Governor says what we all think: GOP Wants economy to fail

[Crossroads Inc.]

From Yahoo News

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The head of the Democratic Governors Association accused GOP debt negotiators in Washington of trying to undermine the economy so President Barack Obama will lose his re-election bid next year.
Hogwash, responded Republicans.

But the charge from Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley is evidence of the political nervousness among Democratic governors looking ahead to 2012 after their ranks were thinned in the last election.

It also hints at the tenuous control the president has over jobs and the economy, the issues certain to dominate the elections.
At this weekend's meeting of the National Governors Association, O'Malley has said Republican governors should urge GOP lawmakers to make a deal with Obama to increase the government's borrowing limit before the Aug. 2 deadline when U.S. faces a financial default.
The Republicans seem to be led by uncompromising hard-liners, he said, singling out House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., for criticism.

"I think that there is an extreme wing within their party who have as their primary goal not the jobs recovery, but the defeat of President Obama in 2012," O'Malley said in an interview. "They know that their formulations, their policies of less revenues and less regulation badly failed our country and plunged us into this recession. So their only way of evening the playing field is to keep the president from being successful in the jobs recovery."

He contended that key Republican members of Congress, "through their intransigence, cleverly set up a situation for America's economy to fail, either by needlessly driving us to default, or needlessly driving us into massive public sector layoffs."

"I think that they are disgracefully cynical," said O'Malley, who has a prominent profile as head of the Democratic governors' group.
Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said "jobs and our economy are serious issues, and that kind of unhinged partisan rant doesn't help. We're focused on doing everything we can to help the economy grow by cutting red tape, increasing the supply of American energy, and ending the out-of-control spending spree in Washington."

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell's office did not directly respond to O'Malley's remarks. But the Kentucky lawmaker's office noted that Obama, while a senator in 2006, voted against raising the debt ceiling and accused Republicans of "leadership failure."
O'Malley, who some believe has national aspirations for 2016, acknowledged that it's rare for one elected official to accuse others of trying to hurt Americans for political gain.

"For eight years under George W. Bush, you never heard a peep from any of these most intransigent House members about the deficit that was being racked up by President Bush. Many of the same people who are claiming that there's no possible way that they can vote to raise the debt ceiling are people that voted to raise it in the past," the governor said.

O'Malley spoke openly about something that has troubled top Democrats for months. With unemployment at 9.2 percent, a further decline in the economy could make it difficult for any president to win a second term. The president has limited ability to control the economy, especially with Republicans running the House.

House Republicans have rejected Obama's demands for tax increases on the rich in exchange for deep spending cuts. That's in keeping with a no-new-tax pledge that most GOP lawmakers have signed in recent years.

O'Malley says their ulterior motive is to promote an economic downturn by blocking a resolution of the debt ceiling crisis or by slashing government spending so deeply that hundreds of thousands of people will lose their jobs.

Of course, a sour economy could hurt some Republican incumbents too. But politicians think presidents and governors get the most blame for bad economies, and only a handful of GOP governors might be seeking reelection next year.

Obama's campaign aides are keenly aware that the economy could worsen, and they want to focus the 2012 election on GOP weaknesses, not the president's stewardship of the economy.

Even with the Republican nomination far from settled, Obama's advisers have begun criticizing the records of various contenders, including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

They are prepared to run a campaign that essentially says: You may be unhappy with Obama, but the alternative would be worse.
Republican governors reject O'Malley's claims and say they want a stronger economy. But they agree that Obama's re-election hopes ride on that issue, and the president may be in trouble.

"If the election is about Obama's policies and the effects of those policies, he'll lose," said Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who contemplated challenging Obama. "Campaigns are supposed to be about an incumbent's record."

Gov. Terry Branstad, R-Iowa, defended the Republican debt negotiators, especially Cantor. Obama carried Iowa easily in 2008, after winning the Democratic caucus. But leaders of both parties expect a highly competitive race there next year.

"We launched him," Branstad said of Obama, "but we can sink him.

We often joke about it, but it is worth remembering that there does seem to be a growing right wing fringe that would gladly see this country burn economically if it meant the end of Obama in 2012.

