The GOP is slowing down the recovery with their sabotage

[gulliver]

The GOP is standing in the way of America's recovery, and I don't see anything wrong with nailing them on it. I have seen our Dem leaders say that the GOP has been "on the sidelines" and "standing in the way." What I haven't seen is us taking the next logical step and blaming the GOP outright for the slowness of the recovery. We should be absolutely explicit and make that connection. Polls show that Americans blame Bush and the GOP for the Great Recession. That greases the skids for people accepting the fact that GOP activities are to blame for slowness in the recovery.

When we talk about a long, slow recovery or when we talk about a soft jobs market, we should slip in some blame for the GOP every time.

High GOP Power = Devastated Economy
Medium GOP Power = Stagnant Economy
Low GOP Power = Improving Economy

This is the basis of a "GOP Anti-prosperity Curve," a close relative of the Laffer curve. It shows that the better off the GOP is, the worse off the economy. Voters need to know that. What would zero GOP Power look like?

[MadHound]

1. Oh Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, an excuse for everything,

We give the Dems large majorities in both houses of Congress, along with the White House, and yet you're blaming the lack of a recovery on the 'Pugs?

Yes, they are being obstinate, yes they are the party of NO, but the fact of the matter is that Dems simply aren't fighting for what is the good of the country, period. Let's look at that stimulus last year, far too little, and far too much of it was devoted to tax cuts, not creating jobs. This was done in the pursuit of some mythical "bipartisanship" that didn't materialize.

Let's look at Obama's war on public education, the one that has forced tens of thousands out of their job, which is then turned over to some TFA twit who is paid less money.

Oh, and while we apparently have no money for job creation, we apparently do have enough to carry on two illegal wars.

Sorry, but this happy horseshit is just providing cover for Democratic "leaders" who, for whatever reason, refuse to stand up and fight, refuse to do the right thing. That isn't the fault of the 'Pugs, that's all on the Dems.

[Winterblues]

2. So I takke it you will vote the Republicans back in to restore our economy..

:shrug: While what you say has some ( a little) merit the truth of the matter is that Republicans have blocked every single thing Democrats have tried to accomplish except for War..Democrats and republicans have been hand in hand on War Spending..

[MadHound]

5. Have the Dems, with their LARGE majorities, with their control of the WH,

Even tried to fight through the blocks thrown up by the 'Pugs? Have they actually forced a real, live, talk-all-night-and-piss-in-a-bottle filibuster? Have they taken to the airwaves to explain to the American people what was going on and what they were going to do about it?

No, they haven't. Time after time they've caved, even when the will of the vast majority of Americans were behind them, they've caved. What the hell goddamn use is it for people to fight, sweat and sacrifice to put Dems in power when the best they can do is come up with excuses for not fighting?

And make no mistake, the OP is nothing but a goddamn excuse. Poor picked upon little Dems, can't get shit done because they're encountering resistance FROM THE GODDAMN MINORITY PARTY. Hello, McFly!

There is always a goddamn excuse for the Dems not doing a damn thing, Bush in the WH, 'Pugs in control of Congress, and now, somehow, when the Dems have every goddamn thing they want or need to run this country, it's still the 'Pug's fault their not doing a damn thing.

To hell with that, no. I'm not voting for 'Pugs, but I'm damn sure not going to vote for wimpy ass Dems who are scared to do anything for anyone in order to avoid any sort of confrontation. I want leaders who will fight, not fold.

[gulliver]

3. Sorry, but what you say makes no sense at all.

There is very clearly a recovery in the economy since Dems took over. That is indisputable to anyone who is not completely south of the mean IQ. And I'm not happy about what the GOP are doing to slow down and water down Democratic and progressive policies that would have made things even better. You may be OK with it, but I can't accept you position. You're entitled to your opinion, but I find no sense in it whatsoever. It's just, well, mad.

The GOP would be screaming bloody murder if they had been the ones creating prosperity and the Dems were blocking, crying, accusing, disputing, weakening the team. We should be too.

[MadHound]

7. Really, a recovery? Have you taken a look at the numbers lately?

We have had anemic paper growth, no job growth, people aren't spending. The only growth that has come is on paper, for the big corporations. For the rest of us out here, what growth?

Why are the Dems, with their large majorities and control of the WH allowing such watered down gruel to actually pass for legislation? Oh, yeah, because God forbid they have to get their hands dirty and actually fight for what is right for the people of this country. Easier to throw up their hands and find excuses for their non-action.

[gulliver]

10. We need larger majorities then.

It's clear that the majorities we have are not large enough to counterbalance GOP sabotage. What the GOP are doing is equivalent to asymmetric warfare. It is much easier to destroy than create. It is much easier to create fear and anger than right-thinking action. Everyone knows that, you included apparently.

To get the recovery fully up to speed we need the GOP ground down again. It's that simple. Your protestations about the Dems not using their "large majorities" notwithstanding, the Dems don't have a large enough majority to counterbalance what amounts to outright, back-stabbing sabotage of American economic prosperity by the GOP.

