Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Dems underestimate GOP strategy on unemployment

Senator Al Franken, in an interview with Think Progress, sounds the now-familiar refrain from Dems that Republicans are obstructing jobs-related legislation because they think mass economic suffering will benefit the GOP in the midterms:

"But I do think that this whole approach of slowing everything down, in many ways I think it's so that, they don't want a jobs bill because they don't want people to get jobs before the election. It's a harsh thing to say, and I don't want to impugn the motives of my colleagues, but I don't get what they're doing otherwise."

But there's more to it than this, and Dems do themselves a disservice with this analysis, which doesn't really get to the core of what Republicans are doing here. The larger Republican strategy -- explained to me privately by Republican aides -- is rooted in the fact that they believe dragging out any discussion of unemployment helps the GOP in the long run.

Republicans privately admit that the standoff over joblessness may help Dems in the short term, by allowing them to scream about how heartless Republicans are. But their larger strategy is all about casting doubt on the efficacy of the stimulus in particular and on the failure of the Dems' big-spending ways in general.

Republicans think that it feeds their larger argument, particularly among independents, if Dems continue to ask for more money to help the jobless (drawing attention to the fact that Dem spending policies have yet to fix the economy) while Republicans continue to insist that government find the money to pay for it.

This isn't about Republicans banking on mass economic suffering to help them at the polls. Rather, they're dragging out the discussion of unemployment in the belief that the public will conclude that Dem policies have failed -- and that Dems have their heads in the sand about how much money they wasted on their pie-in-the-sky liberal dream schemes.

The idea is that the argument over who has better intentions towards the unemployed will have become a sideshow to the main narrative: That Dems, whatever their intentions, have lost control of the wheel. That's the real game plan here.

By Greg Sargent  |  July 26, 2010; 2:18 PM ET
Categories:  Senate Dems , Senate Republicans , economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: No, both sides don't do what Breitbart does: Part II
Next: Senate GOP to hold hearings on Black Panther tale?

Comments

TBH, I don't think any of these small time bills will do a bit of good with how our middle class has been destroyed.

The last decade of growth prior to the crash was built on credit. People spent on credit from home equity lines of credit and other loans and money made from the bubble that was being created.

That's all gone along with all the cash people had.

Now, you've got a population that isn't spending and therefore the economy has sputtered and will grow extremely slow while American's find other ways to make money. 70% of our GDP is driven by consumer spending I believe.

With that gone, where's the growth going to come from? It'll come from somewhere eventually but at what cost and who will get the blame?

Republicans will no doubt say well, look, the Dems programs have failed. It sucks but I don't see a way out from under that unless this admin can get everyone's undivided attention for some time without the huge misinformation effort coming out of the right wing.

I hope I'm proven wrong 'cause if the American population is sold out even further to corporate interests, I'm not sure if I like the bleak future I see for this country.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | July 26, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like time to roll out full-scale class warfare.

The reason the economy is so bad is because too few people have all the money. Without higher wages and higher paying jobs, the middle class isn't coming back.

Wasn't it one of Bush's folks who noted that the best time to roll out a new "product" (Iraq War) was around the beginning of September? Just the perfect time to prime people for the elections.

Posted by: JennOfArk | July 26, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

This is just a distraction. It is a very ineffective attempt to redirect the attention of readers.

The real story here is how the machinations of the liberals and Democrats are being exposed day after day.

Mary Frances Berry said this in stark terms last week. For the Democrats hurling unfounded accusations of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.

And joblessness is a huge issue. The Democrats seem to have painted themselves in a corner. Their looting of the treasury via the stimulus bill was unpopular and to date unproductive while the American taxpayers are increasingly focused on the spending habits of the congress. The Democrats control the purse strings. People are out of work in droves. No grand strategy is necessary. All the conservatives must do is to continue to repeat the facts.

Now that the Democrats' plan A has been revealed and effectively countered, it seems that plan B is to convince America that the Republicans are the problem.

Good luck with that. Obama proved that he could fool most of the people. But even he can't do that all the time.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 26, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

They can make their "Dems caused this" argument all they want.

But everyone knows that we lost over 2 million jobs in 2008.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerpelosi/4756211992/sizes/l/in/set-72157623367757714/

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 26, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

This isn't about Republicans banking on mass economic suffering to help them at the polls. Rather, they're dragging out the discussion of unemployment in the belief that the public will conclude that Dem policies have failed -- and that Dems have their heads in the sand about how much money they wasted on their pie-in-the-sky liberal dream schemes.

==========================================

I think the Democrats will continue to attempt to portray the GOP as heartless because they don't have much else. Most people though will regard peeing away almost a trillion dollars with nothing to show for it to be really cruel and damaging. After that perhaps saying no may not be so bad after all.

Posted by: bbface21 | July 26, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

If both Democrats and Republican voters can't snap out of this ridiculous sniping back and forth while our working class gets the shaft from globalizing our work force and having to compete with countries who don't enforce labor laws, nothing will change.

It's heartbreaking to see the voters bickering over stupid crap while this countries blue collar and middle class jobs disappear.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | July 26, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

then there's this:
==================
Sounds like time to roll out full-scale class warfare.

==================

Yeah, right. The liberals have been waging full out class warfare for years. unfortunately they've lost sight of who the enemy is.

the myth that liberals cherish is that once one's income peaks above a certain point, one is instantly converted into a conservative.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Wealthy liberals are quite common now.

so go ahead liberals and wage war against yourself. After all it was the jacobins that lead robespierre to the guillotine.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 26, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama on atm.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/live/president-obama-speaks-senate-campaign-finance-reform-vote

Posted by: mikefromArlington | July 26, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

OT: Since you ran over here, ss28, I will give you a chance to respond...

