Political bits
(Politico) According to the Republicans' new best friend, Politico, Jindal is going to refuse some Stim money, unemployment of all things, because he claims that will lead to greater unemployment taxes 5 years from now.
(Politico) The RNC gave Norm Coleman $250,000.
(Reuters) NY Gov Patterson is still dealing with Caroline Kennedy politics.
And, (CNN) Chandra Levy has been solved? (Maybe the WaPo wasn't crazy for running that giant series.)
(Politico) The RNC gave Norm Coleman $250,000.
(Reuters) NY Gov Patterson is still dealing with Caroline Kennedy politics.
And, (CNN) Chandra Levy has been solved? (Maybe the WaPo wasn't crazy for running that giant series.)
posted by mikevotes at
6:17 AM
6 Comments:
Insofar as emotion and "confidence" are a huge part of free market behavior, I'd go so far as to say the GOP assault on the recovery package and the incessant talking down of all efforts to stabilize both financial markets and job markets is making things measurably worse.
The GOP is not only hoping all attempts to improve the economy fail, they are doing all they can to sabotage the process. The moral vacancy of these people is of Biblical (burn in hell) proportions. I'd rather, of course, the be held to account in the earthly realm.
By
-epm, at 9:29 AM
I tend to agree, but I'm hesitant to charge that. It sounds an awful lot like that "Democrats are losing the war talk awhile" back.
Although, there are a few on the right explicitly saying they hope it fails, and that's a different matter.
By
mikevotes, at 12:58 PM
Jindal's reasons for refusing the stimulus money are ridiculous:
But it is not clear why participating in the expanded unemployment insurance program would result in tax increases for business. By Jindal’s own estimate, the recovery package would have funded his state’s unemployment expansion for three years, at which point the state could — if it chose to do so — phase out the program.
Also, I don't see a strong parallel between the "hope Obama fails" and "Dems are losing the war" talking points. The latter was simply nothing more than "magical thinking" along the lines of clapping for Peter Pan. The economic powers behind the Republicans are quite capable of "going on strike" to get a better deal, and have repeatedly done so in the past. Democrats never provided 'material support to the enemy' in the way that the Republicans are now poised to do.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 2:58 PM
Mike, I agree to a point... and I know I get a bit overwrought and pedantic at times. But, I don't think the GOP hand wringing is strictly (or nearly strictly) for political show/games whereas the Dem opposition to the war wasn't. Furthermore, the Dem criticism of the execution of the war and the Global War on Terror was based on demonstrable malfeasance on the part of the Bush admin.
The behavior of the GOP -- complete with it's lockstep voting and parrot-like regurgitation of talking points -- is in a whole different dimension. Though I great you that at a quick glance my comments deriding the GOP bear a superficial resemblance to the "The Dems are losing the war by criticizing the President's plan" stuff from way back when.
By
-epm, at 6:37 PM
Todd, Definitely. Jindal's excuse is transparently thin. I think alot of this is prepping his position for his response speech this Tue to Obama's "State of the Union."
And, you're sorta right on the Iraq/economic parallel, but there are some similarities. Certainly, US political statements play a much larger role in the confidence part of the US economy than the reality based war, and the statements against Obama's plan are very clear whereas the mainline comments about the war were much more tactics and such....
But I still see some similarities.
....
EPM, Same as above. But I would add that this is a bit different because the Repubs are doing it solely for politics.
By
mikevotes, at 7:17 AM
And, I don't really want to argue this one at length. It was just kind of an observation.
By
mikevotes, at 7:19 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home