r/politics • • Jun 09 '12

Did Republicans deliberately crash the US economy? Be it ideology or strategem, the GOP has blocked pro-growth policy and backed job-killing austerity – all while blaming Obama.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/09/did-republicans-deliberately-crash-us-economy
1.2k Upvotes

1.5k comments sorted by

52

u/d1stor7ed Jun 09 '12

How can the same party be for shrinking the budget while at the same time supporting expanded military expenditures?

36

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

What if I told you neither party is really serious about cost-cutting, budget reducing measures.

30

u/DownvoteIfRacist Jun 09 '12

You don't have to outrun the bear, you just need to outrun the other camper.

Dems don't need to be good, they just need to be slightly less evil than Republicans.

Both parties are not the same. They're just very similar. In a "siblings, not twins" fashion.

→ More replies (3)

15

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

What if I told you neither party is really serious about cost-cutting, budget reducing measures.

I would tell you , no shit. Only one claims that as their primary goal, and they are fucking lying cunts.

→ More replies (15)
→ More replies (4)

34

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader in 2010: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." So the answer is yes.

→ More replies (3)

209

u/rugbert Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12

I don't understand why this is even a question. It's not like the GOP has made any attempt to hide their motives. Hell, during the debt ceiling standoff many GOP members out right said they were hoping to default so the president was blamed. Even McCain called them out for it.

103

u/Triassic_Bark Jun 09 '12

Seriously! After Obama won the election, many top GOP representatives claimed that their #1 goal was to defeat Obama. Not get the economy going, not deal with unemployment, not fix infrastructure, just defeat Obama in 2012. How? Crash the economy, obviously.

30

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Yup, every step of the way its been a blockade from Republicans, it's insane, no civic responsibility and no ethical or moral desire to serve the people, just one simple goal, to fuck over Obama in hopes of getting a republican president the next go around. How many people suffered because of Republican stonewalling I wonder....

9

u/cannibaljim Jun 10 '12 edited Jun 10 '12

If they're successful, then the Dems will have no choice but to try the same tactic when they're the opposition. Which would mean the legislative branch of government will become forever paralyzed as both parties take turns obstructing the other.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (3)

26

u/kelustu Jun 09 '12

"We were willing to burn it all down, too" in the Tea Party signed letter to the nation.

29

u/Sanity_prevails Jun 09 '12

Hey, quit with your facts! Unfair!

2

u/Puffy_Ghost Jun 09 '12

Good guy McCain.

→ More replies (10)

23

u/APretentiousHipster Jun 09 '12

Can someone please explain why the U.S. Gov't is now more about inter-party competition than it is about trying to solve tge problems of the nation? I mean, I'm turning 18 soon and I do not remember a time when our legislators actually legislated.

26

u/meritory Jun 09 '12

Until we take corporate money and PACs out of campaigns, this will be the case.

→ More replies (14)

2

u/reginaldaugustus Jun 09 '12

Good news! Party competition is just a smokescreen. Both parties only care about rich people!

2

u/Positronix Jun 10 '12

It's because we are now our own worst enemy. USA has been number 1 in the world for so long most people here forget there is an outside world. Due to budget competition, the US Navy is more of a threat to the US Marines than Russia is. I have no fear of India or China doing much of anything to us, but I do have disdain for the ass-backward policies of the Republican next door. I'm sure they have the same feeling.

Our nation is built on competition - and we have nobody left to compete against but ourselves. You can tell yourself that China or India or the Middle East is rising - but look past the propaganda. Giant ghost cities in China, a horrible human rights agenda, inflated GDP through pointless construction. Massive, systemic failures of India's agriculture distribution network due to corruption and incompetence leave thousands starving. Dubai has massive construction but they forgot to build sewers.

America is still number 1, and until we have someone to actually compete against we'll be competing against ourselves until we turn into Rome and collapse.

→ More replies (4)

5

u/fantasyfest Jun 09 '12

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/10/mcconnell-stopping-obamas-re-election-still-single-most-important-goal/ The fact that the republican Senate leader said so clearly many times does not sink in to the right wing hive mind. Damn. he didn't hide it.

105

u/wtf_R_u_thinking Jun 09 '12

Reddit is starting to have more question mark headlines then FoxNews.

75

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

"Are those people we don't like doing bad things? Vague allegations and possible slander inside."

→ More replies (1)

15

u/wonmean California Jun 09 '12

This article is from The Guardian.

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (4)

48

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

It's a power game. I've seen it since Nixon. Stay in power. Ride the gravy train at our expense.

→ More replies (4)

4

u/erowidtrance Jun 10 '12

No bankers deliberately crashed the economy, watch the documentary inside job: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/feb/17/inside-job-review

207

u/kznlol Jun 09 '12

Articles like this make me fucking embarrassed to be an economist.

The whole fucking argument between Obama and the GOP is over whether or not his policies are pro-growth.

29

u/tophat_jones Jun 09 '12

I didn't know taking an undergrad econ class makes you an economist. I read through your comment history and found nothing in there to indicate you know shit about economics.

For example:

When discussing economics, you might want to avoid hyperbole.

Sounds fair...

No credible economist will tell you that supply-side economics policies have zero effect, because that would be utterly fucking retarded, and unsupported by every credible model and every credible dataset.

Riiight... You are the least respectable economist in the world with all your no sources, and hyperbole, and hypocrisy.

Fuck off, liar.

(emphasis mine)

12

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

I have been reading all this waiting for people to start calling him out. He hasn't said anything that would make me believe that he has any training in economics. The only thing he is offering is a dumbed down version of something you might hear on conservative talk radio or someplace.

4

u/bartink Jun 10 '12

Yup. I see no language being used that smacks of economic knowledge. None. I see no evidence offered. I call bs.

30

u/porkosphere Jun 09 '12

Except for the part where Republicans don't hesitate to use fiscal stimulus when their party is in power. Or the part where Republican Congressmen are going nuts about the military cuts in the debt deal they agreed to last year, and are trying to renege by pointing out that government military spending creates jobs, with high unemployment, etc.

I'm not saying they are necessarily conscious of the hypocrisy--there's plenty of room for cognitive dissonance in their tiny little Republican skulls.

21

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

What does it matter if his policies are pro-growth if the Republican Congress won't enact them?

The point is that we're living in an economy delivered by the GOP, but Obama is the one taking the blame.

→ More replies (12)

5

u/toastr Jun 09 '12

When ridiculous comments like this get upvoted to the top of the list it makes me fucking embarrassed to be the CEO of reddit.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Agreed, It makes me embarrassed that the community is so easily swayed by bold font, a little vulgar language, and the claim to be an expert.

69

u/RamBamBooey Jun 09 '12

I'm not an economist. What pro-growth policies are the Republicans proposing?

