the GOP has blocked pro-growth policy and backed job-killing austerity

[buckeye45_73]

The republicans are yet to explain how throwing thousands of government employees out of work while doing nothing to create or protect a job for them in the private sector is supposed to stimulate the economy.

no one told these people to take a job in Government. They can do like the rest of would if laid off, go find another job, it's not the Governments job to do it for them. How special do these people think they are?

The question should be, why are they not as special as anyone who works for a living? These are real people with real lives, disrupting their lives for an entirely arbitrary reason that hurts far more than it helps is no way to run things. No one likes to hear tales of companies laying off and going away, it sucks for the economy, yet this is the stated policy of republicans who relish the idea of arbitrarily closing down a vast section of our economy to save the billionaires a relatively petty amount.

Wow so many stupid things in this post. FIRST government employees shouldnt have a job for life. sometimes the job is needed and sometimes not, just like private business. Second they should get their benefits just like private employees, which means they should contribute to their own benefits.

As for the billionaires, I think it's funny when so many of them back liberals and dont pay taxes, yet they want more taxes, hmmmmmm
why do liberals obsess over how much money someone has???? who gives a shit???

 

[occupied]

no one told these people to take a job in Government. They can do like the rest of would if laid off, go find another job, it's not the Governments job to do it for them. How special do these people think they are?

The question should be, why are they not as special as anyone who works for a living? These are real people with real lives, disrupting their lives for an entirely arbitrary reason that hurts far more than it helps is no way to run things. No one likes to hear tales of companies laying off and going away, it sucks for the economy, yet this is the stated policy of republicans who relish the idea of arbitrarily closing down a vast section of our economy to save the billionaires a relatively petty amount.

Wow so many stupid things in this post. FIRST government employees shouldnt have a job for life. sometimes the job is needed and sometimes not, just like private business. Second they should get their benefits just like private employees, which means they should contribute to their own benefits.

As for the billionaires, I think it's funny when so many of them back liberals and dont pay taxes, yet they want more taxes, hmmmmmm
why do liberals obsess over how much money someone has???? who gives a shit???

Did you notice I used the word "arbitrary" twice? If laying off thousands of people had a demonstrable net benefit to the country it would be different, the only benefit is to a relative few who get to pay less taxes. It is sucking money out of the economy, not a wise thing to do in an economic recovery. Ideology has nothing to this and questions of if a government worker is needed should be based on the individual rather than just a general hatred of the government. I am all for cutting waste carefully but this blindfolded chainsaw approach is just reckless and needlessly cruel.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Didn't Obama get the stimulus that was supposed to keep unemployment under 8% and create millions of shovel ready jobs passed? Didn't he get really everything passed during his first two year's in office that he wanted? Those policies did not work out very well and now you want to pass more of them brilliant.

50% of it were tax cuts that repubs wanted then when they got it, voted against it. Pretty clever because it makes people like you forget repubs asked for it.

 

[KissMy]

Democrats are the party of the 1%. They support the multi millionaire's public unions taxing the poor & accept big campaign money from them. Democrats are for Wall Street & not for Main Street. Bankers & executives have made record profits from pension funds paid for by taxes under Democrat rule. Over the last 5 years since Democrats took power the rich got richer & the poor got poorer.

Democrats took control on January 1, 2007. Look what happened to the jobs & poor.

DEMOCRATS JOBS RECORD!!!

 

[buckeye45_73]

The question should be, why are they not as special as anyone who works for a living? These are real people with real lives, disrupting their lives for an entirely arbitrary reason that hurts far more than it helps is no way to run things. No one likes to hear tales of companies laying off and going away, it sucks for the economy, yet this is the stated policy of republicans who relish the idea of arbitrarily closing down a vast section of our economy to save the billionaires a relatively petty amount.

Wow so many stupid things in this post. FIRST government employees shouldnt have a job for life. sometimes the job is needed and sometimes not, just like private business. Second they should get their benefits just like private employees, which means they should contribute to their own benefits.

As for the billionaires, I think it's funny when so many of them back liberals and dont pay taxes, yet they want more taxes, hmmmmmm
why do liberals obsess over how much money someone has???? who gives a shit???

