Would the Republicans sabotage the economy for political gain?

[RandomVariable]

Random - He's right to a certain extent. Peak out of your Liberal blogosphere, remove the aluminum foil from inside your hat for a moment and at least try to see the World beyond 1984.

The Cloward Piven Strategy


The Cloward Piven strategy was outlined by political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. It called for deliberately forcing the U.S. public welfare system into over-drive in order to precipitate a economic collapse that would finalize in replacing the welfare system with a socialist system .

Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within - Obama's agenda: Overwhelm the system

So Ayn Rand battles Fox Piven. And I thought I had seen it all.

No - actually you ain't seen nothin' yet !

Why? Republicans are going to quit waiting for the poor to starve to death and start killing them off?

 

[deltex1]

Would the Republicans sabotage the economy for political gain?


Too late...the libs have already done it.

 

[Faun]

You are absolutely incorrect.

Bush made it bad but Obama made it worse.

America's Poverty Rate Stuck At 15 Percent For Second Straight Year

At least now you're posting the "official poverty rate." But I'm guessing you didn't actually look at what you posted since it proves me right. Here's the image from the article you posted...

You will note the poverty rate went from 11.3% when Bush became president to about 14% when the recession ended -- to 15% in the last survey.

I see that since Bush left office the rate has increased, even in a "recovery." I guess that's Bush's fault too.

Well it's certainly his to a large degree for the beginning of Obama's presidency since the Great Recession continued for half of 2009.

A president's influence on the economy does not end the day they leave office. In Bush's case, some of his policies continued past him leaving office, the Great Recession continued past him leaving office, his continuing budget resolution continued past him leaving office.

Look, I totally understand why you brain-dead rightard zombies are so desperate to pin the effects of Bush's Great Recession on Obama, but that will never fly in a world of reason. It's reasonable to blame Obama for the slow recovery and to blame him for the results since 2010, but most of 2009 is directly attributable to policies and economy he inherited from the previous malfeasant administration.

 

[hazlnut]

The unemployment extension bill might not have any Republican votes in the Senate and House Majority Leader Cantor said he will not bring a bill to the floor for a vote. The reasons the Republicans give for opposing extending unemployment benefits for 3 months are wide and varied. Could the primary reason for the opposition be to blame the Democrats for a bad economy? In other words, would the Republicans sabotage the economy for political gain?

I would say they're not that smart -- especially the Tea Baggers in the House, but ineptness is its own form of sabotage.

Thanks Koch Bros.

 

[bripat9643]

The unemployment extension bill might not have any Republican votes in the Senate and House Majority Leader Cantor said he will not bring a bill to the floor for a vote. The reasons the Republicans give for opposing extending unemployment benefits for 3 months are wide and varied. Could the primary reason for the opposition be to blame the Democrats for a bad economy? In other words, would the Republicans sabotage the economy for political gain?

I would say they're not that smart -- especially the Tea Baggers in the House, but ineptness is its own form of sabotage.

Thanks Koch Bros.

You're one of the biggest dumbasses in this forum.

 

[Faun]

The unemployment extension bill might not have any Republican votes in the Senate and House Majority Leader Cantor said he will not bring a bill to the floor for a vote. The reasons the Republicans give for opposing extending unemployment benefits for 3 months are wide and varied. Could the primary reason for the opposition be to blame the Democrats for a bad economy? In other words, would the Republicans sabotage the economy for political gain?

I would say they're not that smart -- especially the Tea Baggers in the House, but ineptness is its own form of sabotage.

Thanks Koch Bros.

You're one of the biggest dumbasses in this forum.

Hisses the moron who said, "If you look at the chart I posted, it shows that poverty declined for most of Reagan's term, and it barely increased during Bush's term."

a) The poverty rate when Reagan became president was 13%. The poverty rate when Reagan left office was 13%. So while it's true that it declined for most of his presidency, it increased so much during his first 3 years in office that the decline during the next 5 years left it where it was at when he started.

b) Despite you describing the increase during Bush's presidency as "barely increased," the reality is that it increased more under Bush than it did under Obama.

 

[The Rabbi]

At least now you're posting the "official poverty rate." But I'm guessing you didn't actually look at what you posted since it proves me right. Here's the image from the article you posted...

You will note the poverty rate went from 11.3% when Bush became president to about 14% when the recession ended -- to 15% in the last survey.

I see that since Bush left office the rate has increased, even in a "recovery." I guess that's Bush's fault too.

Well it's certainly his to a large degree for the beginning of Obama's presidency since the Great Recession continued for half of 2009.

A president's influence on the economy does not end the day they leave office. In Bush's case, some of his policies continued past him leaving office, the Great Recession continued past him leaving office, his continuing budget resolution continued past him leaving office.

Look, I totally understand why you brain-dead rightard zombies are so desperate to pin the effects of Bush's Great Recession on Obama, but that will never fly in a world of reason. It's reasonable to blame Obama for the slow recovery and to blame him for the results since 2010, but most of 2009 is directly attributable to policies and economy he inherited from the previous malfeasant administration.

It's great. Bush is to be blamed for 9/11 and the 2001 recession, even though he had been in office only a few months. Obama is blameless for the Afghan War and the lingering recession, even though he's been in office over 5 years.
Bush was an incompetent idiot whose actions lasted far beyond his tenure. Obama is a genius who can't undo Bush's policies even with an all-Democratic Congress.
You can't make this up.

 

[Faun]

I see that since Bush left office the rate has increased, even in a "recovery." I guess that's Bush's fault too.

Well it's certainly his to a large degree for the beginning of Obama's presidency since the Great Recession continued for half of 2009.