Posted by: srw3 | July 26, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

@skipsailing28 : There is nothing to say to someone who refuses to see what is in front of their eyes every day.

If you don't accept the common and widely held definition of racism from the sociological literature on the subject, what is the point of addressing the other plainly false statements you made?

" the core assumption is that there is a "dominant group" and that dominant group is whitey [sic]."

Look at the world around you. Corporate boards, legislatures, etc., all of the levers of power in the US are dominated by white (overwhelming male) people. Blacks and other racial minorities are far underrepresented given their numbers in society. If all is equal as you say, then what explains the continued underrepresentation?

OTOH, prisons are overwhelmingly populated by minorities far in excess of their numbers in the population. Either, minorities are more violent and criminal than whites or some other mechanism is working to incarcerate minorities.

"We've gotten past all that stuff but liberals don't believe it."

Right. Get out of your basement and talk to actual people of color.

Why is it that your chance of getting the death penalty is much higher if you kill a white person than if you kill a black person. Why do blacks get longer sentences for the same crimes?

The statistics are there. You choose to ignore them.

"In these experiments,
typically referred to as audit studies,
researchers carefully select, match, and train individuals
(called testers) to play the part of a
job/apartment-seeker or consumer. By presenting
equally qualified individuals who differ only
by race or ethnicity, researchers can assess the
degree to which racial considerations affect access
to opportunities. Audit studies have documented
strong evidence of discrimination in
the context of employment (for a review, see
Pager 2007a), housing searches (Yinger 1995),
car sales (Ayres & Siegelman 1995), applications
for insurance(Wissoker et al. 1998), home
mortgages (Turner&Skidmore 1999), the provision
of medical care (Schulman et al. 1999),
and even in hailing taxis (Ridley et al. 1989).

For example, in a study
by Bertrand & Mullainathan (2004), the researchers
mailed equivalent resumes to employers
in Boston and Chicago using racially
identifiable names to signal race (for example,
names like Jamal and Lakisha signaled African
Americans, while Brad and Emily were associated
with whites).2 White names triggered a callback rate that was 50% higher than that of
equally qualified black applicants. Further, their
study indicated that improving the qualifications
of applicants benefited white applicants
but not blacks, thus leading to a wider racial gap
in response rates for those with higher skill.

see http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/annualreview_discrimination.pdf

Ready for your dismissal of egghead studies...

You choose to remain willfully ignorant.

It is typical (not determinative) of a racist attitude, to ignore the effect of racism on minorities.

Posted by: srw3 | July 26, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

srw3, skippy is being led around by the nose by Fake News and Limbaugh.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 26, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Al Franken's speech to Netroots Nation is worth watching. Vopod has it up in four 10-minute segments. Here's a link to the first. Look along the right-hand side for links to subsequent segments.

http://vodpod.com/watch/4092986-senator-al-franken-netroots-nation-las-vegas-pt-1

Posted by: jzap | July 26, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

It would be really nice if the GOP would stop putting politics over the economic well-being of this nation.

Say all you want about Democratic spending and it's effect on the economy, they are at least tryign to fix the problem the way they think is best. The GOP isn't arguing about how to fix the economy, they are simply employing a political strategy to try and get power.

One side is trying to fix the economy, one side is not. It's that simple.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | July 26, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

"[Dems] are at least tryign to fix the problem the way they think is best."

No, I don't think so. Among other things, I think they are trying to spend money on their natural constituencies to for future electoral advantage.

Posted by: sbj3 | July 26, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

@sbj3 : I think they are trying to spend money on their natural constituencies to for future electoral advantage.

I guess that is true if you consider that the biggest effect of the stimulus on most people was the TAX CUT FOR 95% OF ALL AMERICANS. Between this and the revision of the AMT 35-40% of the stimulus was spent on tax cuts (not my first choice, but no one listens to me). I guess SBJ3 believes that 95% of all americans are dems natural constituencies. I wonder why elections are as close as they are....[/snark]

Posted by: srw3 | July 26, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Once again, if this is the GOP strategy it's stupid. One need only look at what Rachel Maddow calls the "Bikini Graph" to see that while slowly coming back, jobs have begun to come back. Just look at the left side of this graph and you'll see that there was NO job growth until Obama took office. The Republican's ascertion that the Stimulus didn't work also flies in the face of their insistance that the Stimulus be smaller to gain any of their votes. As usual they talk out of both sides of their rear ends! Just look at this graph and tell me I'm wrong!

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/01/boehner-stimulus-one-job/

Posted by: roxsteady | July 26, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

On a lighter note, Tom Tancredo decided to not wait for the Republican primary to be over to declare he is running for Governor of Colorado on a third party ticket. Last week he demanded that both of the GOP candidates vow to drop out after the primary so that he could be appointed. Guess he's crowned himself king, or something. In any event, the Dems in Colorado will be the beneficiary of his blindness.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 26, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Whatever their game plan is, it's sickening. How can America play politics with people's lives like this? How can we sit around and discuss these notions as if it's civilized?
btw, I've been hearing great job search advice on an internet radio show at www.jobtalkamerica.com

Posted by: kcsam215 | July 26, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

HAHAHAHA...

Tom Tancredo got into a shouting match with the State GOP chairman live on the radio.

Idiots.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/tom-tancredos-bid-for-governor-yields-screaming-match-with-co-gop-chair-audio.php?ref=fpb

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 26, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I've responded twice on the original thread.

So there.

Not once,

But twice.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 26, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

"I guess that is true if you consider that the biggest effect of the stimulus on most people was the TAX CUT FOR 95% OF ALL AMERICANS."

I know that extra $14.95 per paycheck made all the difference in the world for me!