Did you notice I used the word "arbitrary" twice? If laying off thousands of people had a demonstrable net benefit to the country it would be different, the only benefit is to a relative few who get to pay less taxes. It is sucking money out of the economy, not a wise thing to do in an economic recovery. Ideology has nothing to this and questions of if a government worker is needed should be based on the individual rather than just a general hatred of the government. I am all for cutting waste carefully but this blindfolded chainsaw approach is just reckless and needlessly cruel.

Who is for just cutting people, just for the fun of it? The whole point is there are alot of government workers that are not needed.

Have you seen schools with race relations counselors? That is not needed.

the <insert> studies departments at colleges, not needed, total fluff and crap.

17 people working on a highway and 10 of them just hanging out not doing anything, those 10 not needed (ok maybe we'll make one the supervisor and just fire 9).

When the republicans took over in 94, they got rid of elevator operations, for automatic elevators, again not needed.

they also got rid of people who would bring you ice, nice in the 1920s, not needed in today's society. These are just a few examples


But what is funny is liberals would rather keep paying zero for their benefits and fire teachers, cops, ect, instead of keeping those people employed by contributing a small percentage to their benefits.

 

[Truthmatters]

Democrats are the party of the 1%. They support the multi millionaire's public unions taxing the poor & accept big campaign money from them. Democrats are for Wall Street & not for Main Street. Bankers & executives have made record profits from pension funds paid for by taxes under Democrat rule. Over the last 5 years since Democrats took power the rich got richer & the poor got poorer.

Democrats took control on January 1, 2007. Look what happened to the jobs & poor.

DEMOCRATS JOBS RECORD!!!

I have asked you before adn will ask you again for a link to this graph.

its agaisnt the rules to post without links

 

[Truthmatters]

Wow so many stupid things in this post. FIRST government employees shouldnt have a job for life. sometimes the job is needed and sometimes not, just like private business. Second they should get their benefits just like private employees, which means they should contribute to their own benefits.

As for the billionaires, I think it's funny when so many of them back liberals and dont pay taxes, yet they want more taxes, hmmmmmm
why do liberals obsess over how much money someone has???? who gives a shit???

Did you notice I used the word "arbitrary" twice? If laying off thousands of people had a demonstrable net benefit to the country it would be different, the only benefit is to a relative few who get to pay less taxes. It is sucking money out of the economy, not a wise thing to do in an economic recovery. Ideology has nothing to this and questions of if a government worker is needed should be based on the individual rather than just a general hatred of the government. I am all for cutting waste carefully but this blindfolded chainsaw approach is just reckless and needlessly cruel.

Who is for just cutting people, just for the fun of it? The whole point is there are alot of government workers that are not needed.

Have you seen schools with race relations counselors? That is not needed.

the <insert> studies departments at colleges, not needed, total fluff and crap.

17 people working on a highway and 10 of them just hanging out not doing anything, those 10 not needed (ok maybe we'll make one the supervisor and just fire 9).

When the republicans took over in 94, they got rid of elevator operations, for automatic elevators, again not needed.

they also got rid of people who would bring you ice, nice in the 1920s, not needed in today's society. These are just a few examples


But what is funny is liberals would rather keep paying zero for their benefits and fire teachers, cops, ect, instead of keeping those people employed by contributing a small percentage to their benefits.

Comparing Presidents - The Size of Government | Angry Bear - Financial and Economic Commentary


your head is filled with lies.

these are the facts

 

[Sallow]

Did Republicans deliberately crash the US economy? | Michael Cohen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk



So why does the US economy stink?

Why has job creation in America slowed to a crawl? Why, after several months of economic hope, are things suddenly turning sour? The culprits might seem obvious – uncertainty in Europe, an uneven economic recovery, fiscal and monetary policymakers immobilized and incapable of acting. But increasingly, Democrats are making the argument that the real culprit for the country's economic woes lies in a more discrete location: with the Republican Party.

