Whether it is possible to sabotage the economy, the Republican strategy of focusing on the economy might have the desired payoff. While economic cycles tend not to correlate with administrations as a matter of perceived cause and effect, presidential wins and losses do seem to. The economy was beginning to go down at the end of Clinton's term and Bush came into office even though the economy was quite strong under the Clinton administration. As GW Bush's term ended, the economy was starting to go down again though it had improved a whole lot during his administration, and Obama came into office. When jobs are scarce, presidents tend not to be re-elected, or the dominant party suffers losses. This is a loose correlation, but it is significant. If the economy falters, Obama will be in trouble.
My long ago (infant time) home Greece is not suffering because of conservative politics, it is suffering from excessive spending. Yet the austerity measures being forced on it to get more cash will probably hinder the economy too, and some of these ideas are conservative ideas. This matter of how a particular party's policies affect various classes and the economy is only partially true, and the ideology of each of the sides never has really proved an adequate solution, though each side believes its ideas are the solution. The relationship between government policy, business viability, employment, benefits and so on, has never been clearly understood. If it was, there would be a definite agreed upon plan. In other words there is no science or much practical knowledge here, only opinion that has not been adequately sorted out by definitive test, and manipulation to keep one's ideological bedfellows in a job. There have been good times under Democrats and good times under Republicans, and the reverse. But they both want to keep their jobs too, and that might be a conflict as well. Should a public servant sacrifice his public trust to keep his or her job? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@...> wrote: > > > > "Our top political priority over the next two years > should be to deny President Obama a second term in office." > > ~~Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, October 2010 > http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44688.html > <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44688.html> > > > > To those of us observing, this comes as no surprise. A year ago I wrote > about it here > <http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/corporations-sit-18-trillion-until-the\ > y-get> , and expanded on it here > <http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/corporate-ceos-teach-economic-catch-22\ > -boog> , here > <http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/us-chamber-commerce-committing-treason\ > > and here > <http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/mark-kirks-bejing-fundraiser> . > > And now, Senator Schumer has hammered that home in this speech at EPI > <http://www.epi.org/pages/7254/> . > > And we need to start asking ourselves an uncomfortable question � > are Republicans slowing down the recovery on purpose for political gain > in 2012? It's one thing for them to block programs they have always > opposed. But when they start to contradict themselves by opposing > programs they have supported�such as pro-business tax cuts�we > are left to wonder. > > Let's not forget � Senator McConnell made it clear last October that > his number one priority, above everything else, is to defeat President > Obama. > > And now it is becoming clear that insisting on a slash-and-burn > approach may be part of this plan � it has a double-benefit for > Republicans: it is ideologically tidy and it undermines the economic > recovery, which they think only helps them in 2012. > > The result is that Republicans aren`t just opposing the President > any more. They are opposing the economic recovery itself � and all > that means for America's working and middle class families. > > It's about damn time someone called the naked emperor out. I am so > tired of hearing the press memes about Obama this, Obama that, and how > it's all going to land on the head of Obama. No. These crazy lunatics on > the right are colluding with their corporate brothers to bring down > this economy with the assistance of the media. > > During the Bush administration the debt ceiling had to be raised > several times. Note the difference in how it was covered > <http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=2006+debt+ceili\ > ng#q=debt+ceiling+vote&hl=en&newwindow=1&sa=X&tbs=tl:1,tl_num:50,tll:200\ > 2/01,tlh:2002/12&prmd=ivns&ei=V-sMTszhJ6LmiALYua31DQ&ved=0CDsQyQEoAw&bav\ > =on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=2c63c615173ea9f3&biw=1296&bih=647> from > 2001-2008. > > > The Beltway media was certainly willing to report an increase as a > 'painful vote', but not one in question. There was never any question > that the debt ceiling would be increased then. The only question then > was whether the debt ceiling would be raised while the Bush tax cuts > were cemented in at the same time. They were. > > If we could possibly get the media to actually report what Republicans > are doing -- bankrupting the country, stalling any economic growth for > short-term Republican gains, keeping unemployment rates high by > decimating the ranks of government employees, and more -- maybe there > would be an opportunity to move past the stupid finger-pointing into > some thoughtful debate about how wrong it is to keep tax rates low while > the entire country suffers as a result. > > > http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/republicans-are-intentionally-sabotagin\ > g-ec > <http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/republicans-are-intentionally-sabotagi\ > ng-ec> >