Posted by: sbj3 | July 26, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Several of the early commenters here have it right. Wages and salaries have been kept artificially low over the past 15-20 years because of competition from low-wage countries, but also because of the loss of bargaining power of American workers. Most people's incomes have been flat for 20-30 years, essentially, when you correct for inflation, with the exception of the top 2%, whose income has about tripled.

People tried to make up the difference with credit, but that is gone now, and we have low demand because most people don't have enough money. The top 1-2% have a hugely disproportionate share of the wealth in this country, and they make over 25% of the adjusted gross income.

The GOP is tyrying to do two things here, IMHO. They are trying to undermine the whole idea of using gov't to make things get better, as Greg says. But they are also pursuing a typical GOP ugly strategy of pitting the employed and retired against the unemployed, making the latter the scapegoat. "At least I have a job (pension, retirement savings, social security) say the haves, and feel better because they have more than most of the unemployed. It is a class conflict strategy similar to the racial strategy pursued for over 40 years by the GOP.

And what will happen if the GOP eventually takes pover? Why think it will be different from the 8 years of Bush II when the economy went into a ditch because of the greed of the people at the top, for whom there is no such concept as "enough".

Posted by: Mimikatz | July 26, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the proof of your bigotry Sue.

It is much appreciated.

Are all liberals as bigoted as you or are you going for some sort of special award?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 26, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

The GOP is tyrying to do two things here, IMHO. They are trying to undermine the whole idea of using gov't to make things get better, as Greg says.
Posted by: Mimikatz | July 26, 2010 3:58 PM

=====================================

Where is the world did Greg write that? And is it the least bit possible that what Obama and the Democrats have done so far has not made much of anything better and may have made things worse?

Posted by: bbface21 | July 26, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

There is no need to comment on the GOP pie in the sky dreams that flopped to earth in September 2008.

Posted by: AverageJane | July 26, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

@bbf22: Most people though will regard peeing away almost a trillion dollars with nothing to show for it to be really cruel and damaging.

This is simply false and repeating it doesn't make it true. The stimulus added 2-3% to GDP and cut unemployment by 2+%. Lying doesn't cut it here.
================
In a report released on Jan. 13, 2010, the president's Council of Economic Advisers estimated that between 1.77 million jobs and 2.07 million jobs were created or saved by the stimulus through the fourth quarter of 2009.

To back up that claim, the council's report cited four independent analyses of the same question. These estimates were by the Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency that does the number-crunching for Congress, as well by three private sector economic-analysis firms. Here's what those groups found:

-- CBO: Between 800,000 jobs and 2.4 million jobs.

-- IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs

-- Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs

-- Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs

...Using updated estimates provided to PolitiFact, IHS/Global Insight estimates that 1.7 million jobs will be created or saved during the first quarter of 2010. And Moody's economy.com estimated that 1.9 million jobs will be created or saved by that quarter.

So the president's claim of 2 million jobs created or saved is on the generous side, but most independent economic forecasters agree the stimulus has created something close to that number so far[Feb, 2010].

--politifact.com

Posted by: srw3 | July 26, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

mimikatz' "analysis" is fatally flawed.

The use of the word "artificial" is simply inappropriate. Wages, like just about everything else, are market driven in our country.

yes, as global logistics have improved some jobs will flow to the least cost provider.

Yes, robotics and other forms of automation have reduced the need for human labor in much of manufacturing sector.

yes, illegal immigrants have depressed wages for those on the low end of the wage spectrum.

None of that is "artificial". If an employer can hire the number and quality of employees at rate X there is no reason for them to pay X plus.

One of my neighbors worked at a now closed Ford factory. He did one of two assigned tasks: either he balanced tires or he drove the small tool golf cart.

Well sorry but Ford could no longer afford to pay this guy $35/hour to do something a Mexican peasant in Hermosillo could do for far less.

Ultimately we all want cool stuff at the lowest possible price. The pressure on cost control is enormous. Why don't liberals get that?

employers didn't collude like a bunch of guys on Journ o list. They simply attempt to fill openings at the lowest possible cost.

All the liberals can offer in response is one of two things:

(1) hurl the slander of "racism" at anyone who disagrees with them.

(2) Engage in class warfare that seeks to punish those who escape the low wage death spiral by making something of themselves.

Neither will work. Neither will help us. But it is all the liberals have.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 26, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

OT but who can pass this one up?

Ted Haggard says he "over-repented" (re meth/gay sex).

I suppose he recalculated the repent-o-meter after viewing De Niro in The Mission or perhaps after a close-reading of Augustine's Confessions.

Posted by: bernielatham | July 26, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

@ss28: Lets hope that all conservatives are not as willfully ignorant as you ss. Your screed on how its just liberals that believe that racism is still a factor in our society and your refusal to accept what systemic racism actually is just shows how far into farrightwingnutistan you come from.

Posted by: srw3 | July 26, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

The CBO study of job creation is a joke. It relies on Keynsian models that assume that government spending of X will automatically result in job creation of Y.

the disconnect between the models and the reality is brought home to us every Friday when the unemployment figures are announced.

Using models is a joke. And a lie

Here's the story:
"Now, CBO director Doug Elmendorf has finally conceded that they never actual examined this stimulus bills’ affect on the economy. Responding to a questioner following a recent speech, he admitted that the CBO’s jobs count was “essentially repeating the same exercise” as their initial projections. When asked if this means their jobs projections would have ignored any failures of stimulus spending to perform as CBO predicted, Mr. Elmendorf responded “that’s right.” (Exchange begins at 38:20.)

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 26, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

ss28 seems ok with the idea that our labor forces will have to compete with people getting paid cents an hour and we should do nothing about it while our blue collar work forces get driven into poverty.