[Darth Fanboy]

As i've said to other members on this board, I agree that the Republicans are generally doing a disservice the country. But posting an article with a thread title based on your opinion rather than the article is horseshit. This is a News section not "Crossroads Opinion forum where he infodumps and article and his entire commentary is barely one line that amounts to SEE GUYS WE ARE ALWAYS RIGHT."

Nowhere in that article does it indicate that Republicans want the economy to fail, just an accusation by a Democratic governor that they are doing so. Don't stoop to their level by latching on to baseless accusations as fact and then clinging to it dogmatically. While I disagree with their methods, the Republicans aren't trying to deliberately undermine the economy, they believe (mistakenly so in my opinion) that cutting spending is the way to solve the budget problem so that taxes can stay low because their constituents want to have their cake and eat it too (mistakenly so in my opinion).

Why they didn't do this to Bush? It's pretty simple, even those who disagreed wanted to keep a united public front to avoid an ugly spat that would either isolate them from the rest of the party (you don't undermine your side's most prominent figure if getting re-elected is your problem) or at worst do anything to cause a schism and allow the other guy to get in charge.

[Flagg]

Mitch McConnel has said repeatedly that his number one goal is to make Barak Obama a 1 term president. Add to that their backing away from their own economic proposals at every turn once Obama agrees to meet them and it's clear that at the very least they want the economy to stay as it is and at worst want it to tank to meet their stated goals.

[Dominus Atheos]

My god, could you be any more of a douchey little bitch? You want quotes? Fine, here are quotes:

Source [Rep. Devin Nunes R-Calif] says the debt cap must be raised at some point but not necessarily before the point of default.

“By defaulting on the debt, in the short and long term, it could benefit us to go through a period of crisis that forces politicians to make decisions” on major policies that affect the budget, he told POLITICO[/url].

Republican Congressman Phil Gingrey of Georgia says he'll vote against raising the debt limit because nothing bad will happen if we don't:

The country doesn’t go off a cliff [if debt ceiling not raised] because revenues come in, tax revenue, and we just simply prioritize. We pay the interest on the debt first, we make sure that seniors get their Social Security checks, and we honor Medicare. But when we get to discretionary spending, whether that’s the Department of Education as an example, or the Department of Commerce, then, all the sudden, we reach in the hat and we decide who [unintelligible].

Crawford, a freshman legislator, said that the president could cope with a full stop on U.S. borrowing by using incoming tax revenue to pay for the services he thinks are essential — soldiers, Medicare and Social Security, and interest on existing debt.

...

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), another freshman, said that a much bigger fear was that raising the debt ceiling would enable Washington to spend itself into paralyzing debt in a few years.

“A debt-ceiling problem, as large as it is, is not anywhere near as a big or as bad as” that, Brooks said. If Aug. 2 arrives without a deal, Brooks said, the federal government could continue paying creditors. He said that a show of tough fiscal self-discipline could actually improve creditors’ confidence.

“There should be no default on August 2,” Brooks said. “In fact, our credit rating should be improved by not raising the debt ceiling.”

[Erick Erickson] tweets that this post of his is being passed around the House GOP's caucus meeting. Hey, lots of things are passed around at meetings. Let's just hope no one takes this seriously, because it's totally incoherent.

Should the United States lose its bond rating, it will be called the “Obama Depression”. Congress does not get pinned with this stuff.

Who actually thinks this? The polling suggests that people will blame Republicans if we lose our bond rating, because 1) Republicans demanded that this vote be used to get leverage and 2) have insisted that nothing will happen if the limit isn't raised. To wit, here's, uh, Erick Erickson.

When Ben Bernanke brings the Grim Reaper in on August 1st to tell you we are all going to die, you must mock death and choose life.

So the Republicans won't get blamed for a downgrade even though they spent eight months politicizing it and saying it didn't matter?

By the end of July, Goldman Sachs, Ben Bernanke, and Timmy Geithner are going to tell you the world will end unless you raise the debt ceiling.

They did it with TARP too.

Notice how 66% of Republicans say they would rather have the government default then raise the debt limit?

[Darth Fanboy]

Another useless DA post that misses the point. I am not arguing they are wrong, but nobody has proven malicious intent towards the economy or the US government outside of personal opinion and information that only shows one glaringly obvious point that they disagree with Democrats. How shocking.

Why is it that we feel the need to do pointless circle jerking and demonizingof the right, I think the leftist stance can stand on its own merit without resorting to this.

