Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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,” said Stabenow.

What will happen now? People will needlessly suffer, children will go hungry and state workers, such as teachers, firemen and police will lose their jobs, as governors try to balance their budgets without the expected state aid included in the killed bill.

---

Quote:

---

"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," Steve Benen wrote.

Do Republicans actually want the economy to fail? Greg Sargent says they just want the government to fail, and they don't care if they take out the economy in the process. Ezra Klein says they've just deceived themselves into believing that tackling the deficit is more important and responsible.

I think Republicans don't want to hurt America, but I also think they literally don't give a shit about the poor and unemployed. Philosophically, Republicans are not concerned about a huge and growing underclass of desperately impoverished people, and instinctively they just dislike the unfortunate. That's why Orrin Hatch want's to drug test the unemployed.

Republicans don't hate America, they just don't care about lots of Americans. (And many of them don't count about half of Americans as Real Americans.) They don't want the country to fail, they just don't think it counts as a failure when millions of people can't find work or afford healthcare or buy groceries.

---

Quote:

---

For all of its eloquence and admirable candor, the unusual retirement statement by Indiana's Democrat Sen. Evan Bayh also revealed a stunningly keen grasp of the obvious -- for millions of Americans watching the playground antics of the elected clowns in D.C. with bipartisan head-shaking.

"For some time," Bayh said, "I've had a growing conviction that Congress is not operating as it should. There is much too much partisanship and not enough progress; too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving. Even at a time of enormous national challenge, the people's business is not getting done."

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

As the Clinton administration ended, the United States entered the new century and decade with the strongest, most-resilient, most-adaptable, and technologically advanced economy on the face of the earth, according to an analysis by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Job growth had been enormous in the 'Roaring 90s' -- with more than 22 million jobs created in eight years. Median incomes were rising, poverty rates were at their lowest levels in decades. Business investment and new business formation were strong. The stock market was booming, capital markets were sound, and driven by the promise of new technologies, the United States was poised to enter a new phase of growth and development, with the benefits spread across its society.

The Bush administration began in 2001 with the passage of a $1.35 trillion tax cut -- a cut many economists and analysts felt was not necessary, given that the U.S. economy was already recovering from the mini 2001 recession. But the biggest problem with the tax cut was that it was tilted too much toward the rich and upper-income citizens -- Bush's political base -- and it almost guaranteed that, over time, broad-based demand would remain soft, and probably fail, in a few years.

Moreover, Bush's refusal to build on President Clinton's successful earned income tax credit (EITC) policies -- which literally lift millions of working poor / lower income adults and families out of poverty annually -- further prevented the bulk of society from benefiting as much as upper-income groups during his years.

President Bill Clinton favored the EITC because he believed that, "If you work hard, play by the rules, you ought to be able to live a decent life." President Bush disagreed with Clinton's policy, and sure enough, as his presidency continued, the decent life slipped away for many, typical citizens, including millions of working families.

Further, given a lack of legitimate engines of growth (new sectors), and the continuing march of globalization, low- to moderate-job growth -- job creation inadequate for sustainable U.S. GDP growth -- was almost guaranteed, as well, and this is exactly what transpired during the Bush years. President George W. Bush presided over the creation of fewer jobs in the U.S. economy in the modern era than any president since President Herbert Hoover, according to U.S. Labor Department data.

Further, a debt trap began to build. Excessive homeowner borrowing increased private debt, and that fact, combined with public borrowing to pay for defense spending for the Iraq War and the War on Terror -- Bush opposed tax increases to pay for the increased defense spending -- meant the United States was piling-up debt at a record rate, in just about every corner of its economy: private, public, corporate. At the end of President Clinton's presidency, the federal government was running a yearly budget surplus, and the national debt was about $6 trillion. At the end of President Bush's presidency, the national debt had grown to $10.6 trillion.

In short, Bush's tax cut massively benefited upper income citizens at the expense of both squandering the budget surplus achieved during the Clinton presidency and jeopardizing the nation's financial health.

---

Quote:

---

Further, Bush had no energy policy, preferring to 'let the market determine the price for oil' and the kinds of cars auto makers want to manufacture. Bush also opposed Democratic Party efforts to make domestic vehicles more fuel-efficient. As a result, when emerging market oil demand and investor speculation pushed oil over $80 per barrel in 2007 and then over $100 in 2008, high energy costs squeezed disposable income further, almost guaranteeing a recession. The recession appeared, starting in late 2007, aggravated if not outright triggered by the U.S.'s third oil shock in 35 years. Further, sales of less-efficient U.S. manufactured cars and SUVs slumped badly. And by the end of 2008, Detroit's auto makers, devoid of stylish, high-m.p.g. vehicles, would need a massive government loan to avoid bankruptcy.

To be sure, the oil patch states of Texas and Oklahoma boomed, but every other region of the country suffered economically during the Bush years. Further, when the housing bubble burst and hundreds of billions of mortgage-backed securities went bad, the financial crisis began, spread around the world, and the U.S. recession deepened, with corporate revenue and earnings declining and job lay-offs mounting. More than 2.6 million jobs were lost in 2008 alone, and the unemployment rate, which stood at 4.2% when President Clinton left office in January 2001, had rocketed to 7.2% in January 2009, when President Bush left office.

There were some economic successes during the 'Bush 43' era: trade ties were expanded, exports rose, and inflation remained low/moderate through his eight years. And, as noted, one segment of society (upper-income citizens) saw an increase in wealth.

But those few positives in no way blot-out the Bush Administration's many failures: scant job creation, unemployment high and rising, declining real median incomes, record budget deficits, record home foreclosures, a large trade deficit, no energy policy, no health care policy, and increasing poverty rates, among other problems.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---