Don't you think us as a country should be concerned about that?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | July 26, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Republican strategy: Frustrate and divide and slander democratic leaders and candidates and issues at every turn. Turn off as many voters as possible (especially democratic leaning) so they stay home in November.

If they have anything positive to say it is about lowering taxes, which is about reducing government services and funding for infrastructure like roads and schools and even veterans health care.


They prefer a class divided America over a united one and it doesn't matter to them if we destroy our environment if it means they can pass on all their corporate largesse and untaxed privilege to the next generation.

Posted by: thanksforfish | July 26, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

in response to this:
=============
@ss28: Lets hope that all conservatives are not as willfully ignorant as you ss. Your screed on how its just liberals that believe that racism is still a factor in our society and your refusal to accept what systemic racism actually is just shows how far into farrightwingnutistan you come from.

===========

In other words my egg studies trumped your egg head studies. Quel domage pal.

Simply put, whites are being discriminated against and liberals love it.

it is the same old thing: either one agrees with the liberal view of things or one is a racist.

It is tiresome and paints you as a close minded, ill informed throw back to the sixties.

Get hip pal. The info I provided is current and factual. I see you have nothing to say about the actual stats I quoted concerning prison population. I'm hardly surprised. If one's world view is that whitey is holding the black man down, then anything that says otherwise MUST be racism right?

How many years did you occupy a pew at Reverend Wright's church?

Again, the prisons are filled with blacks because the black family was destroyed. The black family was destroyed, in part, by the incentives from hell contained in LBJ's great society package. Single motherhood gains government funds. It is really that simple.

Sorry if that doesn't work well with your "it must be whitey" world view but hey, you'll just have to open your mind and let the actual facts seep in from time to time.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 26, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

@ss28:employers didn't collude like a bunch of guys on Journ o list. They simply attempt to fill openings at the lowest possible cost.

Right, big businesses never have private conversations about the labor market and how to squeeze the peasents...don't you want a pony with this fantasy.

"All the liberals can offer in response is one of two things:

(1) hurl the slander of "racism" at anyone who disagrees with them."

Hard to take this seriously as you don't even understand the term racism in a societal context, and are willfully ignorant of the mountain of evidence that it is still a potent force in US society.


"(2) Engage in class warfare that seeks to punish those who escape the low wage death spiral by making something of themselves."

Its only called class warfare when workers fight back, but employers has been waging this war since there were employers.

"Neither will work. Neither will help us. But it is all the liberals have."

No we have Breitbart proving that right wing "journalism" is an oxymoron, among other things.

Posted by: srw3 | July 26, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

it is bigotry like this that will kill the liberal movement:
====================
ss28 seems ok with the idea that our labor forces will have to compete with people getting paid cents an hour and we should do nothing about it while our blue collar work forces get driven into poverty.

Don't you think us as a country should be concerned about that?

================

Where did I say that I was OK with it son? Or are you trying to compete with Sue for some sort of liberal bigotry award? Going for the oak leaf cluster this week?

I never said I was OK with it. I simply pointed out that what restrained wages wasn't "artificial".

Ignorance and bigotry on display here, thanks to the liberals.

If you want to talk about what we should do, all you gotta do is apologize for your slander and I'll tell ya what I think we should do.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 26, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse


I hate to say it, but I have to agree with the Republican Party: America must be destroyed!

Posted by: motorfriend | July 26, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

"it is bigotry like this that will kill the liberal movement:"

wtf are you even talking about? How do you expect to have a convo with people when you don't even try to make sense. It's like having an argument with Sarah Palin or something.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | July 26, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing28, you never answered my question from last Friday!

""Do you support the Tea Party's inclusion of segregationists at a rally where a mainstream Republican candidate for Senate was speaking?"

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 26, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

The Dems are doomed.

Bring on November.

Posted by: drjcarlucci | July 26, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone here expect a 'conversation' with ss28 to somehow become fruitful?

Posted by: bernielatham | July 26, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

bernie, NO.

Here's Obama discussing the cloture vote tomorrow on the Disclose Act.

"..The DISCLOSE Act would simply require corporate political advertisers to reveal who's funding their activities. So when special interests take to the airwaves, whoever is running and funding the ad would have to appear in the advertisement and claim responsibility for it -- like a company's CEO or the organization's biggest contributor. And foreign-controlled corporations and entities would be restricted from spending money to influence American elections -- just as they were in the past.


Now, you'd think that making these reforms would be a matter of common sense, particularly since they primarily involve just making sure that folks who are financing these ads are disclosed so that the American people can make up their own minds. Nobody is saying you can't run the ads -- just make sure that people know who in fact is behind financing these ads. And you'd think that reducing corporate and even foreign influence over our elections would not be a partisan issue. But of course, this is Washington in 2010. And the Republican leadership in the Senate is once again using every tactic and every maneuver they can to prevent the DISCLOSE Act from even coming up for an up or down vote. Just like they did with unemployment insurance for Americans who'd lost their jobs in this recession. Just like they're doing by blocking tax credits and lending assistance for small business owners. On issue after issue, we are trying to move America forward, and they keep on trying to take us back.

At a time of such challenge for America, we can't afford these political games. Millions of Americans are struggling to get by, and their voices shouldn't be drowned out by millions of dollars in secret, special interest advertising. The American people's voices should be heard.

A vote to oppose these reforms is nothing less than a vote to allow corporate and special interest takeovers of our elections. It is damaging to our democracy. It is precisely what led a Republican President named Theodore Roosevelt to tackle this issue a century ago."

Posted by: lmsinca | July 26, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

All, Senate Republicans want hearings on the Black Panther story:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/flashback_senate_gop_already_p.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 26, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

yeah, yeah. Typical non response from srw3.