[Flagg]

[Erick Erickson] tweets that this post of his is being passed around the House GOP's caucus meeting. Hey, lots of things are passed around at meetings. Let's just hope no one takes this seriously, because it's totally incoherent.

Should the United States lose its bond rating, it will be called the “Obama Depression”. Congress does not get pinned with this stuff.

Should the United States lose its bond rating, it will be called the “Obama Depression”. Congress does not get pinned with this stuff.

Should the United States lose its bond rating, it will be called the “Obama Depression”. Congress does not get pinned with this stuff.

“Obama Depression”

Not half as useless as you would think.

[Darth Fanboy]

Flagg sleazy political attacks on Obama do not equate with plotting for the downfall of the American government.

[Flagg]

Flagg sleazy political attacks on Obama do not equate with plotting for the downfall of the American government.

The downfall of the American economy, not the government, all for political gain.

[Darth Fanboy]

Except they genuinely think that they are solving the problem with their alternative. That you think they are wrong and that their outcome would be bad for the US does not mean they have malicious intent.

[Flagg]

Right, that's why the Republican leader of the Senate says his priority is to defeat Obama in 2012. That's why every single Republican proposition that Obama has agreed to has been rebuked by the very Republicans who proposed it. That's why we have a guy on record as stating that he doesn't care if the US defaults because it will be "Obama's Depression".

[Darth Fanboy]

Right, that's why the Republican leader of the Senate says his priority is to defeat Obama in 2012. That's why every single Republican proposition that Obama has agreed to has been rebuked by the very Republicans who proposed it. That's why we have a guy on record as stating that he doesn't care if the US defaults because it will be "Obama's Depression".

A republican wants his party to beat a sitting Democratic president? Republicans and Democrats disagreeing on issues? Holy shit I hope the sky doesn't turn blue.

And you're going to continue to try and use a right wing blogger's quote as evidence that the Republicans in office or the GOP as a whole are plotting the downfall of the economy?

[Edi]

Whether they're twirling their mustaches and laughing maniacally like comic book villains or simply too stupid with their heads too far up their arses to see anything, it doesn't make a lick of difference, Fanboy. The end result is going to be the same and many of them are on record saying they're more or less doing this specifically in order to destroy Obama. That's regardless of the consequences and the majority of Republicans in the House of Representatives has made a stand on not compromising one cent. Regardless of the consequences, which they have been told about.

Does that qualify as evidence for you, or are you going to keep on shifting those goalposts? What do you want next, a sworn affidavit signed by every single Republican office holder in the entire country?

[Darth Fanboy]

I've never shifted goalposts, and I certainly would agree with people I have been debating that the GOP is not pursuing a course of action that will ultimately help what ails this country.

However, blindly labeling and demonizing the other side is a tactic thatthe right has done for years and is despicable. Just because I happen to lean left does not mean I support it when someone I agree with engages in such dishonesty. Accusations of ignorance and/or incompetence would be far more accurate in this case. Furthermore the active and deliberate sabotage of a nation is a pretty serious accusation. I recall too often of times after 9/11 when these accusations were lobbed by the right towards people who did not support Bush's policies. It was bad then and it is still bad now no matter who engages in it.

As I have previously said there is no reason to resort to such low integrity tactics like falsely demonizing someone, especially when you would want your own opinion to stand on its merits. While I respect you greatly Edi I find it difficult to believe that if the roles were reversed and a conservative poster made such a blatant maneuver as Crossroads has in this thread you would not be so quick to offer a defense. I believe that honesty is too readily discarded, and that there is little to gain from a poorly labeled thread that serves as nothing more than an attempt to be one of N&Ps liberal cool kids.

Besides why would I ask Republicans for affadavits when its the Democrats in this case making unfounded claims.

[Edi]

Republican incentive to not raise debt ceiling. That's a pretty good article, especially the latter portion of it that discusses at length why many Republicans are not going to face any electoral consequences for letting things crash and burn.

Probably it's a case of them accepting nothing except what they want to hear and reality be damned, but some of them are showing signs in their statements they are willing to pay any price to force their ideology on everyone else. They don't care, as long as they themselves don't have to suffer the consequences. That looks pretty much like deliberate sabotage in my book and their double standard when many of the same people didn't bat an eyelash at raising the limits for Shrubby just reinforces that view.

