Skip to content

Republicans purposely keeping the economy bad and unemployment high?

The Republican Party is trying to stop the Federal Reserve from helping to lower unemployment.

It is bad enough that the Republicans opposed the federal version of Mitt Romney’s health care plan, the continuation of Dubya’s bank bailout, and the (failed) attempt to pass John McCain’s climate bill, but now they are opposing Milton Friedman’s monetary policies. And there doesn’t seem to be any reason they are doing this, except to keep unemployment high so it reflects badly on Obama and the Democrats.

In November, the Fed announced it would purchase $600 billion in US Treasury bonds. The goal is to lower long-term interest rates and jumpstart the economy. Conservatives went nuts, claiming this would lead to hyperinflation, which is a bizarre argument since inflation is at record lows right now and is falling. Republicans even introduced bills in Congress that would require the Fed to concentrate on keeping inflation low and prohibit it from worrying about high unemployment.

So Republicans claim to be worried about inflation, which is not a problem, and want the Fed to ignore unemployment, which is a big problem. Does this make any sense? It does if you are a Republican. Back in August, budget expert Stan Collender gave a prediction, warning the Fed that “with Republican policy makers seeing economic hardship as the path to election glory,” they would be “opposed to any actions taken by the Federal Reserve that would make the economy better.”

The Republicans may not be terrorists, but are they weapons of mass economic destruction?



  1. Jason Ray wrote:

    IK – any links to which bills were submitted to “concentrate on inflation and prohibit focus on high unemployment”?

    After working for lawyers and forensic accountants for so many years, I agree with Legal Rule #1 – if someone is lying, then whoever profits the most by lying is the one that is the liar. So when any politician uses hyperbole and fear mongering I always assume they have a specific agenda, and if some Republicans want to “ignore unemployment” then the only logical reason is to make the Administration look bad.

    I am interested in which ones submitted the bills, though, because now that the mid terms are over and tax cuts for the wealthy have been extended we’re seeing a lot of fracturing within the Republican Block.

    Wednesday, December 22, 2010 at 2:39 pm | Permalink
  2. Iron Knee wrote:

    Does this help?

    The bills were submitted in November, after the elections.

    Wednesday, December 22, 2010 at 2:57 pm | Permalink
  3. Sammy wrote:

    From Jason Ray above: “…then the only logical reason is to make the Administration look bad.” That is their purpose in everything they do. Only instead of the euphemism “Administration”, I think one could substitute “black president” and be more accurate.

    Wednesday, December 22, 2010 at 3:04 pm | Permalink
  4. patriotsgt wrote:

    I’m not so sure about the “black president” Sammy. I think they are opposed to any liberal looking democrat period. I wouldn’t play the race card, although I am sure there are some wingnuts who will prove me wrong.

    Wednesday, December 22, 2010 at 3:18 pm | Permalink
  5. Sammy wrote:

    Patriot, judging by the emails I intercept from right wingers (that I have to clean out of our company’s email server), yes a lot of it has to do with the man’s color. Examples: watermelon trap to catch Obama; joke about Michelle being Tarzan’s ape.

    But you could be right, since the same Republicans tried to run Clinton out of office over lying about a blow job and they tried to convince their minions that his wife was a murderer.

    Wednesday, December 22, 2010 at 6:13 pm | Permalink
  6. Never underestimate the power of a few people on the Internet to come across as a majority.

    Thursday, December 23, 2010 at 8:31 am | Permalink
  7. Jason Ray wrote:

    Very well said, Chinagreenelvis!

    Also, we should remember that in any group of people a small percentage are nuts. As long as we remeber that they are on the edge, and not confuse them with the rest of the group, we can operate rationally.

    And we need those people on the edge, as a signpost to stop us from getting too close to it 🙂

    Thursday, December 23, 2010 at 9:17 pm | Permalink
  8. Jason Ray wrote:

    Thanks for the link IK. I wouldn’t read into it as much as you implied, though, as the concern about the Fed printing too much money is a legitimate concern. That said, the timing and the proposed solution (cancelling one of the Fed’s two priorities) does raise an eyebrow or two 🙂

    Thursday, December 23, 2010 at 9:22 pm | Permalink