So if the workers really want to "fight back" tell me:

(1) why are the people migrating to right to work states like Texas and Georgia? Oh, no wait, let me guess. Could it be because the JOBS are there? No, say it ain't so. Here in ohio we lost NCR which was born and raised in Dayton. Adios they said, and off to georgia they went.

Oh and the Detroit Tigers play in a ball park called "comerica field" a bank with headquarters in Detroit bought the name rights. Then the bank moved to Texas.

(2) Why are the unions so hot to have card check? it is quite clear that unions have lost the ability to lead workers in America. The percentage of union employees in the private sector continues to decline and those states with strong unions are devastated. Of course unionization in the public sector rages on. But with Chris Christie showing us the way, we taxpayers will beat these hogs away from the trough too.

Here's a fun little map, just for you srw3.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/04/migration-moving-wealthy-interactive-counties-map.html?preload=39099

it is based on IRS data. The map portrays net migration from one county to another during 2008. Note that californians moved to texas too!

So "fighting back" is a myth. when liberals talk about this they are talking unions and marxism. Even the liberals want low cost PC's and TV's and such, they just don't see how the pressure on costs devolves down to the lowest level employees. When what you do can be done by a machine or a peasant in viet nam, your job will always be threatened. It is just the way it is these days.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 26, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

hey ethan. Hold that thought! There's a chance that I might be bothered to play your stupid game.

After all, I heard that satan himself was browsing around in the faux fur section of Macy's just last week!

When the devil needs an overcoat, ask me again.

In the meantime do try to come up with a fact based argument. Name calling just isn't very becoming.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 26, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

In response to rhetorical questions regarding the relative rationality of conservativism in Britain and why no such impulse exists in the modern American right, Sullivan says:

"I suspect because its institutional structure - with the massive amount of money attached to it - is so wrapped up in a coordinated party line the odds of being able to take it on while remaining a part of it are minimal. Look at the apostates: me, Bartlett, Frum, Johnson. They are all expelled from any institutional support (except for those like me lucky enough to be independent) and then ostracized and demonized. When you look at what has happened to dissenters on the right, I don't think there's a huge mystery as to why the impulse to change from within has died out. It will require a few massive defeats to reform it. Or some bombshell that wakes the base up to their own delusions. I'm not betting on either ..."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/07/can-american-cconservatism-ever-be-reformed.html

And he's surely right to differentiate the institutional structures here and there. Marginalization of moderates has been an on-going project within the movement for decades now and as a consequence there are simply no functioning means of developing or fostering youth in traditional conservative ideas and no functioning means of promoting such candidates.

Posted by: bernielatham | July 26, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

in reply to:
============
it is bigotry like this that will kill the liberal movement:"

wtf are you even talking about? How do you expect to have a convo with people when you don't even try to make sense. It's like having an argument with Sarah Palin or something.

============

Isn't it obvious wtf I'm talking about son?

I'm talking about your bigotry. you made an assumption based on your ill informed stereotype. That's bigotry.

I stated facts, you ASSUMED that I was OK with the result.

Bigotry. Sorry to hold the mirror up for you but take a long hard look at yourself. What did the say in the seventies? Oh yeah: dig yourself.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 26, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

@ss28:The info I provided is current and factual. I see you have nothing to say about the actual stats I quoted concerning prison population.

Info???? Haven't seen anything from you but musings from rightwingnutistan. Is this on another post?

I thought the resume study, since it used print material was particularly striking. Your thoughts on why resumes with "white" names got 50% more callbacks than THE IDENTICAL RESUMES with "black" names? Care to refudiate it?


Also no comment on why legislatures and corporate boards are overwhelmingly white in our supposed "color blind" society.


"If one's world view is that whitey is holding the black man down, then anything that says otherwise MUST be racism right?"

Systemic racism exists in US society. Its not a world view. Its a fact.

"Available evidence suggests that blacks and
Hispanics face higher rejection rates and less
favorable terms in securing mortgages than do
whites with similar credit characteristics (Ross
& Yinger 1999). Oliver & Shapiro (1997, p.
142) report that blacks pay more than 0.5%
higher interest rates on home mortgages than do whites and that this difference persists with controls for income level, date of purchase, and age of buyer...Accounting for a range of
variables linked to risk of default, cost of default, loan characteristics, and personal and neighborhood characteristics, they find that black and Hispanic applications were 82% more likely to be rejected than were those from similar whites...Audit research corroborates evidence of mortgage discrimination, finding that black testers are less likely to receive a quote for a loan than are white testers and that they are given less time with the loan officer, are quoted
higher interest rates, and are given less coaching and less information than are comparable white applicants (for a review, see Ross&Yinger 2002).

"it is the same old thing: either one agrees with the liberal view of things or one is a racist."

I never accused you of being racist, just willfully ignorant and pathologically averse to actually examining the unmistakable effect of racism on minority populations.

Posted by: srw3 | July 26, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

What nonsense srw3. Go read the study I quoted. The facts are overwhelming. And the support Webb's view.

In addition, the facts I stated about prison populations and single mother birth rates are both from your favorite source of everything: the government.

These threads don't handle links so I generally don't provide them. It is too bad too because it allows folks like you to baselessly call me liar. Just as you baselessly call me a racist.

Oh, and srw3, I live in da hood. I don't need to go much further than my local grocery to see the depredations of liberalism. The folks you're trying to help are either so poor in spirit that none of your well intentioned efforts will amount to a hill of beans.

Or they are cynically taking the money and gaming the system.

As long as you can convince yourself that whitey is the root of all evil your gestalt hangs together. I've provided factual evidence that what is going on among blacks in America today is largely the result of the choices black people make for themselves.

