Thursday, June 24, 2010

Steve Benen Finally Gets The GOP Plan

Scorched Earth 101 seems simple enough to me and anyone else who's been reading for the last, oh, eighteen months, but even beltway inside types like Benen are starting to finally notice that the Republicans don't give a damn if the economy collapses as long as they can blame Obama.
For weeks, Senate Democrats have tried to pass what's called the "tax-extenders bill" -- a key economic package that extends unemployment benefits, maintains popular tax breaks, protects doctors from Medicare cuts, and boosts state aid to prevent massive job layoffs in the states. The country needs this bill to pass, but Republicans won't let it come up for a vote.


In the hopes of finding a compromise, Dems have repeatedly scaled-back the measure, watering it down and removing worthwhile investments. The GOP has responded by insisting the reductions aren't enough, and that they still won't allow a vote.
It now appears Republicans are going to win this fight -- and Americans will lose.
What's the downside for the Republicans here for not cooperating?  Nobody's assessing any penalties so far.  But it finally looks like somebody starting to.
In the real world, this means millions of jobless Americans will lose their already-modest benefits, and hundreds of thousands of workers will be laid off over the next year, including teachers, police officers, and firefighters. All of this will happen because Republicans are more concerned about the deficit -- a deficit they created under Bush/Cheney -- than the economy.

It's unpleasant to think about, and I really hope it's not true, but it may be time for a discussion about whether GOP lawmakers are trying to deliberately sabotage the economy to help their midterm election strategy. After all, these same Republicans have supported deficit-financed tax-extenders before -- there's no credible reason to change course now. On the contrary, with the economy struggling to break through, the need for this package is more obvious, not less, if your goal is to actually improve economic conditions.
Really?  Why would Republicans want to improve economic conditions with a Democrat they can blame in the White House and midterm elections they want to win?  Why would they ever allow any legislation at all to pass at this point when they can filibuster everything and say "The Democrats failed!  Government has failed!  Vote for us!"

It's probably far too late for Benen to be sounding this alarm here, but it should be at least noted.  the Republican Party does not want the economy to improve.  They want to win.  Those are mutually exclusive things to Republicans.

5 comments:

In Ur Blog Eatin Waffles (Accept no fail imitations) said...

"protects doctors from Medicare cuts"
We've been over this, if you've been paying attention. The Democrats and yourself threw the so called savings of HCR in everyone's face. Now they're holding you to it and you're throwing a fit.

"a deficit they created under Bush/Cheney" -
Durbin tried pulling a line similar. But let's make sure we're looking at the whole picture here.

Now did the debt go from $5.629-$9.986 trillion? Yes.

What has Obama done with it? Ballooned it up to over $13 trillion.

So wait, in a little over one year Obama has done almost as much as GWB did in 8? Hows that hope and change working out for ya again?

Now I do agree the GOP will not go out of their way to assist in making things better right now. They're politicians, and they know the Dems will jump to take credit if things get better regardless of if its bi-partisan. It's sad that an election is more important than the country's well being.

Zandar said...

I've already gone over the fact that while the deficit has gone up under Obama as a necessity, the reason why is that we're paying for Bush's wars, Bush's Medicare drug benefit, and lost revenue from Bush's tax cuts...and let's not forget the bank bailout. That wasn't Obama who signed that one into law.

Obama's additions to the debt include the stimulus package ($800 billion) supplemental war spending for 2010 in Afghanistan and Iraq, and some of the health care reform provisions that have gone into effect. His contribution is about $1.2 trillion that his policies are responsible for, not the full $4 trillion. In the same manner should Obama not be President in 2014 when the real health care provisions kick in, it will not be his successor's policies that create what happens there.

If you're going to throw around Politifact numbers, do so in a fair way. Yes, Durbin was technically wrong...but it's just as wrong to say that Obama's policies created all the debt increase since he took office, either.

In Ur Blog Eatin Waffles (Accept no fail imitations) said...

gone up under Obama as a necessity
yes, it was utterly necessary to spend to spend each and every dime he has spent... How long have we been at war? The war must have gotten much more expensive under Obama.../rollseyes

Yes he inherited almost 3 trillion...

SteveARSE said...

yeah, wut waffles said! never mind that he ignored every valid point you made or pretended that you didn't make them. he's not a dishonest debater, it's just that when he doesn't like facts, he ignores them! fail zandar! fail obama! fail liberals!

now i'm going over to the reason website, where i agree with everything they post and i'm just a head noddin' little puppy who never causes any trouble whatsoever.

In Ur Blog Eatin Waffles (Accept no fail imitations) said...

Actually through sarcasm I addressed every point.

Try and keep up

Related Posts with Thumbnails