It is currently 03/29/24 2:28 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




  Page 1 of 1   [ 14 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
 Post subject: "Rooting For Failure"
PostPosted: 12/30/10 4:31 am • # 1 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Benen nails this commentary ~ there is no plausible justification for R behavior/games/trickery/dishonesty/dedicated obstructionism beyond ... ego ~ Image ~ Sooz

ROOTING FOR FAILURE.... Last year featured one of the more baffling, big-picture political debates in quite a while. Just as President Obama was being inaugurated, conservatives began to explore whether it's acceptable to actively root against America's leader as they dealt with a variety of foreign and domestic crises.

In general, the right seemed to agree that there was nothing especially wrong in hoping for failure. The contingent was led by Rush Limbaugh, who told his audience the day before Inauguration Day, "I hope Obama fails." A month later, Limbaugh, talking about efforts to revive the economy, added, "I want everything he's doing to fail... I want the stimulus package to fail."

We don't hear quite as much about this anymore, but the sentiment hasn't disappeared. The latest CNN poll (pdf) asked respondents a pretty straightforward question: "In general, do you hope that Barack Obama's policies will succeed or do you hope that his policies will fail?" Overall, 61% want the president's policies to work, 27% do not. That's not especially encouraging.

But the partisan breakdown was especially interesting. Among Democrats, 89% are hoping for success. Among self-identified Independents, it's 59%. Among Republicans, a 61% majority went the other way, hoping to see the president's policies fail.

Here's that breakdown in visual form:

Image

I guess this isn't surprising anymore, but I nevertheless find it rather depressing. It's always struck me as the bare minimum of patriotism: don't root against the home team. It's one thing to disapprove of, or even actively loathe, the country's elected leaders. But rooting for their failure has never supposed to be one of the options.

It's really not complicated -- the president's policies, whether wise or not, are at least intended to bolster the economy and strengthen our national security. If those policies fail, Americans will suffer more and the country will be weaker.

And yet, a majority of Republicans are nevertheless rooting for failure?

Several weeks ago, George W. Bush noted, "I want my president to succeed because if my president succeeds my country succeeds, and I want my country to succeed."

I have no idea why this concept is so hard for so many to understand.

—Steve Benen 10:20 AM December 30, 2010

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 027312.php


Top
  
 Post subject: "Rooting For Failure"
PostPosted: 12/30/10 5:39 am • # 2 

Rush did that whole "He wanted Obana to fail campaign"  I wanted to throw up when he said he wanted the stimulus to faiil.

I never understood why spending money on fixing an ailing infrastructure was a horrible idea.  It's the government's job to maintain roads, bridges, etc.  It employs the unemployed and unemployable.  Put people to work on meaningful stuff.  Not everyone can spread disgusting disinformation on the radio for multi-millions.



Top
  
 Post subject: "Rooting For Failure"
PostPosted: 12/30/10 5:49 am • # 3 
How many "unemployable" people got jobs fixing roads and bridges?

Construction companies that work on infrastructure projects don't hire the "unemployable" to build bridges and roads and such.  They hire (if they need to hire additional people) people who have the right skill sets, and those people aren't among the "unemployable."

The money has to trickle down a long way to get to a company that hires the "unemployable."

Spending money on the infrastructure is one of government's primary legitimate functions, but it has a very slow stimulative effect.  The Obama stimulus plan was more of a re-election stimulus plan than anything, because it was structured to make sure the economy was boosted by 2012 when he will be running for re-election.


Top
  
 Post subject: "Rooting For Failure"
PostPosted: 12/30/10 6:00 am • # 4 
Here's some info, gop. 

http://www.septa.org/construction/stimulus/employment.html

http://career-advice.monster.com/job-search/state-employment-information/pennsylvania-economic-stimulus-news/article.aspx

http://keystoneresearch.org/media-center/media-coverage/federal-stimulus-prevented-darker-jobs-picture

http://dcnonl.com/article/id40259


You can google some more if you are really interested in the people as opposed to partisan politics. 