Sorry that doesn't fit in your "whitey did it" scheme. The sooner we face the facts the better off we'll be. The demographics of this are ugly. We are staring at yet another generation of black people who will be permanent wards of the state either through incarceration or through a jumble of conflicting, expensive and ultimately ineffective "programs".

when will liberalism actually, you know, like, um, work?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 26, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

"""In the meantime do try to come up with a fact based argument. Name calling just isn't very becoming."""

skipsailing28, I only asked you a question, I didn't call you any names!

The question I asked you IS fact-based. This year there was a Tea Party where a segregationist racist group handed out literature and business cards. Marco Rubio spoke at that event.

My question, again:

""Do you support the Tea Party's inclusion of segregationists at a rally where a mainstream Republican candidate for Senate was speaking?"

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 26, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Greg, I think you're splitting hairs in your analysis. I don't see that much of a distinction between saying the GOP needs unemployed people in a bad mood at the election and saying the GOP wants to show Dem policies are a failure. It's easier to get people to feel Dem policies have failed if they feel the hurt of losing unemployment benefits. It's easier to get people to feel that Dems have lost control of the wheel if they feel more economic pain. I don't see a wide difference in what you're saying. You can't cast doubt on the efficacy of the stimulus package in logical terms, because practically every economists says the stimulus improved things. But you can make people feel like the stimulus didn't work if they have even less money due to losing unemployment benefits. I don't think your analysis, or the GOP's, is really making that big of a distinction.

Posted by: Dr_Bob | July 26, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

@ss28: no point addressing you. You won't address the clear manifestations of racism in US society, including, job discrimination, housing discrimination, bank discrimination, instead focusing on the prison population study, which you haven't provided a link for here.

Are you refudating these well researched, peer reviewed, studies? No. I wonder why...

The resume study is the cleanest methodologically, but the audit studies are also valid. Do I hear crickets?

Until you address the racial disparities in employment, housing, banking, etc., there is no point in paying any attention to you.

Posted by: srw3 | July 26, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse


Dream schemes? Are those like thingie whatsits?

Posted by: paul6554 | July 26, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

When President Obama did his Rose Garden speech a week or so ago to plug passing the unemplyment bill, he used words like this "emergency" situation and weak economy and indicated there were five job applicants for every job opening.

The Prsident planned to campaign on this beng the summer of economic recovery. Guess that plan is scrapped. Back to: "It's all Bush's fault." That will work with about 30% of the electorate that is hardcore Dems. Everyone else wants solutions.

Expect to see Republicans run tapes of Obama's unemployment benefits speech in the Fall election campaigns.

Posted by: jfv123 | July 26, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

skippy says: "Here's a fun little map, just for you srw3.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/04/migration-moving-wealthy-interactive-counties-map.html?preload=39099

it is based on IRS data. The map portrays net migration from one county to another during 2008. Note that californians moved to texas too!"

Works for me. Texas will turn more blue if Californian's migrate there.

Tell me, skippy, how do you think NC moved to the left? It surely couldn't have been from northerners moving there to get those financial services jobs could it?

I say we invade Texas and turn it blue. Who's with me? LOL

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 26, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Wrong again like always. It's the American people the Democrats are underestimating. If the polls favored the Democrats whatever the Republicans said or did wouldn't matter. Nothing Obama or the Democrats do is supported by the American because of the direction it's going. Everything Obama does takes this country closer to becoming a socialist society and all the Republicans wants to do is keep the America we all grew up in. For this their standing in the way and their racist. No one should be on unemployment for two years. How did those receiving benefits get this idea that they didn't have to back to work ever. Who gave them this impression that Obama will tax the rich and all those unemployed had to do was receive their checks and vote for the Democrats. Does this sound like America.

Posted by: houstonian | July 26, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

@ss28: Go read the study I quoted.

What study? I have already asked you twice for a link...

"Oh, and srw3, I live in da hood. I don't need to go much further than my local grocery to see the depredations of liberalism. The folks you're trying to help are either so poor in spirit that none of your well intentioned efforts will amount to a hill of beans.

Or they are cynically taking the money and gaming the system."

Nice anecdotes, stereotyping people on the basis of your very limited observations, but not actually relevant.

"The folks you're trying to help are either so poor in spirit"

And why might they be this way. I know you believe in the myth of the pathology of the black family, but I think that systemic racism, since it has been repeatedly demonstrated in studies over the last 30 years or so, is a more likely cause. There are people of color that are able to get around the economic and social racism in our society to succeed, but that doesn't mean that those economic and social barriers don't exist.

" I don't need to go much further than my local grocery to see the depredations of liberalism."

Since Republicans have been controlled the congress for most of the last 30 years, and the presidency for 20 of the last 30 years, its hard (for thinking people, which might exclude you) to blame liberals for all of this...

Posted by: srw3 | July 26, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

It was Republicans temporarily cutting people's economic lifeline to help themselves in the fall polls.

If you're one of those people whose unemployment they cut, now is the time to stand up and tell them no more.

Posted by: Nissl | July 26, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

shorter ss28: run away, run away...

Posted by: srw3 | July 26, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse


WHAT?

Day#1 the GOP said they'd just say NO to everything.

so that nothing moved. So that Obama hit his "WATERLOO"

Now then, if the administration, is brought down, stymied at every turn,

does the voter get any better results? No he hs stynmied and brought down, too.

Who thinks American voters are dumb enough not to see this? Nearly insane as they are after being mauled by ISrael firsters and the far, far right wing who wants
power.

Posted by: whistling | July 26, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

@whistling: Who thinks American voters are dumb enough not to see this?

Not dumb but also not paying any attention, what with the depression we are in now and all. This is way to wonky for 99% of people to care about, between jobs (or looking for one), family obligations, etc...