[MadHound]

11. Oh what happy horseshit,

We could given the Dems fucking all the super majorities they need, and they would still fuck it up. In fact they did, or have you forgotten those great non-fights the Dems put up when they had a super majority. Oh, and the excuses, everything from those damn blue dogs to trying to achieve "bipartisanship."

I'm sorry, but the Dems have been given all the tools they need to govern properly, and so far they have failed to, miserably. It isn't the fault of the 'Pugs, it is simply this: The Dems have become as corporately corrupted as the 'Pugs, albeit in a different matter. Therefore they are not going to fight for we the people due to the simple reason that it would not please their corporate masters. Therefore, while they might talk a good fight (and that is becoming increasingly less so), they certainly don't fight the good fight.

Giving them even greater numbers in Congress isn't going to achieve anything other than to show up just how corrupt and gutless the Dems are these days. Is that what you want?

[gulliver]

13. I certainly hope you will keep posting on this thread.

The more people see of the rhetoric you are using, the better, IMO. I already sense "happy horseshit" becoming over-exposed. The "corporate masters" and "gutless" stuff is more stubborn, but it too is turning into self-parody fodder.

[MadHound]

17. So you can't argue with the fact that the Dems are gutless wonders, unable and unwilling to fight,

So now you are reduced to hoping I somehow implode. Stay classy!

[treestar]

15. Huh? Why would that be? If they had a solid 60

or more or better yet none of the 60 were Blue Dogs, why would they still eff it up? You are in essence admitting you don't want them to succeed and will criticize them no matter what they do.

[MadHound]

18. Geez, are you that clueless,

Do you really not understand how politics in this country works? Are you that naive?

I would love for the Dems to actually start acting like their old selves, but they have become far too corporately corrupted for them to ever think about doing what is right for the American people.

Go educate yourself, join the real world, then get back to me.

[Bitwit1234]

4. A lot of that is not really correct. It is the Senate where

everything stops. I do believe that if the Senate would change the rules. If they would let a simple majority carry the bills etc. If they would limit filibusters etc they would get more done. You are correct in this respect they are not fighting hard enough to change these rules. And they are so screwed up in Obama's so called bipartisanship crap they can't move their bowels. They are trying too damn hard to try to get the "other side" to vote yes instead of no. And all the time they know damn well they won't. I say change the rules and steam roll all over them. They would do it to the Democrats in a New York second.

[gulliver]

6. It's correct enough to be right.

I agree that the Senate should change the rules, but who is doing the filibustering under the current rules? The GOP.

We're in a leaky lifeboat. The Dems are bailing out water as fast as they can and bringing in survivors from the open ocean. The GOP is digging at the leak to try to widen it, fighting to bail water back into the boat, and telling the survivors floating in the ocean that should swim off so we can't hear them drowning.

It doesn't have to be 100% correct to be right or effective. Nothing is 100% correct. But we do have a GOP party that is fighting against a winning team in the midst of a crisis. That's 100% correct. Dis-empowering the GOP further is what prosperity wants us to do.

On edit: And I agree we should change the rules--as my Senator McCaskill is trying to do.

[MadHound]

8. Oh wah-wah-wah, those big bad meanies in the Senate, wah!

Goddamn it, the Dems need to stop acting like fucking scared little mice and actually force a real, live talk all night, pee in a bottle filibuster. When the hell is the last time they did that? Yeah, that long.

Instead of making excuses for the Dems, or trying to get a rule change (and frankly I'm in favor of the filibuster, it protects the minority from outlandish transgressions, that is if the Dems would ever have the cojones to use it when they're out of power), it is time that we started demanding that the Dems fight for the agenda we put them in power to enact.

I say fucking stand up and fight, for once, instead of constantly rolling over and pissing on themselves like whipped dogs.

[SeattleGirl]

9. The Dems do not have a "large majority" in the Senate. n/t

[MadHound]

12. Umm, last I checked, they do.

No, it isn't a super majority, but apparently, given last years debacles, they can't do anything with a super majority either. They are clueless, gutless wonders who care more about their precious positions and political games than in helping out we the people.

[treestar]

16. It's not a matter of "courage"

It has been shown many times there is no Jimmy Stewart type filibuster any more, and there is a natural hesitation to do away with it when the Rs could be in the majority again. This is not a pitched battle - politics is far more complicated. And the voters are what they are.

[MadHound]

19. Why should there be a real live filibuster, whe the 'Pugs have shown they can get their way,

Time and again by pulling these faux filibusters and watch the Dems throw up their hands in impotency. There needs to be a few more real, live filibusters, so that the 'Pugs can be shown up for the obstructionists they are, and the Dems can gain some experience in political street fighting.

[treestar]

14. The excuse is the system of government

You seem to be assuming that the Rs have no effect when they are in the minority; that the minority has no say in what happens at all. What kind of government would that be?

[MadHound]

20. No, actually what I, and millions of others have assumed, is that the Dems would use their majority

Instead they have caved to the 'Pugs time and again. Why is that? What use is it to give Dems a majority when they do nothing with it?