In recent days, Democrats have started coming out and saying publicly what many have been mumbling privately for years – Republicans are so intent on defeating President Obama for re-election that they are purposely sabotaging the country's economic recovery. These charges are now being levied by Democrats such as Senate majority leader Harry Reid and Obama's key political adviser, David Axelrod.

For Democrats, perhaps the most obvious piece of evidence of GOP premeditated malice is the 2010 quote from Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell:

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Such words lead some to the conclusion that Republicans will do anything, including short-circuiting the economy, in order to hurt Obama politically. Considering that presidents – and rarely opposition parties – are held electorally responsible for economic calamity, it's not a bad political strategy.

Then again, it's a hard accusation to prove: after all, one person's economic sabotage is another person's principled anti-government conservatism.

Beyond McConnell's words, though, there is circumstantial evidence to make the case. Republicans have opposed a lion's share of stimulus measures that once they supported, such as a payroll tax break, which they grudgingly embraced earlier this year. Even unemployment insurance, a relatively uncontroversial tool for helping those in an economic downturn, has been consistently held up by Republicans or used as a bargaining chip for more tax cuts. Ten years ago, prominent conservatives were loudly making the case for fiscal stimulus to get the economy going; today, they treat such ideas like they're the plague.

Traditionally, during economic recessions, Republicans have been supportive of loose monetary policy. Not this time. Rather, Republicans have upbraided Ben Bernanke, head of the Federal Reserve, for even considering policies that focus on growing the economy and creating jobs.

And then, there is the fact that since the original stimulus bill passed in February of 2009, Republicans have made practically no effort to draft comprehensive job creation legislation. Instead, they continue to pursue austerity policies, which reams of historical data suggest harms economic recovery and does little to create jobs. In fact, since taking control of the House of Representatives in 2011, Republicans have proposed hardly a single major jobs bill that didn't revolve, in some way, around their one-stop solution for all the nation's economic problems: more tax cuts.

Still, one can certainly argue – and Republicans do – that these steps are all reflective of conservative ideology. If you view government as a fundamentally bad actor, then stopping government expansion is, on some level, consistent.

So, let's put aside the conspiracy theories for a moment, and look more closely at how the country is faring under the GOP's economic leadership.

As Paul Krugman wrote earlier this week, in the New York Times, while a Democrat rests his head each night in the White House, the United States is currently operating with a Republican economy. After winning the House of Representatives in 2010, the GOP brokered a deal to keep the Bush tax cuts in place, which has reduced the tax burden as a percentage of GDP to its lowest point since Harry Truman sat in the White House. At the insistence of the White House, Congress also agreed to extend unemployment benefits and enact a payroll tax cut – measures that provided a small but important stimulus to the economy, but above all, maintained the key GOP position that taxes must never go up.

But as Congress giveth, Congress also taketh. The GOP's zealotry on tax cuts is only matched by its zealotry in pursuing austerity policies. In the spring of 2011, federal spending cuts forced by Republican legislators took much-needed money out of the economy: combined with the 2012 budget, it has largely counteracted the positive benefits provided by the 2009 stimulus.

Subsequently, the GOP's refusal to countenance legislation that would help states with their own fiscal crises (largely, the result of declining tax revenue) has led to massive public sector layoffs at the state and local level. In fact, since Obama took office, state and local governments have shed 611,000 jobs; and by some measures, if not for these jobs, cuts the unemployment rate today would be closer to 7%, not its current 8.2%. In 2010 and 2011, 457,00 public sector jobs were excised; not coincidentally, at the same time, much of the federal stimulus aid from 2009 ran out. And Republicans took over control of Congress.

These cuts have a larger societal impact. When teachers are laid off, for example (and nearly 200,000 have lost their jobs), it means larger class sizes, other teachers being overworked and after-school classes being cancelled. So, ironically, a policy that is intended to save "our children and grandchildren" from "crushing debt" is leaving them worse-prepared for the actual economic and social challenges they will face in the future. In addition, with states operating under tighter fiscal budgets – and getting no hope relief from Washington – it means less money for essential government services, like help for the elderly, the poor and the disabled.

