When the 'One-Term President' Strategy Fails

Flaylo

Handsome Devil
Feb 10, 2010
5,899
745
98
In some grass near you
Marge Baker: When the 'One-Term President' Strategy Fails


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, in an astoundingly telling moment halfway through President Obama's first term, told a reporter what had been the guiding strategy of Republicans in Congress. "The single most important thing we want to achieve," McConnell said, "is for President Obama to be a one-term president." They figured that if they refused to cooperate on anything, they could later tell voters that the president hadn't accomplished anything and that he had failed to reach across the aisle. McConnell and his caucus dove into that project hook, line and sinker, threatening to destroy the nation's economy by not raising the debt limit, blocking jobs legislation, eschewing compromise on the Bush tax cuts, refusing to staff the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or the National Labor Relations Board, and blocking even uncontroversial federal judicial nominees.

The "one-term president" strategy created plenty of gridlock, set back the country's economic recovery and resulted in a historic vacancy crisis in the federal courts. The one thing it did not achieve was a one-term presidency.

Now, as McConnell and his House counterpart, Speaker John Boehner, get back to work after President Obama's reelection I hope they realize that the strategy of scorched-earth obstruction causes far more real harm than political good. But the signs aren't looking so good. Just hours after the presidential election was called for President Obama, Boehner was vowing that he would never compromise on tax cuts for the wealthy, even to avert an explosion of the deficit. McConnell chimed in, denying that the president -- who won a greater margin in the electoral and popular vote than George W. Bush did in 2000 or 2004 -- has any sort of mandate from the majority that elected him. If McConnell and Boehner go forward with their obstruction-at-all-costs plan, President Obama, Congressional Democrats and progressives across the country will have to make sure it's not worth their while.


I think the Repugs are just all talk, they will budge because the far right stance cannot be held onto.
 
They didn't have a Plan B? Here's a clue. Make a deal to keep us from heading off the cliff. It can't be done by cuts alone. Ask most economists and they'll tell you so.
 
They didn't have a Plan B? Here's a clue. Make a deal to keep us from heading off the cliff. It can't be done by cuts alone. Ask most economists and they'll tell you so.

Explain.

Let me get you started.

Untitled-1-1.jpg



Fucking dumbass.
 
Here comes the EXCUSES for Obama's FAILURES..

He could of dealt with all this when he had a majority of Democrats votes, instead he spent TWO YEARS shoving ANOTHER Socialist Government program on us..

here is to all you Obama whiners, We will all meet at the bottom of the cliff...:eusa_boohoo:
 
SNIP:

Look Who's Refusing To Compromise To Avoid The Fiscal Cliff

Posted 11/13/2012 06:46 PM ET
Budget Talks: If President Obama wants to get a deficit deal done to avoid the fiscal cliff, his biggest challenge won't be Republicans, but his own hard-core left-wing supporters.

Two days after the election, Obama's favorite economist, Paul Krugman, set the tone for the intransigent left in a column titled: "Let's not make a deal." Boiled down, his advice to Obama was this: Don't give in to any Republican demands, even if doing so would "inflict damage on a still-shaky economy." After all, Obama would be better positioned to "weather any blowback from economic troubles."

Krugman's advice may be disturbingly cold and calculating, but he has plenty of company on the left.

Robert Kuttner, co-founder of the liberal American Prospect magazine, suggests Obama should just sit it out, let all the Bush tax cuts expire, the automatic spending cuts kick in and expect public pressure to force Republicans to give in entirely.

The left-wing Daily Kos called any kind of "grand bargain" between Obama and the GOP a "Great Betrayal."

And several Democratic lawmakers have suggested that the correct approach would be to let the country go over the fiscal cliff, since that will only strengthen Obama's position. "It's a hand Democrats are looking forward to playing," according to the liberal Huffington Post "news" site.

And Republicans are supposed to be the ones who refuse to compromise?

