Harry Reid: Republicans Don’t Care About Americans

Is the Senate Majority Leader getting feisty?  So it would seem when, on the senate floor the Nevada Democrat accused the GOP of rooting for economic failure in the hopes that it would boost them at the ballot box.

Via Politico:

“If there were ever an example of such a tremendous waste of the Senate’s time and the indication that the Republicans don’t care anything about the American people,” Reid said Monday in his speech. “I guess their goal is, ‘Let’s make things as bad as we can and hopefully the American people won’t see through it and maybe we’ll get somebody elected to replace President Obama.’ What other reason could there be?”

The sentiment is very familiar to many, who remember Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders accusing the GOP of the same thing prior to the 2010 election.  And, it turned out, he was right.

photo credit: wikimedia commons


Lynda H.
Lynda Harrison5 years ago

Well, Mr. Reid, tell us something the majority of us don't know. Oh! Sorry, there are a few Americans the RePUBIC-CONs care about . . . the rich ones!

Gary A.
Gary Addis5 years ago

Glen, Harry should read a few quotes in the Senate, such as this one:

"Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places
will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong
its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth
is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety
of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.
God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."

Glen P.
Glen P5 years ago

Harry Reid is absolutely correct.

Republican policies have done more to damage America than any foreign enemy EVER could have dreamed of.

Gary A.
Gary Addis5 years ago

So, Mike, what's the alternative? Eliminate highways funds, all social programs, turn fire departments and prisons and the education dpet over to private enterprise? make all roads toll roads? raise tax rates on the poor? These have all be proposed by Republicans.

Republicans want to dismantle everything that has made America great--and simultaneously increase tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%!

Several times, Mike, I and others have posted FACT that details the reason we now have these big deficits. Spending on social programs ain't it.

Put the blame where it belongs: on Bush's dismantling of regulations that controlled the greed of Wall Street; on Bush's $3 trillion wars; on Bush's tax cuts to the rich; on Bush's implementation of Medicare/Medicaid prescription drugs plan, which are essentially a gift to big pharmacies; on Buh-implemented tax incentives given to countries that move their factories outside America's borders.

Mike R.
Mike R.5 years ago

Yes spending during the Bush years was outlandish but neither President Bush or Obama really have much to do with deficit spending. They can submit budgets and set policy, but only congress can actually spend. Since 2006, the Democrats have had control of both houses, and things have not gotten much better since the lost the house. Yes some small improvements have been seen (even a broke clock is correct twice a day). But don't you think it is a problem when politians make a big deal about a .1% decrease in un-employment that doesn't even last? Let's at least wait until we get a full percentage point decrease before we start celebrating. Harry Reid is trying to deflect his YEARS of failure by claiming Republicans pointing to his failures means they want them. Does he think only Democrats are out of work? Millions of Republicans and independents are out of work too. He got a warning in 2010, and will get a bigger one in 2012 if he does not reverse his proven failed policies. Deficit spending is un-sustanable no matter who does it.

Claude Hines
Claude Hines5 years ago

Yvette - in answer to your question - How can we stop them? Simple: VOTE THEM OUT, CENSOR THEIR CORPORATE-FRIENDLY ACTIONS, and work to RECALL THEM whenever possible. TOGETHER, WE CAN!!

David M.
David M5 years ago

If they cared about Americans then why didn't they confirm Obama's pick for the Federal Reserve. Wouldn't bring his confirmation up for a vote in the Senate because he wasn't qualified. HE HAS A NOBLE PEACE PRIZE IN ECONOMIC'S!
Why can't we negotiate drug prices to lower health care costs? No Repulicans want Obama to fail, (Mitch McConnel should be impeached for comments about our President-I'll remind you. My only job is to make sure Obama is a one time President! How UnAmerican!!!) This is racism at it's best. REPUBLICANS PUT US IN DEBT-NOT OBAMA! THE ECONOMY COLLAPSED UNDER REPUBLICAN WATCH! REPUBLICANS ALLOWED US TO BE ATTACKED UNDER THEIR WATCH! ETC. ETC. ETC.

Gary A.
Gary Addis5 years ago

CBO Continued............

CBO and JCT estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation—H.R. 3590 and the
reconciliation proposal— would produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $138
billion over the 2010–2019 period as result of changes in direct spending and revenue
(see the top panel of Table 1 and subtitle A of title II on Table 5). Approximately $85
billion of that reduction would be on-budget; other effects related to Social Security
revenues and spending as well as spending by the U.S. Postal Service are classified as
off-budget. CBO has not completed an estimate of the potential impact of the legislation
on discretionary spending, which would be subject to future appropriation action.
CBO and JCT previously estimated that enacting H.R. 3590 by itself would yield a net
reduction in federal deficits of $118 billion over the 2010-2019 period, of which about
$65 billion would be on-budget. The incremental effect of enacting the reconciliation
proposal—assuming that H.R. 3590 had already been enacted—would be the difference
between the estimate of the combined effect and the previous estimate for the Senatepassed
bill, H.R. 3590. That incremental effect is an estimated net reduction in federal
deficits of $20 billion over the 2010-2019 period over and above the savings from
enacting H.R. 3590 by itself; almost all of that reduction would be on-budget (see the
bottom panel of Table 1 and subtitle A of title II on Table 5).2

Gary A.
Gary Addis5 years ago

Sandra, again with your opinion. I'll discuss it 1 point at a time.

Why did the unemployment rate rise under Obama. How many instances of Republican refusal to pass Democratic legislation would you like me to reiterate for you? It took only one repub. to stymie Obama. They tried to stop Obama's loans to the auto industry, calling it socialism. But the loans worked! Gov help saved the thousands of jobs, and today taxpayers have been reimbursed for those loans--with interest. Republ amendments to the WS bailout allowed the brokers to pay out billions in employee bonuses at the expense of taxpayers.
Want to compare unemploym rates? GWB lost 6 million jobs; Clinton grew 20 million jobs; Obama has produced a net gain of jobs every month of his tenure. RE healthcare: contrary to your opinion, MA healthcare is VERY popular in MA.
A poll by the Harvard School of Public Health and The Boston Globe found that 63 percent of Massachusetts residents support the 2006 health law, up 10 percentage points in the past two years. So, on this point also you are dead wrong.

From the CBO itself:
CBO and JCT estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation—H.R. 3590 and the
reconciliation proposal— would produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $138
billion over the 2010–2019 period as result of changes in direct spending and revenue
(see the top panel of Table 1 and subtitl

Sandra S.
Sandra S5 years ago

Gary, I did look at your link. I'm not excusing Bush's excessive spending, but Obama has been president for 2 1/2 years. The Dems had both houses in 2006 and the presidency in 2008. When do they begin to take ownship of our current economic troubles? Unemployment rose 1.5% after Obama took office. Obama has done more than enough damage on his own to our economy. Obamacare will only worsen things. The claim is that it will reduce health care costs. Mitt Romney came up with Romneycare which was a huge mistake. It has not gone over well with the people of MA. It's backrupting the state. This is what Obamacare is designed after.

"Health care costs too much in this country. Spending $1 trillion more on health care, as the Democrats' new law does, didn't reduce health care costs. In fact, it will only make matters worse. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the law will actually increase the cost of insurance for millions of families by an additional $2,000 per year by 2016."