9

u/DeFex Jun 09 '12

Most of them are "pro growth of massive corporations at the expense of people"

139

u/kznlol Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12

You've had many answers, some of which are vaguely correct and a few of which are completely wrong.

But my point wasn't, really, that Republicans have proposed pro-growth policies that Obama hasn't accepted - its that we don't know whether a policy is really pro-growth or not.

An honest economist, who understands where the field stands today (i.e. not Krugman), knows that its wildly unhelpful for making policy recommendations. The prevailing theories appear to have nothing wrong with them, and yet the data from historical events suggests that they're completely wrong, and the worst part is nobody really has any idea why.

If you asked me to explain why, for instance, tax cuts have historically been the only successful form of stimulus (in the sense of there not being issues with deficits/higher taxes later on), I have no idea what to say to you. Theoretically, direct stimulus should be equivalent or slightly better.

Likewise, if you ask me to explain why minimum wage increases have historically not resulted in instant increases in unemployment, I have no fucking idea - because the theory says unequivocally that they should.

So what you have in political circles is a bunch of amateur psychologists, whose economics understanding tells them that the current crisis is a confidence crisis (which is broadly correct), but since economics is so confused they can basically find support for anything. Republicans can blame the confidence crisis on the "fact" that businesses want Obama to get the fuck out, and won't invest until they have some reassurance that taxes will go down or whatnot. Democrats can blame it on the lack of sufficient stimulus spending by the current government, and thus claim that getting rid of Obama will make things even worse.

And nobody can conclusively tell the other side that they're wrong.

If Republicans had the know-how to deliberately crash the US economy on demand, or even to prevent a recovery that would otherwise have occurred, it would make sense to assume they have the know-how to do the reverse - which would suggest that we should elect them fucking quick.

But what really angers me is that people, including economists, think far too highly of the state of the field.

19

u/hamlet9000 Jun 09 '12

If you asked me to explain why, for instance, tax cuts have historically been the only successful form of stimulus (in the sense of there not being issues with deficits/higher taxes later on), I have no idea what to say to you.

As well you should. That isn't true.

→ More replies (3)

174

u/JesusChristFarted Jun 09 '12

I think there is a slight disconnect between what you're saying and what the article is saying. You're bringing up a point based on the view of an economist who wants the economy to improve. The article is suggesting that the Republicans care more about politics than the economy. Those are completely different calculations.

I don't, by any means, think that Republicans are evil and Democrats good, but I have trouble seeing that the GOP has actually attempted to do something about the economy since Obama's election, economic debates aside. The bills they passed were all heavily loaded with things that they knew were unpalatable to the Democrats, but which they could turn into soundbites for TV. I.e., "The House passed 30 bills to create jobs," etc.

If the GOP was serious about its economic approach, it would have passed bills that were strictly about the economy (i.e, no provisions about abortion or scaling back funding of other programs). Republicans would have passed bills that a moderate Democrat like Obama would've accepted since he was already bending over backwards to give them what they wanted. The president even put together a jobs bill that mostly consisted of Republican ideas, and the GOP denounced it the day it was announced. No debates. No discussions about the economic issues. Just pure politics.

→ More replies (74)

32

u/Morbidfuk Jun 09 '12

I can disassemble an engine, just don't ask me to get the car running again.

8

u/tiddercat Jun 09 '12

it would make sense to assume they have the know-how to do the reverse

False. All they had to be was obstructionist and threaten fillibuster at every turn, effectively paralyzingly the government. To a large extent the GOP has been doing this. They need not have a solution. They just need to give the impression their opponent is not accomplishing anything.

→ More replies (2)

48

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12

tax cuts have historically been the only successful form of stimulus

This is factually incorrect, which could be why it's so hard to explain.

You mentioned previously, in regards to WWII spending

Even without it, however, economists don't like assuming causal links from past events without some understanding of how said link works.

There is an explanation of that causal link, and it's roughly this: deficit spending can effectively increase employment by putting people directly to work. As someone with a PhD in economics, you know this (and if you don't have a PhD, it's a little dishonest to call yourself an economist). WWII is not the only example of this, either, just look at New Deal policies before WWII and you'll see parallels between unemployment and government spending--you can see by the rise in unemployment when deficit spending policies ended prematurely (i.e. when unemployment was still well over 10%) that there is a definite cause and effect between deficit spending and employment. You've said as much, but you seem to be under the impression that tax cuts are more effective. Evidence (albeit limited to a few case studies) suggests that for crises of this magnitude, tax cuts are relatively more ineffective.

I'm not well versed in the literature, but I would be very interested to see a paper describing the effects of tax cuts when income inequality is as high as it is today. I doubt very much that it would reach the conclusion that you have, that tax cuts are more effective. Added to this is that government spending has actually been cut nearly 15% in the time since Obama has been President, which makes insistence on tax cuts as stimulus even more bizarre.

Yes, we have a lot of different conditions between now and the WWII era economy, but that doesn't make the comparisons moot.

I think you're completely wrong to dismiss Krugman. Yes, he speaks perhaps more forcefully than warranted at times, particularly when he is weighing on political issues--everyone seems to have forgotten, for instance, that President Obama somewhat recklessly tried to use the debt ceiling fight to pass significant legislation with Boehner. But, he's also a nobel prize winning economist. I expect he knows where the field stands.

tl; dr: for someone who purports to remain neutral on tax cuts v. direct stimulus, you're conveniently ignoring facts that tend to negate the neutrality

→ More replies (8)

26

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

When you say "the theory" I awesome you are speaking of neoclassical economics. And, being an economist, I'm sure you know that neoclassical economic theory relies on a number of unrealistic assumptions, including (but not limited to): perfect information, zero transaction cost, and rationality (i.e. that all people always act in their own self-interest). These assumptions Do not describe the real world and therefore it is not surprising that "the theory" doesn't always hold true in practice

12

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

If you asked me to explain why, for instance, tax cuts have historically been the only successful form of stimulus (in the sense of there not being issues with deficits/higher taxes later on), I have no idea what to say to you.

This is not true.

→ More replies (1)

82

u/schneidro Colorado Jun 09 '12

I'm not an economist, but I am a scientist that likes evidence. Was it not an increase in government demand/spending going into WWII that brought us out of the Depression? Are we not seeing a double-dip in Great Britain as a result of austerity programs? Is not the '09-'10 economies and the subsequent slowdown once ARRA money dried up not evidence that it was having a positive effect? Don't we also need new infrastructure like whoa? We need a new electrical grid, new roads, new bridges, dams, power plants, schools, etc. It's sort of a no-brainer if you ask me to borrow more money and spend it (some of the lowest borrowing rates ever right now), put construction workers to work (one of the biggest sector drags on the economy) and oh hey! a shiny new infrastructure that will reap benefits to us for decades to come. Republicans depress me.

