The rich don't need to play the lottery, they have the Republicans. The Paul Ryan budget proposal, endorsed by the now Republican Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney is a $3 trillion giveaway to the rich - millionaires and corporations - over a three year period. To pay for the giveaway, Ryan will take away benefits that go to lower and middle class Americans.
There is a cost to the rich, of course; as they will be expected to ante up some campaign contributions. But, let's say they each give the individual maximum of $10,000; the profit margin is tremendous as anyone with a $1million annual income will get something like a $150,000 tax break.
And, the odds are terrific. They have a 50/50 chance of winning which is not bad odds considering that if they do nothing, they could take a hit as President Obama would then have a chance to put in his Buffet tax on millionaires which would ensure that they hve to pay something like a fair share of taxes like most of us.
So, what's the problem? The problem is that such a budget will ruin the economy which is driven by consumption by middle and lower class income people. The rich don't produce, they manage, mostly their own money and now ours too. The end result of the last tax break for the rich (the Bush one) was a devastated economy and a stock market in the toilet. The stock market in the toilet actually also affects more the middle class than the 1% as the 1% can ride out the storm until a good Democrat gets back in office to restore the value of all our investments, while the middle class, especially the seniors who are retired take a hit that makes life difficult as the margin between their base need and their real income moves to nill or below.
Here's the kicker... a good number of people who will be robbed by the Romney/Ryan budget will vote for the Republicans. I have to hand it to them. They believe and are successful in getting, if not a majority, then something close to it to believe a lie - that the rich drive the economy and so to give them money creates jobs for all the rest of us.
I can only say: you get what you vote for. Don't be stupid!!!
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Friday, April 13, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
The Order of Finish: Romney, Gingrich, Paul, Santorum
This is how the Republican primaries will end, in terms of delegates pledged for the National Convention: Romney, Gingrich, Paul and finally Santorum. Despite the rhetoric from Gingrich and Santorum about the "long haul", their haul will end when the money ends and that will happen first for Santorum and then for Gingrich. Ron Paul will finish third and will stay the distance as he never had and never depended upon the Super PACS for his financing. In truth, Paul is the only real alternative to Romney in this race with his more radical economic notions (which are not so good for the nation) and his more reasoned and sane approach to military spending and war.
There will be woman named by Romney for Vice-President (as he is trailing Obama with women all over the world). Then, President Obama will win the general election.
Why will Obama win? In the first place because he has done a reasonably good job: passed health care, ended two wars and put the economy back on a pattern of growth. And, because not enough people will really believe that Romney is in the race for the sake of building up the middle class. He is so far removed from the middle class that he has no idea of it means to be middle class or struggling to stay there. He doesn't care about the poor, doesn't know what it means to be middle class and his best friends are corporations (they are "people" too, you know...at least according to Mitt). I would add that one other deficit for Romney is that he doesn't really have a sense of humor as Obama does.
Mark my words. I put it down in writing on this 3rd day of February so that, later, it cannot be claimed that it is easy to say that this is what I predicted but how does anyone really know it was what I predicted.
There will be woman named by Romney for Vice-President (as he is trailing Obama with women all over the world). Then, President Obama will win the general election.
Why will Obama win? In the first place because he has done a reasonably good job: passed health care, ended two wars and put the economy back on a pattern of growth. And, because not enough people will really believe that Romney is in the race for the sake of building up the middle class. He is so far removed from the middle class that he has no idea of it means to be middle class or struggling to stay there. He doesn't care about the poor, doesn't know what it means to be middle class and his best friends are corporations (they are "people" too, you know...at least according to Mitt). I would add that one other deficit for Romney is that he doesn't really have a sense of humor as Obama does.