Posted by: srw3 | July 26, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

@whistling: Who thinks American voters are dumb enough not to see this?

Not dumb but also not paying any attention, what with the depression we are in now and all. This is way to wonky for 99% of people to care about, between jobs (or looking for one), family obligations, etc...

Posted by: srw3 | July 26, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

http://www.newsmeat.com/campaign_contributions_to_politicians/donor_list.php?candidate_id=P80003338

Lists of Obama donors! Like CEO Fanny Mae

Posted by: usmc1969 | July 26, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

hi srw3, a (somewhat large) quibble: this is not a "depression."

And (4 whistling) dissing American voters as composite AHDD sufferers, or insane, is not what one would call an efficacious place to start as to presenting your program.

They must have been struck temporarily brilliant in 2008.

Posted by: tao9 | July 26, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Yeah. Yeah. I hear some folks saying that the Democrats have no ideas. The GOP's idea is to say no. Or (as noted in several papers) the GOP wants to rehab Bush Jr. and go right back to what he was doing. War and tax cuts for the rich and let's not forget the destruction of Social Security.

Posted by: Ralph_Indianapolis | July 26, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Dems must face the facts! Unions have destroyed every company and state agency they organized and now want to blame Republicans.
Fact! Giving 99 weeks plus of unemployment is going to do what? Get you a job? No! Fact! What is it going to give you is a ticket to the welfare line as NO company will be hiring you ever with a GAP in your resume of 2 years! Get real dems! Once this new extention runs out in Nov! Then what! There is a reason 18 million are unemployed and will not be returning to work! There are NO jobs for you! Period! Obama has polarized business owners to the point they will never hire in the masses necessary to releive the 9.5% rate. So you best be hanging on to your progressive ways as the Dems prepare to amnestize 20 million illegals who will be replacing you at your former job. Unions are a curse of death to America! This is a global economy now! Unions are not needed but Obama keeps allowing them to dig deeper into Government while you are left behind! All the praying in the world will not provide jobs. Obama is all about entitlements so get used to it you are soon to be on that list.

Posted by: usmc1969 | July 26, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

I believe that your all-night pajama party bosom buddy coined the term "misunderestimate", as I'm sure you'll be ready to use that malapropism again and again under the watchful eyes of an ignorant constituency.

Sarah whatever her name is is doing the same thing.

Shame on you Journalist.

the Word's MISUNDERESTIMATE.

At least, given how much whining the GOP is doing at Barack's hands you would think you had you act better together.

you don't.

You can't even remember your own damned GOP culture, dudes.

Posted by: pgibson1 | July 26, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

They can make their "Dems caused this" argument all they want.

But everyone knows that we lost over 2 million jobs in 2008.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerpelosi/4756211992/sizes/l/in/set-72157623367757714/

Posted by: Ethan2010 |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ahhhhh 3.5 million jobs lost in 2009 while DHS approved 1.1 million green cards.
So folks you best be getting your party focused on JOBLESSNESS not Glen Beck (I respect the man) The illegals are arriving daily to get a piece of the amnesty pie the dems are working on now. You dems just can not face the fact that Obama, Reid and Pelosi have sold you into their entitlement slavery you just don't see it yet. If the dems wanted you back to work you would be back to work! So where will 20,000,000 legalized illegals and all there family going to work? SEIU has an idea where and so do several other unions.
Who are the unions going for now! You or Illegals?

Posted by: usmc1969 | July 26, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Here is a novel idea! You want to create jobs! Here is what the dems could have done last year. The avg. UE check is 300 a week give or take! Instead of sending that check to you the government should have sent it to a group of select companies in each state. That 300 a week would be used by said companies to hire and train you. As for benefits might I suggest Obamacare or you would have to earn that for working 90 days. If you did not show up for work guess what no check that week. There are thousands upon thousands of small companies like mine who do well but could do better with greater out-put! Call it greed! Whatever!!! So what happens here is that when the government stopped sending 99 checks to me to give to you I would be in a better position to hire you full time.
Instead of a tax credit for hiring you I get none! I get nothing but 40 hours of your time to help me re-hab homes.
Instead Obama decided that you do not need to work at all for those 99 weeks.
Get the idea! Simple and effective for all!
Now, here is what the dems have done for you. They saved everyone else's job that is government connected! Teachers, police and fire and yes the road contruction crews.
What about you? Do you believe that a company is going to call you when they see a 99 week GAP in your employment section of resume? NO.
But would they if you worked for your UE check at my company or someone else's! YES
So who is the villian! Business?
Ohhh one more thing! We small business owners would have been willing to add cash to those checks from Uncle!

Posted by: usmc1969 | July 26, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

another popular political analysis is: we have class warfare in play. The GOP enables the wealthy class to accumulate ever more wealth. This is the sin of greed.

The DEMs enables the middle class to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. This is the sin of the American Dream

Posted by: rmorris391 | July 26, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Can you underestimate Satan? Dick Cheney? The Tea Party? The Klan? Confederate States? Secession? Tim McVeigh? Sarah Palin? Avarice? Racism? Hate? Fox News? Any redneck racist who spews the same old hate toward this post?

No.

You can never underestimate the GOP.

Posted by: colonelpanic | July 26, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

No, the media has overestimated the GOP. They created all this hype about the tea baggers and intense public dis-satisfaction. As it turns out the baggers are all the right-wing wing nuts of the Republican party, demonstrating that there's been no idealogical shift in America. Nothing has changed except the party in power, the Democrats, must take stands and will suffer some minor diminution; the natural political cycle. Whereas the opposition has the luxury of just saying no and making modest gains. There will be no change in leadership, however, because there has been no major shift in opinions as to people's local representatives, despite isolated changes. By and large, incumbents will all be returning in January.