This is the most obvious example of how austerity policies are not only harming America's present, but also imperilling its future. And these spending cuts on the state and local level are matched by a complete lack of fiscal expansion on the federal level. In fact, fiscal policy is now a drag on the recovery, which is the exact opposite of how it should work, given a sluggish economy.

This collection of more-harm-than-good policies must also include last summer's debt limit debacle, which House speaker John Boehner has threatened to renew this year. This was yet another GOP initiative that undermined the economic recovery. According to economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, "over the entire episode, confidence declined more than it did following the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc in 2008." Only after the crisis did the consumer confidence stabilize, but employers "held back on hiring, sapping momentum from a recovery that remains far too fragile." In addition, the debt limit deal also forced more unhelpful spending cuts on the country.

Since that national embarrassment, Republicans have refused to even allow votes on President Obama's jobs bill in the Senate; they dragged their feet on the aforementioned payroll tax and even now are holding up a transportation bill with poison-pill demands for the White House on environmental regulation.

Yet, with all these tales of economic ineptitude emanating from the GOP, it is Obama who is bearing most of the blame for the country's continued poor economic performance.

Whether you believe the Republicans are engaging in purposely destructive fiscal behavior or are simply fiscally incompetent, it almost doesn't matter. It most certainly is bad economic policy and that should be part of any national debate not only on who is to blame for the current economic mess, but also what steps should be taken to get out from underneath it.

But don't hold your breath on that happening. Presidents get blamed for a bad economy; and certainly, Republicans are unlikely to take responsibility for the country's economic woes. The obligation will be on Obama to make the case that it is the Republicans, not he, who is to blame – a difficult, but not impossible task.

In the end, that might be the worst part of all – one of two major political parties in America is engaging in scorched-earth economic policies that are undercutting the economic recovery, possibly on purpose, and is forcing job-killing austerity measures on the states. And they have paid absolutely no political price for doing so. If anything, it won them control of the House in 2010, and has kept win Obama's approval ratings in the political danger zone. It might even help them get control of the White House.

Sabotage or not, it's hard to argue with "success" – and it's hard to imagine we've seen the last of it, whoever wins in November.




By voting for Mittens, all it will do is screw us over even more. Mittens and the GOP are working together. He is funded by the republicans and GOP because he is an investment for them, financially. It's been proven that they don't do jack shit for the economy, they just stuff as much money into their pockets as they can as if there is no tomorrow.
Why aren't we holding them responsible for their mess?

Gotta love it.

 

[Sallow]

Didn't Obama get the stimulus that was supposed to keep unemployment under 8% and create millions of shovel ready jobs passed? Didn't he get really everything passed during his first two year's in office that he wanted? Those policies did not work out very well and now you want to pass more of them brilliant.

Here's the thing about that.

UE was about 7% when he said that.

3 months after he assumed office and about a month before the stimulus was rolled out..UE shot up to 10%.

Then after it was implemented it went down to 8.1.

Thats close to 2 points.

Had the Republicans funded public hiring..it would have been down more. But we lost 600K public employees.

Which brings us to the question..since the stimulus was a success..because the private sector did so much hiring..and the markets went up.

But government contracted.

Why aren't conservatives happy..and why are they complaining?

 

[occupied]

Wow so many stupid things in this post. FIRST government employees shouldnt have a job for life. sometimes the job is needed and sometimes not, just like private business. Second they should get their benefits just like private employees, which means they should contribute to their own benefits.

As for the billionaires, I think it's funny when so many of them back liberals and dont pay taxes, yet they want more taxes, hmmmmmm
why do liberals obsess over how much money someone has???? who gives a shit???

Did you notice I used the word "arbitrary" twice? If laying off thousands of people had a demonstrable net benefit to the country it would be different, the only benefit is to a relative few who get to pay less taxes. It is sucking money out of the economy, not a wise thing to do in an economic recovery. Ideology has nothing to this and questions of if a government worker is needed should be based on the individual rather than just a general hatred of the government. I am all for cutting waste carefully but this blindfolded chainsaw approach is just reckless and needlessly cruel.

Who is for just cutting people, just for the fun of it? The whole point is there are alot of government workers that are not needed.

