Are republicans willing to let the economy fail to win an election?

That is no news, just like Democrats would do the same thing. Democracy at work.

 

they are also willing to let our debt be downgraded by not raising the debt ceiling. something they had no problem doing under bush. unbelievable

 

It's like a legal form of corruption going on in congress. Bribing with money is bad, but bribing with incentives is great.

 

Exactly. Or Taking bribe while in office is a crime but getting millions once you are out of office to lobby jobs is great (a form of legalized bribing system).

 

Actually demo's (at least, the smart ones...) don't have economic theorists that embrace the "hey let's make recessions bad as possbile, therefore it will be stronger later" like the gold nuts and other econ-nihilits of the republcan party do...not quite the same thing. In the long run...we're all dead.

 

He's talking about election cycle politics, not economic philosophy/principles. And for the most part, he's right. Thanks, two party system!

 

Can you point to things Democrats did to stymie the economy in the 2001 recession or the 1991 recession or the 1982 recession? Each of those had a GOP President and Dems would have "benefitted" by doing what the GOP is doing now. In none of those cases were Dems obstructionists.

 

Of course they are. The top Republicans in Congress have been saying since Obama's first day that defeating him in 2012 was their top priority. Not dealing with the financial crisis, not creating jobs. Beating Obama.

 

As in actively looking for ways to cut demand during a downturn for the purpose of exacerbating the downturn? I don't recall a demo during an election cycle endorsing that in contemprorary times

 

I missed the part about Republicans doing the old "Obama likes it, so it must be bad, even though it's something we've endorsed in the past" routine.

I'm not sure if any Bush era democrats pulled this move on economic policy, I'm sure some of our conservative posters might know.

 

2001, election was over, and after 9/11, Bush had record support. I do think though that partisanship has increased during the Obama years, and of course it will only be worse in an election year.

 

So, instead of doing something worthwhile and hoping they can be recognized as responsible for doing something good, they want to sabotage the economy so that we will hold the guy in charge as solely responsible, and they will win the next election by default? That's the plan? With all that support out there and the recent change in the house, and THAT is the plan?

Is it REALLY so important to the GOP for a Republican to get back in the white house immediately that they would risk the backlash that could occur from such moves? This has been going on for a while, but the blatant disregard for American citizens is getting more and more obvious.

Unreal.

 

well when you have a manchurian candidate who was sent from kenya to destroy the american way of life and enslave us all to the gov't, ruining the economy is a small price to pay to get rid of him

 

Of course they are doing that. They wouldn't be politicians otherwise.

I would say at least half of the ppl on this board would rather see the economy tank than their side lose.

This is a by product of the system. It creates this thing called the career politician.

 

I think admitting that no side has the moral high ground is a start to objectivity.

 

the "both sides do it" argument is getting so old. all it means is you don't have a defense for this crap

 

I think this is a bit more egregious than typical. No one claimed anyone had moral high ground. It was a point regarding who is taking the low ground.

 

these guys are reverting back to the argument they used against their parents when they were caught drinking at the neighbor's house when his parents went out of town

"everybody's doing it"

 

yes we can america!!!!!

stim failure