Republicans WANT the country to fail?
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Thursday, November 10, 2022 17:42
VIEWED: 1230
PAGE 1 of 1
On this subject, I've been hearing for a long time that the Repubs WANT the economy worse, for their own profit.Quote:
http://kdminer.com/Main.asp?SectionID=36&SubSectionID=73&ArticleID=389
Dear citizens, please do not think that delay of financial reform or perks for the bank industry in the bill now making its way through Congress is in the best interests of this country or our people. This GOP "No" tactic has two purposes: one is the same old ploy of making this administration fail at all costs and the other is to protect the high finances of cronies and lobbyists.
This legislation has protections for credit card abuse by banks, lending limits and debt to equity requirements (which many economists say would have prevented this current crises and recession), disclosure for stockholders and clarity in derivatives investing.
Our two Arizona senators are stonewalling and obstructing every step of this process with their party-line voting and telling us it is in our best interests and is too much control over the investment industry, the investment industry that caused a global recession because they cannot regulate their own greed.
36
This is old, but still valid:Quote:
As you can see, opinions are divided as to whether they want the country to fail or believe Obama's ideas are bad so want to block them to avoid the country failing. I have my own opinion.
Rush recently said that he wanted Obama to fail. With the republicans refusing to work together even after critical parts of the bill were compromised, and with republicans actively harassing people from their own party who try to work with Obama, are republican refusing to help because they want this country to fail under Obama? or are they trying to avoid helping so they can free themselves of blame if things go wrong?
Comments on the above:
--Uh duh, if you want the president to fail or if you want his policies to fail that means you want the country to fail, regardless of what label you make up. Socialism is a republican n-word, if a democrat comes close to doing anything that might be considered socialist, repubs start screaming bloody murder. But i haven't heard anything from rush about the republicans who are now calling for nationalizing the banks.
--No, they don't want the country to fail, and yes, they are trying to avoid helping so they can free themselves of blame if things go wrong.
--They try to counter everything democrats do as a means of appealing to their base.
Obama could want to deploy 50,000 troops to Iraq and give a 20 billion dollar tax cut and the republicans would still try and turn it against him.
--Obama is leading the US towards Socialism. Rush said he hopes Socialism fails. Hence if it is perpetuated by Obama, Obama fails.
--Yep. Their President was inept, so now they want America to fail too.
--Yes, and they openly admit it. It is beyond comprehension to me.Quote:
During a conference call, Stabenow lamented the mean-spirited Republican filibuster of a jobs bill, during a time of near-double-digit unemployment:
“We don’t have even one Republican willing to help us break this filibuster,” she said. “We have every anticipation that we will not have the votes. It’s become very clear that the Republicans in the Senate want this bill to fail.”
Sen. Stabenow can only conclude that Republicans are following a game plan to sink the economy even further, to gain an edge in the mid-term elections. The GOP realizes that angry and frightened voters will blame the Party in power for the failed economy:
“It’s a cynical move, because it doesn’t serve them in terms of their elections this fall. They have decided they want this economy to fail, and they’re willing to take the country down with them,” she added.
Unemployment extensions during times of recession have been historically deficit funded on an emergency basis. But suddenly Republicans have developed deficit religion. “If 15 million people without jobs isn’t an emergency, I don’t know what is,”
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And the Dem's want it good for their profit....Wow, what a smart fucking hippie you are. Did that come to you in a deep sleep? How insightfull...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I want the economy to CONTINUE failing. How can the GOP want what is already happening in future tense? You mean they want it to CONTINUE to fail under obama..
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Continue to lie and spin mindless propaganda.
While it's true, some wanted the Dems to gain full power ( as they have ) of the WH and Congresss, so that they'd fail miserably ( as they have ) and then that would force most right thinking people to see how inept the Left is, resulting in an overwhelming return to power for the GOP.
Well, that's going to happen, but I think it's a costly way to vie for power. Sort of like retreating so far and fast, that the opponents extend themselves and show their weakness.
Like Patton said ( well, from the movie ) I never like to pay for the same real estate twice. The GOP had power, and failed. Waiting for the Dems to fail even worse.... seems pretty weak to me.
I love the Dems wackiest new claim, that all these American business owners are intentionally holding onto their $$, so as to watch Obama fail ( we're all racists, of course ). Though most of us 'racists' did vote for the guy....huh.
Now, when the Dems claimed we'd lost the Iraqi war, before the surge, it wasn't seen as WANTING the US to fail, was it ?
Of course it is. But they didn't want just Bush to fail, but ALL the US.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:A prediction, jerkweed. And watch what happens next. To paraphrase a quote: "We'll be back."