Have you seen schools with race relations counselors? That is not needed.

the <insert> studies departments at colleges, not needed, total fluff and crap.

17 people working on a highway and 10 of them just hanging out not doing anything, those 10 not needed (ok maybe we'll make one the supervisor and just fire 9).

When the republicans took over in 94, they got rid of elevator operations, for automatic elevators, again not needed.

they also got rid of people who would bring you ice, nice in the 1920s, not needed in today's society. These are just a few examples


But what is funny is liberals would rather keep paying zero for their benefits and fire teachers, cops, ect, instead of keeping those people employed by contributing a small percentage to their benefits.

Are you implying that republicans want to take a measured approach to cuts rather than yanking entire departments and agencies out by the roots and privatizing the rest?

 

[Stephanie]

yeah sure..it's one person OPONION...no one has to love it

anyway we've heard all this before...

yawn

 

[KissMy]

Democrats are the party of the 1%. They support the multi millionaire's public unions taxing the poor & accept big campaign money from them. Democrats are for Wall Street & not for Main Street. Bankers & executives have made record profits from pension funds paid for by taxes under Democrat rule. Over the last 5 years since Democrats took power the rich got richer & the poor got poorer.

Democrats took control on January 1, 2007. Look what happened to the jobs & poor.

DEMOCRATS JOBS RECORD!!!

I have asked you before adn will ask you again for a link to this graph.

its agaisnt the rules to post without links

I already gave you the link in this post

That chart is from the St. Louis Federal Reserve chart of the data from the Bureau of Labor Statics

 

[Sallow]

Democrats are the party of the 1%. They support the multi millionaire's public unions taxing the poor & accept big campaign money from them. Democrats are for Wall Street & not for Main Street. Bankers & executives have made record profits from pension funds paid for by taxes under Democrat rule. Over the last 5 years since Democrats took power the rich got richer & the poor got poorer.

Democrats took control on January 1, 2007. Look what happened to the jobs & poor.

DEMOCRATS JOBS RECORD!!!

Yeah..that had nothing to do with the Bush housing bubble blowing up.

 

[KissMy]

Democrats are the party of the 1%. They support the multi millionaire's public unions taxing the poor & accept big campaign money from them. Democrats are for Wall Street & not for Main Street. Bankers & executives have made record profits from pension funds paid for by taxes under Democrat rule. Over the last 5 years since Democrats took power the rich got richer & the poor got poorer.

Democrats took control on January 1, 2007. Look what happened to the jobs & poor.

DEMOCRATS JOBS RECORD!!!

Yeah..that had nothing to do with the Bush housing bubble blowing up.

Then why are the rich 1% doing better under Obama than under Bush? There is no real job growth under Democrats.

 

[usmcstinger]

Did Republicans deliberately crash the US economy? | Michael Cohen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk



So why does the US economy stink?

Why has job creation in America slowed to a crawl? Why, after several months of economic hope, are things suddenly turning sour? The culprits might seem obvious – uncertainty in Europe, an uneven economic recovery, fiscal and monetary policymakers immobilized and incapable of acting. But increasingly, Democrats are making the argument that the real culprit for the country's economic woes lies in a more discrete location: with the Republican Party.

In recent days, Democrats have started coming out and saying publicly what many have been mumbling privately for years – Republicans are so intent on defeating President Obama for re-election that they are purposely sabotaging the country's economic recovery. These charges are now being levied by Democrats such as Senate majority leader Harry Reid and Obama's key political adviser, David Axelrod.

For Democrats, perhaps the most obvious piece of evidence of GOP premeditated malice is the 2010 quote from Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell:

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Such words lead some to the conclusion that Republicans will do anything, including short-circuiting the economy, in order to hurt Obama politically. Considering that presidents – and rarely opposition parties – are held electorally responsible for economic calamity, it's not a bad political strategy.

Then again, it's a hard accusation to prove: after all, one person's economic sabotage is another person's principled anti-government conservatism.

