The GOP bet against the American economy should not lead to the White House

The GOP bet against the American economy should not lead to the White House

As the plane climbed above the clouds just after takeoff, one belligerent man starting yelling "I hope the pilot fails!! I hope the pilot fails!!" Of course, there was only one parachute on that plane and the guy screaming also happened to be the guy with the parachute.

On most planes, the other 199 passengers would likely subdue the man– nobody wants the pilot to crash. But when the plane is the United States of America, the pilot is President Barack Obama and the passenger is Rush Limbaugh, a vocal minority on the plane, against their best interests, also want to the pilot to fail. Of course only Limbaugh, with his $400 million contract and millions more in the bank can afford for the President to fail. However, the rest of us, just like the passengers on the plane, can’t afford for President Obama to fail. We can’t afford the plane to crash.

So why did the Republican party decide to follow Rush Limbaugh in 2009? Why did Republicans want the economy to fail?

The Republican message this election year is President Obama failed the American people on the economy. They are correct; the economy, although better than it was four years ago, is lagging under the weight of 8.2% unemployment.

But, as we count down the days to the presidential election between President Obama and Republican Mitt Romney, and I hear Romney’s message of President Obama being at fault for the nation’s economy, what I don’t hear is Romney’s plan on getting the economy back to where it was when Bill Clinton was president.

What I do hear is Rush Limbaugh’s words echoing... "I hope he fails!" Then I remember the GOP in lockstep, sitting on their hands, doing absolutely nothing to help get the economy back on track. Then I remember a political party that bet– and hoped– the economy would go further in the tank so they could blame our economic woes on President Obama.

Republicans should not be rewarded with the White House for not only hoping our families’ economic situation got worse under the Obama administration, but by doing nothing to assist our families over the last four years.

So, even though I lack the enthusiasm I had four years ago when I voted for Barack Obama, I’ll support him again this year. I don’t mind Mitt Romney. He might make a good president. But I don’t like his party. I cannot condone what his party did in 2009 and 2010 when they did nothing to help the struggling economy. Republicans made a calculated decision to forsake the American economy so they could retake Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012. The GOP should not be rewarded with the White House for betting against America.

So when you listen to the arguments this fall over what President Obama did or failed to do as President to help your family, ask yourself what did Republicans do to help you. What policies did the GOP put forward to help our ailing economy? You may disagree with the president’s policies which may be your reason to vote for Mitt Romney. But, if the economy is the reason for your vote– Republicans should be held to account. Their inaction– and the calculation behind it– speaks volumes about a party that is willing to sabotage America to win an election.


Leave a comment
  • Brian, Brian, Brian, the same old stuff.

    THINK different. Please!

    First, what do you think Limbaugh (and now a majority of the American public) hoped Obama FAILED in? I'm make it simple: that Obama NOT succeed in fundamentally transforming American society... into the dreams of his Marxist father.

    It really is that simple.

    If an astute passenger in a plane sees that the pilot is nosediving into the ground because he cannot locate the horizon, the overwhelming number of pax are going to say,"I hope he fails". Some will take action and try to save the plane.

    One simple thing that the Republicans help put through to aid families was the Bush tax cuts. Please examine that those rated were reductions for EVERYBODY across the board. Obama has repeatedly said he wants those repealed and taxes raised on such things as stock dividends and capital gains taxes. What does that mean to the average American? That means that those with some stocks, like Microsoft or Apple or even GE will be taxed at 43% instead of 15% when those stocks are cashed. These are real SMALL people. In addition, many small business owners take some of their compensation in dividends, so they will pay more too, thus restricting money that could be used for private purchases and business expansion.

    It is not the Republicans that have bet against the American economy; it is Obama and his band of fellow travelers who have bet against not only the American economy but American society.

    If you fundamentally want to change the society you are living in, as Obama stated, you are at war with that society. I don't know how you can think otherwise. It is not logical. If Obama were not elected but a conquering figure from another country who said that, what would you think? I mean THINK!

    If Obama wins, if we have another four more years of "transformation" from the empty chair in the Oval Office, American Flight 101 will certainly crash and Obama's liking, I think.

    Then his real work can begin.

  • Richard: As always, I appreciate you reading and commenting.

