purse.

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!
+14 # Onterryo 2012-09-10 13:24
*LOL*...Truman faced the same problem in 1948 and he strategically called the 80th Congress back to pass his legislation while knowing the Republicans would not do it. When they didn't pass it he used their intransigence as part of his political campaign. BTW...the Gallup poll had him trailing badly based on electoral votes even though he had a majority support in polling of the people. And, of course there is that photo of him holding The Chicago Tribune proclaiming a win for Dewey. Turned out the people were a lot smarter than the Republican obstructionists thought. Interesting how history repeats.
-7 # edge 2012-09-11 04:52
Quoting Onterryo:
*LOL*...Truman faced the same problem in 1948 and he strategically called the 80th Congress back to pass his legislation ...

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.
+7 # BradFromSalem 2012-09-11 07:01

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.
-10 # edge 2012-09-11 08:16
Quoting BradFromSalem:

C'mon, you are just tossing rhetoric around like a beat up old football.

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!!!
+8 # BradFromSalem 2012-09-11 10:59

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?
+13 # bmiluski 2012-09-10 13:52
And 130 republican filibusters.
+11 # bmiluski 2012-09-10 13:55
130 republican filibusters didn't help.
+7 # BlueReview 2012-09-10 17:00
Quoting edge:

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.
+16 # pernsey 2012-09-10 12:18
Quoting edge:
O-Blamer went golfing and on the Late Night TV circuit instead of fixing Jobs!

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!

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.
-8 # edge 2012-09-11 06:23
Quoting pernsey:

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!
+7 # BradFromSalem 2012-09-11 07:12
You complain that he did not use the Bully pulpit, but when he went on TV to explain his initiatives numerous times. Also, going on talk shows is another format for a bully pulpit. Golfing takes up a couple of hours, Bush went on vacations more than any other President. All accounts are that Obama was weighing multiple options on Afghanistan instead rushing headlong into escalation. Its called deliberation, look it up.

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?
-7 # edge 2012-09-11 08:46
Quoting BradFromSalem:
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%
+2 # BradFromSalem 2012-09-12 08:22
Since when do we elect presidents based on the total vote of the population?
+16 # angelfish 2012-09-10 10:44
The ReTHUGlicans no longer represent RePublicans in this Presidential race. It is CLEAR that they have aligned themselves with the Dark Side and no longer have any interest in helping Americans. They have BLINDLY adhered to their racist plan of making President Obama a "one term" President and have lost sight of the job they were sent to do in Washington D.C. Hopefully, the undecided Voters have come to see the Obstructive, Destructive Agenda being fulfilled. ALL the missed opportunity to HELP Americans will NOT be forgotten on election Day. Never, EVER vote ReTHUGlican!
+23 # LeeBlack 2012-09-10 10:55
How in the world can anyone claim that "only government spending can't create jobs unless the money goes to defense?" When money is spent on infrastructure that infrastructure and education is used and it promotes the common good.
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.
+19 # Onterryo 2012-09-10 11:18
Amazing that many Americans do not seem to grasp this concept....i.e. yes..whether you build bombs and jets or you build bridges and schools the taxpayers' dollars are still spent. BUT..the bridges and schools last a lot longer and are definitely positive enhancements to transportation and education and America's future. Meanwhile the bombs are dropped in practise or in war. Jets crash or are brought down or become obsolete one day. Their engineering and construction provide jobs but that is all. There is no benefit beyond that. And we all know we have enough armaments, ammunition and bombs to blow the whole world know. Spend half of the American defense budget and America will still be spending more than its enemies combined.
+1 # BlueReview 2012-09-10 17:29
What people also need to know about is the amount of wasteful "redundancies" there are. For example, just last June the DOD donated TWO Hubble-type telescopes to NASA--they'd never been in space, they were just lying around, probably still in their shipping crates . . .
+24 # genierae 2012-09-10 10:59
I guess it will all come down to how many sane voters we have in this country and whether they outnumber the no-nothings and the racists. Romney and Ryan are telling bald-faced lies, and the mainstream media news outlets are finally showing some independence. Hopefully the facts about these charlatans will penetrate the thick fog of ignorance that surrounds so many people in this country. Will they wake up in time?
+23 # tclose 2012-09-10 11:07
I liked the comment by someone on the article in the NYT:

"MSJGermantown, MD
Paul - I'm bothered the most by the fact that facts don't matter to almost 50% of the electorate." and:

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.
+21 # Billy Bob 2012-09-10 11:31
George Carlin said we should picture the average guy, then remember that 1/2 of the population is stupider than that.
-1 # SMoonz 2012-09-10 11:47
The Jobs Act was a joke. Don't believe me? Here's a quote from Matt Taibbi.

"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."
-1 # SMoonz 2012-09-10 22:40
I quote a Matt Taibbi article that appeared in RSN and I get thumbs down? Fascinating.
+2 # engelbach 2012-09-11 10:02
Die-hard Obama worshippers interpret every criticism of him to support for the GOP. They simply don't grasp how far to the right Obama has moved.

I have no idea from your posts where you stand. My criticisms are from the left of Obama. Are yours?
-3 # SMoonz 2012-09-11 10:49
I consider myself a liberal, left leaning if you will.
+8 # MindDoc 2012-09-10 12:47
Well reasoned and factual (though remember: facts are stupid things, according to the GOP mantra).

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.
+7 # lollie 2012-09-10 13:17
'Obstruct and exploit' have worked in the past for the republicans, so why stop doing what works? To break this pattern of I'm rubber(R) and you're glue (D), I think we need to be the wind beneath Obama's wings, a very loud and clear wind. Take responsibility, and hold the representatives accountable.
+6 # Vardoz 2012-09-10 13:27
And as this congress vows to do anything to out Obama, Ryan was actually betting on the market on the economy failing! And when both houses were under a Democratic majority the GOP were using many tactics to block legislation as written in the New Yorker like the Secret Hold.
+9 # Sandy G 2012-09-10 13:56
It goes way beyond the 'Force them to screw-p, then throw them out because they did'. The wily Republicans are developing a new 'winning strategy': In states with Republicsn-domi nated state-legislatu res, pass voting regulations designed to disenfranchise as many voters in the 'other' party to assure the election of Republican members of the US Congress to assure the election of a 'veto-proof' Republican Congress. Only remember to call it 'Anti-Voter-Fra ud legislation, and some of us call that a 'Stalking Horse'.
+5 # Vardoz 2012-09-10 15:30
Senate Republicans block Paycheck Fairness Act, as battle over women’s issues shifts to ballot box.

They are blocking anything that would help us just to kick out Obama at any cost to anything.
+5 # lollie 2012-09-11 06:40
"I hope we shall crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Thomas Jefferson
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.

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.