POLL: Are Republicans intentionally hurting the economy?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Are Republicans intentionally hurting the economy?

  • Of course they are.

  • No they aren't.


Results are only viewable after voting.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
You're basing this entire premise on the Democrat group-think that the government runs the economy. That government should choose winners and losers by doling out all the cash in the economy to make up for economic downturns, deficits be damned.

From where we stand your "solutions" ARE the problem. The cost of what you're doing now, what you continue to propose to do ad infinitum is a greater threat to our people and our economy.

We fight stimulus.

Funny that. Repubs didn't fight stimulus when RR was prez, tripled the debt, or when GWB doubled it. Deficits didn't matter when they came as the result of elective wars & fat cat tax cuts rather than as the result of massive inequality & unemployment brought on by their own policies.

It's obviously "different" when the uber rich benefit from deficits rather than the little people.

It's even more different in a depressed economy, where holders of wealth & enormous liquidity enjoy more than their usual advantages. If they could just invoke some deflation, they could really put the bone to the rest of us. Wouldn't it be great if your money gained purchasing power stuffed into your mattress, and if every dollar of interest, debt repayment & economic rents you collected was worth more than the last one? It'd really be great if there weren't a whole lot of other opportunities because of low demand, wouldn't it?

Oh, Baby! Oh Squirt! That's economic safety & more power all rolled into one! The harder you beat 'em down, the greater your advantage becomes, until they're all your hostages, all held in thrall by the emotionally appealing circuses you create & the small amounts of bread you distribute.

The only thing standing in your way is democracy, the govt of the people, so if you can prevent them from being effective, prevent them from diluting the power of your money with redistribution, creating more money and by taxing your income, you'll get what you want- Plutocracy.

After stacking the deck for 30 years, all you need to accomplish that is 41 votes in the US senate. You don't need to be concerned about the other 300M Americans if you have those 41 guys in your pocket, or even better, if they actually believe your bullshit. The only real issue is keeping them in office and your propaganda is so effective that the chumps & rubes will probably keep electing them.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Even if we go by senators and governors and such, Republicans usually represent the poor places. And yet somehow we're supposed to think that their policies from poor places are actually good? Fuck that. Republican strongholds are poor because Republican policy makes you poor.

Well, yeh, but the important part is that Repub policy makes a very, very few people immensely wealthy & powerful. That's the whole point of it- to protect & enhance the power of Wealth.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
The hacks on the left will say Republicans are out to tank the economy and the hacks on the right will say Democrats are.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,444
10,333
136
They have no shame and talk about entitlement, they think they are entitled to impose their ideology no matter who won the election.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,441
6,091
126
Well what would you expect from democrat shills? They dont care about the real issues

Asshole One, come in Asshole One, this is Asshole Two responding: "What do you expect from democrat shills? They don't care about real issues" Do you copy Asshole One? This is Asshole Two, do you copy?
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Yes. If the eye-opener with Mitch McConnell doesn't bring the punitive nature of the GOP into the light, there's not much more that will....
 
Last edited:

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,444
10,333
136
Funny that. Repubs didn't fight stimulus when RR was prez, tripled the debt, or when GWB doubled it. Deficits didn't matter when they came as the result of elective wars & fat cat tax cuts rather than as the result of massive inequality & unemployment brought on by their own policies.

It's obviously "different" when the uber rich benefit from deficits rather than the little people.

It's even more different in a depressed economy, where holders of wealth & enormous liquidity enjoy more than their usual advantages. If they could just invoke some deflation, they could really put the bone to the rest of us. Wouldn't it be great if your money gained purchasing power stuffed into your mattress, and if every dollar of interest, debt repayment & economic rents you collected was worth more than the last one? It'd really be great if there weren't a whole lot of other opportunities because of low demand, wouldn't it?

Oh, Baby! Oh Squirt! That's economic safety & more power all rolled into one! The harder you beat 'em down, the greater your advantage becomes, until they're all your hostages, all held in thrall by the emotionally appealing circuses you create & the small amounts of bread you distribute.

The only thing standing in your way is democracy, the govt of the people, so if you can prevent them from being effective, prevent them from diluting the power of your money with redistribution, creating more money and by taxing your income, you'll get what you want- Plutocracy.

After stacking the deck for 30 years, all you need to accomplish that is 41 votes in the US senate. You don't need to be concerned about the other 300M Americans if you have those 41 guys in your pocket, or even better, if they actually believe your bullshit. The only real issue is keeping them in office and your propaganda is so effective that the chumps & rubes will probably keep electing them.

They've played the american people with the bullshit for the last 30 years,

Here's the summary:

The Two Santa Claus Theory

The Two Santa Claus Theory is a political theory and strategy published by Wanniski in 1976, which he promoted within the United States Republican Party.[9][10]

According to Wanniski, the theory is simple. In 1976, he wrote that the Two-Santa Claus Theory suggests that "the Republicans should concentrate on tax-rate reduction. As they succeed in expanding incentives to produce, they will move the economy back to full employment and thereby reduce social pressures for public spending. Just as an increase in Government spending inevitably means taxes must be raised, a cut in tax rates—by expanding the private sector—will diminish the relative size of the public sector."[10] Wanniski suggested this position, as Thom Hartmann has clarified, so that the Democrats would "have to be anti-Santas by raising taxes, or anti-Santas by cutting spending. Either one would lose them elections."[11]

The theory states that in democratic elections, if Democrats appeal to voters by proposing more spending, then the Republicans cannot gain broader appeal by proposing less spending. The first "Santa Claus" of the theory title refers to the Democratic party which promises spending. The "Two Santa Claus Theory" recommends that the Republican party must assume the role of a second Santa Claus by not arguing to cut spending but rather offering the option of cutting taxes.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Republicans are trying to save the economy from the socialist in the White House, even if they have to destroy it to do it.

kelly_pogo_earthday.jpg
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Asshole One, come in Asshole One, this is Asshole Two responding: "What do you expect from democrat shills? They don't care about real issues" Do you copy Asshole One? This is Asshole Two, do you copy?

Looks like the leftist is angry when proven they are wrong. :D
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
First of all when was the last time that the president or the senate submitted a budget like they are suppose to do? Isnt it the job of the president to have an approved budget? It is a failure on the part of the President to not be able to come to agreement on a budget. If he cant do this he is a failure at his job. Do most leaders make ultimatums and then when things dont go their way blame the other party? Is that a leader or a spoiled brat?

The president just keeps increasing the spending and borrowing more and more money on the backs of the tax payers. If he gets a tax increase he will just spend more and more and more.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Republicans are already posturing to save the economy again like they did the last time the debt ceiling was hit under that free-spending socialist Obama.
"Here is where the president will have a rude awakening," Graham said. "In February or March, you have to raise the debt ceiling. I can tell you this, there is a hardening on the Republican side. We're not going to raise the debt ceiling. We're not going to let Obama borrow anymore money or any American congress borrow anymore money until we fix this country from becoming Greece. That requires significant entitlement."
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/graham-obama-will-have-rude-awakening-over-debt
Republicans will not let us become like Greece, even if they have to default on our loans to do it!
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,341
28,618
136

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,444
10,333
136
Haha if the GOP forces a default it will be the end of their party even sooner.

Geez, those clowns have short memory spans. The polls showed the last time they pulled this bullshit that the Republicans were blamed.

Keep digging guys.