Beyond McConnell's words, though, there is circumstantial evidence to make the case. Republicans have opposed a lion's share of stimulus measures that once they supported, such as a payroll tax break, which they grudgingly embraced earlier this year. Even unemployment insurance, a relatively uncontroversial tool for helping those in an economic downturn, has been consistently held up by Republicans or used as a bargaining chip for more tax cuts. Ten years ago, prominent conservatives were loudly making the case for fiscal stimulus to get the economy going; today, they treat such ideas like they're the plague.

Traditionally, during economic recessions, Republicans have been supportive of loose monetary policy. Not this time. Rather, Republicans have upbraided Ben Bernanke, head of the Federal Reserve, for even considering policies that focus on growing the economy and creating jobs.

And then, there is the fact that since the original stimulus bill passed in February of 2009, Republicans have made practically no effort to draft comprehensive job creation legislation. Instead, they continue to pursue austerity policies, which reams of historical data suggest harms economic recovery and does little to create jobs. In fact, since taking control of the House of Representatives in 2011, Republicans have proposed hardly a single major jobs bill that didn't revolve, in some way, around their one-stop solution for all the nation's economic problems: more tax cuts.

Still, one can certainly argue – and Republicans do – that these steps are all reflective of conservative ideology. If you view government as a fundamentally bad actor, then stopping government expansion is, on some level, consistent.

So, let's put aside the conspiracy theories for a moment, and look more closely at how the country is faring under the GOP's economic leadership.

As Paul Krugman wrote earlier this week, in the New York Times, while a Democrat rests his head each night in the White House, the United States is currently operating with a Republican economy. After winning the House of Representatives in 2010, the GOP brokered a deal to keep the Bush tax cuts in place, which has reduced the tax burden as a percentage of GDP to its lowest point since Harry Truman sat in the White House. At the insistence of the White House, Congress also agreed to extend unemployment benefits and enact a payroll tax cut – measures that provided a small but important stimulus to the economy, but above all, maintained the key GOP position that taxes must never go up.

But as Congress giveth, Congress also taketh. The GOP's zealotry on tax cuts is only matched by its zealotry in pursuing austerity policies. In the spring of 2011, federal spending cuts forced by Republican legislators took much-needed money out of the economy: combined with the 2012 budget, it has largely counteracted the positive benefits provided by the 2009 stimulus.

Subsequently, the GOP's refusal to countenance legislation that would help states with their own fiscal crises (largely, the result of declining tax revenue) has led to massive public sector layoffs at the state and local level. In fact, since Obama took office, state and local governments have shed 611,000 jobs; and by some measures, if not for these jobs, cuts the unemployment rate today would be closer to 7%, not its current 8.2%. In 2010 and 2011, 457,00 public sector jobs were excised; not coincidentally, at the same time, much of the federal stimulus aid from 2009 ran out. And Republicans took over control of Congress.

These cuts have a larger societal impact. When teachers are laid off, for example (and nearly 200,000 have lost their jobs), it means larger class sizes, other teachers being overworked and after-school classes being cancelled. So, ironically, a policy that is intended to save "our children and grandchildren" from "crushing debt" is leaving them worse-prepared for the actual economic and social challenges they will face in the future. In addition, with states operating under tighter fiscal budgets – and getting no hope relief from Washington – it means less money for essential government services, like help for the elderly, the poor and the disabled.

This is the most obvious example of how austerity policies are not only harming America's present, but also imperilling its future. And these spending cuts on the state and local level are matched by a complete lack of fiscal expansion on the federal level. In fact, fiscal policy is now a drag on the recovery, which is the exact opposite of how it should work, given a sluggish economy.

This collection of more-harm-than-good policies must also include last summer's debt limit debacle, which House speaker John Boehner has threatened to renew this year. This was yet another GOP initiative that undermined the economic recovery. According to economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, "over the entire episode, confidence declined more than it did following the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc in 2008." Only after the crisis did the consumer confidence stabilize, but employers "held back on hiring, sapping momentum from a recovery that remains far too fragile." In addition, the debt limit deal also forced more unhelpful spending cuts on the country.