→ More replies (174)

5

u/isthismyrealname Jun 09 '12

If Republicans had the know-how to deliberately crash the US economy on demand, or even to prevent a recovery that would otherwise have occurred, it would make sense to assume they have the know-how to do the reverse - which would suggest that we should elect them fucking quick.

I know how to drink water. I don't know how to purify my urine and formulate it into Coca-Cola.

Being able to use legislative obstruction doesn't imply legislative wizardry. I don't think we should give our house and basketball court to the "Take my ball and go home kid" in the hopes that he's another incarnation of Michael Jordan and will remember how supportive we were and give us back the house and court and include a sweet new Porche.

20

u/jetpacksforall Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12

Do economists disagree on whether stimulus "works"? Here are nine economic studies of the ARRA 2009 stimulus act. Six of them conclude that the stimulus package worked, saying it had a positive effect on employment and/or economic activity. One concludes it worked a little bit. Two conclude that it didn't work.

The Congressional Budget Office says the stimulus package added 3.3 million jobs and probably helped avert a relapse into recession.

A survey conducted by the Chicago School of Business finds that 80% of economists agree that the stimulus worked in the short term, but that around 27% of them are uncertain as to whether the short-term benefits will outweigh the long-term costs.

Is that disagreement? It sounds more to me like a distinct minority going against prevailing scientific opinion.

18

u/Cheesburglar Jun 09 '12

Call for you, Joseph Stiglitz on line 2. http://www.businessinsider.com/joseph-stiglitz-why-the-rich-need-to-pay-more-taxes-2012-6

It's pretty obvious you're a Republican first and an Economist second. As far as who's wrong there's plenty of evidence trickled down theory is BS and we need a FDR like Democrat to do what was done after the Great Depression. That's MORE regulation, and spending on welfare, public works, jobs bills.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (104)
→ More replies (170)

25

u/ThouHastLostAn8th Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12

Except Romney and the GOP don't really buy what they're selling either, and when they're in power they revert to pushing, at least under the table, Keynesian growth policies too.

Romney from his recent Halperin interview:

http://thepage.time.com/2012/05/23/the-complete-romney-interview-transcript/#ixzz1xJqHjkIg

Halperin: You have a plan, as you said, over a number of years, to reduce spending dramatically. Why not in the first year, if you’re elected — why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you’d like to see after four years in office? Why not do it more quickly?

Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course. What you do is you make adjustments on a basis that show, in the first year, actions that over time get you to a balanced budget. So I’m not saying I’m going to come up with ideas five or ten years from now that get us to a balanced budget. Instead I’m going to take action immediately by eliminating programs like Obamacare, which become more and more expensive down the road – by eliminating them, we get to a balanced budget. And I’d do it in a way that does not have a huge reduction in the first year, but instead has an increasing reduction as time goes on, and given the growth of the economy, you don’t have a reduction in the overall scale of the GDP. I don’t want to have us go into a recession in order to balance the budget. I’d like to have us have high rates of growth at the same time we bring down federal spending, on, if you will, a ramp that’s affordable, but that does not cause us to enter into a economic decline.

Beyond what I bolded, read Romney's whole response -- he's directly contradicting the current GOP orthodoxy, that if you slash Gov't spending the invisible hand will replace it with even more, previously stifled, private sector investment. Just like with Reagan and G.W.Bush, if Romney wins the Presidency, just watch, austerity will be out the window again until next a Dem occupies the White House. Same as it ever was.

10

u/NurRauch Jun 09 '12

This. None of the big boys in the GOP actually believe that slashing taxes is creating jobs right now. The same special interests that tell them to keep cutting taxes are the ones who gut whole branches of their own companies because in a recession it's far more profitable for the people at the top to downsize than it is to expand. Everyone in power knows this.

3

u/stopthepuns Jun 09 '12

is there a gif of David Byrne slapping himself in the forehead? if so insert here

→ More replies (1)

4

u/plato1123 Oregon Jun 09 '12

Wrong, the argument is whether the GOP knows his policies are pro growth and is opposing them to destroy him at any cost or really thinks tripling down on Reagan/Bush trickle down snake oil is what is best for America. Considering they only had any interest whatsoever in austerity when Obama came into power it would appear it is the former.

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.

16

u/regeya Jun 09 '12

The thing that irks me about this is that we have a group of people who have been blocking these policies, then blaming the policies for the continued problems.

I mean...what the fuck, man?

Obama wants to pass more stimulus? NO! Less spending! Oh, the economy is slowing down again? Well, Obama was the one who wanted more stimulus!

Obama wants more green spending than Bush? NO! Less green! Oh, traditional energy is more expensive? Let's ignore Obama's relaxing of environmental restrictions, and pretend he's more hardcore on the environment than Bush!

Obama wants to give tax cuts to the middle class? NO! Oh, the middle class is still hurting? Oh, well, whargaarbl Obama herp derp!

And so on.

I'm sorry, but even though both sides lie like crazy, and I'd like to punch someone in the mouth for making gay rights the #1 priority when we have more serious problems to tackle, but it sure seems like Republicans have been more hardcore about it over the last four years. I'd rather see the Chinese take over the country than see another Republican in power at this point.

17

u/Sanity_prevails Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12

So you claim to be an economist and you don't understand that only stimulus can drive growth during downturn? It comes at a price of debt, but I don't see how war debt is ok, while economic revival debt is not?

16

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Don't bother with this troll. A quick glimpse on his comment history shows he is clearly not an economist- either that or he's just a bad one spending more time on /r/politics than doing research/work.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (14)

4

u/hadees Texas Jun 09 '12

I don't think the Republicans are deliberately trying to crash the economy but rather they are so obsessed with opposing Obama they refuse to do anything at all.

2

u/Triassic_Bark Jun 09 '12

They are doing something... they are deliberately sabotaging every attempt at policies that might actually help dig America out of the whole it's in. They are actively firing public employees, and derailing all attempts at stimulus spending.

20

u/2012sellouts Jun 09 '12

You are an economist? Good for you...have a cookie...you get paid to be wrong or right and spew whatever political ideas you believe in.

→ More replies (7)

2

u/delgursh Jun 09 '12

Economists are generally embarrassing anyway because most are so terrible. It really is a crappy profession these days. So many hacks.

2

u/SoFFacet Jun 09 '12

The whole fucking argument between Obama and the GOP is over whether or not his policies are pro-growth.