Posted by: seve2yoo | July 26, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

USMC1969, I'm not opposed to your idea, and I'm a liberal, but you do realize that the federal government did offer you a big tax break to hire those on unemployment. There is a $5,000 tax credit available to any employer who hires a long-term unemployed person. The credit is a reduction in the matching half of social security taxes you'd have to contribute. It sounds like you didn't take advantage of this credit, and maybe you still can and should.

Posted by: seve2yoo | July 26, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

There is another Bush son waiting in the wings to restore the economy to the robust good health it enjoyed under Dubya, just before it crashed.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | July 26, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

I think there is a second dynamic that the GOP is wanting to feed that is far more dangerous to liberalism than sowing distrust of government (which ebbs and flow, e.g., compare most years of Republican rule with Obama's election in 2008). Sowing distrust of government is not what will most help the GOP politically. Rather, the more dangerous aspect of this is, by opposing further stimulus, the GOP are helping to create (for a significant bloc, I argue intentionally helping to create) a group of Americans who will be politically disenfranchised. This group will be composed of the people who went from being in a state of living comfortably or having a good chance of a prosperous future to being unemployed (or uneducated) for long swaths of time due to this recession. We know that education is one of the key indicators of voter turnout, and we know that there are millions of people who are missing out either on first-time education (e.g., college) or continuing education due to the recession (this will also hamper their long-term earnings). We know that income is another key indicator (e.g., those in less-well-paying jobs are less likely to find the time to vote). We know that the wealthy have a disproportionate access to those with political power. (NB: Some will choose to be politically disenfranchised by not voting because the political system failed them. [Of course, others will become GOP voters, blaming Democratic policies for not rescuing the economy.])

In effect, what the GOP are doing--by opposing more stimulus and elongating the economic conditions--is politically disenfranchising millions of people. This helps them so much more in the long-term than sowing government distrust (which, again, ebbs and flows). Another reason it helps them is that their key policy initiative is a reduction of upper-income taxes. It is quite difficult to create new voters in the upper-income brackets. So if you can't get new supporters, then take them away from your opponents. It's quite the political strategy.

Posted by: scalderwood | July 26, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

"the public will conclude that Dem policies have failed"??

Uh, the public came to the conclusion long ago.

Posted by: thebump | July 27, 2010 12:03 AM | Report abuse

I am always amazed by the need of some people to label themselves (liberal-conservative, etc.) Is that really important? While people argue over useless labels and pound their chests, peoples lives are crumbling. I have not heard anything, that is going to help people “NOW”. I have not heard any real argument on how to solve the problems, just the same old rhetoric. Lowering taxes is just another form of stimulus and it cost money (nobody in their right mind wants to pay taxes - liberal, communist, fascist, libertarian, radical, anarchist or conservative) and further stimulating the economy seems dead. American companies have record profits (that is not a bad thing). They are sitting on 3 billion dollars in cash and for the most part and seem to have no real incentive or desire to reinvest it in America. It is our values. German labor is not cheap and their taxes are not low either, but they do not have the capital emigration problem America has and, the safety net there is a little stronger. Whatever your political philosophy, how do we help people NOW?
The Banks and GM were bailed out immediately at tremendous cost (I have no evidence that it was either bad or good)! Liberalism and conservatism are terms that describe static philosophies, but we live in a dynamic world. We are never going back to low unemployment at this rate. Both parties go on the same junkets and, eat out of the same lobbyist hands. Their are already studies that show the young are became disenfranchised. We need a new ism - peoplism. We need to look at things from a new perspective and, that requires leadership, not politicians or zombie group speak. I do not think anything is going to be solved by these kind of articles and, quite frankly this is why newspapers are becoming irrelevant. This article is about political Machiavellian behavior and it is tinged with overtones of the authors political leanings. Would Walter Cronkite or Edward Murrow write a article for mass consumption about political machinations and totally ignore the effect on the people? This article is academic and for political aficionados (obvious inside the belt way minutiae).
The real story is the failure of the people to get their government to function in their interest! Instead people are manipulated by media - zombie group speak. The health care legislation is a case in point. The argument should not have been whether we need national health care. The real discussion should have been: what are we paying a $100 billion dollars every 14 days for. According to the CIA, we are number 49th in life expectancy. After that discussion, then we should have decided about national health care.

Posted by: Afcham | July 27, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

And yet again, the POTUS strolls out to the podium on a sunny summer day in the Rose Garden and gives a dull commencement speech to (basically) a hot auditorium full of disgruntled 8th graders rather than any kind of urgency or guts. Climate? Check. Leaked documents? Check. Transparency on influence-peddlers skewing the political landscape? Check. Lending for small businesses? Check.

Did he say anything…..ANYTHING….about the unemployed? CAN he say anything about the unemployed? Can he say the words ninety-nine weeks? Tier Five? This man is frostier than a frog’s ass on an icy pond.

Obama has no killer instinct, never put crosshairs on something. Maybe he’s known hunger, maybe he’s experienced meager means or quality of life. But he sure as heck does not know pain and, if he does somehow, he’s blocking it out.

You’re the President of the United States of America!!!! You and your congressional majorities have one last chance to ring the frigging bell: Dingdingdingding…we have a winner. Be a damned bully just once. Summon Twinkle Toes Reid and Princess Pelosi into the WH tomorrow morning and TELL them NO ONE’s going anywhere until this crippling disparity in income is addressed through November. Giving some unemployed benefits and waltzing away from tens of millions of victims is beyond hurtful.

For all the Rules of Order and “My distinguished colleague” BS that goes on down there, just once someone with some balls TELL the Senate it’s a bill, it’s passed over your juvenile delinquencies and stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it. Check.

Posted by: kickoradell | July 27, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company