Interesting dissection of Republican political tactics

[Velokid1]

I'm a fan of the right, after the GOP debates tonight. I always thought the Republicans were the lame high-waisted Christian political party but after Rick Perry's mention of hundreds of people being executed in Texas was met with an eruption of applause, I now realize they are wild and crazy devil worshipping party animals. Sign me up! Let's execute us some innocent people, quietly put the kabosh on the investigation into their wrongful conviction and then slander them post mortem. Party at my house afterwards!

[ruckman101]

Point # 2 first: Heresay. Facts begin with a Republican staffer named Bob Jones said, yada yada.

Point #1
Ah the wonderful Mr Buffet claim of his tax rates versus his help's tax rate. Well we all know he lives off his investment income which only becomes investment income after being taxed as earned income somewhere down the line. In other words one cannot have investment income without first having to earn the nest egg which was taxed at a different rate. Also Mr Buffett according to news stories is currently fighting over a billion dollars in back taxes from I believe 2004 on his investments. This puts him in a difficult spot to lecture anyone on paying one's fair share.

One other thing the writer forgets is that for 22 months Mr Obama held both houses of Congress with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and they did nothing to "equal" out the tax code.

So tell me again who in Washington is a friend of the common man and has the middle classes back? I believe that neither side is a friend of the common folks, so you just have to lay your bet on which side appeals to you most and hope for the best.

Lesser of the same.

I'm perfectly poised to opt for the guy who the opposition seems solely focused on making a one term president at the cost of our country. True patriots, spit.

Watched a documentary on Howard Zinn tonight. And it dawned on me the similarities between the tea party minded and the left that Howard lived. Frustration, no option to address those frustrations in our current social/political structures.

However, there is still a divide. Scary christian warrior factions. Bring on the end times, hasten them, fulfill them as your christian warrior duty, that tea party courting presidential candidates not only pander to, but who are $ free speech contributors.

True patriots. America for true americans, back to american values. There's that bend the unites the two extremes.

Different scapegoats. Different foundations of conviction.


personally, living to fulfill biblical prophesy and hasten the end seems truly psychotic. But here we are,
neal

[thesamwise4]

Hey, PJ,

Thanks for the reply. I will try to respond directly to your post.

Point # 2 first: Heresay. Facts begin with a Republican staffer named Bob Jones said, yada yada.

I agree with you that the author's treatment of this is anecdotal, but does that really mean that you are willing to completely dismiss the whole issue/claim? Really? Even after the debt ceiling debate, the near 100% chance of a Republican filibuster on any Democratic bill presented, and the anti-government rhetoric from government--lifers like Bohener and McConnell?

Well, I guess if you don't buy it, you don't buy it. Would you at least agree that Republicans benefit more from anti-government attitudes (and their consequences) than Dems? If yes, how can you not see the connection between sabotaging a process and reaping the rewards (especially when recent events like the financial crisis show what happens when government falls down on the job of protecting the people)?

Ah the wonderful Mr Buffet claim of his tax rates versus his help's tax rate. Well we all know he lives off his investment income which only becomes investment income after being taxed as earned income somewhere down the line. In other words one cannot have investment income without first having to earn the nest egg which was taxed at a different rate. Also Mr Buffett according to news stories is currently fighting over a billion dollars in back taxes from I believe 2004 on his investments. This puts him in a difficult spot to lecture anyone on paying one's fair share.

Buffet wasn't on my mind and I'm not sure he's relevant to the larger discussion, which is for whom does the GOP look out for? Cui bono?

To my mind, the actions of the GOP are clear on this:
-break unions--who benefits from this? the worker?
-fight to prevent the rich from having to pay more in taxes, even if it means having to do things like, well, break unions (and even though, for those who would be affected by the taxes, it would not affect their ability to live a life of incredible ease and luxury). --who benefits from this?
-relax regulations on industries that allow them to do things like send work overseas, pollute our environment, and skirt regulations ([worked out well for the banks, and by extension, us] and somehow do this while claiming that they are looking out for you and me).--who benefits from this?
-argue against corporate responsibility in nearly every setting that arises--who benefits from this?


PJ, simply, why are you defending a party whose primary concern (which differs from their stated concern-actions vs. words) seems to be keeping rich people rich at your expense? If it's because you think you may one day be rich, I get it, but the way the economy's going, it doesn't look promising. If you say it's for principle, I'm sure that the rich people are really appreciative of your principles when they are outfitting their new Hinckley. Cui bono?

What have the Republicans done for you lately? The health care bill is flawed, but when is the last time that the Republicans took on a broken system (and a huge, powerful industry) in an attempt to make life better for you?

One other thing the writer forgets is that for 22 months Mr Obama held both houses of Congress with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and they did nothing to "equal" out the tax code.

This claim seems like it can be easily refuted by pointing out that Bush-era Repubs kept their prophecies of doom about debt to themselves when they were racking it up. Priorities change, and yes, they often change for political purposes (on both sides). The question is whether or not you are willing to confront the problem and fix it, or whether you want to be an obstructionist to throw red meat to your base and keep your job (while that base loses theirs).

I'm really interested in your response to the question of how you view the Republicans' efforts to fight for you. What are they doing to make your life richer, fuller, more meaningful? If your argument is that they shouldn't be doing any of the above, I'd ask you again if you ever had to dispute a claim with a health-care provider or something similar. Government does play a role in our lives, and we do count on it to provide us certain protections. Pretending that we don't is a facile argument.

Also, what about the question of a Democratic equivalent to the birther issue? Boehner's orange skin? Somehow seems less insidious.

Anyway, thanks for the reply.

Have a great weekend.

[steve74baywin]

Things are not that simple.
Government rules and regulations to me have first and foremost helped the very rich to rule over the people. Then later they come up with some other regulations that appear to help, and may even help, but they help in an already wrong system. They wouldn't be needed if it wasn't for the wrong rules and regulations in the first place.
I partly agree though that most of the Repubs up there blocking everything aren't doing it for the good reasons, they aren't going to undo all of the rules and regulations, there just keeping the two party game going. Smoke and Mirrors.

Unions, government should have no involvement. What laws or in what way does one want the government to intervene? In a free society you have a company. You have people who want to work there. If those people want to form a "Union" they should be able to. If that Union wants to strike they should be able to. If the owner of the company wants to replace them, he should be able to. Where or what law needs to upset this freedom? This here is just another example of wrong on top of a wrong. I say smoke and mirrors.

[RSorak 71Westy]

The Republicans seem to value their party more than they value the country. i.e. they keep doing things that make the Rupblican party look better, but to the overall detriment to the country. The debit ceiling debacle was a perfect example of this.

This is repost from the thread on the presidents speech but I thought it applied here too as well.