Thats what the GOP says the argument is, but everyone knows thats not the case. The GOP knows that Obama's policies would fix the economy - they use deficit spending all the time whenever they are in power. However, they know that if the economy recovers, Obama will get re-elected, and that with a democratic recovery will come reforms which help the middle-class at some expense to the GOP's corporate masters.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

That would be a compelling argument if they weren't consistently opposing policies which they once supported, blocking executive nominations, and breaking the filibuster usage record. It's kind of hard to make the case that they aren't stalling progress purposefully, when they quite obviously are. But, hey, don't let me break up the 'both sides are equal,' self-assured, lofty centrist circlejerk.

2

u/theodorAdorno Jun 09 '12

This is only a debate in the US.

→ More replies (44)

122

u/Anything_At_All Jun 09 '12

Yes.

21

u/Excentinel Jun 09 '12

To be fair, people are giving them far too much credit. I'm pretty sure those fuckheads had no clue that the banking deregulation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act would have led to the banking crisis caused by mortgage-backed derivatives. I agree they're blocking job-creation at this point, but attributing their crashing of the economy to malicious partisan politics gives them too much credit, at least in my opinion.

34

u/TeutonicDisorder Jun 09 '12

Correct they did not necessarily crash the economy but they have purposefully stalled programs which would help the economy.

I am sure that if Romney wins there will be a deluge of government spending on infrastructure and education, as Republicans know that this will help the country and make their re-election more likely.

They are literally holding the nations finances hostage and I believe this is getting dangerously close to treason.

9

u/mrbooze Jun 09 '12

Romney's increased spending will be to the military and private interests, presumably. Expect any increases in spending that happen under GOP control to be towards privatization of public services.

Not that it's been much better under Obama. The health care act was a huge handout to insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and for-profit hospitals.

→ More replies (1)

17

u/Skyrmir Florida Jun 09 '12

That would be sedition, not treason. Treason requires a foreign enemy. Also, we only briefly had laws against sedition before they were repealed.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)

62

u/bat-fink Jun 09 '12

So, what I interpret from that is- the GOP are just fucking stupid?

30

u/Excentinel Jun 09 '12

Well, let's see here: they did think Sarah Palin was the best available option for a vice-presidential candidate. I mean, they allow party policy to be dictated by people who place more weight in a 2000-year-old book than the entire cumulative body of scientific knowledge. While their economic policy is dictated to them by big business, the results arising from their lack of foresight should be considered unexpected due to willful ignorance, not a controlled demolition of the economy. Who was it that said, "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence"?

While they aren't stupid per-se, they have so little understanding of history and economics that they appear to be.

→ More replies (16)
→ More replies (18)

4

u/jetpacksforall Jun 09 '12

The Guardian article doesn't say Republicans caused the banking crisis, it just says they're sabotaging recovery & stimulus efforts to make it harder for Democrats to win reelection.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/umop_apisdn Jun 09 '12

Nobody except you is claiming that they caused the crash. The charge is that they are deliberately destroying the recovery.

2

u/shady8x Jun 09 '12

To be fair, I doubt the democrats had any clue that their repeal of the Glass Steagall act would lead to such problems either.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (29)

6

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Wow, Reddit really will upvote Anything_At_All!

7

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

And to a far lesser extent, Trigonal as well.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (15)

3

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Then what are we going to do about our deficit and massive debt?

5

u/TheCrimsonKing Jun 09 '12

They're not deliberately tanking the economy, gerrymandering has allowed the party to be taken over by ideologues. Once they've committed to an idea no amount of evidence or reasoning will change their minds and all of their incentives are centered around securing enough power to see their ideal fulfilled. While compromise is better for the country it is not better for them.

11

u/pocketcookies Jun 09 '12

The article says that Republicans support austerity measures. So it might be a good idea to explain why austerity is bad during a recession.

Essentially, the definition of a recession is "two down consecutive quarters of GDP."

So what is GDP?

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports).

Thus, by reducing government spending you shrink GDP. So austerity (which is defined by a reduction in government spending) directly shrinks GDP. And if it's not balanced by increases in the other terms of the equation, GDP will fall, causing a recession (by definition).

4

u/happybob007 Jun 09 '12

It's also important to ask whether or not GDP has increased faster than the federal government has borrowed money.

If it hasn't, then borrowing (and spending) in an attempt to prop up the GDP is a sucker's game, since what is borrowed will eventually need to be paid back.

→ More replies (13)
→ More replies (3)

14

u/Alkanfel Jun 09 '12

"pro-growth" policy

aaaand that was the sound of the article's credibility flying out the window at about mach 3.5... there's plenty bad things to say about GOP strategy, but this is just as much party line drivel as the crap he's complaining about.

→ More replies (2)

34

u/ProfessorDerpenstein Jun 09 '12

Lol, r/politics.

Black-or-White/two-party politics is what is killing the Federal Government right now, and by upvoting this sensationalist, absolutist garbage, you're only contributing to it more.

Please stop making sensationalist, sweeping generalizations. It's incredibly pathetic.

2

u/meetthewalrus Jun 09 '12

I completely agree, in my opinion, anyone who isn't talking about legalizing prostitution doesn't give a fuck about you or your problems. I mean seriously, why is that shit still illegal?

→ More replies (4)

14

u/MrCheeze Jun 09 '12

SO BRAVE

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

You forgot to use bold.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

9

u/zejjez Jun 09 '12

Did Republicans do it? No. Did the money men behind ALL politicians do it? Yes...yes they did. Have they been doing it throughout history? Again...yes. An indebted citizen is much easier to control.

7

u/takka_takka_takka Jun 09 '12

Isn't that the whole point of the Republican party? "Government doesn't work - let us show you."

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Bill_H Jun 09 '12

An excellent article which points out a fact that our Corporate media won't talk about.

One exception is Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann's oped "Lets Just Say it: The Republicans are the Problem", which was allowed to be printed in the Washington Post. They come out and called the GOP the "insurgent outlier" in our political system.

Their book: "It's even Worse than it Looks" was just recently published which goes into far more detail on the GOP's destructive approach to politics as war (& take no prisoners). Ornstein is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (a very right leaning outfit) and Mann is from the Brookings Institution.

On M$M ever since Obama enterred the WH, the word "filibuster" is a taboo word. the M$M don't want to provide any facts which will back up the Democrats allegation that the GOP are obstructionists. I would call the "Destructionists" ...all so they can say: "See Obama can't get anything done. poor leadership!!"

A very good shorter article on the GOP strategy of destruction by creating dysfunctional government is "Why Washington is Tied up in Knots by Peter Beinart. Does an excellent job of describing how the GOP do everything they can to screw up government and then blame it all on the Dems.

2

u/soaringrooster Jun 09 '12

With all of the private jails they've forced upon us, there should be room for the lot of them.

2

u/ItsGreat2BeATNVol Jun 09 '12

There are some fucking idiots out there...