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Now, when the Dems claimed we'd lost the Iraqi war, before the surge, it wasn't seen as WANTING the US to fail, was it ?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
jerkweed?
No, brainless. Senator Reid actually said " the war is lost ". It wasn't a prediction, it was a g-damn statement of fact ( as he viewed it ).
The Dems voted for this war, before they turned against it. Then they were all hell bent on seeing us fail. For purely political reasons.
Jerkweed.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Where and when was there a vote on this war? I remember a vote authorizing use of force as a last resort, but there was no vote to go to war. Dubya usurped that authority from Congress, which stupidly gave it away too easily, but as you said in another thread, let's at least be honest about this: there was no "vote for this war". Nobody declared war, nobody voted to do so.
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Do Republicans want the economy to continue to fail? No. Some do, but there are always some who seek the worst outcome to further their agenda or justify their beliefs. I note for the record some liberals also want the economy to fail because Obama has not done enough in their view.
Did Democrats want us to lose the war in Iraq back when Bush was President? No. Some did, but there are always those who seek a negative outcome to further their agenda or justify their beliefs. I note for the record that some liberals continue to want the war to be lost because Obama has not done enough in their view.
Republicans and Democrats have different ideas about what makes the economy work. Republicans believe that the economic program enacted by the Obama administration is wrong for America...and polling shows most Americans agree.
It is natural that given the complete failure of the Obama recovery program and the apparant long term damage he has done (in their opinion) that they would not be supportive of additional efforts along that path to failure. This is not obstructionist...its opposition. In this country one party is allowed to oppose the policy direction of the other and advocate their own ideas instead. In a few weeks we'll have an election and the American people can decide which way they think is best.
The choice is not complicated. The Democrats wants more spending, more taxes, and more regulation. The Republicans want less spending, less taxes, and less regulation. There are arguments for and against both plans. It is possible to make those arguments without personal attacks on the other side. It is unlikely that the arguments will be made without personal attacks on the other side because that is the nature of politics in America.
The economic policies of President Obama have failed and will likely get worse as more taxes and regulation come online from programs such as ObamaCare and lending regulations put additional burdens on small businesses while limiting their access to capital investments and credit.
On the other hand Bush's economic policies from 2001-2009 resulted in staving off recession in 2001 and 2002 and keeping unemployment low despite huge problems in energy and finance, war, and the complete destruction of a major American city. However, those policies and the failure to identify and correct the problems in the banking industry resulted in the origin of the present economic crisis.
Democrats are generally campaigning on a continuation or expansion of the failed policies of the past 20 months. Republicans are generally looking to take what worked under Bush, Clinton, and Reagan and apply them to today's problems without, hopefully, repeating the mistakes made during those three administrations.
Throw in a couple social issues, immigration, some name calling, and a couple tax scandals and you have the alternatives we all have to weigh...but I think most everyone regardless of party, or who they choose to vote for this year...most everybody wants this country to succeed during the 2nd half of the Obama administration no matter who gets the credit.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well said, Hero. I think the goals of each party might be more complicated than you've represented, and I'm not sure about the successes and failures as you're reporting them, but you got two very important things right on.
1) Lots of people worried about the economy, and 2) lots of people wondering if the stimulus worked, is working, isn't working, etc.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Dems have had such a hard time, and failed, BECAUSE the Republicans have stymied everything they've tried to do for the country. Threatening a filibuster on virtually EVERYTHING has made any forward progress extremely hard, if not impossible, to attain. If the Republicans had ever made any effort to work WITH the Democrats, things would have been quite different. Even legislation the Republicans THEMSELVES proposed or supported has been rejected and fought against; that speaks clearly to a desire to stymie everything, even good things, in an effort to worsen the situation.
Having control of the Presidency, Congress and Senate means nothing if the Senate is stopped from passing any legislation. The mistake on the Dems part has being their refusal to force an actual filibuster...in that they have been weak wooses; that's THEIR failing.
Democrats never said we had “lost” the Iraq War—one person did—by the way, they said we were losing it and SHOULD GET OUT. That is an attempt to keep us from a long, drawn-out war which we could never win, like Vietnam, not acting against the best interests of the country. How many soldiers have we lost since that time, and we’ve not “won” that war by any means; we’re pulling out, just as the Democrats urged back then. You really think we WON the Iraq War? If so, you delude yourself.
As to voting for the war, as Mike said (and the righties among us will no doubt ignore), there was no vote to go to war. Democrats and Republicans alike were lied to, pressured and misled into voting as they did; Bush took it from there. How many Republicans are against it NOW? NOW they’ve learned what a stupid thing it was to do and are against it, as did the Democrats long before.