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: "Rooting For Failure"
PostPosted: 12/30/10 6:06 am • # 5 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Anything that puts people back to work [or money in their pockets, like unemployment benefits] has a stimulative effect ~ perhaps more so than anything else because the people going back to work or receiving unemployment benefits spend that money almost immediately ~

I disagree that construction companies don't hire the 'unemployable' ~ many do, in the form of 'unskilled laborers' ~

And I vehemently disagree that the stimulus '... was more of a re-election stimulus plan than anything, because it was structured to make sure the economy was boosted by 2012 when he will be running for re-election.' ~ that is just another R 'talking point' to avoid giving Obama/Ds credit for anything ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: "Rooting For Failure"
PostPosted: 12/30/10 6:20 am • # 6 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
gopqed wrote:
How many "unemployable" people got jobs fixing roads and bridges?

Construction companies that work on infrastructure projects don't hire the "unemployable" to build bridges and roads and such.  They hire (if they need to hire additional people) people who have the right skill sets, and those people aren't among the "unemployable."

The money has to trickle down a long way to get to a company that hires the "unemployable."

Spending money on the infrastructure is one of government's primary legitimate functions, but it has a very slow stimulative effect.  The Obama stimulus plan was more of a re-election stimulus plan than anything, because it was structured to make sure the economy was boosted by 2012 when he will be running for re-election.
I'm curious where you sit with regard to the poll in the opening post, Gop.  Are you among the 89% of Republicans who want the President's policies to fail?  If so, how do you justify it?

There's a big difference between thinking something might fail and hoping for it.  The former is legitimate criticism.  The second is pure partisanship based on "I want power no matter what the effect is."
  


Top
  
 Post subject: "Rooting For Failure"
PostPosted: 12/30/10 6:21 am • # 7 
I seem to remember Bush opponents being accused of wanting another terrorist attack so their president would be seen as a failure. There was no proof of the accusation but it was used as an excuse to call Bush opponents "terrorist lovers", "traitors" etc. I know they'd probably want to call themselves patriots, but what do we call Obama's opponents who want to see his failure on the backs of the average American citizen?


Top
  
 Post subject: "Rooting For Failure"
PostPosted: 12/30/10 7:31 am • # 8 
Not surprising.


Top
  
 Post subject: "Rooting For Failure"
PostPosted: 12/30/10 8:30 am • # 9 
jimwilliam wrote:
gopqed wrote:
How many "unemployable" people got jobs fixing roads and bridges?

Construction companies that work on infrastructure projects don't hire the "unemployable" to build bridges and roads and such.  They hire (if they need to hire additional people) people who have the right skill sets, and those people aren't among the "unemployable."

The money has to trickle down a long way to get to a company that hires the "unemployable."

Spending money on the infrastructure is one of government's primary legitimate functions, but it has a very slow stimulative effect.  The Obama stimulus plan was more of a re-election stimulus plan than anything, because it was structured to make sure the economy was boosted by 2012 when he will be running for re-election.
I'm curious where you sit with regard to the poll in the opening post, Gop.  Are you among the 89% of Republicans who want the President's policies to fail?  If so, how do you justify it?

There's a big difference between thinking something might fail and hoping for it.  The former is legitimate criticism.  The second is pure partisanship based on "I want power no matter what the effect is."
  


I neither want the President to fail nor his implemented policies to fail.  What I hope for is that he will fail to implement many of his policies as initially proposed.  I hope for modifications make them more moderate, where necessary.  That's where Congress comes in - crafting of compromises that bring the policies more to the center.  That will happen much more frequently and to a much greater extent in the coming two years because the makeup of Congress changed with the last election.

Once Congress arrives at a solution that is passed into law, I hope the policy - even if I disagree with much of it - is successful if that contributes to the nation's success.

I think the poll question doesn't paint a true picture of people's viewpoint, because it provided extremely limited options for response, and was worded in such a way to make a negative view of Obama's policies much more severe than people intend.


Top
  
 Post subject: "Rooting For Failure"
PostPosted: 12/30/10 8:43 am • # 10 
kathyk1024 wrote:

kathy, I spent the last nearly 7 years helping people find jobs and helping employers find people to fill the job openings they had.  I suspect I have more experience in the field of employment than do you, and I can assure you I have a deep concern for people who are seeking employment.