Mark my words. I put it down in writing on this 3rd day of February so that, later, it cannot be claimed that it is easy to say that this is what I predicted but how does anyone really know it was what I predicted.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Gingrich is Finished, Comic Relief is Over
Never mind the specifics of what Marianne Gingrich, second Newt wife said. The mere fact that she spoke out brings into clear view the incredible difficulty that Newt has in making the case for himself in so many aspects of what some Republicans desire in a candidate and what the nation needs. The problem is not just to determine if, indeed, Newt did ask Marriane for an "open marraige." If the request was made, it was, at least, a stab at some kind of transparency in the relationship. The problem is that there are three of them - wives, I mean. That means that at least twice, Gingrich made a major decision in life that, by his own reckoning, was fatally flawed. If he cannot decide, by his own admission, what is good for himself, how is he going to decide what is good for the nation. Forgiveness, if he ever really asked for it, does not, by the way, make the forgiven one more holy, more mature or more intelligent.
It might be interesting, however, to have Newt explain which mistakes he confessed when asking God for forgiveness. There are so many possibilities and one wonders if he really could remember them all. The two affairs while married, for instance, would have definitely required a good amount of not telling the truth and to more than just one person. Which staffers were asked to be complicit by keeping quiet (you know that sin about causing others to sin - it's considered worse than just sinning yourself)? The follow-up question could be what he learned from each sin that was forgiven...the first time it was forgiven and then the second time it was forgiven. Then I wonder what dispensation he received from the Catholic Church to take communion as the church does not recognize divorce. Can polygamists still participate in the Eucharist?
It just is too unseamly for the candidate of the "family values" party to have so many divorces trailing behind him and to complicate the matter, the potential first lady was eight years an adulterer with Newt. Imagine the possible questions to Newt and Callista on the campaign trail about those eight years.
Personally, I don't care about Newt's sex life or his infidelity. The problem with Newt is the problem with his party - they have bad ideas for governing the nation.
Gingrich should have known that his history would be his undoing and it will be, because, when push comes to shove, even if he did receive a small uptick in support from the usual backlash to bad news, the Republicans will not tolerate a candidate who, on their own sacred social issues, is, according to their own standards, one of the most prolific sinners. He can be forgiven. But no one will forget and especially not the true Evangelicals in the heartland. Goodbye Newt.
The lingering question is how a person like Newt Gingrich with so much baggage both personally and politically (from his days in the Congress) can go so far down the road without either the electorate giving him a clear indication or realizing himself that he never really had a chance. The same could be said about the big money that supported him. If you are looking for someone who knows how to invest their own money in a winning cause to take charge of your money for investment, then get the list of Gingrich donors and do not ever contact them.
To add to this puzzling reality is the fact that Gingrich is not the only one who, for reasons that should have been obvious to the candidate themselves as well as the electorate, should never have gotten as far as they did in the primary process. We still remember Herman Cain. It could be that the lesson here for the rest of us is that the air in the high altitudes of arrogance that are bred by the system of power brokering as it it exists in a corporate run state such ours is mighty thin and causes the death of those brain cells that ordinary would prevent such delusions.
In this sense, the Cain exit, the Perry exit and the soon to be Gingrich exit are more reflective of the public's need for Sarah Palin to reappear now and then to serve as comic relief.
The real worry comes when you consider that the remaining candidates for the Republican party are quite aware of who pulls the strings and are ready and able to lead the next coupe on the hopes of ordinary people for some form of economic, social and political justice to prevail within our boundaries.
It might be interesting, however, to have Newt explain which mistakes he confessed when asking God for forgiveness. There are so many possibilities and one wonders if he really could remember them all. The two affairs while married, for instance, would have definitely required a good amount of not telling the truth and to more than just one person. Which staffers were asked to be complicit by keeping quiet (you know that sin about causing others to sin - it's considered worse than just sinning yourself)? The follow-up question could be what he learned from each sin that was forgiven...the first time it was forgiven and then the second time it was forgiven. Then I wonder what dispensation he received from the Catholic Church to take communion as the church does not recognize divorce. Can polygamists still participate in the Eucharist?
It just is too unseamly for the candidate of the "family values" party to have so many divorces trailing behind him and to complicate the matter, the potential first lady was eight years an adulterer with Newt. Imagine the possible questions to Newt and Callista on the campaign trail about those eight years.
Personally, I don't care about Newt's sex life or his infidelity. The problem with Newt is the problem with his party - they have bad ideas for governing the nation.
Gingrich should have known that his history would be his undoing and it will be, because, when push comes to shove, even if he did receive a small uptick in support from the usual backlash to bad news, the Republicans will not tolerate a candidate who, on their own sacred social issues, is, according to their own standards, one of the most prolific sinners. He can be forgiven. But no one will forget and especially not the true Evangelicals in the heartland. Goodbye Newt.
The lingering question is how a person like Newt Gingrich with so much baggage both personally and politically (from his days in the Congress) can go so far down the road without either the electorate giving him a clear indication or realizing himself that he never really had a chance. The same could be said about the big money that supported him. If you are looking for someone who knows how to invest their own money in a winning cause to take charge of your money for investment, then get the list of Gingrich donors and do not ever contact them.
To add to this puzzling reality is the fact that Gingrich is not the only one who, for reasons that should have been obvious to the candidate themselves as well as the electorate, should never have gotten as far as they did in the primary process. We still remember Herman Cain. It could be that the lesson here for the rest of us is that the air in the high altitudes of arrogance that are bred by the system of power brokering as it it exists in a corporate run state such ours is mighty thin and causes the death of those brain cells that ordinary would prevent such delusions.
In this sense, the Cain exit, the Perry exit and the soon to be Gingrich exit are more reflective of the public's need for Sarah Palin to reappear now and then to serve as comic relief.
The real worry comes when you consider that the remaining candidates for the Republican party are quite aware of who pulls the strings and are ready and able to lead the next coupe on the hopes of ordinary people for some form of economic, social and political justice to prevail within our boundaries.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Surviving the Republican Primaries
it seems that the incredibly thin slate of candidates for the Republican nomination for U.S. President has been reduced to a competition in which the winner is the one who can survive the cut throat politics within its own party. The larger question is whether the nation can survive the Republican primaries.
To the extent that rhetoric and ideas influence how we feel and how we act, the current primary promises to be a tsunami for the American people, as candidates curry the favor of the tea party enthusiasts and the evangelical right in an attempt to wipe out all remnants of a progressive American committed to the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. These are mean people who dislike government, people who are poor and not their color and who have a vision of America which is not only outdated, but dangerous for the national security. In addition to being mean, they are hypocritical; professing to love small government but not at all adverse (as the Bush years demonstrated) to handing out billions to those who already have millions and spending trillions on wars that either have no meaning or no end.
The rthetoric then is about "American" or "Christian" values which most of the candidates have violated with frequency but that lacks any breadth or depth; completely sidestepping most of the founding principles of the country, even those embedded in the constitution, for a reduced set of rules which only constrict the creative powers of the nationaand its people to confront the challenges of the real world. The rhetoric of American "exceptionalism" is among the most dangerous as it is the standard way that politicians of the right set the foundation for fighting wars which keep the military/industrial complex firmly on their side of the political equation, i.e. we are exceptional and that is why we have to send our sons and daughters to die, even when the end results only impoverish the country and give us a new generation of traumatized young adults.
So, for months now, as the Democrats wait in the wings, we are treated, each evening, to summaries of the latest ideas of how to make sure the rich get richer, the immigrants get deported, the unemployed get dropped from receiving unemployment benefits; the old get reduced medical care and how to turn back every progressive and intelligent reform that has been made by the government in the last 50 years.
Can we survive this onslaught of negativism and jingoism? Probably so, as the spirit of the major of Americans still seems to be resistant to the illnesses visited upon us by the "core" Republican constituents. And, there is reality also: immigrants make economies vibrant; investment in proper care of the old and the poor stimulates the economy; and most folks are tired of losing the husband, wives, sons and daughters to wars that have no meaning and no end. There still are intelligent, compassionate, justice loving and peace seeking people in our nation.
But, I would not discount the effect that this period of uninterrupted barrage of bad ideas and cultural primitivity can have on the American psyche. It would be best for all of us if one or another of the candidates wins Iowa big and then blasts everybody else out of the water by end of January and we can get on to a new level of debate in which the mean ones do not control the content or the tone.
It doesn't really matter which one it is as whichever one survives will come out of it so tainted by his or her own statements trying to suck up to the "true believers" that they will be unable to reposition themselves inside the mainstream of what most healthy people can accept. If I am wrong about this and the "tea party" and the "evangelical right" do represent the mainstream of American political opinion, then, my friends, I repent of believing that the American spirit is still capable of casting out the demons.
To the extent that rhetoric and ideas influence how we feel and how we act, the current primary promises to be a tsunami for the American people, as candidates curry the favor of the tea party enthusiasts and the evangelical right in an attempt to wipe out all remnants of a progressive American committed to the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. These are mean people who dislike government, people who are poor and not their color and who have a vision of America which is not only outdated, but dangerous for the national security. In addition to being mean, they are hypocritical; professing to love small government but not at all adverse (as the Bush years demonstrated) to handing out billions to those who already have millions and spending trillions on wars that either have no meaning or no end.
The rthetoric then is about "American" or "Christian" values which most of the candidates have violated with frequency but that lacks any breadth or depth; completely sidestepping most of the founding principles of the country, even those embedded in the constitution, for a reduced set of rules which only constrict the creative powers of the nationaand its people to confront the challenges of the real world. The rhetoric of American "exceptionalism" is among the most dangerous as it is the standard way that politicians of the right set the foundation for fighting wars which keep the military/industrial complex firmly on their side of the political equation, i.e. we are exceptional and that is why we have to send our sons and daughters to die, even when the end results only impoverish the country and give us a new generation of traumatized young adults.
So, for months now, as the Democrats wait in the wings, we are treated, each evening, to summaries of the latest ideas of how to make sure the rich get richer, the immigrants get deported, the unemployed get dropped from receiving unemployment benefits; the old get reduced medical care and how to turn back every progressive and intelligent reform that has been made by the government in the last 50 years.
Can we survive this onslaught of negativism and jingoism? Probably so, as the spirit of the major of Americans still seems to be resistant to the illnesses visited upon us by the "core" Republican constituents. And, there is reality also: immigrants make economies vibrant; investment in proper care of the old and the poor stimulates the economy; and most folks are tired of losing the husband, wives, sons and daughters to wars that have no meaning and no end. There still are intelligent, compassionate, justice loving and peace seeking people in our nation.
But, I would not discount the effect that this period of uninterrupted barrage of bad ideas and cultural primitivity can have on the American psyche. It would be best for all of us if one or another of the candidates wins Iowa big and then blasts everybody else out of the water by end of January and we can get on to a new level of debate in which the mean ones do not control the content or the tone.
It doesn't really matter which one it is as whichever one survives will come out of it so tainted by his or her own statements trying to suck up to the "true believers" that they will be unable to reposition themselves inside the mainstream of what most healthy people can accept. If I am wrong about this and the "tea party" and the "evangelical right" do represent the mainstream of American political opinion, then, my friends, I repent of believing that the American spirit is still capable of casting out the demons.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
G.O.P. - Dream Killers
The newly empowered congressional GOP delgation has wasted no time in establishing its reputation.....as DREAM KILLERS. First there was the defeat, in the Senate of the DREAM BILL that would have granted a path to citizenship for about 2 million immigrant youth who came with their parents to this country without papers and who have demonstrated both educational acumen as well as loyalty to the nation by either entering college or volunterring for military service. So, to tell us who they really are, the GOP, killed their dremas and the American Dream.
I just wonder exactly what all the comments I have heard over the years from Republican-types about Latinos not being interested in education really mean. Here are 2 million who value education and have progressed well and the Republicans step on their dreams. I wonder exactly what all the comments I have heard from Republican-types about the lack of qualified and educated job force are really about when they step on the dreams of about 2 million who are getting qualified and educated. Well, I don't really wonder, because it has been a long standing tradition in the Republican Party to criticize the poor, the downtrodden and the marginated as responsible for all the nation's problems and then, if they show any initiative, to step on their dreams to make sure that, in fact, they do not escape poverty and they always will know their place. It is a very acceptable form of racism within the right-wing world of enthusiasm for legal ethnic cleansing.
To make sure that no one is in doubt about the mark that the GOP wants to make on our national life, the new congress with a GOP majority in the House moves quickly, while the nation burns, not to increase job opportunity or address the deficit, but to kill another dream of the poor: to have health care. So, next week, the House vote to repeal the recent health care reform even though they know it has no chance of prevailing in the Senate and no chance to overcome an Obama veto. I suppose this is what they call the effective use of legislative time that they criticized previous legislature for not having.
Okay, you say, hypocrisy has always been the hallmark of the Republicans - promise whatever you need to in the elections and then just get to work to protect the interest of rich white men. True. You've got me on that one. I guess I just have not harden my heart enough to overcome a kind of innate hope that I think lies within most of us that people can change and that we Americans deserve a Congress that actually serves the national interest and not the narrow interest of the rich white class of people who pay the bill for their election campaigns.
I an going to have to up my daily dose of cynicism in order to keep up with the times.
I just wonder exactly what all the comments I have heard over the years from Republican-types about Latinos not being interested in education really mean. Here are 2 million who value education and have progressed well and the Republicans step on their dreams. I wonder exactly what all the comments I have heard from Republican-types about the lack of qualified and educated job force are really about when they step on the dreams of about 2 million who are getting qualified and educated. Well, I don't really wonder, because it has been a long standing tradition in the Republican Party to criticize the poor, the downtrodden and the marginated as responsible for all the nation's problems and then, if they show any initiative, to step on their dreams to make sure that, in fact, they do not escape poverty and they always will know their place. It is a very acceptable form of racism within the right-wing world of enthusiasm for legal ethnic cleansing.
To make sure that no one is in doubt about the mark that the GOP wants to make on our national life, the new congress with a GOP majority in the House moves quickly, while the nation burns, not to increase job opportunity or address the deficit, but to kill another dream of the poor: to have health care. So, next week, the House vote to repeal the recent health care reform even though they know it has no chance of prevailing in the Senate and no chance to overcome an Obama veto. I suppose this is what they call the effective use of legislative time that they criticized previous legislature for not having.
Okay, you say, hypocrisy has always been the hallmark of the Republicans - promise whatever you need to in the elections and then just get to work to protect the interest of rich white men. True. You've got me on that one. I guess I just have not harden my heart enough to overcome a kind of innate hope that I think lies within most of us that people can change and that we Americans deserve a Congress that actually serves the national interest and not the narrow interest of the rich white class of people who pay the bill for their election campaigns.
I an going to have to up my daily dose of cynicism in order to keep up with the times.
Friday, October 15, 2010
The Future: A Multiparty system.
The United States political system is headed toward a multi-party system. The tempest in a Tea Party dynamics of the current political year is a portent of the breakup of the two-party system and part of what has been an evolving process of the emergence of a multi-party system. Leave behind, for a moment, the utter stupidity and potentially damaging effects of the Tea Party movement. Seen from a larger perspective on the emerging politics of the nation, it is but one more bullet in the head for the two-party system which is systemic source of the gridlock in Washington.
Actually, the Obama administration, like it or not, has been quite effective in passing legislation and in solving national problems, but what appears to be a sea change in the Congress as a result of the current election period will bring us a deep gridlock that will once again paralize the nation and allow the corporate interests to continue their gradual takeover of the country (and the world for that matter).
In order for there to be real transparency in the system and real neogotiation of policies, both internal and international, we need to have parties which more clearly represent their constituents. It is clear that the Republican party is split and the Democratic party is close to that outcome.
Take myself as an example. I am a life-long Democrat. I have never voted for a Republican and will never do so on principle. The Republicans, in my view are the party of war, class warfare and recession. Why the American public wants to give the country back to the folks who just brought us unwanted and unneeded wars and recession is beyond the pale of my analytical abilities to discern.
And, I think President Obama, given the problems he inherited and the public he has to work with, is doing an outstanding job of governing. Nevertheless, in Congress I feel absolutely unrepresented. Locally, I live in a city controlled by Democrats who could be Rockefeller Republicans and I do not feel represented. So, I am looking at the Green Party as a possible vehicle for finding a place where I can express and develop my political ideas more fully.
As it is, people like myself play no role in the political debate. The Democrats will play to some of my ideas in the primary season, go to the middle in the general elections and then govern from the middle-right given the makeup of the voting public. When there are negotiations on policies, legislation, my kind of thinking will not be represented because my brand of democratic politics is not represented clearly in the Congress.
So, I feel like eventually I will change parties and go GREEN. I do not expect to be on the winning side of too many elections, but I will expect that my ideas might find expression in the political debate, a dynamic currently missing. I realize that this might damage the Democrats at election time (although not any more than the Tea Party damages the Republicans), but I don't think that it will end up changing the actual results of politics in terms of policies and legislation. But, in the longer run, I am hopeful that it will serve to make ideas like the ones I and many others have who believe in grassroots democracy, an anti-war, pro human rights foreign policy, and a Green energy policy more visible to the American public and, eventually, more acceptable as a basis for governing our nation in a way that favors our real economic, social and security needs.
If the Tea Party would form a real political party and the Greens would figure out how to launch a project that combines its good ideas with a practical electoral strategy, we will eventually have the Tea Party, Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats and Green Party represented in the legislatures of the land and have a more transparent, clear and dynamic dialogue that will produce better legislation for the country.
As it is for the moment, the Democrats are reluctant to go full blast at revealing or countering the stupidity and meanness of the Tea Party, something a Green Party could do effectively and with gusto if it had a way to become part of the national debate.
In fact, most Western democracies have multi-party systems and they get along just fine. Soon, I am sure we will too.
Actually, the Obama administration, like it or not, has been quite effective in passing legislation and in solving national problems, but what appears to be a sea change in the Congress as a result of the current election period will bring us a deep gridlock that will once again paralize the nation and allow the corporate interests to continue their gradual takeover of the country (and the world for that matter).
In order for there to be real transparency in the system and real neogotiation of policies, both internal and international, we need to have parties which more clearly represent their constituents. It is clear that the Republican party is split and the Democratic party is close to that outcome.
Take myself as an example. I am a life-long Democrat. I have never voted for a Republican and will never do so on principle. The Republicans, in my view are the party of war, class warfare and recession. Why the American public wants to give the country back to the folks who just brought us unwanted and unneeded wars and recession is beyond the pale of my analytical abilities to discern.
And, I think President Obama, given the problems he inherited and the public he has to work with, is doing an outstanding job of governing. Nevertheless, in Congress I feel absolutely unrepresented. Locally, I live in a city controlled by Democrats who could be Rockefeller Republicans and I do not feel represented. So, I am looking at the Green Party as a possible vehicle for finding a place where I can express and develop my political ideas more fully.
As it is, people like myself play no role in the political debate. The Democrats will play to some of my ideas in the primary season, go to the middle in the general elections and then govern from the middle-right given the makeup of the voting public. When there are negotiations on policies, legislation, my kind of thinking will not be represented because my brand of democratic politics is not represented clearly in the Congress.
So, I feel like eventually I will change parties and go GREEN. I do not expect to be on the winning side of too many elections, but I will expect that my ideas might find expression in the political debate, a dynamic currently missing. I realize that this might damage the Democrats at election time (although not any more than the Tea Party damages the Republicans), but I don't think that it will end up changing the actual results of politics in terms of policies and legislation. But, in the longer run, I am hopeful that it will serve to make ideas like the ones I and many others have who believe in grassroots democracy, an anti-war, pro human rights foreign policy, and a Green energy policy more visible to the American public and, eventually, more acceptable as a basis for governing our nation in a way that favors our real economic, social and security needs.
If the Tea Party would form a real political party and the Greens would figure out how to launch a project that combines its good ideas with a practical electoral strategy, we will eventually have the Tea Party, Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats and Green Party represented in the legislatures of the land and have a more transparent, clear and dynamic dialogue that will produce better legislation for the country.
As it is for the moment, the Democrats are reluctant to go full blast at revealing or countering the stupidity and meanness of the Tea Party, something a Green Party could do effectively and with gusto if it had a way to become part of the national debate.
In fact, most Western democracies have multi-party systems and they get along just fine. Soon, I am sure we will too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)