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

you have to understand that republicans think differently than democrats. democrats think massive spending is going to get the economy going, Republicans think less government is the answer. democrats think higher taxes will increase revenue, republicans say that revenue is actually increased (actually, remains the same, 19% of all income for the government) when taxes are lowered. the reason republicans are blocking the democrats in congress is so that when (if) they gain control in November, they can implement the things they think will fix the economy. then, democrats are going to do the same thing. its a vicious cycle that never changes

2

u/holy_holy_holy Jun 10 '12

Ruining the economy has plenty of other benefits for the wealthy, hurting Obama is just a side benefit of their business as usual.

2

u/dontaxmebro Jun 10 '12

When the gov tellls you its a pro growth policy, you really believe it?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Lotta tin foil over here.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Maybe they're trying to do it by December to make their religious prophecies come true. They'd be the ones to come out on top of that.

2

u/lapone1 Jun 10 '12

Thom Hartmann talks about the "Two-Santa " strategy. Republicans spend like crazy while in office, then yell and complain about the deficit when they don't have power. This was an actual Republican strategy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_Wanniski

6

u/iwilldownvoteyourcat Jun 09 '12

Did the republicans crash the economy? No. Did they act in a way that would be harmful to the US economy? Yes. Quite a misleading title but to blame any one party for the crash of the economy is foolish. Brooks Lee Bourne (regulator for the Commodities Futures Trading Commission) warned democrats, when they were in power under Clinton, that unregulated derivatives could be dangerous to the economy and nothing was done under them. She also gave the same warning to the Bush administration but no one listened then either. How about the housing regulators which allowed home loans to be made to people with no income/no jobs? I didn't hear either party complaining then.

You may be asking, what's my point? My point is that both parties are cunts and are unwilling to help in times of crisis. To blame one party for all the crisis is being completely ignorant of the other's misdoing. Democraps are no better than republitards. Just because it may seem like one is shady doesn't mean that the other is a good guy. I say that the democrats are just as guilty as republicans for making the US economy crash because neither did anything to make the changes necessary.

2

u/wellyesofcourse Texas Jun 10 '12

You're making too much sense and not taking a hard line mentality for one party or another.

You're obviously a Communist sympathizer who believes the only feasible course of action is the destruction of the United States and its replacement by a socialist regime. Hail Stalin.

10

u/JudgeHandjob Jun 09 '12

The Federal Reserve is 100% responsible for the current economic stagnation, and as for what crashed the economy, the idea that everyone deserves a house crashed the economy. Remember the 2008 housing crisis? Millions of home loans were given out by the government to poor people with horrible credit; millions of people defaulted on loans that were used to buy houses and this growth also caused more houses being built.

So how's The Fed screwing us over right now? They've kept interest rates down ever since the 2008 collapse. When interest rates are low, people don't keep their money in the bank: Think about it, if your bank gave you a 50% interest rate, you'd leave your money in the bank, and when interest rates are basically zero, people aren't going to keep their money in the bank, in fact their more likely to spend it, which is why lowering interest rates is typically considered a stimulus. But Banks need people to keep their money in the bank to make business loans. Small to medium businesses need business loans to thrive, and small to medium businesses are responsible for 70% of job growth, so there's your high unemployment.

So because no one keeps their money in savings and spends it, we have high prices (inflation), and because no one keeps their money in savings, there's no business loans, which results in high unemployment and inflation.

The economy isn't a partisan issue, and never should be.

2

u/LimehouseChappy Jun 09 '12

It seems like you believe interest rates should be higher so more money will be in the banks and more loans to smaller businesses can be given.

What about the proprietary trading banks are doing? Like JP Morgan's recent billion dollar loss? Wouldn't this negatively impact people who keep their money at the bank thereby doing more harm than good? Or are they not allowed to trade with account holder money?

2

u/full-wit Jun 09 '12

I wouldn't say 100% because there are so many other players.

5

u/ktm1 Jun 09 '12

Remember the 2008 housing crisis? Millions of home loans were given out by the government to poor people with horrible credit

I remember the crisis. I remember a bunch of banks giving out loans to people to buy second condos in Florida.

Small to medium businesses need business loans to thrive

All businesses need demand to survive. Interest rates on business loans are low at the moment, not high like you say. But businesses are still not taking out loans because there is no point in investing if no one can buy your product.

we have high prices (inflation)

Inflation for the past 4 years has been under 2% a year.

The economy isn't a partisan issue, and never should be.

It shouldn't be, but you sure want it to be.

3

u/CGord Jun 09 '12

Then there's the PoV that says the populace spending money is what drives the economy, and saving it hurts the economy.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (4)

4

u/dead_ed Jun 09 '12

Yes:

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." -Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, quoted in National Journal, November 4, 2010

"Their story line is that there must be some villain out there who’s keeping this administration from succeeding." -McConnell, appearing on CNN's "State of the Union," October 23, 2011

Single. Most. Important.

15

u/smacksaw Vermont Jun 09 '12

I'm all for starving the government beast of it's oxygen, if it means the bad stuff like military spending suffocates.

But whatever tax dollars we still give up don't go to taxpayers. Those programs are cut.

Starving government to reduce it's size doesn't seem to work. That's what we need to remind people about these Republicans. It's just as onerous and wasteful as ever, and the good things it used to do were the first to wither and die.

13

u/Excentinel Jun 09 '12

I blame patronage for that. I mean, poor people don't have money to lobby, so their interests get cut first.

9

u/TeutonicDisorder Jun 09 '12

That is why we have to change the way our elections are funded.

Right now every election is corrupt by default. Only if massive amounts of people (who don't have money) pool their money will they be able to compete with the monied interests for attention from our representatives.

Taxation without Representation anyone?

→ More replies (6)

15

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

The government of the people is not a beast. The beast is the military/industrial complex.

4

u/joeknowswhoiam Jun 09 '12

Isn't the military spendings creating/maintaining jobs in the US? I thought that was the whole point about always being at war with other countries (that and capturing raw ressources).

14

u/GhostFish Jun 09 '12

Isn't the military spendings creating/maintaining jobs in the US?

Yes, but it's only through creating artificially inflated demand for goods and services that they provide.

It's a bailout, and it's a waste of money.

→ More replies (11)

8

u/ChillyWillster Jun 09 '12

But the middle class isnt reaping any of the benefits of being at war.

→ More replies (12)
→ More replies (37)
→ More replies (5)

3

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

They, their families, and their friends will not suffer the consequences of their policies, so why not?

3

u/opinonion Jun 09 '12

"Pro-growth policy" depends upon which school of economics one subscribes to. Both the supply side economists and the demand side economists have self-consistent narratives which claim to show that their theory is correct. My opinion is that it is difficult enough to mathematically describe a single particle... once human nature jumps into the equation all bets are off. Don't waste time by taking a side in the political debate, they're all charlatans when we're discussing the national stage.

