Would the Republicans sabotage the economy for political gain?

[RandomVariable]

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?

 

[JimH52]

Have been watching them over the last 5 years? Of course they would and they have...

 

[asterism]

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?

Did the last extensions of unemployment benefits save the economy?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

Unemployment stimulates the Obama economy?

Using that "logic" getting people off unemployment and back to work is actually bad for the Obama econony

 

[aaronleland]

Republicans have been rooting for failure since Obama was elected.

I didn't support Obama, but if the president succeeds, America succeeds. I don't care who is president, or which side of the aisle they are on. I want America to succeed. It doesn't matter what policies bring us to that point, or which party proposes them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Also the OP is a sock for either Rdean or Jake Starkey

 

[Steven_R]

Both sides are equally guilty of screwing the country for political gain. My economics professor said the Democrats pulled those same tricks in 2007 and 2008 to hamper the economy just to score political points at election time.

The sooner everyone in this country realizes the political parties and politicians are not our friends and are only in it for themselves, the better off we'll be as a nation.

 

[kiwiman127]

^^^

 

[francoHFW]

Every bs phony debt crisis OR SHUT DOWN THREAT they've already done it, with at least a cut in growth of 0.6 per cent every time... They say an immigration reform bill would add 3.5 per cent. They're a disgrAce.

 

[francoHFW]

Both sides are equally guilty of screwing the country for political gain. My economics professor said the Democrats pulled those same tricks in 2007 and 2008 to hamper the economy just to score political points at election time.

The sooner everyone in this country realizes the political parties and politicians are not our friends and are only in it for themselves, the better off we'll be as a nation.

Gov't and politician haters are just the kind of ignorant voters the Pubs love...Look at facts and be a Dem...Pubs have been wrecking the place pandering to the greedy forever...Great con men...

 

[Londoner]

Using government to stimulate the economy.

Reagan increased government employment by 3.1% during his presidency to ensure that main street economies were effectively stimulated by increased wage-based consumption.. Reagan understood that every government worker was also a consumer. This is why he added more government workers than any president in history.

Non Military Government Employees by President

Ronald Reagan
- Started: 2,875,000
- Ended: 3,113,000

Reagan EXPANDED the Federal Workforce by 238,000

Bill Clinton
- Started: 3,083,000
- Ended: 2,703,000

Clinton REDUCED the Federal Workforce by 380,000

George W Bush
- Started: 2,703,000
- Ended: 2,756,000

Bush EXPANDED the Federal Workforce by 53,000

Obama's numbers cannot be tallied yet because he is still in office, but here are some interesting facts.

By the end of 2010, the United States had less employees than we did at the end of Reagan even though the population has grown from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.

Government workforce: Reagan V. Obama
1988 — 3,113,000 

2010— 2,840,000

In his 3rd year Reagan added 1.2 million government employees, which not only improved his employment stats, but it put more spenders/consumers in the economy which prevented main street layoffs.

By contrast Obama was forced by filibuster to lay-off 250,000 government employees during his 3rd year.

CONCLUSION: Reagan increased government employment in order to fuel his economy - and it worked. So Republicans knew exactly what they were doing when they forced Obama to withdraw funding to State Governments. They knew this would result in less cops, firemen, road workers, teachers, administrators, etc., buying goods on main street. Make no mistake. When Republicans are in office they use every big government stimulus tool in the book. When a democrat is in office they filibuster against anything that will put more consumers on main street.

 

[francoHFW]

What tricks did Dems pull in 2007-8- ...they certainly weren't going to dismantle Fanny and Freddie as a distraction from the actual villains...

 

[Avatar4321]

Why? Obama has been sabotaging the economy on his own for years and the nation rewarded him with four more years of power. Had we done, it it would have been the same result.

Maybe you should stop making excuses for Obama's failures and actually try to help the country for a change.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Also the OP is a sock for either Rdean or Jake Starkey

I vote for Jake. I've never seen anything from rdean that indicates he's even half clever enough to pose a semi-literate query.

 

[BobPlumb]

Republicans have been rooting for failure since Obama was elected.

I didn't support Obama, but if the president succeeds, America succeeds. I don't care who is president, or which side of the aisle they are on. I want America to succeed. It doesn't matter what policies bring us to that point, or which party proposes them.

When the president succeeds with enacting bad law such as Obamacare (we must pass the bill to find out what is in the bill), then America is worse off.

 

[dblack]

Republicans have been rooting for failure since Obama was elected.

I didn't support Obama, but if the president succeeds, America succeeds. I don't care who is president, or which side of the aisle they are on. I want America to succeed. It doesn't matter what policies bring us to that point, or which party proposes them.

How are you defining success?

 

[Jughead]

Would the Republicans sabotage the economy for political gain?

Republicans? How so? Quite the contrary in fact. Looks like states with Republican governors are leading in job creation and growth.

In fact, while the "blue states" are running up debt and flirting with bankruptcy, the "red states" continue to take the lead in cutting taxes, streamlining government and job creation, according to a report issued Monday by the State Government Leadership Foundation and being distributed by the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee.

States With Republican Governors Lead in Job Creation and Growth - Peter Roff (usnews.com)

 

[Freewill]

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?

First of all regardless of what the democrats tell you Republicans are not in the majority. If something doesn't get passed it is because the majority is not doing their jobs. In other words compromising.

Second it is only your opinion that says that not extending the benefits, if that is what the Republicans actually want, would be bad for the economy.

But let us say that the Republicans would do such a thing for political gain, what then is the reason that the democrats have been sabotaging the economy for that last 7 years that they have controlled at least 2/3s of the government?

 

[aaronleland]

Republicans have been rooting for failure since Obama was elected.

I didn't support Obama, but if the president succeeds, America succeeds. I don't care who is president, or which side of the aisle they are on. I want America to succeed. It doesn't matter what policies bring us to that point, or which party proposes them.

How are you defining success?

I define success as policies with proven positive results. Obama has accomplished very few, but the GOP hasn't done much better. They have become the party of idea opposition. Not the party of opposition ideas.

 

[Jughead]

Didn't the Democrat leader in the House of Representatives back in the early 2000s, soon after 911 say with a smile on his face:

For every 100 point drop in the stock market, we pick up a seat in the House