A president's influence on the economy does not end the day they leave office. In Bush's case, some of his policies continued past him leaving office, the Great Recession continued past him leaving office, his continuing budget resolution continued past him leaving office.

Look, I totally understand why you brain-dead rightard zombies are so desperate to pin the effects of Bush's Great Recession on Obama, but that will never fly in a world of reason. It's reasonable to blame Obama for the slow recovery and to blame him for the results since 2010, but most of 2009 is directly attributable to policies and economy he inherited from the previous malfeasant administration.

It's great. Bush is to be blamed for 9/11 and the 2001 recession, even though he had been in office only a few months. Obama is blameless for the Afghan War and the lingering recession, even though he's been in office over 5 years.
Bush was an incompetent idiot whose actions lasted far beyond his tenure. Obama is a genius who can't undo Bush's policies even with an all-Democratic Congress.
You can't make this up.

Actually, you are making this up.

• While a few may have blamed Bush for 9.11, the vast majority of the left did not and supporting him initially after it happened. Much of that support he lost when he (and his administration) tried tying Iraq to 9.11 (which they ultimately had to confess was not true).
  
• 8 months is not "only a few months"
  
• Obama is not blameless for his actions in Afghanistan[/I]
  
• No one could have undone the damage Bush & Republicans caused in only two years.[/I]

 

[The Rabbi]

Well it's certainly his to a large degree for the beginning of Obama's presidency since the Great Recession continued for half of 2009.

A president's influence on the economy does not end the day they leave office. In Bush's case, some of his policies continued past him leaving office, the Great Recession continued past him leaving office, his continuing budget resolution continued past him leaving office.

Look, I totally understand why you brain-dead rightard zombies are so desperate to pin the effects of Bush's Great Recession on Obama, but that will never fly in a world of reason. It's reasonable to blame Obama for the slow recovery and to blame him for the results since 2010, but most of 2009 is directly attributable to policies and economy he inherited from the previous malfeasant administration.

It's great. Bush is to be blamed for 9/11 and the 2001 recession, even though he had been in office only a few months. Obama is blameless for the Afghan War and the lingering recession, even though he's been in office over 5 years.
Bush was an incompetent idiot whose actions lasted far beyond his tenure. Obama is a genius who can't undo Bush's policies even with an all-Democratic Congress.
You can't make this up.

Actually, you are making this up.

• While a few may have blamed Bush for 9.11, the vast majority of the left did not and supporting him initially after it happened. Much of that support he lost when he (and his administration) tried tying Iraq to 9.11 (which they ultimately had to confess was not true).
  
• 8 months is not "only a few months"
  
• Obama is not blameless for his actions in Afghanistan[/I]
  
• No one could have undone the damage Bush & Republicans caused in only two years.[/I]

Fools on this forum blame Bush for 9/11 every day. "It happened on his watch."
8 months is a long time, 5 years is a short time. Tell us more.
Obama inherited a losing situation in Afghanistan from Bush. That's what all the libs here say.
Obama has been in office considerably longer than 2 years. And Democrats have controlled the Senate and had many House seats during all that time.

 

[freedombecki]

So Ayn Rand battles Fox Piven. And I thought I had seen it all.

No - actually you ain't seen nothin' yet !

Why? Republicans are going to quit waiting for the poor to starve to death and start killing them off?

Be careful. The marbles you spill may cause a great fall.

 

[GreenBean]

So Ayn Rand battles Fox Piven. And I thought I had seen it all.

No - actually you ain't seen nothin' yet !

Why? Republicans are going to quit waiting for the poor to starve to death and start killing them off?

Random - if you had twice the sense you now have, you might qualify as a half Wit. Out of a Million Sperm and you were the first tadpole to reach the egg ?

 

[eagle7_31]

The unemployment extension bill might not have any Republican votes in the Senate and House Majority Leader Cantor said he will not bring a bill to the floor for a vote. The reasons the Republicans give for opposing extending unemployment benefits for 3 months are wide and varied. Could the primary reason for the opposition be to blame the Democrats for a bad economy? In other words, would the Republicans sabotage the economy for political gain?

BO and the dems did not need any help in wrecking the economy over the past few years, they did it all on their own.

 

[bripat9643]

I would say they're not that smart -- especially the Tea Baggers in the House, but ineptness is its own form of sabotage.

Thanks Koch Bros.

You're one of the biggest dumbasses in this forum.

Hisses the moron who said, "If you look at the chart I posted, it shows that poverty declined for most of Reagan's term, and it barely increased during Bush's term."

a) The poverty rate when Reagan became president was 13%. The poverty rate when Reagan left office was 13%. So while it's true that it declined for most of his presidency, it increased so much during his first 3 years in office that the decline during the next 5 years left it where it was at when he started.

So he calls me a dumbass for say poverty decreased for most of Reagan's term, then he goes and admits I was 100% correct.

Talk about dumbasses.

Oh, and since you're the one who says that the effects of a President's policies continue long after his administration, we can give Carter credit for the recession and the rise in the poverty rate at the beginning of Reagan's term. That makes him look even better and it makes you look even dumber.

The same goes for the begining of Bush Jr's administration. We can blame the tech bubble on Clinton, and that caused the recession and the rise in poverty in the beginning of the Bush administration.

b) Despite you describing the increase during Bush's presidency as "barely increased," the reality is that it increased more under Bush than it did under Obama.

That's because you're blaming Bush for the rise that occurred during the beginning of the Obama Administration. You might think that's warranted, but then you don't blame Clinton for the recession that began in the beginning of the Bush administration.

In short, you're stepping all over your own dick.

You're a dumb ass.