Since that national embarrassment, Republicans have refused to even allow votes on President Obama's jobs bill in the Senate; they dragged their feet on the aforementioned payroll tax and even now are holding up a transportation bill with poison-pill demands for the White House on environmental regulation.

Yet, with all these tales of economic ineptitude emanating from the GOP, it is Obama who is bearing most of the blame for the country's continued poor economic performance.

Whether you believe the Republicans are engaging in purposely destructive fiscal behavior or are simply fiscally incompetent, it almost doesn't matter. It most certainly is bad economic policy and that should be part of any national debate not only on who is to blame for the current economic mess, but also what steps should be taken to get out from underneath it.

But don't hold your breath on that happening. Presidents get blamed for a bad economy; and certainly, Republicans are unlikely to take responsibility for the country's economic woes. The obligation will be on Obama to make the case that it is the Republicans, not he, who is to blame – a difficult, but not impossible task.

In the end, that might be the worst part of all – one of two major political parties in America is engaging in scorched-earth economic policies that are undercutting the economic recovery, possibly on purpose, and is forcing job-killing austerity measures on the states. And they have paid absolutely no political price for doing so. If anything, it won them control of the House in 2010, and has kept win Obama's approval ratings in the political danger zone. It might even help them get control of the White House.

Sabotage or not, it's hard to argue with "success" – and it's hard to imagine we've seen the last of it, whoever wins in November.




By voting for Mittens, all it will do is screw us over even more. Mittens and the GOP are working together. He is funded by the republicans and GOP because he is an investment for them, financially. It's been proven that they don't do jack shit for the economy, they just stuff as much money into their pockets as they can as if there is no tomorrow.
Why aren't we holding them responsible for their mess?

Spoken like a true delusional socialist. Socialist Western Europe is just about on their knees.

However, Germany is doing just fine by doing the opposite. Just common sense.

Mitt will do the same and our economy will come back from Obamanomics which is really
Keynesian Economics. This form of economics is no more than cult that has never worked.

 

[Sallow]

Democrats are the party of the 1%. They support the multi millionaire's public unions taxing the poor & accept big campaign money from them. Democrats are for Wall Street & not for Main Street. Bankers & executives have made record profits from pension funds paid for by taxes under Democrat rule. Over the last 5 years since Democrats took power the rich got richer & the poor got poorer.

Democrats took control on January 1, 2007. Look what happened to the jobs & poor.

DEMOCRATS JOBS RECORD!!!

Yeah..that had nothing to do with the Bush housing bubble blowing up.

Then why are the rich 1% doing better under Obama than under Bush? There is no real job growth under Democrats.

Why?

They got to keep all the money they made, got free money, and got to fire a shit load of people.

There's been real job growth..by the way..in the private sector..but that's been offset by public sector layoffs.

 

[WillowTree]

Democrats are the party of the 1%. They support the multi millionaire's public unions taxing the poor & accept big campaign money from them. Democrats are for Wall Street & not for Main Street. Bankers & executives have made record profits from pension funds paid for by taxes under Democrat rule. Over the last 5 years since Democrats took power the rich got richer & the poor got poorer.

Democrats took control on January 1, 2007. Look what happened to the jobs & poor.

DEMOCRATS JOBS RECORD!!!

Yeah..that had nothing to do with the Bush housing bubble blowing up.

Then why are the rich 1% doing better under Obama than under Bush? There is no real job growth under Democrats.

Zing.. now that's gonna leave a mark..

 

[buckeye45_73]

Did you notice I used the word "arbitrary" twice? If laying off thousands of people had a demonstrable net benefit to the country it would be different, the only benefit is to a relative few who get to pay less taxes. It is sucking money out of the economy, not a wise thing to do in an economic recovery. Ideology has nothing to this and questions of if a government worker is needed should be based on the individual rather than just a general hatred of the government. I am all for cutting waste carefully but this blindfolded chainsaw approach is just reckless and needlessly cruel.

Who is for just cutting people, just for the fun of it? The whole point is there are alot of government workers that are not needed.

Have you seen schools with race relations counselors? That is not needed.

the <insert> studies departments at colleges, not needed, total fluff and crap.