You claimed that infrastructure construction projects were employing the "unemployable."  I didn't see anything in your articles that support that claim.  I also know, having worked with such construction companies, that their overwhelming need is for experienced, professional staff.  Infrastructure construction isn't the type of area where companies hire Joe Sixpack without skills in the field to come on board and dig a hole.

Eventually, as the money trickles down through multiple hands, it finds a place in the hands of those who will employ unskilled labor and possibly the "unemployable."  But that takes time and isn't as effective at helping those people as would be other forms of economic stimulus such as direct payments.

I wasn't claiming the stimulus program enacted in 2009 wasn't stimulative to the economy.  I'm just stating that the way it was structured ensured its effect would be felt more slowly, as it was spread over multiple years and weighted heavily toward areas which would rely on a trickle-down effect to reach the people most in need of jobs.  It was designed to ensure its full impact would be felt in 2012, Obama's re-election year, rather than 2009 when it was enacted and the economy was most in need.
  


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: "Rooting For Failure"
PostPosted: 12/30/10 9:18 am • # 11 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
I think the poll question doesn't paint a true picture of people's viewpoint,

Of course it doesn't since it makes the Repugs look bad.


Top
  
 Post subject: "Rooting For Failure"
PostPosted: 12/30/10 9:20 am • # 12 

Structural unemployment occurs when people have skill sets to do a job and that type of employment is gone.  For example; the housing industry bottomed out and construction workers were unemployable as there were no construction jobs, particularly in places like rural PA.  I know I cannot be as knowledgable or caring as you are because you are a mighty R and I am a lowly D social work intern, however my dad was a building contractor in rural PA and I know builders need projects to work on or construction guys are out of work.   

I also remember the conversations in the past that deficient candidates like Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell were good enough to fill in the R quota to force Obama to the middle.  Obama's already in the middle, and if you disagree with me explain how he isn't. 



Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: "Rooting For Failure"
PostPosted: 12/30/10 9:44 am • # 13 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
kathyk1024 wrote:

Structural unemployment occurs when people have skill sets to do a job and that type of employment is gone.  For example; the housing industry bottomed out and construction workers were unemployable as there were no construction jobs, particularly in places like rural PA.  I know I cannot be as knowledgable or caring as you are because you are a mighty R and I am a lowly D social work intern, however my dad was a building contractor in rural PA and I know builders need projects to work on or construction guys are out of work.   

I also remember the conversations in the past that deficient candidates like Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell were good enough to fill in the R quota to force Obama to the middle.  Obama's already in the middle, and if you disagree with me explain how he isn't. 

Those in the muddle can't explain those in the middle.


Top
  
 Post subject: "Rooting For Failure"
PostPosted: 12/30/10 11:19 am • # 14 
I'm not surprised that a stimulus to fix an aging infrastructure and provide wages to people who need jobs becomes something that the republicans hope will fail.

The GOP talks about personal responsibility but takes no responsibility for the problems they stood by and watched unfold. They will trample each other to provide a windfall to the vastly wealthy while ranting about the 'nanny state' if any program helps someone who desperately needs it.

A good example of republican thinking is that they jumped at the chance to help the big boys on Wall St while insisting that GM get no help at all. Helping GM would provide help to the true enemy of all republicans...unions.

You see, to a right winger, democracy is to be exported around the world at the point of a gun, but trying to bring democracy to your workplace is 'communism' or 'socialism' depending on the depth of ignorance of the republican you are speaking to at the time.

I believe the word 'unemployable' was meant to describe those people who don't have a college degree, craft or profession that makes them needed.

A large number of workers on road crews have none of those things. They work with simple tools for the most part. The are laborers which means that anyone with normal intelligence and health can do the job. There are always more of those laborers than there are engineers, heavy equipment operators, etc.

That means that a stimulus that creates jobs on those road crews is a stimulus that provides jobs to those who have the hardest time in any economic circumstances.

That's a good thing. Conservatives hate it because it helps those who need help.

Name any republican program since the days of Ronald Reagan that helps Americans in the lower 25% of earners. There are none.


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

  Page 1 of 1   [ 14 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.