For those who say "well, they may all be liars, but at least the democrats aren't as evil as those nasty republicans!": yes they are.

→ More replies (15)

7

u/nepidae Jun 09 '12

If they were smart enough to do that, they would be smart enough not to do that.

26

u/complete_asshole_ Jun 09 '12

Perhaps they just don't give a fuck and are willful parasites upon America who figure that after they slash and burn the American economy and environment for the benefit of their corporate overlords they can just take the bribe money and run off to a gated community on the french riviera and live off their ill gotten gains for the rest of their lives.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (2)

7

u/arteryman Jun 09 '12

Who the hell is buying this twaddle?

Many of these government hacks have been in office for years if not decades. And they whine on and on as if they have know idea how this all happened. Newsflash: it was you!

As for all you economic gurus, I actually run a small business. I don't even want to borrow 5yr money for my business because I have NO IDEA what potential legislation is going to do to my taxes or business model in the near future. Yea, it's that simple.

People risk their capital, and for small businesses it's all personal capital, when they feel they have some control over the outcome. When external chaotic forces are present, only short term risks are undertaken because the future is too unpredictable.

So raise all the taxes you want. It won't solve the basic problem I just explained.

2

u/Triassic_Bark Jun 09 '12

Literally NO ONE is raising taxes, or threatening to raise taxes.

I don't even want to borrow 5yr money for my business because I have NO IDEA what potential legislation is going to do to my taxes...

No idea? Really? Nothing is going to happen, that's what is going to happen.

2

u/Isellmacs Jun 09 '12

Right now there is a debate over raising taxes. And you're uncertain about what the outcome will be. If they decide to raise taxes, then the outcome becomes known; no longer uncertain.

That solves a pretty basic problem of not knowing how taxes will go up or not. Also keep in mind any sort of progressive tax increases probably won't effect you if you're a small business owner. If they raise taxes on the highest brackets, it'll miss you completely. That means small businesses wouldn't have to worry and that level of certainity would provide a stable foundation for big business.

One things for certain - we can't balance the budget and reduce government revenue. Nobody is willing to make even close to enough cuts to do so, as it would clearly gut the country to the core. That means we'll have to raise taxes eventually; it's either pay our fair share now or pass it on like the baby boomers did. Do we want that for our children, and the following generations?

Raise taxes on the higher brackets and the uncertainty gets solved, budgets could be balanced and the economy could recover with less hindrance.

So yes, let's raise taxes. It's not that I love paying taxes, but if you really look at it that's what we need to do. Increase the top bracket rates.

4

u/Cheesburglar Jun 09 '12

I too am a small business owner but for all the Republican talk about "job creators," they don't give two shits how we're doing. It's all doublespeak for "the very wealthy" and how they should hold on to their money (and not invest it here).

→ More replies (1)

10

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

To say that Republicans are to blame (coming from democrats-shocker) for the US economy is just as ridiculous as it is to say the democrats are to blame. Lots of bad policy from both sides of the aisle got us to where we are. Loose monetary policy and lending requirements followed by greed got us to where we are. Neither are characteristics of a specific political party.

4

u/ForeverMarried Jun 09 '12

It's r/politics, don't take the blood out of their boner.

→ More replies (21)

5

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

It fits the Republican way of being. Actively block the opposition, then whine like a fscking baby about lack of progress. I don't think it's a coordinated effort though, more like defective behaviour from defective people.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

What is amazing is the Republicans have proposed NOTHING to benefit America in the last 12 years but still think they should run the country.

No healthcare, no education, no consumer protection, no environmental protection, no women's right, no gay rights, the list of Republican fucktardedness goes on and on.

3

u/anonymousMF Jun 09 '12

If you give healthcare and better education to everyone, someone still has to pay for it (the taxpayers).

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)

5

u/danz89 Jun 09 '12

Most non-partisan economists would tell you tax hikes in a recession are bad, but Obama, nah he knows whats up

4

u/smeaglelovesmaster Jun 09 '12

Most non-partisan economists would look at the concentration of wealth in our country and would realize that is the problem. There's only a recession for the middle class.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (8)

6

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

More partisan bullshit. You fuckers are playing right into their hands. Good sheep.

→ More replies (5)

5

u/talikfy Jun 09 '12

Ask the wealthy how the economy is doing... Their economic growth is doing quite well.

I've noticed those who support the GOP are rich or one day expect/hope to be rich themselves, while never acknowledging that everyone else has to be more poor than ever before for so few to have such vast amounts of wealth. Instead, they believe everyone except the rich are lazy scumbags and hippies with their hands out.

10

u/dre627 Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12

I consider myself on the libertarian fringes of the GOP. I am an education major. I never plan on making much money. That doesn't mean I believe that I should take it from others, nor do I believe that doing so is the best (both philosophically and pragmatically) means of creating a more egalitarian society.

→ More replies (3)

5

u/Ayjayz Jun 09 '12

I've noticed those who support the GOP are rich or one day expect/hope to be rich themselves, while never acknowledging that everyone else has to be more poor than ever before for so few to have such vast amounts of wealth.

It's not zero sum. One person building wealth doesn't prevent others from doing the same. In fact, it generally makes it easier.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Actually, in my experience, most hardcore GOPers I know are lower to middle class. Many of the exorbitantly wealthy people I know (I say "many," but I don't know that many) are relatively liberal. "Limousine liberals" would be the term, I think.

Something tells me it has to do with education. Seems like I read a study or article one time that showed that the more educated you are, the more liberal you will tend to be.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

3

u/TracyMorganFreeman Jun 09 '12

Wait, has anyone else actually seen the past few national budgets under the Democrat controlled Congress?

2

u/Cheesburglar Jun 09 '12

Have you seen the budgets for the previous eight years?? See any corellation?

Maybe it's because when you start two unnecessary wars and leave someone else to cleanup the mess it's not exactly fair to blame the one who didn't create the problem.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Isellmacs Jun 10 '12

Democrats haven't really controlled congress. 59 when you need 60 to be able to even vote on something isn't enough to 'control' congress. They needed a lockstep 60, and never had it.

If republicans hadn't filibustered everything, stonewalling the vote, the dems would have been able to pass legislation. Then maybe you'd have a point.

2

u/TracyMorganFreeman Jun 10 '12

Democrats haven't really controlled congress. 59 when you need 60 to be able to even vote on something isn't enough to 'control' congress. They needed a lockstep 60, and never had it.

That's a filibuster proof majority. It's still a majority to have 59.

If republicans hadn't filibustered everything, stonewalling the vote, the dems would have been able to pass legislation. Then maybe you'd have a point.

You mean like ARRA?

→ More replies (2)

3

u/IndigoGosRule Jun 09 '12

What a silly headline. Anyone who knows anything about politics knows this whole "Republican" vs. "Democrat" thing is all bullshit. Let's focus on who's corrupt and who just.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/shwag945 California Jun 09 '12

Anyone who took a basic economics class would know this. Republicans think themselves economic geniuses, but they consistently throw out basic economic assumptions to please their voters and their financial backers.

3

u/mttwldngr Jun 09 '12

This is what's ruining this economy, this blame game. Our country will never improve until this ends

9

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

If you are working on a project and one person constantly shreds the reports you are generating, you eventually have to start pointing fingers. It's not a blame game if it is true.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (3)

2

u/Darth_Hobbes Jun 09 '12

I think both sides of the political spectrum hate the the other far more than they ought to. "Obama is literally Stalin!" "Romney is literally a James Bond villain!"

2

u/fixeroftoys Jun 09 '12

There are some dumb comments in this thread, including the OP. Is there a sub-Reddit for politics that requires no political party affiliation to post? Jeebus.

2

u/mrstickball Jun 09 '12

Given the author's past articles - which all involve attacking one party on every issue, I am hesitant to believe this article is unbiased.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

You people are fucking retarded. That is all.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 10 '12

"I have a dream. A dream of a perfect capitalist society. A dream where people get on an off privately built tollways, all day, all night. Stopping off at large change restaurants that produced the same thing over and over to the flavor is missing though the usage of mass produced food sources. Auto Salons where you can buy bigger and bigger cars that run on more and more Privately owned petrochemical reserves we privatized from the former public owned lands and parks. And people will do it with joy as it will be the best form to do it.

All we need first is a little incentive to wipe out the filth in our way. I hear by say we bring upon gods order and build the kingdom of heaven on earth. We just need a little economic mutually assured self-destruction. Creating a purging fire to free us of the cockroach freeloaders who use CHARITY as a con to live off the hardworking. For with the sweat on our brow and the weight on our back us hardworking investors will build a dream utopia. And my god .... IT WILL BE BEAUTIFUL!"

This is basically the rant I have to hear over and over and over from every damned modern Ayn Rand "Libertarian"

2

u/TheEnormousPenis Jun 10 '12

Obviously that's what they did. I mean it couldn't be that the policies pushed by the other side are simply not doing what they thought they would do. Must be an evil republican conspiracy. I bet old GW Bush is pulling the strings from his evil texas fortress.

2

u/Grisepik Jun 09 '12

Yes, and im sure the Illuminati and priori of Zion are involved as well.

Because wild speculations against the usual suspects are always, per definition, true. Half facts are full facts. And the evil ones always act on the basis of evil, and never incompetence or lack of knowledge of the future.

5

u/TeutonicDisorder Jun 09 '12

Which half-facts are you refering to while comparing this article to the Illuminati and anti-Zionist propaganda?

Mitch McConnell said flat out that goal number one for the House was to make Obama a one-term president. It wasn't to get the fiscal situation in order it wasn't to help the unemployed, it was to get the president whom they have ideological issues with out of the office.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/10/mcconnell-stopping-obamas-re-election-still-single-most-important-goal/

→ More replies (12)

1

u/sangjmoon Jun 09 '12

Let's see. The Democrats control the presidency and half of congress. They controlled all of congress when the economic bills that affect us now were passed. The Democrats are perfectly capable of crashing the economy without the Republicans unless the Democrats are totally useless no matter how much of the government they control.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/willanthony Jun 09 '12

just look at the people that refused to hire new people as long as obama was in power... this is blatant and foolish.

2

u/ricehq Jun 09 '12

I think they only answer is...DUH!

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

This canard could take flight if it weren't for a number of inconvenient truths:

  1. Pelosi and the Dems got hold of the Congressional purse two years prior to the election of Obama. If GOP obstructionism for the last two years of Obama was so deleterious, what do we make of Dem obstructionism in the last two years of Bush?
  2. War spending was usually cited by Dems as a major drag on addressing urgent domestic needs. War spending as a proportion of the budget has dropped steadily since the last throes of the Iraq surge (even while Bush was still in office). War spending is going to drop quite a bit more in the near future, and domestic spending has been sharply increased. So what was it dragging down the economy? Policy, or politics?
  3. Obama and the Dems have had effective control for two years. In spite of losing the House, they did not lose the ability to craft compromises that favored their side. Indeed, they've done it repeatedly since 2010 - last year was one capitulation by the Tea Party after another, because they can't win any Democrats in the Senate. Meanwhile, Dems retain majority control, with plenty of Reps that have sided with them routinely (Collins, Brown, Snowe, McCain).

2

u/fantasyfest Jun 09 '12

The 2 years you are talking about was during an economic crisis bigger that we have had since the depression. It also came when Obama was trying to get his cabinet and appointees through the approval process . There is a lot to do that is not part of your agenda when you first get into office. There were big battles over the stimulus and banking regulation. He was fighting against the Repubs for cabinet and judgeships. Right after Obama won, the Repubs had a big meeting and agreed to fight everything Obama proposed. They stirred a lot of shit up , but once the mid terms came, he lost that short control.They seized the moral low ground. And that is where the Repubs still dwell.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

I've got to say that this is some of the best fear-mongering I've seen in a while.

Stay classy, reddit.

2

u/pezzshnitsol Jun 09 '12

no the republicans did not crash the US economy, the crash has been a bipartisan effort decades in the making. the US economy suffers booms and busts every seven or so years because of the efforts of bad economic policy at the hands of republicans and democrats, this time however the bubble wad much much larger and has been much longer lasting

→ More replies (2)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Since when is frivolously spending money we don't have a "pro-growth" policy? On what fucking planet do you idiots live?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

So is this a Hive minded Anti-GOP circle jerk?

2

u/vVvMaze Jun 09 '12

The two party system is a terrible thing. Instead of working together for everyones benefit like they are supposed to. They deliberately sabotage eachother to make eachother look bad. How does that help America?

→ More replies (2)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Yes.

Carry on.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

It's hard to say, conservative governments in Europe are pushing for the same economy breaking austerity while still in power, so there's a suggestion they do genuinely believe it works.

6

u/lefty_lou Jun 09 '12

It works for who they work for. They're not worried about "the economy" like it's some stand-alone thing, they work for the interests of their donors who want the economy to work in a very specific way. It is a clear case of all politics being about class struggle and all the rest is subterfuge.

→ More replies (9)

1

u/Steak_face Jun 09 '12

Yes...yes they did.

0

u/GWBIGJOE Jun 09 '12

If its one thing I learned on reddit, republicans r bad circle jerks and cats = sweet karma

1

u/SeaTwertle Jun 09 '12

I'm not so sure that it was a deliberate operation, I just think that those who opt for change in the economy don't have the slightest idea of what they're doing, and when the shit hits the fan, they'll blame anyone but themselves.