As far as this thread goes, I think everyone knows that Crossroads is a moron who doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about, though he may sometimes get things right by sheer mistake. Flagg has it correct that the Republicans have done nothing but obstruct anything and everything as much as possible ever since Obama was elected, and that pattern still holds true.

At that point a right wing blogger's quote is just the garnish on the shit sandwich the Republicans have been consciously forcing on America. The current situation has no resemblance to any kind of good faith attempt at representative democracy aimed at fostering the good of everyone in the country. It does not lend itself very much to giving the Republican establishment much benefit of the doubt. There is no need to demonize them, since they pretty much do that themselves with their own rhetoric and actions.

Of course, there is not much reason to give the Democrats (Obama especially) any props for any kind of competence either, which is why things have gotten this far.

[Civil War Man]

This is just me throwing out my opinion, so take it for what you will, but I agree with Fanboy. I find it far more likely that the obstructionists do not comprehend or are severely underestimating either the extent of the damage a debt default would do to both the US and world economies, how difficult it would be to clean up the mess resulting from a default, or both.

Most countries that develop nuclear weapons have no intention of using them. Getting nukes is a good way for leaders to stay in power and graduate their countries to the Big Boy's Club. Using nukes is a good way for leaders to lose power as their country gets transformed into a crater by either nuclear or conventional retaliation.

Say what you will about the intelligence of various Republicans, but those with a better understanding of the ramifications of a debt default are smart enough to know the risks of causing one.

I figure people like McConnell and Boehner would actually probably rank the possible outcomes like this, from most to least desirable:
1. No default, Republican wins in 2012
2. No default, Obama wins in 2012
3. Default, Republican wins in 2012
4. Default, Obama wins in 2012

Most of the hardline talk you hear from them are their attempts to stay on the good side of the right wing, because they have inevitably tried to reassure people that they will do whatever is necessary to prevent a default whenever the Tea Party isn't listening. They are trying to protect their jobs first and foremost, and making Obama a one-term president is no good for them if they also risk having their terms end in 2012, too.

[Simon_Jester]

The problem is that talking about what "the Republican Party wants" ever since 2010 has been very difficult: which party? Who defines what "Republicans" want- is it their party leaders, the people who vote in their primaries, or what?

There is a dangerously influential Republican voter bloc, one which seemingly all Republican politicians must appease, who would switch options (2) and (3) in your ranking: they would rather have a Republican win post-default than have Obama win without a default, because by definition Obama in the White House is a disaster, and by definition having a Proper Republican in office means nothing can be truly wrong.

I'm sure nearly all of them would rather have no default than default, all else being equal... but there's so much posturing and bravado and "bring it on!" nonsense mixed in with it that they're likely to lead us to a default by, well... by default.

So the fact that the leaders understand just how disastrous a default would be, and would rather be in opposition in a country with a good credit rating than be ruling a country with a bad one- how much does that matter, unless in the next few weeks they find the personal honor to take a massive political risk and 'fold' in the eyes of the people egging them on over the cliff?

[Darth Fanboy]

As far as this thread goes, I think everyone knows that Crossroads is a moron who doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about, though he may sometimes get things right by sheer mistake. Flagg has it correct that the Republicans have done nothing but obstruct anything and everything as much as possible ever since Obama was elected, and that pattern still holds true.

At that point a right wing blogger's quote is just the garnish on the shit sandwich the Republicans have been consciously forcing on America. The current situation has no resemblance to any kind of good faith attempt at representative democracy aimed at fostering the good of everyone in the country. It does not lend itself very much to giving the Republican establishment much benefit of the doubt. There is no need to demonize them, since they pretty much do that themselves with their own rhetoric and actions.

Of course, there is not much reason to give the Democrats (Obama especially) any props for any kind of competence either, which is why things have gotten this far.

We basically agree on everything in this part it seems to me, I will even agree it is very difficult to give anyone involved in the far right any sort of benefit of the doubt. However, there is absolutely nothing to gain and perhaps even something to lose by baselessly accusing Republicans of actively/blatantly trying to sabotage the economy and/or government. As I said earlier, this was rampant after 9/11 when Democrats went up in opposition to Bush, and I would wager that people on this forum on the left did not appreciate the baseless accusations of trying to sabotage the American government. Do the Republicans deserve courtesy? No more than the bare minimum that is necessary in my opinion, but that does not justify lying. Especially if it is lying to try and improve your standing with other people who share your own beliefs, I'm more impressed with someone who actually does something other than just bluster.