17 people working on a highway and 10 of them just hanging out not doing anything, those 10 not needed (ok maybe we'll make one the supervisor and just fire 9).

When the republicans took over in 94, they got rid of elevator operations, for automatic elevators, again not needed.

they also got rid of people who would bring you ice, nice in the 1920s, not needed in today's society. These are just a few examples


But what is funny is liberals would rather keep paying zero for their benefits and fire teachers, cops, ect, instead of keeping those people employed by contributing a small percentage to their benefits.

Are you implying that republicans want to take a measured approach to cuts rather than yanking entire departments and agencies out by the roots and privatizing the rest?

I want to do that, I dont think the republicans have the balls to do it. Atleast not with RINOs running the show.

Dep of education and energy are both jokes. Everyone knows schools are local and the government should stay out of them, Just give vouchers and make schools HAVE to produce results or they go bye bye.

Dept of energy is not really doing much, except making us use expensive light bulbs. (Liberals love the green stuff but dont care if joe schmo has to go under to pay for it, I love how liberals stand up for the little guy!)

But you get rid of the useless people in Washington you can save a whole lot of money. Hey I have a great idea, how about hve the congressmen WORK instead of pawning it off on their staff of 20+. So we can slash the congresional staffs as well.

 

[occupied]

Who is for just cutting people, just for the fun of it? The whole point is there are alot of government workers that are not needed.

Have you seen schools with race relations counselors? That is not needed.

the <insert> studies departments at colleges, not needed, total fluff and crap.

17 people working on a highway and 10 of them just hanging out not doing anything, those 10 not needed (ok maybe we'll make one the supervisor and just fire 9).

When the republicans took over in 94, they got rid of elevator operations, for automatic elevators, again not needed.

they also got rid of people who would bring you ice, nice in the 1920s, not needed in today's society. These are just a few examples


But what is funny is liberals would rather keep paying zero for their benefits and fire teachers, cops, ect, instead of keeping those people employed by contributing a small percentage to their benefits.

Are you implying that republicans want to take a measured approach to cuts rather than yanking entire departments and agencies out by the roots and privatizing the rest?

I want to do that, I dont think the republicans have the balls to do it. Atleast not with RINOs running the show.

Dep of education and energy are both jokes. Everyone knows schools are local and the government should stay out of them, Just give vouchers and make schools HAVE to produce results or they go bye bye.

Dept of energy is not really doing much, except making us use expensive light bulbs. (Liberals love the green stuff but dont care if joe schmo has to go under to pay for it, I love how liberals stand up for the little guy!)

But you get rid of the useless people in Washington you can save a whole lot of money. Hey I have a great idea, how about hve the congressmen WORK instead of pawning it off on their staff of 20+. So we can slash the congresional staffs as well.

Remember when I used the words "reckless" and "arbitrary"? It was for attitudes like that where the aim is more politically attacking things liberals like than saving money. The proof is in republicans being unwilling to trim a penny from the defense budget where there is a world of untouched waste just sitting there safe as can be from the so called budget hawks.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Are you implying that republicans want to take a measured approach to cuts rather than yanking entire departments and agencies out by the roots and privatizing the rest?

I want to do that, I dont think the republicans have the balls to do it. Atleast not with RINOs running the show.

Dep of education and energy are both jokes. Everyone knows schools are local and the government should stay out of them, Just give vouchers and make schools HAVE to produce results or they go bye bye.

Dept of energy is not really doing much, except making us use expensive light bulbs. (Liberals love the green stuff but dont care if joe schmo has to go under to pay for it, I love how liberals stand up for the little guy!)

But you get rid of the useless people in Washington you can save a whole lot of money. Hey I have a great idea, how about hve the congressmen WORK instead of pawning it off on their staff of 20+. So we can slash the congresional staffs as well.

Remember when I used the words "reckless" and "arbitrary"? It was for attitudes like that where the aim is more politically attacking things liberals like than saving money. The proof is in republicans being unwilling to trim a penny from the defense budget where there is a world of untouched waste just sitting there safe as can be from the so called budget hawks.

So you think the Education department and the energy department are worth a crap?
Did I get that correctly?