ALL of it here
Read More At IBD: Look Who's Refusing To Compromise To Avoid Going Off The Fiscal Cliff - Investors.com
 
A little chest thumping by the members of the "Obama Nation Plantation", whose only ID necessary is their EBT card, and their rallying cry is "Where's our free stuff?"
Logic and reason get tossed out the window when people think Santa Claus is in charge. A little economic collapse and national bankruptcy every now and then might be a good thing.
Hugo Chavez manages to stay afloat because his Government feeds off the proceeds of the country's oil resources the way the Great Lakes Lamprey feeds off the sturgeon it attaches itself to. Hugo magnanamously solved Caracas' housing crisis by letting the homeless go up and down the streets of Caracas selecting the houses they preferred the most, then evicting the occupants out onto the streets and taking up residence inside themselves. The property owners were forced then to go, cap in hand, to the city fathers begging for whatever compensation the city would contribute.
The foreseeable furture of our very own Parasite Nation.
 
They didn't have a Plan B? Here's a clue. Make a deal to keep us from heading off the cliff. It can't be done by cuts alone. Ask most economists and they'll tell you so.

Explain.

Let me get you started.

Untitled-1-1.jpg



Fucking dumbass.

They will never answer this, because it doesnt fit thier agenda. Or they will scream for defense cuts, not realizing that will kill hundreds of thousands of jobs, those good middle class jobs they always crow about.
 
They didn't have a Plan B? Here's a clue. Make a deal to keep us from heading off the cliff. It can't be done by cuts alone. Ask most economists and they'll tell you so.

Explain.

Let me get you started.

Untitled-1-1.jpg


Fucking dumbass.

In a market society it's also about perceptions. If people see the two sides working together to solve the problem, they feel better. When people feel better, they spend more money. When people are spending money, more jobs open up to meet the demand. When more people have jobs, more taxes are collected to fill the deficit gap. Basic economics that for some reason I have to repeat on a daily basis to people who claim to be knowledgeable capitalists. Why is that?!?! :eusa_eh:
 
They didn't have a Plan B? Here's a clue. Make a deal to keep us from heading off the cliff. It can't be done by cuts alone. Ask most economists and they'll tell you so.

Explain.

Let me get you started.

Untitled-1-1.jpg


Fucking dumbass.

In a market society it's also about perceptions. If people see the two sides working together to solve the problem, they feel better. When people feel better, they spend more money. When people are spending money, more jobs open up to meet the demand. When more people have jobs, more taxes are collected to fill the deficit gap. Basic economics that for some reason I have to repeat on a daily basis to people who claim to be knowledgeable capitalists. Why is that?!?! :eusa_eh:

The 'deal', of course, can be done by cuts alone, because the tax increase revenues in question here amount to a paltry 4-5% of the remedy to the problem.

Not only is taxing the rich in this case a pimple on the debt elephant's ass, but enacting them assumes our Nation won't experience a NEGATIVE tax receipt growth from it, which is counter to what 'economists tell us.'


Your best continues to be fail.
 
Last edited:
Explain.

Let me get you started.

Untitled-1-1.jpg


Fucking dumbass.

In a market society it's also about perceptions. If people see the two sides working together to solve the problem, they feel better. When people feel better, they spend more money. When people are spending money, more jobs open up to meet the demand. When more people have jobs, more taxes are collected to fill the deficit gap. Basic economics that for some reason I have to repeat on a daily basis to people who claim to be knowledgeable capitalists. Why is that?!?! :eusa_eh:

The 'deal', of course, can be done by cuts alone, because the tax increase revenues in question here amount to a paltry 4-5% of the remedy to the problem.

Not only is taxing the rich in this case a pimple on the debt elephant's ass, but enacting them assumes our Nation won't experience a NEGATIVE tax receipt growth from it, which is counter to what 'economists tell us.'

Your best continues to be fail.

Sorry, but that extra 4% wouldn't effect corporations or most small businesses, where the jobs are created. I never said the money would close the gap, just that it would create an environment of optimism that something's being done with the market taking care of the rest. Your analysis doesn't take into account the interconnectedness of a free market economy. Time to get back to school and learn a little about the system you're supposedly defending.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top