I will say also that while the argument outlines why some in the GOP see a debt default as less of a problem than it actually would be, it also states that more sensible minded members of the GOP will not allow it to happen.

And the leadership would be right to call it a pretty good deal, at least from a Republican standpoint. The details aren't finalized, but as Andrew Leonard explained earlier, there's a growing consensus that the GOP's leadership will ultimately sign off on a plan that would allow President Obama to raise the debt ceiling three times in the next year -- in exchange for $1 trillion in immediate cuts, the ability to pass a resolution of disapproval every time Obama raises the ceiling, and the creation of a commission that would propose a package of further cuts that Congress would be forced to vote on (with no filibusters or amendments). Politically, it's hard to see much downside in this arrangement for Republicans.

[Civil War Man]

The rankings I guessed were specifically for veteran Republicans like Boehner and McConnell. There's little guessing what the freshman Republicans would be like.

Some might view it like the veterans, where the number one priority is to get themselves reelected, and so would view a two-term Obama with them guaranteed to keep their seat to be preferable to a one-term Obama with a 50-50 chance of their own reelection.

Some might be hardliners about the debt ceiling because they do not understand how routine debt ceiling increases have become, or because the extent of their economics experience is reading the YTD statement on their paychecks.

I doubt there are many, if any, who would knowingly and willingly watch the country burn just to get Obama out of office. They'd basically be torching a used car so they could get a discount on buying that same car.

In general, my view is that most of the Republicans are either blowing smoke to pacify the people responsible for voting them into office, or legitimately don't understand the consequences of a debt default. The former will try to get a backroom deal where they'd be able to try to claim credit if things turned around, but could pass it off on Obama if things stayed bad (see McConnell's attempt at a weasel solution where they could allow Obama to raise the debt ceiling by voting against it, so they can tell their constituents they voted against it). The latter probably wouldn't even vote for a debt ceiling increase if Obama tried to pull some reverse psychology and gave a speech about changing his mind about the debt ceiling.

[aerius]

This is just me throwing out my opinion, so take it for what you will, but I agree with Fanboy. I find it far more likely that the obstructionists do not comprehend or are severely underestimating either the extent of the damage a debt default would do to both the US and world economies, how difficult it would be to clean up the mess resulting from a default, or both.

There's another possibility, Republicans believe that a debt default is inevitable in the not too distant future, so they'd rather have it happen now while things are still relatively under control rather than let things get out of countrol and have outside factors force a default on the US as has happened to Iceland, Ireland, and Greece. Might as well go for a controlled crash landing in the farmer's field instead of crashing the plane into the mountains and killing everyone. Or, better that it happens to Obama now than to us if we get elected.

[Civil War Man]

There's another possibility, Republicans believe that a debt default is inevitable in the not too distant future, so they'd rather have it happen now while things are still relatively under control rather than let things get out of countrol and have outside factors force a default on the US as has happened to Iceland, Ireland, and Greece. Might as well go for a controlled crash landing in the farmer's field instead of crashing the plane into the mountains and killing everyone. Or, better that it happens to Obama now than to us if we get elected.

That could be another possibility, but it seems that those who are opposing the ceiling increase on principle are claiming that the plane isn't crashing. Or that once it crashes they'd be able to magically reassemble the plane in the middle of that field and make it good as new (or better), instead of a Flight of the Phoenix-like hackjob monstrosity.

[Zaune]

There's another possibility, Republicans believe that a debt default is inevitable in the not too distant future, so they'd rather have it happen now while things are still relatively under control rather than let things get out of countrol and have outside factors force a default on the US as has happened to Iceland, Ireland, and Greece. Might as well go for a controlled crash landing in the farmer's field instead of crashing the plane into the mountains and killing everyone. Or, better that it happens to Obama now than to us if we get elected.

There's a third possibility, of course. That they are in a position to survive the default relatively unscathed, or even profit from it, and believe that they personally will lose more by preventing it. And the millions of less-fortunate people who will be reduced to wage-slavery or worse by it? Well, sucks to be them.