Hero, the first two paragraphs well said and accurate. The American PEOPLE don't want the country to fail, for the most part, Republicans, Democrats and others. But what the politicians want is quite possibly another matter. Their actions speak louder than their words; and the "Party of No", their own given name, has made it abundantly clear that they intended to stop everything, bad or good; that doesn't show a desire to improve things, merely a desire to keep things going the way they were, which was disasterous.
I disagree that Democrats want more taxes, where taxes have been raised in any way; what the future brings is not relevant to their or Obama’s ACTIONS. As to less spending; every Republican President has increased the deficit, and the last one spent us into disaster. As to regulation; where did deregulation get us, exactly? Show me where it has improved ANYTHING—prove it, if you can. You left out that Republicans are in favor of tax cuts for the rich, as well, and where has that gotten us—and will get us, if the tax cuts by Bush are allowed to stand for the rich. You forgot to mention that Republicans are in favor of special concessions to big business, big oil, big pharma, which has done a lot to damage this country and will continue to do so.
Bush made himself look better by hiding the costs of the war from showing up in the budget. That’s not “less spending”, that’s “spending on the sly”.
These claims are talking points which have been reiterated over and over, but facts show they don’t hold. If necessary, I can provide facts and figures showing otherwise, but I’ve done it before and shouldn’t have to keep on doing it.
I disagree completely wihQuote:
First and foremost, there was no “complete destruction of a major American city”! Several buildings were destroyed; the city stands; and the attack was utilized quite effect
On the other hand Bush's economic policies from 2001-2009 resulted in staving off recession in 2001 and 2002 and keeping unemployment low despite huge problems in energy and finance, war, and the complete destruction of a major American city. However, those policies and the failure to identify and correct the problems in the banking industry resulted in the origin of the present economic crisis.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
First and foremost, there was no “complete destruction of a major American city”! Several buildings were destroyed; the city stands; and the attack was utilized quite effectively by the Bush Administration to act unconstitutionally and deprive us of a number of our freedoms.
I was refering to New Orleans and Katrina, not New York and 9/11. Somebody has a one track mind.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The Dems have had such a hard time, and failed, BECAUSE the Republicans have stymied everything they've tried to do for the country.
Threatening a filibuster on virtually EVERYTHING has made any forward progress extremely hard, if not impossible, to attain.
Surely, you can't be serious. Barry's gotten every bit of major legislation he and his party has put forward. Where he's run into problems ( cap & tax , Stimulus 2 ) is with his own party members not playing ball.
Quote:
If the Republicans had ever made any effort to work WITH the Democrats, things would have been quite different.
They did. Barry was having nothing of it though.
Quote:
Even legislation the Republicans THEMSELVES proposed or supported has been rejected and fought against; that speaks clearly to a desire to stymie everything, even good things, in an effort to worsen the situation.
Barry and the Dems are the ones worsening the situation.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I was refering to New Orleans and Katrina, not New York and 9/11. Somebody has a one track mind.
Katrina was in 2005 though, so since you mentioned 2001 and 2002 just before that, I can see where confusion might come in.
I figured you meant Katrina but I wasn't sure.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I was refering to New Orleans and Katrina, not New York and 9/11. Somebody has a one track mind.
His name is Rudy Giuliani.
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As to New Orleans, yes, given the dates mentioned, "Bush's economic policies from 2001-2009 resulted in staving off recession in 2001 and 2002 and keeping unemployment low despite ... the complete destruction of a major American city", of course that's what I thought about. It does tend to be what comes to mind when someone mentions 2001.
As to Obama getting "everything" through...no, he got weak, pathetic measures through, some of which may do more harm than good, because he and the Dems kept caving and compromising in the stupid hope of Republican compromise. If they'd gotten the message about the "party of no" from the beginning, I think things would be quite different. What we ended up with were half measures.
I still give them credit for at least trying to deal with all the third rails nobody else has even tried to TOUCH before, and hope they are just first steps to righting a whole bunch of wrongs in this country. That's how it works when tackling ugly issues, just like civil rights, which was weak and pathetic when IT began.
As to Obama not working with the Republicans, that is just plain hysterical, given the FACTS.Quote:
Then why did the Republicans propose/support those things in the first place? That sentence has nothing to do with what I posted.Quote:
Barry and the Dems are the ones worsening the situation.
Even legislation the Republicans THEMSELVES proposed or supported has been rejected and fought against; that speaks clearly to a desire to stymie everything, even good things, in an effort to worsen the situation.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
2022 US midterms: 'I am worried about Republican candidates claiming fraud based on no real evidence'
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/11/03/2022-us-mid
terms-i-am-worried-about-republican-candidates-claiming-fraud-based-on-no-real-evidence_6002808_4.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME