The Republican Party has gone stark raving mad. They're completely nuts, off the chain, slipping into darkness, and worse, they're proud of it. Each competing to see which of them can out crazy the other. The GOP has championed the cause of millionaires, corporations, big oil/gas and fat defense contractors. They have simultaneously and deliberately alienated labor unions, public employees, gays, racial minorities, the elderly, the poor, the middle class and women. Surveys indicate women voters back Obama over Romney by 16 points (55%-39%). According to polls Obama holds a margin over Romney among crucial independent voters as well. Surveys also indicate a generation gap with all age groups, except those 65 and older (I just don't understand why they do, senility perhaps?), backing Obama. Then there is the income divide with the president holding a 20-point lead over Romney among those earning less than $50,000 per year, while those making more than that figure are divided between the two candidates.
Here is but a small part of the craziness coming from the GOP.
1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet.
2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."
3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care.
4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.
5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.
6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.
7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.
8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.
9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.
10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program for humans here in the States and yet Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses (You just can't make this stuff up).
11) Republicans are refusing to expand the Violence Against Women Act which would expand efforts to reach Indian tribes and rural areas. It would increase the availability of free legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, extend the definition of violence against women to include stalking, and provide training for civil and criminal court personnel to deal with families with a history of violence. It would also allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas, and would include same-sex couples in programs for domestic violence.
12) And lets not forget the continued push by many in the GOP to limit women's access to contraceptives and abortion.
Yes, the GOP has gone mad, totally and completely mad!! (http://www.quickersoft.com/pictures/cuckoo.gif)
Hi,
I just wish the "news" I listen to would have a Republican-free
week about now. Any fiction of something happening that means
anything from those (that) bozo[es] is nil.
Cheers,
Steve N.
Bill,
It sounds like a lot of people in the GOP need to prove they are moral to hide their own activities. I guess that would account for such a range of "progressive" legislative reforms. :P
One thing that really bothers me Bill,is that many of the things you listed don't get much coverage. If you want to kow these facts,you have to dig deep in the news to find them. It seems that they get glossed over most of the time. Most of what you listed doesn't get mentioned in the media,even though they effect so many people.
If they get their plans out of paper US is at increased risk for many social problems in near future. This is a dangerous path and not so long.
There have always been extremes on both sides but lately much of the Right has gone mad. With the influence of their beloved Tea-Baggers and the Religious Right, none of the sane thinking Republicans will stand up and admit that the GOP is out of control. They have truly lost there identity as the conservative party of less government and less taxes. Of course they are all for less taxes if it is for the rich. The Republican Party is no longer conservative a more suitable description is "radical".
As I seen posted on another board:
QuoteA party that refuses to raise taxes on anyone, ever when taxes are at historic lows isn't conservative, it's radical.
A party that wants to roll back successful programs like Social Security that have been a bedrock of American society for nearly three quarters of a century isn't conservative, it's radical.
A party that's openly at war with Progressive Era reforms like unions and child labor laws isn't conservative, it's radical.
A party that refuses to make cuts in defense when the U.S. currently spends more than the next 14 countries in the world combined isn't conservative, it's radical.
A party that denies the scientific consensus of climate change isn't conservative, it's radical.
A party that seeks to repeal a law that was decided by the Supreme Court nearly four decades ago isn't conservative, it's radical.
A party that advocates the forced deportation of 12 million immigrants isn't conservative, it's radical.
A party that denies basic facts about the deficit isn't conservative, it's radical.
A party that wants to pull out of landmark treaties the United States helped write isn't conservative, it's radical.
A party that invites white supremacists and fringe organizations like the John Birch Society to its most important conferences isn't conservative, it's radical.
A party whose leaders compare the President of the United States to Adolf Hitler and Stalin on the floor of the House, who threaten impeachment if they don't get their way, and who sow doubt about the President's citizenship isn't conservative, it's radical.
A party whose presidential candidates claim that states should be able to ban contraception and that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional isn't conservative, it's radical.
As another example; Republican Rep. Allen West said recently at a public town hall meeting that "there's about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party.'' Those of us old enough to remember Joe McCarthy, a Republican senator from Wisconsin, who claimed that communists and Soviet spies had burrowed their way into the federal government, have heard that nonsense before. Allen West like Joe McCarthy never could produce the names or documentation to back up those claims.
Yes indeed, the GOP has lost their collective minds, the sooner they are dead and buried the better it will be for this once great country!
Bill-those 12 million so called immigrants, broke our immigration laws by sneaking across the border into this country.
They have no legal right to be here. There are proper ways to immigrate to this country, and if they followed the proper
procedures there would be no problem.
A President and his justice department who allows fringe organizations like the New Black Panther Party http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/new-black-panther-party
to spew their bigotry and threats of violence to go unchecked as seen recently in Florida, is a radical President.
As the ratio of people working that pays into the Social Security trust fund, to those that are receiving it increases, it is going broke, and must be overhauled to save it.
what is so radical about that?
You cant spend your way out of a deficit, you must cut the expenditures. Why is that radical?
That Pelosi, Reid Stimulus package did a great job stimulating their buddies pockets. At $246,000 + per job created, that money could have been better spent.
And what about women's health care in the state of Nevada? Are they considered second class citizens compared to women in other states?
I don't hear any crying from the left on how Sen Reid got the whole state of Nevada exempt from Obamacare. Must be the casinos lining his pockets, so they can keep
their healthcare costs down.
Planned Parenthood is a PRIVATE organization, they got $487 million in taxpayer dollars in their last FY , while at the same time giving millions to similar organizations around the world.
It is not the US taxpayers responsibility to pay for condoms in Africa. Without the Federal funding PPA would cease to exist, because they dont get enough funding
from their private progressive benefactors.
I have no problems with a tax increase, if that tax increase also covers those 47 % of wage earners that pay no federal income taxes.
If you live in this country, and use its infrastructure paid for by federal dollars, then you should also pay for their upkeep.
Mike,
I will leave the rest alone as they are local US issues but I will take you to task on this one.
> You cant spend your way out of a deficit, you must cut the expenditures. Why is that radical?
Because it does not work. The closest you have come to an economic reconstruction in the US was FDR's bailout of the disaster that Herbert Hoover inflicted on Americans a couple of years after the great depression hit. Same old crap, trust in markets, cutbacks, massive unemployment, people starving in the streets etc .... Hoover failed, FDR succeeded, why go down the same path of failure again. The US like most other western countries has its economic structural problems, in part because the people making the most money (billionaires etc ...) rarely pay much tax and that means the patsies (those not rich enough to pay for GOP politicians) have to pay the tax for them. You will notice which party rejected the Buffet tax scheme, its OK to shaft little people who work and pay tax in the US but don't tax the billionaires.
Level the playing field with tax then stimulate the economy without padding the pockets of the corporate sector, that will get the US up and going again but don't hold your breath waiting.
it might work, if they'd fricken cut expenditures in the right places
Quote from: hutch-- on April 18, 2012, 04:28:52 AM
Level the playing field with tax ...
I agree Hutch, as long as that leveling of the field includes
every wage earner. Even if it is a low tax rate. Just over half of the wage earners should not
bear the burden of paying for the other 47 % non-payers.
Quote from: hutch-- on April 18, 2012, 04:28:52 AM
then stimulate the economy without padding the pockets of the corporate sector
That would be hard to do as you said, since both parties are guilty of it. And increasing the size of government
wont do it either, as that increases the tax burden required to keep it functioning, and the government cannot
create wealth(capital) to infuse into the economy.
Quote from: rags on April 19, 2012, 12:35:19 AM
...as long as that leveling of the field includes every wage earner. Even if it is a low tax rate. Just over half of the wage earners should not bear the burden of paying for the other 47 % non-payers.
For Europeans, the "state hate" in the U.S. is a mystery. So much ideology...
Make a test: Go into one of the bigger towns, and enter a bank. Admire the hall - the marble and all that. Say to yourself "the CEO of this bank deserves his 100 Mio Dollar bonus". Then go to the counter and ask "I am just an average wage earner, can I have a loan at slightly better conditions than your rich clients?"
Hint: The state is not your enemy.
Quote from: jj2007 on April 19, 2012, 01:06:44 AM
Quote from: rags on April 19, 2012, 12:35:19 AM
...as long as that leveling of the field includes every wage earner. Even if it is a low tax rate. Just over half of the wage earners should not bear the burden of paying for the other 47 % non-payers.
For Europeans, the "state hate" in the U.S. is a mystery. So much ideology...
Make a test: Go into one of the bigger towns, and enter a bank. Admire the hall - the marble and all that. Say to yourself "the CEO of this bank deserves his 100 Mio Dollar bonus". Then go to the counter and ask "I am just an average wage earner, can I have a loan at slightly better conditions than your rich clients?"
Hint: The state is not your enemy.
Maybe I'm being dense again, but I don't see what bankers and rich clients have to do with inequities in our federal income tax system.
Quote from: MichaelW on April 19, 2012, 08:03:00 AM
... inequities in our federal income tax system.
You refer to the Buffett rule, I suppose?
I'm not referring to the Buffett rule - I just don't understand what point you were making in your reply.
This nonsense that half of Americans pay no taxes is absurd! As printed in 2010 the New York Times columnist David Leonhardt urged Americans to look closer and see the truth:
Quote"With Tax Day coming on Thursday, 47 percent has become shorthand for the notion that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole. Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 47 percent number."
Labeling the 47% argument a distraction from who really pays what in taxes, Leonhardt explained:
Quote"Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47."
The GOP's refusal to increase taxes on those making a million or more a year will continue to hold back the US recovery. But then that has been the GOP's intention from the beginning of the Obama administration. They do not want this administration to succeed even to the total detriment of the country so long as they can bring about the failure of the black man who dared to be President.
As to Federal expenditures; If continued the current trend in declining Federal expenditures will result in increased deficits and even slower growth. As Steve explained above in his post those who lived through the Great Depression learned the math of deficit reduction the hard way.
Mike,
Quote
I agree Hutch, as long as that leveling of the field includes every wage earner. Even if it is a low tax rate. Just over half of the wage earners should not bear the burden of paying for the other 47 % non-payers.
Even if the figure was 47% which appears to be contentious, the total income from the bottom 47% is trivial in comparison to the sums
NOT PAID by the super rich. When you keep screwing an economy by shoving the tax burden downwards to the poorer end of the population, you end up with massive debt, decaying infrastructure and social unrest from people who are poor, cold and hungry. You can keep trying to keep the lid on local security issues but unhappy hungry people have little reason to obey the law when it does not work for them, only for rich people.
I am fascinated that the conservative end of US politics only see the US as an economy. It has been one of the world's great societies but that is being eroded by the greed and indifference shown by the conservative end of US politics.
It needs to be understood that the facilities that make up the entire US economy were paid for by the hard work of millions of ordinary Americans, when some crapheap corporation treats the US like a sh*thole to make a quick buck from, they are stealing the hard work of millions of Americans that put it there in the first place.
But this is also a two edged sword, Hutch.
At what point dont you allow people to keep what they earned?
Who gets to make the decision for you that you've earned enough and must redistribute the rest?
When our top tax brackets where above 75%, the people with the money found ways to keep it hid from
the taxman, thus out of the economy.
Hutch, yes you are correct that it was a great society.
Family mattered, and took care of each other, when family needed help.
Things started changing when the Federal government started stepping in and replacing it.
People became more dependent on the government to provide for things that the familial unit did.
There is no longer a need for a breadwinner in the family nor to be married. Uncle Sam would provide for you.
@Bill - I dont quite follow the logic of decreasing Federal expenditures==increased deficits. If you are not spending
money that you dont have, how does that increase what you owe?
Mike,
Families are among the worst hit in the US, kick the guts out of their economic stability, send their jobs overseas, bring in labor from Mexico to do the on site local work and remove any safety net for the consequences of doing all of these things and you destroy America right in its heartland. Jobs have gone to China, Korea, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, the Phillipines and so on that should be done in the US by Americans and this leaves them with no way to support their families.
RE: The big end of town in terms of income, the rest of the world can manage higher tax rates for people on higher incomes yet the US and a few other western countries have kept delivering tax cuts to the massively rich who in turn take it overseas. Surely you know that Haliburton made a fortune in Iraq then left the US for Dubai. When you give tax concessions to the massively rich you shift the tax burden down to poorer people who are being shafted by job losses, fuel price rises, higher taxes and decaying infrastructure.
The solution to these structural imbalances is to make sure the super rich pay tax, remove all of the scams that are draining the health budget, reign in defence spending, only spend 5 times more than the rest of the world combined, not 10 times, and reconstruct the American manufacturing industry so that Americans have jobs and can spend their income back in the US again. Different western countries have different economic problems that require different solutions but the American one is mainly driven by greed from a foreign owned corporate sector, this must be brought under control before they finally suck the life out of the US so it can never recover.
Quote from: rags on April 20, 2012, 12:00:57 AM
@Bill - I dont quite follow the logic of decreasing Federal expenditures==increased deficits. If you are not spending
money that you dont have, how does that increase what you owe?
Seeking Alpha is the premier website for actionable stock market opinion and analysis.
QuoteInvestors beware: If continued, the current trend in declining Federal expenditures will result in increased deficits, slower growth and a major stock market pullback.
Forgotten Math: How Spending Cuts Increase Deficits And Kill Markets (http://seekingalpha.com/article/468851-forgotten-math-how-spending-cuts-increase-deficits-and-kill-markets)
With Romney pretty much annointed as the GOP candidate its time to take a look at his advisory team. One of the best is ofcourse the co-chair of his judicial advisory committee Robert Bork. Is this guy ever a piece of work, he despises the civil liberties act calling it a moral abomination, he does not believe the constitution protects the right to privacy, equality for women or that free speech applies to anything but political views (ie science is not protected) or even that a couple has the right to use contraception. As a judge he ruled that a corporation has the right to demand that a woman be sterilized or fired. Yeah, this is the guy Americans really should have helping decide who will be nominated to the courts of the country, welcome back to 1480 and be happy with Mitt "de Torquemada" Romney (or else).
