When will Americans say enough is enough?

For nine straight months, we've lost hundreds of thousands of jobs, continuing to add more and more Americans to the ranks of the unemployed. This month alone we lost 159,000 jobs and since the beginning of the year, we've lost over 760,000 jobs. Unlike Republicans on the Hill, Oregon Senate candidate Jeff Merkley believes a strong economy depends on Americans having access to living wage jobs.

Full disclosure, I am the netroots director for OR-Sen candidate Jeff Merkley

Right now, we are seeing the negative effects of Republican economic policies in action. They do what they always do, cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and the big corporations, while cutting funding for jobs programs, jobs training programs and programs designed to help homeless people get back on their feet.

If Republican policies weren't insulting enough to hardworking Americans, Congress just passed Bush and Paulson's 700 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street. Oregon Senate candidate Jeff Merkley opposed the bailout because there were no real market reforms, no protections for homeowners and taxpayers and it required taxpayers to foot the bill for foreign banks. Merkley released a statement today acknowledging the economic blunders of Bush and Republicans like Gordon Smith. Here's what he had to say:

"The failed economic policies of the last eight years are hurting families," said Jeff Merkley. "Workers are losing their jobs, families are losing their income, and the cost of everything from food to fuel is rising. Even before this latest financial crisis, it was clear that the policies of the last eight years have failed the American people. Gordon Smith's response is to hand a blank check to Wall Street and continue the disastrous policies of George Bush. The next President and new Congress must end the failed economic policies of Gordon Smith and George Bush."

Republicans like George Bush and Gordon Smith believe that if you pad the pockets of the CEO's of the most powerful corporations, the money will magically end up in the pockets of the hardworking employees working for those companies. It's just not the case. With Bush's policies in action, we've witnessed stagnant wages, a shortening of the American workweek, high unemployment numbers, and more and more people joining the millions of Americans who lack health care coverage.

Our country is heading deeper and deeper into a recession, and people like Gordon Smith will never support policies that help working families. Oregon Senate candidate Jeff Merkley has always put the interest of working families before the most powerful special interests. As House Speaker, Merkley led the most labor friendly session we've seen in thirty years. There is no better time than now to retire Gordon Smith and send progressive Democrat Jeff Merkley to the Senate.

If you'd like to help oust Gordon Smith and replace him with Merkley, donate to Jeff via the Road to 60 Act Blue Page.

Tags: 2008 elections, Gordon Smith, Jeff Merkley, OR-Sen, Oregon, unemployment (all tags)

Comments

24 Comments

Re: When will Americans say enough is enough?

I'm sick to death of our government enacting policies that hurt the poor and hardworking families. Republicans need to be held accountable for their disastrous economic policies. With a ton of hard work, we can come together and hold them accountable by sending them packing on election day.

by Sarah Lane 2008-10-03 04:43PM | 0 recs
It was all done with the cooperation of democrats

- both parties are responsible but agree that the republican were the worst.

by suzieg 2008-10-03 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: First they gotta believe

We have not been successful at framing the debate when it comes to dinner table issues. But, it seems like Americans are starting to reject some of the Republican frames like raising taxes is scary etc. Here in Oregon, Smith is spending a ton of time trying to pin Merkley as a, "scary tax and spend libral." But, according to the polls, no matter what ol' Republican frames Smith pushes, it does nothing for his poll numbers. That's a good sign.

by Sarah Lane 2008-10-04 10:46AM | 0 recs
Democrats need to differentiate themselves MORE

Far too often, we are faced with situations like the bankruptcy bill or the bailout where both GOP and Democrats are basically making often making decisions against the interest of 95% of us -for a very small cabal of the very worst corporate interests

(not responsible corporations, which do exist, bad corporations that act against the public interest.)

What we really should do if this continues, is start another, more progressive party.

by architek 2008-10-04 04:26PM | 0 recs
This Is The Roman Empire Falling

The Dark Ages were actually a 1,000 year-long depression of the Roman Empire. We are repeating that cycle.

by blues 2008-10-03 05:54PM | 0 recs
On the Internet each year is seven dog years...

Woof woof...

So, we will have to endure over a hundred years of a reanimated Sarah Palin cracking jokes and then we will be reborn as caterpillars with opposing thumbs.

not very funny...

I agree with the Dark Ages analogy.. In the Dark Ages the population of the former Empire also fell by several hundred percent. People got much shorter. Literacy disappeared.

Similar things could happen here if we have a war to cover up the blame.

The people of several European nations are already several inchest taller than us.

by architek 2008-10-04 06:20AM | 0 recs
When will Americans say enough is enough?

Nov 4th

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-03 05:58PM | 0 recs
Democrats need to get some guts

I am embarassed by the DEmocratic leadership. They fell for the "something has to be done" bullshit. Yes, probably something had to be done. But the dems didn't have to cave in. They should have done what house republicans did and put the onus on the President to change things.

