Yet, at the same time, many Republicans (especially many freshmen ones in the House of Representatives) have made promises and signed pledges to never, never, never, never, never raise taxes. Tea party types will hold them to that, and yet will also hold them partly accountable if the economy crashes on their watch. The Republicans have truly painted themselves into a corner, having said "NO" to everything -- even to ideas that were originally theirs and the president expressed support for -- and having committed themselves to a course that put the country last in their zeal to try to make Obama a "one-term president". The Republicans have played games, pitched fits, held their breath and stamped their feet until blue in the face over any proposed plan to move things forward, and have not put forth ONE SINGLE PIECE of jobs legislation. They have sided with corporations and billionaires at every term, and demand huge and sudden cuts to government spending at a time when anyone who knows anything about economics knows that such a policy would plunge us all back into recession. And now -- NOW -- they want to grandstand about not raising the debt ceiling, even though it was raised without question almost every year Bush was in office.
It's nauseating, but I think the GOP will pay for it in 2012. What the Democrats need to do, for their part, is grow a spine and push for the progressive policies that will energize their base. Wind down the Bush Wars, slash defense spending, close corporate tax loopholes, and bring the income tax code back to where it was in Eisenhower's days.
I only wish that were true, because then they would stop obstructing everything.
I don't think they'll be held responsible for the overall economy, but they would be held accountable if they make good on their threat to send the United States of America into default for the first time in history.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperPart of the job of the Democrats is to sell their side of the story before election day. The extreme right, as we see in Wisconsin, New Jersey and other states, is overreaching and causing progressives (who usually herd as well as cats) to become galvanized and fight back hard. Wisconsin may become the model for a nationwide awakening of workers, both union and non-union. I hear distant thunder, and there's an electric charge in the air. Something revolutionary may be in the offing, though of what sort and to what degree I don't know.
I only wish that were true, because then they would stop obstructing everything.
I don't think they'll be held responsible for the overall economy, but they would be held accountable if they make good on their threat to send the United States of America into default for the first time in history.
Meanwhile the Republican party could splinter, seeing as it's been hijacked by extremists and becoming increasingly less representative of ordinary Republican citizens as a whole. The Democrats won't splinter, because it's always been a broader, less dogmatic and more inclusive party (which does sometimes come at the price of party unity in Congress). Pressure is building and everyone is getting frustrated, so again, I can envision a scenario in which there's a split in the GOP and the so-called "tea party" becomes the official Tea Party. I think the Corporate Reactionary Astroturf Party would be a better name, but that's just me.
Originally posted by SoothfastDream on. 😛
Part of the job of the Democrats is to sell their side of the story before election day. The extreme right, as we see in Wisconsin, New Jersey and other states, is overreaching and causing progressives (who usually herd as well as cats) to become galvanized and fight back hard. Wisconsin may become the model for a nationwide awakening of workers, both uni ...[text shortened]... k the Corporate Reactionary Astroturf Party would be a better name, but that's just me.
Originally posted by SoothfastWho says we are out of the recession?
They have sided with corporations and billionaires at every term, and demand huge and sudden cuts to government spending at a time when anyone who knows anything about economics knows that such a policy would plunge us all back into recession.
Originally posted by MoneyManMike
What facts?
re·ces·sion/riˈseSHən/Noun
1. A period of temporary economic decline during which trade and industrial activity are reduced, generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters.
The fact that this hasn't happened since, oh, sometime in 2009?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWell, they have to win their primaries before they get to the general.
I only wish that were true, because then they would stop obstructing everything.
I don't think they'll be held responsible for the overall economy, but they would be held accountable if they make good on their threat to send the United States of America into default for the first time in history.
Originally posted by SoothfastI have a lot of gripes with Obama, but I have to say that he's handled this very well over the past couple of weeks. He has the Republicans scrambling at the moment, because they're caught between the crazies in the Tea Party they have to worry about in the primary, and losing independents in the general. And right now, independents are breaking for Obama. He's on message. So far.
Part of the job of the Democrats is to sell their side of the story before election day. The extreme right, as we see in Wisconsin, New Jersey and other states, is overreaching and causing progressives (who usually herd as well as cats) to become galvanized and fight back hard. Wisconsin may become the model for a nationwide awakening of workers, both uni ...[text shortened]... k the Corporate Reactionary Astroturf Party would be a better name, but that's just me.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeThe economic reports which established two consecutive quarters of growth. When you have two consecutive quarters of decline, you have a recession. Two quarters of growth ends it.
Who says we are out of the recession?
That's how economists define a recession anyway. Other people might have a different idea.
Originally posted by KunsooMy theory is that Obama is trying to triangulate on a position as close to "moderate" as he can get to ensure re-election, at which point he may push more aggressively for progressive reforms. At any rate it's critical he be re-elected, not only to keep the Executive Branch out of the clutches of Republicans but to get a shot at bringing sanity back to the Supreme Court.
I have a lot of gripes with Obama, but I have to say that he's handled this very well over the past couple of weeks. He has the Republicans scrambling at the moment, because they're caught between the crazies in the Tea Party they have to worry about in the primary, and losing independents in the general. And right now, independents are breaking for Obama. He's on message. So far.
This is my theory when I'm in a generous mood, anyway.
Originally posted by KunsooWho was it that said at the time when Obama seemed to be losing every stoush with the GOP that in terms of strategy he's more of a chess than a poker player?
I have a lot of gripes with Obama, but I have to say that he's handled this very well over the past couple of weeks. He has the Republicans scrambling at the moment, because they're caught between the crazies in the Tea Party they have to worry about in the primary, and losing independents in the general. And right now, independents are breaking for Obama. He's on message. So far.
Well, he may have less pieces on the board right now, but he's got them setting up their own checkmate!