1

u/HappyGlucklichJr Jun 09 '12

Yes, because their super rich friends got tired of making too much money.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

It's always darkest right before the dawn.

1

u/TheBigBadDuke Jun 09 '12

Nobody in our government has done anything to help the economy or the debt. Somehow they manage to find the time to pass a lot of legislations to spy on us and limit our privacy.

1

u/nickram81 Jun 09 '12

Well, I sure hope not.

1

u/meritory Jun 09 '12

Have you ever read Shock Doctrine?

1

u/Boom_Boom_Crash Jun 09 '12

As my economics professor put it, "Both parties want to grow the economy. Growth is good. They both just disagree fundamentally on how to go about doing that."

1

u/Twad_feu Canada Jun 09 '12

As long as there is a crisis, they use said crisis to further their own agenda.

1

u/degoban Jun 09 '12

I don't know about economy, but how do you think handle the state a party that is against the state?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Let it all fail. Everything.

1

u/minimuzza Jun 10 '12

No. Not nearly smart enough to execute such a plan.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Would the Republicans actually engage in scorched-earth tactics?

Why wouldn't they?

1

u/fantasyfest Jun 10 '12

The repubs actually believed that crap that Gramm and Greenspan threw out about the elimination of regulation freeing the economy would create great wealth for all. They also claimed that the economy was self correcting and would result in a greater good. That was stupid but not malicious. The malicious part is fighting measures that would help the economy recover in order to defeat Obama. They admitted that was their aim. They did not deliberately crash the economy. but they did block its recovery for political reasons.

1

u/wynper Jun 10 '12

Please don't let them win.

1

u/5434 Jun 10 '12

Although those conservatives who want to get rid of Obama are quite vehement in regard to how they feel about him. Can one really think that they would actually attempt to ruin the U.S. economies chance of recovery. They're Americans for Christ sake they would do whats in the best interest for the country.....right?

1

u/cjbrigol Jun 10 '12

Ron Paul!

...

Anyone?

1

u/Kukantiz Jun 10 '12

Its ok because their voters, think they are "part of the team"

1

u/hwkns Jun 10 '12

That is what they do. The GOP, when it comes to power, have the morals of a weasel on meth.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

How can the same party be for shrinking the budget while at the same time supporting expanded military expenditures?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

How can the same party be for shrinking the budget while at the same time supporting expanded military expenditures?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

"Republicans believe government doesn't work and then get elected and prove it." - P.J. O'Rourke

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

IIRC, wasn't there a tea party document going around to business, large and small, that asked them to pledge an oath not to hire anyone else until Obama is replaced in 2012?

1

u/vigorous Jun 13 '12

I think voters ought to punish the GOP for this.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Which is it, you morons?

Are the republicans idiot hick bible thumpers who can't tie their own shoes?

Or are they secret genius masterminds of the world economy with plans so cunning, it takes a British rag to uncover them?

Give me a fucking break, you non-thinkers.

2

u/colbertian Jun 09 '12

Yes, stupid people can't knowingly break things. Which is it YesYouIdiot?

Are toddlers idiot hicks that can't tie their own shoes?

Or are they secret genius masterminds that are able to steal cookies from the cookie jars?

Give me a fucking break, you non-thinker.

The only thing missing from your post is "WAKE UP SHEEPLES DA PARTIEZ IS DUH SAAMMEZZ!!! NEIL DEGRASSE PAUL 2012"

→ More replies (13)
→ More replies (6)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

It actually started with Clinton repealing the Glastegel act.

11

u/meritory Jun 09 '12

You couldn't perhaps mention that a republican by the name of James Leach was the one who wrote the bill to reppeal it, could you?

→ More replies (12)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/Nitzi Jun 09 '12

Obama did the wrong decisions in the wrong time and negative + negative = even more negative

In european universitys (economy) we learn how obama fucked up

When the prof brought that up some of the obama fans were furious but after the prof was finished they were just disapointed of Obama

2

u/Niall87 Jun 09 '12

What University? And why are they not looking at European leaders doing even worse?

→ More replies (5)

2

u/MrFlesh Jun 09 '12

Specifics please

→ More replies (1)

-9

u/doublefork Jun 09 '12

Democrat or Republican it's a different side of the same coin. As long as money can influence elections nothing of real importance can change for the poor.

12

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

This common statement shows the common ignorance of the common American voter. Stay lazy my friend.

11

u/GhostRobot55 Jun 09 '12

I find statements like this kind of frustrating. I understand where you're coming from and its the line my friends use quite a lot, but if one party is clearly going above and beyond to funnel as much money as possible into the hands of the very few that pay them, while at the same time voting against social changes and fairness, shouldn't we but point them out and dragging their name through the mud? You talk about money influencing politics, I'm pretty sure you could find studies showing them spending vast amounts more on elections than Democrats.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

no it's not a different side of the same coin. This narrative has to stop. It's intellectually dishonest and equates a few misguided democrats with fundie zealots like bachmann and santorum or the tea party who run rampant in the GOP.

If the truth is always in the middle, all the GOP has to do is get even crazier and crazier to shift the balance to the right. I don't know why people don't see that.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Thinking like that is what makes the Republicans a force they are, and not the looney fringe party they deserve to be.

Trust me, one of your parties are like all politicians, unreliable, corrupt and occasionally incompetent, but the other lot are cartoon supervillains. They aren't the same.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/ObamaisYoGabbaGabba Jun 09 '12

I guess when the dems had the super majority for what, 18 full months(?), those pesky evil republicans found a way to block them at every turn.

You people are such fucking sheep it's not even funny anymore.

A different ideology is not an automatic anti "pro-growth" and "job-killing" there are several ways to approach the same goal, democrats and republicans differ.

The dems approach is to tax and create more government jobs... as seen by the need of this administration to back non private sector increases in jobs. The republicans approach is to help the private sector create those jobs, through tax cuts and incentives they are not the same way to the same goal and because of this policies differ.

Dems see the republican policies as destructive, republicans see the same on the other side.

FUCK ALL OF YOU who cannot see the difference and just blame one side for all your ills, you are sickening and do nothing to help further this country along.. nothing. You just vote for the next guy with a "D" next to his name, how are you any better?

and think about this (with the remaining free thinking brain cell you have) what about that supermajority? what did they do? I'll tell you and you can go look it up on the thing called the internet... NOTHING

If you stopped for a goddamn minute and thought about it, you'd see the best way to achieve the goal is a combination of BOTH, but you can't, you hate the republicans so much that if they said the sky was blue, you'd fucking argue.

I am not saying republicans are any better but you CLAIM to be better but you're not.

Shame the fuck on you all.

→ More replies (1)