i'd say that pretty much sums up all politicians, Edgar
they all seem to think of the constiution as "the enemy"
i remember George Romney (Mitt's dad) pretty well, having been raised in Michigan
i seem to recall he was more or less a mobster in office
of course, it appeared as though he did a lot of good stuff
but, Michigan's economy was booming back then, which made it easy to look good
he even looked like a gangster - lol
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Publicity_photo_Romney_68_Convention.jpg/200px-Publicity_photo_Romney_68_Convention.jpg)
...and they wonder what happened to Jimmy Hoffa
Quote from: dedndave on April 27, 2012, 04:11:46 PM
i'd say that pretty much sums up all politicians, Edgar
they all seem to think of the constiution as "the enemy"
Too bad they don't take "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" seriously. But that aside, Bork is a bit more extreme than most, he was rejected as a Reagan appointee to the supreme court and his rulings are bordering on medieval.
Santorum would have been a better result for the Democrats in that he was a lot more rabid in his right wing conservatism than Romney. You could see from the states that he won where his support was coming from and this would have made Obama's job much easier in the upcoming election.
RE: The conservative loonie tune end of the market and their hostility to the US constitution, there is an oft forgotten term for such persons, it "traitor". The US constitution is the founding core document that enshrines the protection of the nation and all of its citizens and when it comes under attack as it has been in the last 10 years or so, those who perform this level of treachery need to be dealt with on the level of traitors. Instead of the kissarse to foreign capital, banking institutions and corporate sectors, such people need to be herded off to some gulag in northen Alaska scrubbing the moss off oil pipelines with a toothbrush (in their teeth) in winter until they have learnt that the US is for American citizens, not parasites sucking the life out of the country. If they don't survive the learning curve, who gives a PHUK.
I hope the Republicans win so we see what happens on the Mayan Calender.
Here's the latest battle between the Democrats and the Republicans:
More than 7 million low and middle income students rely on loans to get them thru college. If Congress doesn't take action interest rates for student loans will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1st 2012. These student loans are subsidized by the government. The Republicans want to take the $6 billion cost to subsidize these loans from Obama's new health care law which gives the unemployed and low-income people greater access to health care. Obviously this care benefits lower income women and children yet these pigs (the Republicans) don't give a shit about the underclass. If they can't come to an agreement on how to pay for this it will also affect the Violence Against Women Act, which has expired and presently is operating on funds that will run out with the new fiscal year which begins Oct. 1st 2012.
Democrats on the other hand want to cover the $6 billion cost of keeping interest rates low by closing a loophole for high-income individuals who file taxes as so-called S corporations. Those earning beyond $200,000 a year, or $250,000 for couples, would have to start reporting some of their profits as income. I think it's very clear which Party is more for the common man, that is to say, the average citizen of the US of A.
Phuk Republicans!! :tdown
The money from many of those loans ends up in the hands of scam artists, for-profit colleges that provide a substandard education. I have some experience helping a student at one of these "technical institutes" and the parts of the curriculum that I had contact with were a joke. In recent times their advertisements have included a statement along the lines of "credits earned are unlikely to transfer", and they apparently are still able to suck students in. I don't care about idiots wasting their money, but I suspect that many/most of these loans will end up being paid by our tax dollars. If our government were doing its job they would simply shut these operations down.
yes - there are a lot of scammers
but - there are also a lot of people who genuinely need help, nowdays
i saw an article the other day about the food stamp program
the republicans would rather cut the food stamp program than cut military spending or raise taxes
(they know that raising taxes means raising them primarily for the wealthy)
the republicans site "the rise in the cost of the program" as a reason to cut spending (DUH)
(http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2012/0206-chart/11670562-1-eng-US/0206-chart_full_600.jpg)
they want to cut spending by 33 billion over 10 years, 7.7 billion over the first year - affecting the 46 million people who use food stamps
granted - there are a bunch of people who are cheating the system, but my guess is that it's a small percentage of the 46 million
if they want the cost of the program to go down - create some jobs !!!
flipping burgers at McDonald's or other minimum wage jobs don't count
stop sending all the good jobs overseas, dumb-asses
Bill,
I stand with you man, I couldn't agree with you more. I just hope the rest of the U.S. people wake up to what the GOP is all about.
Paul Kruger?,
Said that they didn't need to do anything extreme to keep the economy going. If they would have just kept the 600,000 federal, state, county, fire, police, teachers employed over the last 3 1/2 years, and hired 700,000 to keep up with population growth, employment then they would have stimulated the economy. By the Republicans cutting all these jobs, it is forcing the economy down, and unemployment up. The Republicans have tried everything to hurt this economy and the middle class.
This was on the Ed Show the last couple of days.