    We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't agree with your proposition that Obama wants to fundamentally change society into a socialist one. Was FDR a socialist? Was Johnson a socialist? Was Clinton a socialist? The first two presidents did more to fundamentally change government's relationship with its citizens vis-a-vis the safety net. Clinton attempted health care-- among other Presidents, including Nixon-- but failed.

    So I disagree that Obama wants to fundamentally change society. And Republicans keep arguing that point, arguing "socialism" without defining the term and giving examples of how we moving away from capitalism and toward socialism. It's like that Republican who was arguing "appeasement" on Chris Matthews' show without knowing who Neville Chamberlain was.

    Calling for a tax increase on individuals earning over $250K a year is not "socialism" its a tax increase. Since when is raising taxes 3 percent on high wage earners (we can debate on whether individuals making $250K is a high wage earner) "socialism?"

    Republicans all got behind Rush four years ago when he said he wanted Obama to fail as President. The GOP decided at that time to do nothing to assist Obama with the economy. I forget if it was McConnell or Boehner who said that goal was to make Obama a one-term president. That's fine-- but to achieve that goal, the GOP sat on on the sideline and did nothing with respect to job creation, and now they are pointing their fingers at Obama like its all his fault. Its not all his fault. Congress played a role in where the economy is today.

    The GOP almost allowed a tax increase to occur by not ratifying Obama's payroll tax extension. Obama wants to continue a tax cut for workers and the GOP was not behind it. That was clearly political.

    The GOP has proven it doesn't have much faith in America. If one man can crash the plane that is the United States of America, then the GOP clearly thinks our country is weak. Chuck Norris said yesterday that the US is headed toward 1000 years of darkness if we reelect Obama. Even if Obama is as bad as you say and is trying to fundamentally change our society and economy-- our country is too strong to allow one man sink it into 1000 years of darkness. That's why we're still here after W's presidency-- if you remember the events around October 1, 2008, THAT was a time we almost had a fundamental change in our society.

  • Brian, I am going to invoke the "duck" rule here. Was FDR a socialist? Yes, but not by self-admission. Look at his actions, not his words. Was LBJ a socialist? Not exactly, but his Great Society Program is one of the greatest wealth transfers of all time. Quack, quack. Was Bill Clinton a socialist? No, he was horny. It was a Republican Congress that finally got him to sign off on welfare reform and a balanced budget. Hillary was a socialist --ala Michelle Obama-- but I'm not so sure now, after being through the Obama wringer.

    Obama himself, in 2008, said that he fundamentally wants to change American society. The man said it. What does that mean? He said it. If a conquering person said that, there would be no doubt about what was meant: change to the status quo, like it or not. Forced.

    You have got to get it right or wrong about Limbaugh and the rest. Either they are entertainers or they are the secret Republican Party. He (they) cannot be both. Wanting Obama to fail in his socialist policies is not wanting and wishing a person of the opposite party fail just because.

    Obama had total control over Congress for two plus years and his own party failed to enact all his wishes. You cannot blame that on Republicans. So they did not want to toss a vote his way. What is the difference, when their vote did not count and they did not agree with him?

    To answer your question about a graduated income tax --- is it "socialism". Technically, yes. It is one of the "planks" of socialism, if you will. You do know that those making in the top 10 percent in income pay the majority of income taxes, right? How much more is "fair". And if you --yes, you, Brian-- make even fifty thousand a year, do you know how "rich" that looks to a homeless person? It is all relative, believe me. Or it will become "relative".

    Other countries and civilizations have been led the wrong way, and in some cases, by one man's influence. Recall Nero? He deserved the fiddling reputation. Really!

    Have you read Pres Obama in his own words, in his own books? If so, you would have no doubt that Obama is a socialist. And so what? If he is he is. But have the balls to admit it.

    Do you know who the "Frank" of his books are, his mentor? It is Frank Marshall Davis. FMD also influenced greatly Vernon Jarrat and David Axelrod's kin. FMD was a proud communist. At least he had the courage to admit who he was.

    Just because something is accepted in society does not mean it did not come from progressive --i.e., socialist thought.

    As an aside, too, you will recall that GWB tried to get an audit done on Freddie and Fanny, because of the suspected sink holes there, but he was stopped, in part, by one Senator Barack Obama.

    You need to send me those rose colored glasses, so I can have them cleaned for you. LOL. In the collective spirit, comrade, I will charge that off to another blogger. LOL

    Think different. Think correct.

Leave a comment