I am furious with them. THEY BETTER DEFUND THE FUCKING IRAQ WAR WHEN OBAMA BECOMES PRESIDENT. NO MORE MONEY TO HALLIBURTON.

by Pravin 2008-10-03 06:14PM | 0 recs
You are dreaming in color if you think Obama will

defund the war and lose his re-election bid when the war escalades! He's become a war monger exulting his willingness to go into Pakistan and Iran.

I repeat, there's no difference between the two candidates and you'll be extremely disappointed if you think otherwise or haven't you been listening to his pro war stance which are extremely similar to Bush/Cheney's.

by suzieg 2008-10-03 06:32PM | 0 recs
What, you are going for the record?

Jesus, little miss sunshine, are you this toxic in real life, cause it must just be a horror show to be around you.

What, 15 or 20 posts, all incredibly negative, you have to be ONE of THE MOST Bitter Clintonites I have yet to see post here.

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-03 06:51PM | 0 recs
I've stopped wearing my rose colored glasses!

when you get to my age and see election cycle after election cycle being played for a fool, and listening to promises which are never fulfilled, you become bitter! It's just a matter of time until you are in the same frame of mind as I am.

Wait until your savior comes into power and will not live up to your expectations for fear of alienating anyone and losing his reelection campaign.

40 yrs of democratic bullshit has put me in this frame of mind especially because of Obama's unwillingness to fight for universal healthcare which is my main point of contention against him and the democratic party for not pushing him to do so!

When and if you get cancer and have to pay over $25,000 yearly for your treatment and the party who is supposed to represent the middle class does nothing to help you out, then question my motives on this site  otherwise, shut up! I'm giving you a dose of reality, you don't like it, I don't give a damn!

by suzieg 2008-10-03 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: I've stopped wearing my rose colored glasses!

I am not quite there yet suzie. I do think Obama is a lot smarter with foreign policy. But yes, I do have doubts if he has the courage and will to end this war fast. I guess we shall see. For our sake, I hope you are wrong.

But Obama did cop out royally on the bailout.

by Pravin 2008-10-03 07:13PM | 0 recs
Stop this crap-ola.

Come on suze...

I'm probably older then you are, or close enough for blues?

But, of course, all us Obama supporters are just snot nose kids....

Try the pity victim all you want, what will it take to get you to tell the truth..

What about EVERY FRICKING BLACK PERSON IN THIS COUNTRY!  

Like you have had it harder then them?

They are seeing the fufillment of their dreams

You're down in the pool of bitter.

It's because Hillary lost.

Game set match.

It's Michigan (whoops..Obamas winning that)

It's Florida (whoops...looks like the same)

Remember how you went nuts about that, how Obama would lose those states AND the Election?

you dove in the bitter end of the pool and you blame the Democratic Party, Pelosi, Dean, Obama, any evil person that broke you heart and shattered your dreams....

And, now, you want to take it out on the rest of us, to try to spread your toxic bitter for the poision it is.

I'm not buying your victim rant, you trying to make this more than what it is.

You're STILL bitter Hillary lost, and you're stuck in it.

Period.

by WashStateBlue 2008-10-03 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop this crap-ola.

Amen to that.

by venician 2008-10-04 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Iran?

It's called "bitter nights". It's very smooth with just the right hint of LEMON.

by venician 2008-10-04 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Two things

When more republicans vote against the bill than Democrats, how can they blame the DEmocrats. Besides if the economy unraveled , it would have been before an Obama presidency, if half the speculation was true.

But here is my point about who actually had leverage. You forget that Paulson, and a lot of the political class had a LOT OF PERSONAL ASSETS at stake if they coudnt compromise. This was not mere political capital that the REpublicans stood to lose, but montarily too.  If Democrats made more demands, just enough Republicans would have been forced to cave in a little or be wiped out.

How can we trust what these guys say when they say something must be done now? For a while, they were correlating the stock market dive with a lack of bailout thing. But then when the stock market doesnt behave predictably, they change the rationale. All along the concern was the credit crunch and nothing else.

by Pravin 2008-10-03 07:17PM | 0 recs
My neighbor is a stock broker and told me that all

of Thursday, all the employees of his firm were given the appropriate zip codes to every house reps who had voted against the bailout and made them call the reps to ask them to vote for the bailout.

I called Kennedy's office and was told that the majority of calls were against the bill on Friday especially when people found out about the $150 billions in pork!

How can you put the economic fate of the country in the hands of Pelosi and Reid when they couldn't stand up to Wall Street -  reassuring isn't it for our economic future? Such strong leaders that they let themselves become hostages to wall street!

by suzieg 2008-10-03 09:43PM | 0 recs
Absolutely not - at first I was no Hillary

supporter because of her vote for the war, because of her vote on the bankruptcy bill but when the media turned on her so violently, undeservingly and unfairly, she got my attention and my vote but mostly, it became clear that she was more qualified for the job than Obama. She clinched me solidly when Obama accused them of using racism to pull AA votes away from her.

I have been reading the dire warnings about this meltdown for years now on counterpunch.com, no bastion of republicanism.

I wanted her because she came with clinton who is most likely the most knowledgeable person to fix this mess - democrats and republicans alike acknowledged that he was the president who loved the position  and the most adept at the presidency because of his extraordinary mind and skill at remembering facts and figures and delving into intricate matters .

On foreign policy. I remembered an interview with Sharon who expressed disbelief in the ignorance of Bush on Israel and when he showed the map of Jerusalem, Bush only wanted to showo him where he had visited unlike Clinton who impressed him by knowing the intricacy of the population in each neighborhood. That was my reason for supporting Clinton, she came attached at the hip with Bill and mostly because I believed we would get relief with escalating health insurance premiums - after hearing Obama tell the Chronicle that he was against universal/mandated health care for adults until he saw if it worked for adults - he lost me because I'm on an ongoing battle with breast cancer for the past 4 years which refuses to go into remission therefore I'm forced to pay over $25,000 a year for my treatments. That's what is revolting for me about Obama, spewing lies that he'll give affordable health insurance to everyone when he has no intentions of doing so, giving hope when he has none to give!

As for the economic crisis, who do you think would have had the immediate knowledge to try to fix it between Obama and Clinton? For me the Clintons win hands down. I'm way passed the blaming game but I'm sure for the accountability of the $150 billions in pork inserted in the bailout by the democrats to help pass this horrible bill and for the 451 pages for the bail out of foreign banks. The upping of the FDIC limit is a joke, how many middle class people do you think have $250,000 in a savings account or IRAs when the average is $40,000? Who does this help if not their rich contributors?

I saw Mort Zuckerman on the McLaughlin show last night who admitted that there is nothing in this bailout to help the middle class and will not ease the credit crunch because the money is going straight to wall street and that congress will have to pay up to 2 trillion dollars to unlock it. So basically the bailout was wasted money along with the pork and a reward for wall street!

by suzieg 2008-10-03 11:52PM | 0 recs
Oh God, please stop it!! This was a major factor

for a lot of voters, not the overall one - but getting 2 stellar minds for the price of one was tempting and a bonus to boot! Denying that bill was an asset is denying the truth - it doesn't take away from any of her qualifications, it just added to them. It was a perk that came along with her.

She has proven to the country that she was a extraordianry qualified candidate - coming back the way she did and staying in until the end when the media and the party elites were telling her to quit, when it was never done, ever, to any male candidate was itself an extraordinary feat!

She won, it's undeniable - Obama clinched it by committing fraud in the caucuses and I was a witness to it in Houston, so you will never dissuade me from that fact!!!

Insinuating that you know my full reasons, by parsing my words, for supporting and voting for her and completely ignoring my other comments about the shortcomings and deceitful promise of affordable health care by Obama shows me that you are not a worthy participant in a legitimate discussion.

by suzieg 2008-10-04 01:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely not - at first I was no Hillary

And suzie lest you forget it was a Clinton who started the deregulation of the banking system. Hillary would be getting clobbered by that right now if she were our candidate.

by venician 2008-10-04 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely not - at first I was no Hillary

Some of this deregulation started under Bill Clinton's tenure. Of course, we wouldn't be in this bad of a mess if he was still President. But let's not absolve his people of any culpability.

by Pravin 2008-10-05 05:27AM | 0 recs
How do you explain that all the offices I called

on friday to express my disapproval, all confirmed that the majority of their calls were against the bill because of their disdain for the added $150 billion in pork - What you refer to must have been on Tuesday before the population learned about the added pork, which is really obscene!

As for Obama,he was the first out of the gate to promote this bill by asking the congress to get it passed - so along with the democratic leaders who larded this bill, they are the ones responsible for it and you want me to give our economical fate to them after they have done the same thing with the war funding - caving in and giving Bush more than he asked for and now the same thing happens with this bailout... you must be kidding!

by suzieg 2008-10-04 12:00AM | 0 recs
because this site was never an echo chamber

before Obama's supporters tried to appropriate it and make it so - believe it or not, dissenters were accepted into legitimate discussions and were never asked to leave for doing so.

What are you so frightened of? that my predictions will materialized? That I represent the "evil eye"?

Why can't I point out the shortcomings of Obama and the party's? - I would think you would be grateful to learn the reasons why some of us, democrats and ex-democrats cannot stand for them anymore and why we are extremely disappointed with the party that we supported, in my case, for 40 yrs and which we don't recognize anymore such as it's members to cave to Bush by advocating, pushing and supporting a bill to bail out Wall Street therefore abetting the bankruptcy of the country by adding $150 billions in pork to get it through because it was so bad!

No one over the age of 40 would ever have thought that the party would come to this - the democratic party siding with Wall Street over main street!!!

I have the right to express my disastisfaction with the party, after being loyal all these years, anywhere I want to do so. You don't like to read what I have to say, just ignore me, no one is forcing you to do so, but please stop being silent when anyone insinuates that I'm a member of a racist group and unpatriotic - it's demeaning for your candidate to have such vile supporters!
 

by suzieg 2008-10-04 02:05AM | 0 recs
Re: because this site was never an echo chamber

And we have every right to critize you for behaving like your me, me, me, generation usually does.

by venician 2008-10-04 10:56AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads